OK, I get all that. Again, not keen on having to position the trackside sensors. I think Dave is right about that being critical.
I considered computerized block control years ago, it would have done all the signaling internally in the software. Eventually decided too much programing, too many inputs outputs needed, input/output hardware too expensive.
I have all the features I decribed to you and more for less money than it would cost to put decoders in my 130 locos.
How much is one Ardiuno module? How many would my 30 blocks require? Then I still need to build a control and signal system.
Again, maybe a newby would be interested, but for those with working dectection already, not enough better........
Sheldon
The placement of the sensors is absolujtely simple and NOT critical because it uses 2 sensors that are digital, not analog.
I use available Arduino ORO Mini modules which cost in the $2 each range on EBAY. The detector module and the counter module each require an Arduino, so simply put, it requires one of each per block. The modules plug into a 'shield' board that simply supplies connections to the outside world and a place for a few LED indicators. The detector module also connects to the sensor module (just 2 sensors) and an IR module (IR LED and a resistor), and that's it.
I don't expect anyone to replace their current based system with this unless they have problems with their implementation. The system supplies simplistic red/green signal outputs for entry signals to the block plus also supports one turnout per block. The signal outputs are for simplistic signaling layouts without complex aspects. It also supplies a simple logic level signal to indicate that the block is occupied.
It in no way is a complete signaling system, so don't try to compare it to a colmplex custom setup on a layout. It's a block detection system that give simple signaling for free.
Please do NOT think that this is a computer based signaling system.....it is NOT. It's a block detection system that happens to have a microprocessor that does all the work, completely under the covers......there is no programming involved for the system to work.
One block that only supplies a digital output for the block being occupied should cost in the $10-13 range, and can be implemented as you can afford each block. You don't have to buy a complete setup for a layout to get started. Please look at the posting on TrainBoard and almost all of your issues will be addressed. You don't need to register to look at the videos or postings, but would need to register to download the other files.
The posting show the homemade modules and how they look, plus the videos expain more than I could by typing a response.
If this site supports uploading my files, I could post them here.....does this site support file uploads??
Respectfully, what is the need for detection beyond signaling?
Admittedly my approach skips over the idea of a lone car left on the mainline.
In the days of fixed operator DC layouts, it was also used to show train location to operators who could not always see their train.
It still works that way for anyone using a dispatcher.
Not detecting every car is a compromise I can live with, it has no effect on my operating scheme. So only cabooses and some passenger cars need "modification".
Please explain why you feel this feature is important for prototype operation.
I agree that the realistic use of the system should ONLY be for signaling.
I can't tell you how many times (in pre detection times) where the caboose would partially derail, and would still be part of the train, making the end of the train invisible. I thought that the purpose of detection would be the absolute detection of ALL parts of a train, mimicing the safety required in the real world. Being able to detect every car obviously meets that requirement, and I'm willing to live with an occasional 'false positive' concerning detection than a 'false negative' by not being able to detect every piece of rolling stock.
Detecting everything that crosses a block boundary and being able to keep track of what block it's in is just an elegant solution that current detection misses.
Just my $0.02 worth, and why I designed the system as I did. FYI, the original design had light pipes in the rails for the IR source and detection, but the implementation was fragile, expensive and not doable without special tools, so that was not viable.
Well, there is a subset of the hobby that likes fully automated operation (not me). So accurate detection can be critical for their layouts to oeprate properly. An operator controlled DCC layout, if the detector malfunctions and shows a green signal when there clearly is a train in the block ahead, well, you stop. An automated system would just think the block ahead clear and plow right into the train up ahead.
The club I belong to has a modular layout we show at difference venues, where the temperature and humidty can vary greatly. We use current sensing, with current sense transformers, not diode drops, and have not had to adjust it once set. The signal system works quite reliably. The club spec is a single 10K resistor per car, but my feeling is that if a car is left standing across a bloc gap it should eb detected in both blocks, so I outfit my rollign stck with one 10K resistor per truck. This is actually not difficult because a) I use all metal wheelsets and b) I use the same wheelsets for almost every car, only a few need a different type, or already come with metal wheels. So I can build them in batches, one of my parts boxes has a space with resistor wheels, the other non resistor, so as I bild a car I can just grab the wheelsets (pre tested and painted) and install them. After the first couple, when I manage to shoot a SMD resistor from the tweezers, I'm settled back in and the process is almost therapeutic, churning out a few packs of resistor wheels for stock.
