|
I have a question about compatibility of turnouts with feedback and turnouts that have a second physical device or supporting turnout configured.
Up until now I have happily run the system without configuring the feedback from the turnouts.
Having the feedback working solves several issues particularly around initial state of the layout.
So a simple turnout with 2 point feedback works a treat and does what you expect.
BUT when I apply feedback to two turnouts and configure them on the panel to be supporting as you find in a crossover, problems start occurring.
Firstly the turnout config pop up hangs when you try to save it and cancelling it, defaults to previous setting.
If you switch off the supporting tick box and then configure the turnouts and then put the supporting tick box back on another problem occurs.
The turnout status sometimes becomes inconsistent and often just wrong.
I am assuming the code is having a problem dealing with two sets of feedback for one object.
Is this something anyone else has tried and is there an easy way to get this to work.
I am on V4.16.
|
Nigel, A turnout actually has three states: The two you are already familiar with - when the turnout is at either end of its travel - it’s Open or Closed position or Normal and Reversed. The third state is whilst the point is actually changing from one state to the other. This is the Unknown or Inconsistent state. Basically, when using two sensor switches as soon as the bar starts to move the switch is deactivated. It will remain off until the bar reaches the other position when the second switch is activated. Whilst changing neither switch is activated and this state represents the third state.
Are you switching the correct frog where you have two back to back as in a slip? In this formation it is the opposite frog that is powered. Dave
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 30 Jul 2019, at 22:21, Nigel < nigel@...> wrote: I have a question about compatibility of turnouts with feedback and turnouts that have a second physical device or supporting turnout configured.
Up until now I have happily run the system without configuring the feedback from the turnouts.
Having the feedback working solves several issues particularly around initial state of the layout.
So a simple turnout with 2 point feedback works a treat and does what you expect.
BUT when I apply feedback to two turnouts and configure them on the panel to be supporting as you find in a crossover, problems start occurring.
Firstly the turnout config pop up hangs when you try to save it and cancelling it, defaults to previous setting.
If you switch off the supporting tick box and then configure the turnouts and then put the supporting tick box back on another problem occurs.
The turnout status sometimes becomes inconsistent and often just wrong.
I am assuming the code is having a problem dealing with two sets of feedback for one object.
Is this something anyone else has tried and is there an easy way to get this to work.
I am on V4.16.
|
Hi Dave
?
The key issue is this:
?
?When I set the turnouts up individually with feedback they work properly with the 3 states as you describe.
?
When I add the two working turnouts to the layout in the “supporting arrangement” it is then that they stop working properly.
?
Nigel
|
Nigel, what do you mean by “supporting arrangement”? Are you trying to combine two turnouts to work as one? In a crossover arrangement.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 31 Jul 2019, at 13:37, Nigel < nigel@...> wrote: Hi Dave
?
The key issue is this:
?
?When I set the turnouts up individually with feedback they work properly with the 3 states as you describe.
?
When I add the two working turnouts to the layout in the “supporting arrangement” it is then that they stop working properly.
?
Nigel
|
Dave/Nigel, On Jul 31, 2019, at 6:26 AM, Dave Roberts <dccdaveroberts@...> wrote:
A turnout actually has three states:
The two you are already familiar with - when the turnout is at either end of its travel - it’s Open or Closed position or Normal and Reversed. The third state is whilst the point is actually changing from one state to the other. This is the Unknown or Inconsistent state. A minor point of correction, Unknown and Inconsistent are distinct states, so there are actually 4 states for JMRI turnouts. Unknown means that we really don’t know what the state is. On a turnout with feedback, that generally means we have not received feedback from the feedback mechanism. Inconsistent means the state is in transition, but hasn’t yet stabilized. On a turnout with a feedback sensor at both ends of travel, this means the feedback indicates the turnout is between the two endpoints. Paul
|
Thanks for that Paul. I chose not to draw the distinction for simplicity but you are correct of course.
Dave
Sent from my iPhone - Dave
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 31 Jul 2019, at 14:10, Paul Bender <paul.bender@...> wrote:
Dave/Nigel,
On Jul 31, 2019, at 6:26 AM, Dave Roberts <dccdaveroberts@...> wrote:
A turnout actually has three states:
The two you are already familiar with - when the turnout is at either end of its travel - it’s Open or Closed position or Normal and Reversed. The third state is whilst the point is actually changing from one state to the other. This is the Unknown or Inconsistent state. A minor point of correction, Unknown and Inconsistent are distinct states, so there are actually 4 states for JMRI turnouts.
