Ooh. I was thinking of using a touch screen monitor (or two) mounted at a couple places on the layout with video and USB going back to the PC that is running JMRI. I could open up a PanelPro window and just touch the turnout to throw it. Still a while to get there, but might work.
Wayne, my layout today is a 6x16 foot "U" with a 16x2" extension (it is bent at right angle at the 4' mark ) which makes up the staging yard. This 12x2" joins at the base of the U with a Y.
I have built additional 8x2.5' and 16'x2 bench work and the former will be "Bendam Docks" and shall be the first detected and signaled section. It has taken me about 18 months to get to this point but boy am I glad that the track I laid down over an year ago has insulated joiners at most of the places I want them.
I am thinking its going to end up taking so much effort to set this thing up I might as well go with the extra $40. Switching out later for operational problems is not something I can plan for.
Randy, You sound a little like a whiz. Your idea could be cheaper unless I have access to touch displays :-)
NP.
Doesn;t TOTALLY eliminate the opportunity to have local control - years ago I worked out the logic in JMRI for indirect control with dispatcher lock-out (in fact uncovered a bug where a local sensor input was ignored in a logic statement that was then fixed). More hardware, but probably not more expensive - I was plannning to use inexpensive stationary decoders like a DS44 or an NCE Switch-It (to do it again, the Switch-8 would be even cheaper per turnout, but it wasn't out then - plus I no longer use Tortoises, I use servos). My control panels I was going to wire with Hans Deloof LocoIO boards - so any panel would connect tot he railroad with a phone cord and a 5V power supply, not myriads of wires. The logic would be in JMRI - if local control was enabled for a given turnout, then the local buttons would operate it. If the DS locked it out, you could press the buttons til blue in the face and nothing would happen.
Basically, the LocoIO generates switch commands for the inputs, so I would have a pair of buttons on the panel that would send out say Switch 20 thrown or Switch 20 closed. JMRI logic would combine with with a local sensor tied to the panel's Off Power 'switch' and if local control enabled, send out a Switch 200 closed or thrown which would be the actual address of the Switch-It. For turnouts that are no dispatcher controlled, the LocoIO can be configured to send commands to say Switch 300, and the address of the Switch-It in question would be 300 - so it would be directly commanded without going through the computer.
For operating without a dispatcher, I planned on setting up a macro that basically just set every turnout on the layout for local control, that way I could operate alone just using the fascia control panels.
There are other ways to accomplish this now, as some stationary decoders actually support on the fly programming to enable/disable local control. On the Loconet side, the new QuadLN servo controller from Tam Valley has this feature. So fascia controls can be wired directly to it, and then enabled/disabled by a control on the dispatcher panel.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Yes. But that means that you won't have local control of your turnouts.
I don't know what size layout you are planning, but if you have more than a very few turnouts, you will have to control them with your throttle at the same time you are running the train. Plus on top of that, you will HAVE TO MEMORIZE all of the addresses for your turnouts. At this point, model railroading is not fun any more. (Don't ask me how I know this.)
This is why most modelers still use control panels for throwing the turnouts. Most of us use local panels that are located close to the area they are switching. Here is an example:
The panel on the right controls the turnouts on the upper level, and the panel on the left is for the yard.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Couldn't I use the tortoises and the BD4s on the same SE8C? I would only lose local control of tortoise won't I?
I have both on my layout. The BDL-168 is the better device. It is more sensitive and more reliable. If you are running supersonic decoders, they have been known to screw up the BD4 indications even when the loco is not in the block.
The only reason that I used a BD4 was I had four blocks left over and didn't want to buy a BDL-168 for just four blocks. My BD4 is very intermittent anytime a train is in the block.
If you do use the BD4's, you also need a way to get the output into the LocoNet. Thus you need a DS64 or SE8C. This brings the cost up. OK, now you say that you are going to hook it to the SE8C. But if you didn't, you could use the SE8C to power Tortoise switch machines and use the inputs for control panel switches for them, and they would be on the LocoNet. So that cuts down on the number of DS64's. Way more economical.
The signalling debate is really heating up! I was about to get a BDL168, but now I am thinking if a BD4 would be better.
I could distribute BD4s instead of creating a birds nest at one place. BD4s wire to SE8Cs, but on then take away the local control of turnouts. The cost difference is pretty high ... 4x BD4 is $120, a BDL168 is $160.
What other considerations should I be thinking about?