Arduinos are cheap. I just ordered a Mega, which has 54 I/O lines (way more than needed for this applciation, but for some of my planned "control nodes" I may get close - 2 pins for the RS485 interface, several servo outputs to move the points, the various signal LEDs for the interlocking, and the associate block detector inputs for the blocks as well as independently sening the interlocking to prevent changing routes under a moving train. I paid $13 for this, and it wasn't the cheapest one Amazon had listed, just the one with the most positive reviews that also qualified for Prime shipping. For the sake of this detection system, even the Uno is too big - it's great for prototyping, but too big for a finished product. The Nano has the functionality of the Uno but is the size of a 28 pin PDIP. The one I got was about $6 but I've seen them for less, when they come with the header pins not already soldered on. You technically can just use a raw ATMega 328 micro by loading the Arduino bootloader yourself, with very minimal support components - that might cost you $3 or less for the micro part. To each add a buck or two for the IR sensors.
I may have enough IR parts laying around to mock this up and see how it works. I just can't see myself using this vs a transformer based current sense system, in part because I agree with Dave in that at least some of the positionign MUST be critical in order to accurately have the same thing to count each time. I don't deny that it IS an accurate counting system, but to block the beam consistently for various types and styles of rolling stock as well as steam and diesel locos is not a trivial issue. No, it does not really matter if it counts wheels, trucks, skirts, ladders - as long as it does so CONSISTENTLY - that is the key to the idea of comparing count in to count out being able to accurately determine block occupancy. I also have all my currently ready to go rolling stock equipped with resistor wheels and the only dummy loco I have actually has a sound decoder in it (with a BIG speaker) so even it detects with the current sensors.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Well, with the quadrature design, it is basically immune to small, trivial edges normally associated with analog detection that would require a more precise positioning of the 'beam'. For lack of a better term, it's far from a beam, and more like a flashlight.
Not having actually experienced how the system works, I understand your reluctance, but my experience says otherwise. The system ignores small interruptions in the beam because the logic of quadrature requires a state where BOTH of the detectors be covered at some point in the detection cycle, and the distance between the detector 'lenses' is about 1/4". So, anything less than that cannot be detected, and the system is essentially immune to the things that normally would cause inaccurate detection.
The things that usually cause an inconsistent detection are nullified by the quadrature detection logic. Accuracy IS consistency......
ATLANTIC CENTRALRespectfully, what is the need for detection beyond signaling?
I've been thinking about some optical detectors to help me park trains on hidden staging tracks without fouling the switches.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
carl425 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Respectfully, what is the need for detection beyond signaling? I've been thinking about some optical detectors to help me park trains on hidden staging tracks without fouling the switches.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Respectfully, what is the need for detection beyond signaling?
And for hidden staging, point detectors are a great choice. But if you think about it, that is the same reverse signaling I talked about before, letting an operator or dispatcher know where the train is.
It's really starting to make me mad with the responses I've gotten in general about this topic..... It's all the same, "I think it won't work...." or "My system is better because I set it up and it works for me....." or "I prefer another system because yours is too different..." or something similar. I want constructive criticism, but until YOU have actually tried it, other criticism is almost completely unfounded because YOU HAVE NO DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH MY DESIGN. At least on other forums they at least accepted that it might work, and criticism was just feature and operations related, not know-it-all CRAP about something that most who responded know little to nothing about. I'm giving up with this forum as a way to present anything new......only a few actually had the common courtesy to look at the other presentations before making comments.
crusader27529It's really starting to make me mad with the responses I've gotten in general about this topic..... It's all the same, "I think it won't work...." or "My system is better because I set it up and it works for me....." or "I prefer another system because yours is too different..." or some other similar BS. I want constructive criticism, but until YOU have actually tried it, other criticism is almost completely unfounded because YOU HAVE NO DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH MY DESIGN. At least on other forums they at least accepted that it might work, and criticism was just feature and operations related, not know-it-all CRAP about something that most who responded know little to nothing about. I'm giving up with this forum as a way to present anything new......only a few actually had the common courtesy to look at the other presentations before making comments.
