Short track segment between turnouts for JMRI- Needed?

[BigDaddy]

to the forum, initial posts are moderated, so there is a delay.

You are in luck, Paul is still active in the forum.  If you click on PED, under Avatar, and you are not using Firefox, you can send him a PM private message.  The forum has some issues with it's software, and if he uses firefox he may not see it unless he looks for it.

"Search The Community" is another of the functions that don't work anymore, so no one is going to criticize you for starting a new thead.  And it's free to start a new thread.

Signaling is one of the most confusing aspects of our hobby, so any new information here would be beneficial to the community.  Telling someone who posted only twice in the forum back in 2008 how to affix his track to the roadbed is a bit late to the party.

6,666 posts, oh my!

[Krish]

PED

Now laying track (n scale Kato Unitrack) per my original design. After my design was done, I decided to utilize JMRI and that has opened up pandoras box related to my original design. Although my current JMRI application is focused on turnout control, I want to keep the door open to implementing advanced features later.

I have no near term intent to utilize some of the advanced features of JMRI but I would like to lay my track such that it would make it easier later to use advanced JMRI features such as blocks, signals, etc. As an example of my concerns, I have a number of trunouts stacked end to end with no piece of track between them. Does this create problems later for signals? Should I insert a small track segment between turnouts to avoid a problem that I am not aware of now? Doing so creates problems in track spacing but I would find a way to deal with it if necessary.

Any other "best practices" in track layout to facilitate using the advanced features of JMRI?

 

Hey PED,

Came across your 3 year old post and I am at the same place where you were at that time. 

I too am starting off, have Kato Unitrack and double crossovers. Am starting to add signalling and have the same question that you had.

Please let me know if you are yet active on the forum and if I can reach out to you via email for assistance.

Thanks,

Krish

[PED]

Thanks Randy. Your explaination cleared it up for me. Especially on the double crossover since I have several to deal with. I am weak on correct RR terminology as well as JMRI. When you commented on an "interlock", it triggered me to do some research on what a real world interlock is and also how it is handled in JMRI. Now I understand that my current design will allow me to handle signaling in the future without tearing up my track.

I found a web site that sells CTC components and it included a lot of background and explanation on how signals are used. It is at http://www.ctcparts.com/about.htm.  Cleared up several points for me on terminology. I really needed that.

I do not have any account that will allow me to post pic's. I need to set one up.

Paul

[rrinker]

 It really comes down to what you want to signal. Turnouts end to end would normally be part of a single interlocking, so detecting them all and locking all of them out from moving when occupied is how it would work.

 JMRI really has nothing to do with it - you would have the same design considerations with any control software - it's really gaining na understanding of how interlocking and block detection work.

 Picture a simple oval, with one double-ended passing siding (2 total turnout). This should be at least 6 blocks: a short area around each turnout, the main between the turnouts, the sidings between the turnouts, and half of the rest of the mainline. The "area around the turnout" would typically be the turnout plus a short section off each leg. With a more complex layout with more turnouts, nothing says each and every turnout must be its own interlocked unit. Piture a dual track main line, with a double crossover - so trains going any direction can cross from one main to the other or stay on the one they are. 4 turnouts and a crossing. That whole unit would be a single interlocked section, not 4 individual block detectors. Or if it was a single crossover (just 2 turnouts - the divirging ends directly connected to each other) - same thing, both turnouts would be the same interlocked detection section, not 2 detection sections.

 Now if the entire lengfth of main line is nothing but turnouts - you may have to simplify that to implement a reasonable signal syste,

                             --Randy

Edit: post a track diagram, that will give us a better idea of where you would theoretically locate detection sensors and signals.

 

[Stevert]

Questions such as these are better asked on the JMRI list.  The JMRI developers hang out there and can give you authoritative answers:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jmriusers/info

[PED]

Now laying track (n scale Kato Unitrack) per my original design. After my design was done, I decided to utilize JMRI and that has opened up pandoras box related to my original design. Although my current JMRI application is focused on turnout control, I want to keep the door open to implementing advanced features later.

I have no near term intent to utilize some of the advanced features of JMRI but I would like to lay my track such that it would make it easier later to use advanced JMRI features such as blocks, signals, etc. As an example of my concerns, I have a number of trunouts stacked end to end with no piece of track between them. Does this create problems later for signals? Should I insert a small track segment between turnouts to avoid a problem that I am not aware of now? Doing so creates problems in track spacing but I would find a way to deal with it if necessary.

Any other "best practices" in track layout to facilitate using the advanced features of JMRI?