A group of us are building an N scale layout and I would appreciate if someone could double check my DC block control diagram. We would like to be able to run two trains simutaneously and either train having the ability to move to the other track to reach the switching areas.
Thanks
Ricky
RedGrey62I would appreciate if someone could double check my DC block control diagram.
1. Eliminate blocks 8 and 9 they buy you nothing unless one plans on parking a locomotive in there.
2. Break #5 into two. Move the insulated joiner on the right clear down to the turnout in block #6, and the new set of joiners just to the left of where the current red circle #5 is. The new block becomes just the two turnouts.
3. Move the bottom divider between #1 and #7 to the left just past the turnout so the points of the turnout are in block #7. Likewise on the top move the divider to the right up to the turnout.
4. Put the divider between #3 and #6 between the frogs of the turnouts. This means that between suggestion 3 above and this one there would be 4 sets of insulated rail joiners right in a row.
5. Move the divider between #2 and #3 so that they are both about the same length. In other words move it to the left about 1/4 of the way around the corner.
6. Break #1, #4, #6, and #7 into two blocks each. In general one wants a minimum of 4 blocks per loop. This allows two trains to be on that same loop at the same time. I don't know how large these loops are but 6 blocks per loop would be much more desirable. There is less chance for over running a block that way. Much less tense operation. For block #4 if the new break is put in the top right next to the break between #4 and #9 - then two different trains could work the #8 and #9 sidings (even when #8 and #9 power blocks are eliminated).
Thanks, can't believe I didn't see the "no break" between 5 and 6. We may want to park a loco on 8 and 9, I will consult with the other folks to see. Eliminating some blocks is actually desirable in this case as the layout will be given away. I will use some of the other suggestions too as they make more sense than the original plan.
RedGrey62 We may want to park a loco on 8 and 9
MILW-RODROk I know how DC block control works but how is it operated?
Texas Zepher MILW-RODROk I know how DC block control works but how is it operated? one sets the selector switch to the DC power supply (usually called a cab) that is supposed to control that train. As the train moves toward the next block one has to set that block switch to the cab controlling the train so that it can move into it under the same control. One continues to flip switches in front of each of the trains.
Yikes, when I got into the hobby 5 years ago, I went immediately to DCC. As a kid, I was always frustrated that I could only run one train at a time.
I have always wondered how people operate DC block control. Constantly flipping switches seems pretty intensive and stressful. How did people manage with large layouts?
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain I have always wondered how people operate DC block control. Constantly flipping switches seems pretty intensive and stressful. How did people manage with large layouts? Rich
There are many ways to ease the burden, but most of those have been lost to newer model railroaders with the push of DCC by the hobby press and DCC advocates. Primarily back in the '50s, with a few articles continuing into the '70s, Model Railroader regularly published methods and ways to improve operations with DC.
But let's start with the basics. DCC encourages a given operator to juggle more than one train at a time. The DCC controllers are expensive, but they can quickly switch which locomotive they are controlling. Hence, the tendency in DCC is to use one controller to run more than one train at a time. I would submit that this is hardly realistic because of the divided attention, but perhaps that's because my preference is to focus on the tasks of engineer, conductor, and brakeman on a single train. DC has a pretty much ironclad rule that one throttle controls one train, with the "sort of" exception possibly being helper operations. The net effect of the differences is that in DC operations you will have fewer trains doing what I call "display running" for a given number of operators. This alone reduces block toggle flipping.
There is nothing in DCC to prevent two trains from trying to occupy the same track at the same time. Although equally possible in the prototype, it is a frowned upon practice. The prototype has had to develop elaborate systems to keep trains separated in time and/or space. Since the rule of DC is only 1 train in any given block at a time, you have a natural rule structure that does a good job of imitating the prototype separation of trains. Prototype trains do a lot of stopping and waiting. Duplicating prototype practices again reduces the stress of block toggle flipping.
Model layout operating schedules tend to reduce the simultaneous use of a town by 2 trains at a time. There is usually only 1 passing siding on our model layouts, and we like to have a mix of facing and trailing point spurs, so use of the siding for switching moves really restricts our ability to have through trains going through the town at the same time. Or the movement of through trains really restricts our ability to switch the town in a timely fashion. So the local doing the switching can pretty much have all of a town's blocks assigned to him, except when the hotshot is coming through. All the hotshot needs is the main, so only 1-3 toggles for the main in the vicinity of the town have to be manipulated for the entire operation.
Single operator operations in DC is pretty painless as long as you are only trying to operate one train at a time. The rest of the locomotives are stopped, and those blocks are shut off. When you change the locomotive that is moving, you switch off the block where the previous locomotive is, and turn on the block where the new locomotive is.
Taking advantage of power routing turnouts - and I use a contact on the turnout throw mechanism instead of depending on the points for power routing - eliminates the need for many block toggles. Passing tracks can be controlled by power routing of the turnouts on each end, without the need for a toggle for the passing track.