I think your system will work just fine. But me personally, I have no interest in conducting the testing for you. The one problem it solves is not a problem for me, but that aside, I'm simply not one in favor of change just for change sake.
Seven or eight years ago I spend a lot of time on here explaining how my advanced cab control system works. Some were interested, lots of others gave me a hard time. Some of the DCC crowd back then were like religious fanatics, actually telling me not to talk about better DC systems as it would hurt the "conversion" to DCC.
And because I was honest when asked, and explained to a moderator that I had no plans to "sell" working systems, but was considering writing a "how to" book, pages of technical info was deleated. I did write the book, I purposely never published it.
I still explain the system, or parts of it, when asked, if I have time, or if it seems related to the topic of a post - like this one.
Honestly, having been at this hobby for 49 years, and having worked in the model train business, I can tell you that a great number of people in this hobby are not interested in changing how they do stuff just because something new, and even better, comes along.
Part of that is money - this is not an inexpensive hobby, and money spent replacing an existing system is money not spent on some other aspect of their layouts - which often take decades to complete.
The other part is time, if it takes decades to build a sizeable layout, so then replacing something you already have is a roadblock few will embrace.
So, very often, only those who just happen to be starting on a new layout are interested in trying new ideas.
I have 20 years invested in my current layout, I'm not changing any major part of my layout at this point. And I have too many of my own projects to simply dable with your idea.
Hope some newby joins you to give it a go.....
PS - It has also been my experiance that only a small percentage of modelers are even remotely interested in detection or signaling..........
crusader27529:
I can understand why you feel the way you do.
Personally, Arduino intrigues me and any potential application is worth studying. For what it's worth, I support your endeavours.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
crusader:
I sent you a PM.
The whole purpose of a forum is honest debate which is what you got here, certainly not CRAP as you call it. As far as people trying your system out, what is there to try? It is not a product at this point, it is a design concept. As I understand it, one has to buy parts and build it. If that is the case, why don't you build a prototype and offer it for beta testing to those who are interested?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL crusader27529 It's really starting to make me mad with the responses I've gotten in general about this topic..... It's all the same, "I think it won't work...." or "My system is better because I set it up and it works for me....." or "I prefer another system because yours is too different..." or some other similar BS. I want constructive criticism, but until YOU have actually tried it, other criticism is almost completely unfounded because YOU HAVE NO DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH MY DESIGN. At least on other forums they at least accepted that it might work, and criticism was just feature and operations related, not know-it-all CRAP about something that most who responded know little to nothing about. I'm giving up with this forum as a way to present anything new......only a few actually had the common courtesy to look at the other presentations before making comments. I think your system will work just fine. But me personally, I have no interest in conducting the testing for you. The one problem it solves is not a problem for me, but that aside, I'm simply not one in favor of change just for change sake. Seven or eight years ago I spend a lot of time on here explaining how my advanced cab control system works. Some were interested, lots of others gave me a hard time. Some of the DCC crowd back then were like religious fanatics, actually telling me not to talk about better DC systems as it would hurt the "conversion" to DCC. And because I was honest when asked, and explained to a moderator that I had no plans to "sell" working systems, but was considering writing a "how to" book, pages of technical info was deleted. I did write the book, I purposely never published it.
crusader27529 It's really starting to make me mad with the responses I've gotten in general about this topic..... It's all the same, "I think it won't work...." or "My system is better because I set it up and it works for me....." or "I prefer another system because yours is too different..." or some other similar BS. I want constructive criticism, but until YOU have actually tried it, other criticism is almost completely unfounded because YOU HAVE NO DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH MY DESIGN. At least on other forums they at least accepted that it might work, and criticism was just feature and operations related, not know-it-all CRAP about something that most who responded know little to nothing about. I'm giving up with this forum as a way to present anything new......only a few actually had the common courtesy to look at the other presentations before making comments.
And because I was honest when asked, and explained to a moderator that I had no plans to "sell" working systems, but was considering writing a "how to" book, pages of technical info was deleted. I did write the book, I purposely never published it.
mobilman44 Sounds like we are being given a sales pitch. Isn't that against the Forum rules?