Unknown means that we really don’t know what the state is. On a turnout with feedback, that generally means we have not received feedback from the feedback mechanism.
Inconsistent means the state is in transition, but hasn’t yet stabilized. On a turnout with a feedback sensor at both ends of travel, this means the feedback indicates the turnout is between the two endpoints.
Paul
|
Hi Dave
When you put a crossover on the layout you have the option of using two individual turnouts.
The first turnout system name goes in the first box.
If you tick the "supporting" turnout box the second turnout system name goes in the the second box.
Now if you do this with turnouts that have no feedback they work together properly.
But if you do it with turnouts that have feedback they do not work properly.
Nigel
|
If JMRI needs to know that a turnout is an inconsistent (traversing) state, but doesn't also know the intended result, or the safe settling time to get there, there is something wrong with that logic. And a fixed diamond doesn't usually give intelligible feedback. But you need to know if the other path is selected or occupied. Especially in the case of a double junction. Andy On 7/31/2019 6:48 AM, Dave Roberts wrote: Thanks for that Paul. I chose not to draw the distinction for simplicity but you are correct of course.
Dave
Sent from my iPhone - Dave
On 31 Jul 2019, at 14:10, Paul Bender <paul.bender@...> wrote:
Dave/Nigel,
On Jul 31, 2019, at 6:26 AM, Dave Roberts <dccdaveroberts@...> wrote:
A turnout actually has three states:
The two you are already familiar with - when the turnout is at either end of its travel - it’s Open or Closed position or Normal and Reversed. The third state is whilst the point is actually changing from one state to the other. This is the Unknown or Inconsistent state. A minor point of correction, Unknown and Inconsistent are distinct states, so there are actually 4 states for JMRI turnouts.
Unknown means that we really don’t know what the state is. On a turnout with feedback, that generally means we have not received feedback from the feedback mechanism.
Inconsistent means the state is in transition, but hasn’t yet stabilized. On a turnout with a feedback sensor at both ends of travel, this means the feedback indicates the turnout is between the two endpoints.
Paul
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
|
On Jul 31, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Andy Reichert <andy_r@...> wrote:
If JMRI needs to know that a turnout is an inconsistent (traversing) state, but doesn't also know the intended result, or the safe settling time to get there, there is something wrong with that logic. If you always knew that the points are going to get to their commanded end point in a certain time, you wouldn’t need feedback hardware. People install feedback hardware (in part) to catch the case where the turnout is still in an inconsistent state after that “safe settling time”. Bob -- Bob Jacobsen rgj1927@...
|
Nigel, From what you have said there could be a conflict. If both turnouts are powered as one and work as one then you only need an input from one turnout for the actual crossover route because it is common to both. The sensors for the straight through routes are only dependant on the position of their own throw bar. Logically, you need an input from both turnouts when both are correctly set to give an indication that the crossover route is set but by using both you set up a possible error condition whilst one is set and the other is still changing but one indication can come from both turnout position indicators and combined as one. Both inputs are required to give one output. Dave
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 31 Jul 2019, at 15:23, Nigel < nigel@...> wrote:
Hi Dave
When you put a crossover on the layout you have the option of using two individual turnouts.
The first turnout system name goes in the first box.
If you tick the "supporting" turnout box the second turnout system name goes in the the second box.
Now if you do this with turnouts that have no feedback they work together properly.
But if you do it with turnouts that have feedback they do not work properly.
Nigel
|
Hi Dave
From what I think you are saying is that the feature of supported turnout (eg crossover) with full feedback does not actually work in JMRI.
Logically it could work if the code was sufficiently complicated but not in the current release.
Is there a development to address this ?
Nigel
|
Since something like that Really Should Work, if you open a new Issue at GitHub ( ) and attach your panel file (might have to add .txt to the name) and instructions for how to recreate the problem, somebody will probably take a look at it pretty quickly. Bob On Jul 31, 2019, at 8:40 AM, Nigel <nigel@...> wrote:
Hi Dave
From what I think you are saying is that the feature of supported turnout (eg crossover) with full feedback does not actually work in JMRI.
Logically it could work if the code was sufficiently complicated but not in the current release.