X blocks, route control, and progressive cab control were all enhancements to DC to reduce or eliminate block toggle flipping. Another technique used was to have the dispatcher set the appropriate block toggles at the same time as he gave clearance to enter a section of track.
Unfortunately, the worst cases of block toggle flipping angst typically occured on small home layouts where none of the techniques mentioned were or could be used. The conceptually simple DPDT block toggles at a central panel with non-power routing turnouts are probably the worst way to wire a DC layout for easy 2 person operations.
None of this is to denigrate DCC. I am just trying to point out that DC can be made pretty operator-friendly with a little effort and planning.
just my thoughts and experiences
Fred W
Fred, that is an excelent explaination. May I quote you?
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Fred, that is an excelent explaination. May I quote you? Sheldon
Yes
That is great explanation of DC control.right to the point!
richhotrain Texas Zepher MILW-RODROk I know how DC block control works but how is it operated? one sets the selector switch to the DC power supply (usually called a cab) that is supposed to control that train. As the train moves toward the next block one has to set that block switch to the cab controlling the train so that it can move into it under the same control. One continues to flip switches in front of each of the trains. Yikes, when I got into the hobby 5 years ago, I went immediately to DCC. As a kid, I was always frustrated that I could only run one train at a time. I have always wondered how people operate DC block control. Constantly flipping switches seems pretty intensive and stressful. How did people manage with large layouts? Rich
The main reason we want to wire this layout for block control is so that either main could come in and switch the industries. We could easily just have the outside main run in circles and only have the inside loop switch. With this set up, there is no need to "flip" switches ahead of a train, each loop will be set to either cab one or cab two and the only time the toggles will be flipped is when moving a train from one loop to another. Texas Zephyrs statement of fliiping switches is right on the money of running two trains on the same track.
I will agree it is a great explanation of DC, but one comment you made I take exception to, at least in my case. My layout is fairly complex, and it runs with DCC, but only one train to a cab at a time during an op session. The advantage of DCC in this situation is of course no flipping toggles, or pushing buttons, or whatever be the case. You simply control your train and hope the dispatch keeps you away from other trains. I used DC block control from 1959 to 1984 when I then went to an early command control system called Dynatrol, which gave me the operation that DCC does today, but I didn't have the ability to run nearly as many trains as I can today with my NCE. Limited number of receiver numbers available for Dynatrol, lot more decoders addresses for DCC.
Even today, if I was doing a small switching line, I would probably choose DC, but for a large, heavy running layout, DCC still provides the superior control system and certainly a lot less wiring than DC and no toggles or switches. But then again, each of us makes our own choices.
Bob
Just a clarification.
You and I are in total agreement on the one train/one cab concept, whether DC or DCC. And that in most situations DCC does eliminate worrying about block toggles. But when I suggest that the true cost of DCC for the traditional 2 operator home layout is a starter system plus a second throttle plus decoders plus a computer interface for programming, I'm driving up the cost of DCC unreasonably in the comparison. And based on what I gleam from the DCC owner posts here, there is a considerable amount of juggling two (or more) running trains from a single throttle - probably because it is relatively easy to do in DCC. Unless these folks have far superior multitasking skills, all but one of the trains is going to be doing relatively unattended running - what I called "display running". Quite practical and possible in DCC, and a little harder, but doable with multiple throttles in DC - unless block toggles get in your way.
The point of my post was to not to denigrate or attack DCC. A responder thought that the suggested blocking of the OP's layout would be painful to operate for multiple operators due to constant flipping of block toggles. And on larger layouts, the problem would be that much worse. He's correct - but only if the simple to implement, but difficult to operate, central panel with separate toggles for each block is used. There were systems and methods developed over the years to minimize, eliminate, or automate block toggle flipping with multiple operators in DC. And as the OP stated, his normal planned operations involve changing very few block toggles for most of an operating session.
If the OP had power-routing turnouts, the number of blocks could have been reduced without any loss of operational flexibility. Back in the '60s, Model Railroader even printed instructions on how to drill out the grommets on Atlas Custom Line turnouts to make them power routing where that might be desirable.
Again, the point is that DC doesn't have to be full of stress about keeping block toggles in the correct position. With a little planning and effort, DC can be quite operator-friendly.
just my thoughts
fwright And based on what I gleam from the DCC owner posts here, there is a considerable amount of juggling two (or more) running trains from a single throttle - probably because it is relatively easy to do in DCC. Unless these folks have far superior multitasking skills, all but one of the trains is going to be doing relatively unattended running - what I called "display running".
And based on what I gleam from the DCC owner posts here, there is a considerable amount of juggling two (or more) running trains from a single throttle - probably because it is relatively easy to do in DCC. Unless these folks have far superior multitasking skills, all but one of the trains is going to be doing relatively unattended running - what I called "display running".
I have two throttles to control a double mainline running on DCC. One throttle is assigned to "Track 1" and the other throttle is assigned to "Track 2". The NCE system permits 6 addresses per throttle, but I have a helluva time controlling 2 engines per throttle on a 160 foot mainline, let alone 6 engines on each track. So, I appreciate your critique. My usual practice is to run only one engine at a time on each mainline track, while other engines are working the yard, passenger station and turntable. I lack superior multitasking skills!