Sounds like we are being given a sales pitch. Isn't that against the Forum rules?
hon30critter crusader27529: I can understand why you feel the way you do. Personally, Arduino intrigues me and any potential application is worth studying. For what it's worth, I support your endeavours. Dave
Rich
Alton Junction
crusader27529 It's really starting to make me mad with the responses I've gotten in general about this topic..... It's all the same, "I think it won't work...." or "My system is better because I set it up and it works for me....." or "I prefer another system because yours is too different..." or some other similar BS. I want constructive criticism, but until YOU have actually tried it, other criticism is almost completely unfounded because YOU HAVE NO DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH MY DESIGN.
At least on other forums they at least accepted that it might work, and criticism was just feature and operations related, not know-it-all CRAP about something that most who responded know little to nothing about. I'm giving up with this forum as a way to present anything new......only a few actually had the common courtesy to look at the other presentations before making comments.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I see from your post in the Trainboard forum that a block can only contain one turnout. I can't imagine how one would use this system to manage a real layout in that case. A typical block on my layout is the stretch of single track between two passing sidings and includes turnouts at both ends. I assume you would require me to break this stretch of track into two blocks, but since I can't fit more than one train into the space, it makes no sense to make it two blocks - especially since it will be signaled as just one.
Even if I accept the limitation for the case above, a common block on model railroads is a yard ladder. How do you deal with that?
I have this track arrangement on my layout which I do not believe to be uncommon. It represents a junction between the N&W and the Clinchfield.
The bottom track is the N&W mainline. The middle is a passing siding. The top track is a storage track where cars are dropped off for interchange. The Clinchfield exits top left.
How would you handle this with your devices?
That is a shame, Sheldon, that significant portions of your comments were deleted, but it raises an interesting point. Should the same treatment be applied here? Dunno, but I was hoping, at an early point in this thread, that Steven Otte would intervene and state his point of view as Forum Administrator. I am not saying that this thread should be deleted, but I wonder whether it violates the spirit of the forum rules that prohibit selling and advertising. As I say, just wondering.
Well, if you actually looked at the initial introduction on TrainBoard, you would see photos of the prototypes and videos of the system and how it works.....what was shown was the BETA....also, if you read things carefully, this presentation is PUBLIC DOMAIN....I have nothing to gain, and nothing to sell, but trying to give it away!!!!
It all depends on where you put the block boundaries.
OK, lets start at the beginning. The block detection is based on a detector at each block boundary that keeps track of how many things (cars, wheelsets, whatever...) enter and/or leave a block.
The counter module is the heart of the detection, and is associated with one block. So, lets take a passing siding off a mainline as an example.
The passing siding needs to be its own block (obviously) and the mainline that's being passed must also be a block, because it must be signaled.
The use of the passing siding can be done in several ways. The obvious way is that a train is waiting in a siding and another train goes by on the mainline, but because there are other possibilities, the mainline and siding must be a block. An alternative use on the passing siding is where a train won't fit into the siding, but another train that needs to pass in the opposite direction can fit. So, the long train stays on the mainline and waits, while the shorter train enters the siding. Once in the siding the longer train can proceed. Obviously, signaling and blocking are needed in this case.
Back to my system, a counter module that generates the occupied signal (and some simplistic signaling), and need to communicate to the detector modules at EACH block boundary. So, with a counter associated with the mainline block AND the passing siding block. Both of these blocks have boundaries through turnouts to the mainline, so there would be detectors at the two routes that exit from the turnouts communicating to the mailine block and the passing siding block. On the other side of the turnouts, at the entry throat, are other blocks, and the turnout itself is part of that block.
So, if I've gotten all this across, the passing siding and associated mainline both need to be separate blocks, and they connect to the blocks at the exit of the siding turnouts to another block.
So, the blocks you're talking about do NOT need to be cut into new blocks, because the limitation of one turnout per block doesn't apply since the blocks that feed the turnouts actually contain the turnouts, not the siding/mainline blocks.
The issue with a yard ladder is more problematic because of the distances being so close together, but in reality, block/occupancy detection in a yard-type environment isn't really important. Control/signaling in most yard environments would be controlled by a tard tower in the real world, and visually on most layouts.
That was a tortuous explanation, hopefully understood.
crusader27529 Well, if you actually looked at the initial introduction on TrainBoard, you would see photos of the prototypes and videos of the system and how it works.....what was shown was the BETA....also, if you read things carefully, this presentation is PUBLIC DOMAIN....I have nothing to gain, and nothing to sell, but trying to give it away!!!!