Is there a development to address this ? -- Bob Jacobsen rgj1927@...
|
Nigel, Try thinking through the problem as a switch position problem and not JMRI. You have two switches, one at each end of the throw bar fitted to both turnouts. You will only have a condition where power is fed to the indicator when both turnouts have fully completed their travel. Let’s call the two turnouts A and B. You select the crossover and if both points are wired from the same supply then both will start to move. As soon as A throw bar starts to move power to the straight through indicator is cut - we go onto the inconsistent state. ?The same is happening to turnout B. Whichever throwbar completes its travel first will cause the second switch to switch power not to the indicator but to the other turnouts second switch. It is only when the slower turnouts bar is fully across will the circuit to the indicator be made. You must have an indication from both turnouts to form the indication that the crossover is set ready to use. It does not matter which turnout moves first they are both wired the same. Both must be fully over to trigger the indicator. It’s a wiring problem/solution to a logic problem rather than a JMRI problem because it relies upon the physical position of the turnout and not logic. Dave
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 31 Jul 2019, at 16:40, Nigel < nigel@...> wrote: Hi Dave
From what I think you are saying is that the feature of supported turnout (eg crossover) with full feedback does not actually work in JMRI.
Logically it could work if the code was sufficiently complicated but not in the current release.
Is there a development to address this ?
Nigel
|
This is not prototypical, but it works and is fairly simple. When I have a configuration that requires multiple turnouts I arrange the feedback so that it is wired through all of the switch contacts. For instance, I have a three track staging yard on my layout. To get to track 3 in that yard, you only go through turnout 1 when it's normal, so I wire my common return (- in this case) to the common terminal on the Tortoise (the brand of switch motor I'm using for this). The terminal that closed in the normal position goes to input 3.
If the turnouts are lined for track 2, then turnout 1 is reverse and turnout 2 is reverse. The contact for turnout 1 reverse is connected to the common on turnout 2. Then the contact for turnout 2 reverse if connected to input 2. Similarly, the contact for turnout 2 normal is connected to input 1.
The logic is all taken care of in the turnout contacts. Therefore, I have three inputs, one for each track. When input x is active, I know that the ladder is lined for track x. Something similar could be applied to your crossover.
Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC
|
I understood that error condition was defined by the poster as the "unknown" situation, not the the "inconsistent" situation. If the turnout doesn't have a known safe settling time, presumably defined in JMRI so as not to to act before the prior to acting required status is correctly settled, something has already gone wrong. Andy On 7/31/2019 7:38 AM, Bob Jacobsen wrote: On Jul 31, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Andy Reichert<andy_r@...> wrote:
If JMRI needs to know that a turnout is an inconsistent (traversing) state, but doesn't also know the intended result, or the safe settling time to get there, there is something wrong with that logic. If you always knew that the points are going to get to their commanded end point in a certain time, you wouldn’t need feedback hardware. People install feedback hardware (in part) to catch the case where the turnout is still in an inconsistent state after that “safe settling time”.
Bob
--
Bob Jacobsen
rgj1927@...
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
|
Most of these responses are doing nothing to help the OPs problem. Please try and stick to the topic.
Nigel,
As Bob J. has suggested, create an issue in github and upload your panel for a developer to review.
--
Peter Ulvestad
JMRI Users Group Moderator - ( )
Tam Valley Group Moderator - ( )
Sprog-DCC Group Moderator - ( )
Edmonton Model Railroad Association -
|
Hi Peter/Bob
Many thanks.
I have produced a worked example panel showing the problem and created an issue on github and uploaded the panel with it.
Nigel
|
While you could rewire the usual position indicating switches in series to AND them, I'd recommend keeping all turnout wiring the same, and using logic, either hardware or better yet, software, to combine the two outputs so both turnouts need to be in their end positions to make the position indicator true.
Of course, if one machine is moving both sets of points, its position switch(es) are all the feedback needed for both. Then, logic or logix could make a slave set of signals for the second turnout's position.
Don Weigt Connecticut
|
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 02:11 PM, Nigel wrote:
Hi Peter/Bob
Many thanks.
I have produced a worked example panel showing the problem and created an
issue on github and uploaded the panel with it.
Nigel
For those that want to follow along: -- Peter Ulvestad JMRI Users Group Moderator - ( ) Tam Valley Group Moderator - ( ) Sprog-DCC Group Moderator - ( ) Edmonton Model Railroad Association -
|
Yes Dave, that is exactly how I have always wired the feedback for points and when I get to wiring for JMRI will continue to do so.
Tony
https://ozfreemo.com
|
Bob Jacobsen
Tim
Peter Ulvestad