It was hard to miss the fact that the design is in the public domain since it was mentioned in the first line of the original post.But I still wonder if it violates the spirit of the forum rules that prohibit advertising as well as selling. That is why I wondered, nothing more, if the Forum Administrator cared to state his point of view on the subject.
crusader, it might surprise you to know that I did look at the initial introduction on the TrainBoard. What was shown was not a beta test, it was an alpha test. There is a difference. A beta test relies on the use of the product and resulting feedback by a selected portion of the intended customer base. An alpha test is performed initially by the originator of the product and his affiliates.
Well, in the commercial product world, you're correct, but this is a hobby, DIY project environment.
My small local MRR club is going to implement a portable layout for demonstration purposes, and eventually install it on the club layout. Most of the members aren't very technical, and they see the system work, but want to imstall it in stages.
Having said that, the 'product' (for lack of a better term) has engineering that's probably equivalent to most commercial products, except that it's not commercial.
If I was hawking a product to sell, I'd agree with you, but I'm trying to get people to try it to expand the test base. Obviously, my testing is limited by budget (i'm retired living on a fixed income), and I don't have the resources to do what you want, nor do I wish to make it into a product for sale.
Since it's public domain, maybe someone will pick it up and make it a commercial product......public domain allows that to a large degree.....look at the Arduino market. I would be available to answer technical questions for anyone.
As far as selling and advertising, I'd assume that since I have nothing to sell that I couldn't possibly be advertising anything without a product. It's just advocacy, which almost every comment that references likes or dislikes for any product, is doing now.
Sorry I wasn't clear with the passing siding scenario. I was talking about a case like this:
How does your system handle block 4? (the one in the middle that has 4 entry points) I don't want to split in two because it will be signaled as one block.
I did not gather from your previous responses or the trainorders post, but I assume you are using an IR emitter and IR collector?
My club has used IR detectors for various layout animation activation, including signals. Your typical signal cabnet sticks up above the height of the rail quite a bit, 3-6 scale ft depending on the type. This presents clearance issues in tight locations. Specifically multitrack mainlines through a curve, or at crossovers where tighter frog angles must be used due to space limitations, resulting in excessive overhang on equipment.
Having to "reset the block" is an unacceptable issue. From time to time, 0-5-0 switcher must come from the sky to snatch a below standards piece of equipment. On a modular layout, this happens more than you might think, especially during multiday winter and summer shows when the layout actually grows or shrinks significantly. Usually we catch it and re-level the layout, but not before some of our members rolling stock start having issues.
It is hard enough to get people to remember to delete locomotive consists, let allone go and push the right button on the layout somewhere.
How does this system handle the blocks being randomly sequenced (rarely or possibly never is our modular layout set up the same way twice)?
How many addtional wires must be run between the blocks (do they talk to each other)? If so how do they communicate? Can I implement a working ABS or APB system with this? CTC? What are the advantages over the NMRA LCC standard?
carl425 Sorry I wasn't clear with the passing siding scenario. I was talking about a case like this: How does your system handle block 4? (the one in the middle that has 4 entry points) I don't want to split in two because it will be signaled as one block.
Let me explain.....the basic system is a block detector, and as such indicates an occupied condition with a logic level low voltage. Besides that, it can supply simple signaling, with one turnout per block, entirely due to the limitation of the number of I/O pins available on the Arduino.
That being said, LOGICALLY, you would have to split block 4 into 2 segments, BUT as far as detection, if either part of the logically split block was occupied, you could easily just interpret that both halves of the logically split block were occupied.
So, the answer is that the block must be split, but that's only a logical split as far as occupancy is concerned. Rember, the block count must allow for inputs from ALL possible entry directions, and the system works fine with 3 inputs (I call them East, West and something else or North), and maintains the count correctly. The count is ONLY used to determine if the block is empty (count of zero) or occupied(count not zero).
BMMECNYC I did not gather from your previous responses or the trainorders post, but I assume you are using an IR emitter and IR collector? My club has used IR detectors for various layout animation activation, including signals. Your typical signal cabnet sticks up above the height of the rail quite a bit, 3-6 scale ft depending on the type. This presents clearance issues in tight locations. Specifically multitrack mainlines through a curve, or at crossovers where tighter frog angles must be used due to space limitations, resulting in excessive overhang on equipment. Having to "reset the block" is an unacceptable issue. From time to time, 0-5-0 switcher must come from the sky to snatch a below standards piece of equipment. On a modular layout, this happens more than you might think, especially during multiday winter and summer shows when the layout actually grows or shrinks significantly. Usually we catch it and re-level the layout, but not before some of our members rolling stock start having issues. It is hard enough to get people to remember to delete locomotive consists, let allone go and push the right button on the layout somewhere. How does this system handle the blocks being randomly sequenced (rarely or possibly never is our modular layout set up the same way twice)? How many addtional wires must be run between the blocks (do they talk to each other)? If so how do they communicate? Can I implement a working ABS or APB system with this? CTC? What are the advantages over the NMRA LCC standard?
Yes, the system uses Infra Red detection, with several departures from simplistic IR detection.
First, it uses 2 detectors positioned close to each other, and they are ACROSS the track. The positioning isn't terribly critical, but should be as low as possible, at rail height. The detectors are tuned detectors similar to (but not exactly the same) as the IR communication for TV remote controls, and as such could work at longer distances, but are set to work within a few inches, with the distance not being critical. The logic associated with the detectors requires the detectors have to be blocked/unblocked in a particular sequence for detection, as this sequence also determines direction. When something crosses a detector at a block boundary, the detector communicates with the blocks on either side of it to count up or down, depending on direction of the detection.
It turns out that styrene plastic is quite transparent to IR, so the source and/or detectors could be housed inside structures at the side of the track. The current limiting resistor associated with the IR source is currently set to 4.7K, but can be reduced to as low as 180 ohms as required, to increase the styrene's transparency.
No detection system is foolproof, and the system can't tell the difference between a wheelset or you finger, so in the unusual circumstance where the block count is wrong (the block shows occupied when it's obviously unoccupied), a simply individual block reset is available.
The communication between the detectors and counters is a simple 3-wire connection, used for reliable response. The wires are CUP(count up), CDN(count down) and ACK(Acknowledge), and as such there is no sequence associated with how the blocks are connected or sequenced. The system supplies a logic low signal for occupied, plus some outputs for local, simplistic signaling for entry points into the block, including one turnout per block.
The nature of the design is that it must count the correct/same number of detections going into or out of a block, and it does that well. If there are more detections exiting a block than what entered, that's OK, because the count isn't allowed to go negative. But, the opposite is true.....if a car doesn't exit a block, it will still show occupied, but that's why the reset exists. The detection is a point detection, meaning it only detects things that transition the detector, but it has memory, so it doesn't lose track of the counts when the system is powered down. If the layout is manipulated when the system is off, the counts won't be correct, so the reset corrects that.
The manual reset isn't something difficult, and if the engineers operate according to the signals, if they approach a block that shows occupied (obvious red signal) but it's just as obviously empty, a simple reset resolves that block issue. Remember, it's a per block reset. Weigh that 'minor' issue compared with having to modify rolling stock to be detectable. This system detects everything as opposed to just modified rolling stock, and can detect a car even when it has derailed, but is still coupled to the moving train.....
Remember, this is just a block detexctor, and NOT a complete signaling system....you can use the occupied detection indication to do whatever you wish, or not. It also gives simple, local red/green signaling if that's what you want.
crusader27529 If I was hawking a product to sell, I'd agree with you, but I'm trying to get people to try it to expand the test base. Obviously, my testing is limited by budget (i'm retired living on a fixed income), and I don't have the resources to do what you want, nor do I wish to make it into a product for sale. Since it's public domain, maybe someone will pick it up and make it a commercial product......public domain allows that to a large degree.....look at the Arduino market. I would be available to answer technical questions for anyone. As far as selling and advertising, I'd assume that since I have nothing to sell that I couldn't possibly be advertising anything without a product. It's just advocacy, which almost every comment that references likes or dislikes for any product, is doing now.
Since it requires an interested individual to build the detection system himself, it is going to take a lot longer for you to get the results that you are hoping for than if you had an actual product for beta testing, as I call it.
Good luck, though, I do hope that this endeavor provides the result that you are looking for.
Depends on how you define "logic". By every prototype and every model CTC system I have seen LOGICALLY block 4 is one block. Anything occupying any part of block 4 has prevented another movement through the block, it is a single block.
LOGICALLY a controlled switch would have an optical detector at the clearance points of the siding and the main track.
Here's how it should work to be consistent with the rest of the signalling world (as you have pointed out this is not a signal system it is a detector, so it needs to support the logic of the signal system, not require the signal systems to support the detector's logic).
A movement into the siding would add to the siding count, and subtract from the single main track count.
A movement into the main between switches would add to the main between the switches count and subtract from the single main count.
A move from the siding to the switch would subtract from the siding count and add to the single main track count.
A move from the main between the switches would subtract from the main between the switches count and add to the single main track count.
dehusman That being said, LOGICALLY, you would have to split block 4 into 2 segments, BUT as far as detection, if either part of the logically split block was occupied, you could easily just interpret that both halves of the logically split block were occupied. Depends on how you define "logic". By every prototype and every model CTC system I have seen LOGICALLY block 4 is one block. Anything occupying any part of block 4 has prevented another movement through the block, it is a single block. LOGICALLY a controlled switch would have an optical detector at the clearance points of the siding and the main track. Here's how it should work to be consistent with the rest of the signalling world (as you have pointed out this is not a signal system it is a detector, so it needs to support the logic of the signal system, not require the signal systems to support the detector's logic). A movement into the siding would add to the siding count, and subtract from the single main track count. A movement into the main between switches would add to the main between the switches count and subtract from the single main count. A move from the siding to the switch would subtract from the siding count and add to the single main track count. A move from the main between the switches would subtract from the main between the switches count and add to the single main track count.
That's more or less how the system works, internally, but it only reports occupied or not to the outside world. How many things are in a block isn't important, just that the count is zero or not.
crusader27529 The manual reset isn't something difficult, and if the engineers operate according to the signals, if they approach a block that shows occupied (obvious red signal) but it's just as obviously empty, a simple reset resolves that block issue. Remember, it's a per block reset. Weigh that 'minor' issue compared with having to modify rolling stock to be detectable. This system detects everything as opposed to just modified rolling stock, and can detect a car even when it has derailed, but is still coupled to the moving train.....
This is an issue with most any detection system of thise sort - sometimes you need to do a manual reset. And this is what has the more serious operator types not liking this system. The exact words you used - "obviously empty". A block isn't "obviously empty" unless you cheat and run ahead - yes, 'cheat' is the correct term here. That would be like a prototype engineer stopping at a red signal then running along the tracks for a few miles to see that, hey, there is no train, it's not really an occupied block". People who design for operations oftn go out of their way to set up the layout so you can't just 'peek ahead' and cheat, you have to go by your orders, the timetable, and any signals along the line.
This might work ina dispatcher controlled environment, where the dispatcher can just hit the reset on a block every time a tower operators reports a train past his position. The operator sees that the whole train (which means head end right to the markers, so they crew didn't lose half their train somewhere in the block), therefore if the count isn't 0 it's a detection fault which means hit the reset. Definitely not a job for a train crew.
crusader does not like my approach of just detecting the beginning and end of the train with current detection, but if I do loose part of the train, that caboose is still in the previous block........
My dispatcher would see that on his board, as the train entered the third block but never cleared the first one......
Also, my dispatcher does clear empty blocks, or reassigns them to a different throttle, but the signal would stay red, warning the dispatcher and the next engineer that there is a problem.
But what do I know.....
crusader27529 So, the answer is that the block must be split, but that's only a logical split as far as occupancy is concerned. Rember, the block count must allow for inputs from ALL possible entry directions, and the system works fine with 3 inputs (I call them East, West and something else or North), and maintains the count correctly. The count is ONLY used to determine if the block is empty (count of zero) or occupied(count not zero).
This answer here, tells me all I need to know. As such, it will not work with signal systems I have seen on the market, now will it work with the one I have some parts for already for my layout.
You can not design a occupancy system that refuses to accommodate how regular signals work and how they need occupancy detection to be. Block 4 needs to stay only block 4, not be split into 4a & 4b, for almost all signal systems.
A limit of a single turnout per block rule would eliminate many ops designed layouts, mine included. One "block" I have, the yard lead (doubles as arrival/departure track, yard ladder, and the lead to the interchange track comes off of this yard lead.) and as such has 7 turnouts currently, new layout it will bump to 9. This one block, will be signaled as one block, and can not be split into many blocks to limit it to one turnout per occupied block. (You come off of main, EB, directly into yard ladder, go through half of the yard ladder to hit the lead and arrival/departure track, and reverse into the yard, or continue into interchange lead further east, or keep going east to reconnect to main line. Yard tracks will be "dark territory" and as such, unsignaled. My signal system will only need to know, therefore, if any part of this lead is fouled, therefore each clearance point in the ladder will need detection, as will the lead itself, and the clearance point of the interchange lead, this lead is not going to need to be part of the block, which will be a dummy signal, on a timer, showing either clear or approach medium, when not being worked, or restricting when being worked, which will be overridden by operator when he (me 9 times out of 10), lines the turnout to the interchange lead.) This block cannot be split, otherwise signal system will not function correctly.
Sorry, but I will not be testing your occupancy system. Not until this issue is fixed anyways.
I do appreciate what you are trying to do, and that you are making the system public domain, but until the issues are corrected, I will not be a beta tester.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
crusader27529Weigh that 'minor' issue compared with having to modify rolling stock to be detectable.
crusader27529The system supplies a logic low signal for occupied, plus some outputs for local, simplistic signaling for entry points into the block, including one turnout per block.
So based on turnouts alone, the layout Im speaking of would need over 100 blocks...
Adding a SMD to a wheelset for about $.09 per wheelset so equipped doesnt really sound like a problem to me. The time spent is also not a problem. Certainly less time spent than adding a significant number of paired block detectors for each turnout.
Are the blocks bi-directional, or do you need separate detectors for that?
BMMECNYC crusader27529 Weigh that 'minor' issue compared with having to modify rolling stock to be detectable. crusader27529 The system supplies a logic low signal for occupied, plus some outputs for local, simplistic signaling for entry points into the block, including one turnout per block. So based on turnouts alone, the layout Im speaking of would need over 100 blocks... Adding a SMD to a wheelset for about $.09 per wheelset so equipped doesnt really sound like a problem to me. The time spent is also not a problem. Certainly less time spent than adding a significant number of paired block detectors for each turnout. Are the blocks bi-directional, or do you need separate detectors for that?
crusader27529 Weigh that 'minor' issue compared with having to modify rolling stock to be detectable.
crusader27529 The system supplies a logic low signal for occupied, plus some outputs for local, simplistic signaling for entry points into the block, including one turnout per block.
So, according to your block count, solely based on turnout count, every block on your layout, even industry sidings and yard ladders, appear to have detectors installed. I just don't think yards or similar blocks need to be detectable. The one turnout 'rule' exists because for the count and therefore the occupancy to be correct, the system needs to see inputs from each entry point into a block. The simple modular nature of the detection is limited by the number of pins available on the Arduino modules. I could use a larger version of the Arduino, but trying to tie it all together into a system that works with an infinite number of different configurations would be impossible. So, the system is based on modules for each single block that a user can put together any way they want. I keep saying 'system', but I'm talking about the Arduino modules for each block. There is no overall system, just individual blocks. It also generates simple red/green signaling for the three possible entry points into the block. This simplistic signaling is just to introduce people to having any signaling, as most layouts have none. I designed it so it only requires one I/O pin for each signal, minimizing pin usage.
The system uses a detector at the boandary of each block that you want to be detectable, so the actual count is essentially one detector and one counter per block. Each detector communicates to both of the blocks on either side of the boundary, and YES it is bidirectional. It couldn't function otherwise. The videos obviously show bidirectional operation.
ricktrains4824 crusader27529 So, the answer is that the block must be split, but that's only a logical split as far as occupancy is concerned. Rember, the block count must allow for inputs from ALL possible entry directions, and the system works fine with 3 inputs (I call them East, West and something else or North), and maintains the count correctly. The count is ONLY used to determine if the block is empty (count of zero) or occupied(count not zero). This answer here, tells me all I need to know. As such, it will not work with signal systems I have seen on the market, now will it work with the one I have some parts for already for my layout.
I just don't understand why the logic level 0 (0 volts) couldn't be tied together for your example blocks 4a and 4b...a logic 0 on either line would be seen as a logic 0 for both.....simple wire OR logic.
Why wouldn't that work?