However the Digitrax throttles have TWO knobs, unique among the popular systems, so you can have 2 traisn under actual live control - no trying frnatically to flip back and forth between controlling 2 (or 6) locos with one knob.
Computer interface is definitely NOT required when figuring the cost of a DCC system. You cna program quite adequately from all the major systems' throttles. And still use FREE software like JMRI without it being connected to the DCC system. Also costs are often greatly exaggerated for decoders - a GOOD general purpose decoder is $12 each in 10 packs (NCE). At least for HO users. There's no need to spend $30 per. N scale is a bit different due to space limitations, but I see plenty of HO people paying extra for a tiny Z scale decoder to put in a large steam or diesel loco (ie, not a space issue). Learn to solder (which is a handy skill even if you use DC), and skip the expensive decoders with fancy harnesses.
Overkill is rampant in model railroading just like other hobbies (yes, you need a $600 video card in the computer you are going to use for word processing and playing solitaire). So is a tendency to overcomplicate things with crazy wiring schemes and excessive toggle switches.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
richhotrainI have always wondered how people operate DC block control. Constantly flipping switches seems pretty intensive and stressful. How did people manage with large layouts?
fwright... based on what I gleam from the DCC owner posts here, there is a considerable amount of juggling two (or more) running trains from a single throttle
A few random FACTS about DC control systems:
Many well planned large DC layouts do not use block toggles.
Many of those layouts have dispatchers who's only job is to align turnouts and who's engineers still don't have block toggles or rotary switches.
Any layout that has 100 blocks controlled from a single panel is poorly planned.
Regardless of how blocks are connected to the cabs, many of those asignments can be built into turnout positions, usually cutting the number of "asigned" blocks by half or more.
As Fred explained earlier in this thread, well planned DC systems provide built in colision avoidance like prototype signal systems and operating rules.
And those systems can be the basis for fully functional signal systems.
Properly done such colision avoidance is a "free" feature and can easily be done in a way to prevent trains from overrunning their authorized territory.
There are wireless radio DC throttles that provide excelent speed control.
Again, as Fred said, much of this technology has been "lost" on the new DCC generation, and that's fine. But it is out there and does work even if YOU have never seen it in action.
rrinker However the Digitrax throttles have TWO knobs, unique among the popular systems, so you can have 2 traisn under actual live control - no trying frnatically to flip back and forth between controlling 2 (or 6) locos with one knob.
Randy
I was trying to avoid this thread becoming a DCC vs DC thread. The OP was asking for help in blocking his DC layout. Another poster - a DCC user - asked about block toggle flipping becoming a nightmare on large DC layouts. I pointed out that operating style differences that are supported by the differences between DCC and DC do impact the amount of block toggle flipping in DC. I find it very interesting that the ability to fairly easily operate more than one train simultaneously in DCC has created a split in the DCC ranks.
Agreed, the Digitrax throttle with two knobs (DT-400 series IIRC) makes simultaneous operation of 2 trains even easier than going through the recall stack on other throttles. But that does nothing to help a second operator run the 2nd train (do you share the one throttle?), nor does the double throttle increase your innate ability to multitask (focus on 2 trains simultaneously). Those who are going to run 2 trains from one throttle will do so, although I maintain at least one train is going to be "display running" because of the human limitations of the operator, not the limitations of the throttle.
I see the same poor ergonomic design in a DC setup with a dual throttle power pack and a set of Atlas Selector switches at a central panel. Cheap and easy to execute - yes. Enabling realistic operation of 2 trains by 2 operators - no. Why we tend to push beginners down the more difficult to operate paths is beyond me. The OP's DC block plan would reduce the number of block toggles just by using power routing turnouts in the yard and for all spurs. He didn't say whether he was going with a central panel, or with walkaround control. Walkaround would make switching operations easier, but would require thinking about where block toggles should be, and whether or not a 2nd layer (MZL) style of block controls would be a good idea. Route control or progressive cab control (automated or manual) would also work very well for a train that is "circulating" while the other operator is switching.
Computer interface is definitely NOT required when figuring the cost of a DCC system. You cna program quite adequately from all the major systems' throttles. And still use FREE software like JMRI without it being connected to the DCC system. Also costs are often greatly exaggerated for decoders - a GOOD general purpose decoder is $12 each in 10 packs (NCE). At least for HO users. There's no need to spend $30 per. N scale is a bit different due to space limitations, but I see plenty of HO people paying extra for a tiny Z scale decoder to put in a large steam or diesel loco (ie, not a space issue). Learn to solder (which is a handy skill even if you use DC), and skip the expensive decoders with fancy harnesses. --Randy
Why are you trying to minimize DCC costs by making life more difficult for the new DCC convert? Don't I read time after time on this forum that the big objection to MRC Prodigy Advance/Express system is the lack of a computer interface - or now, the computer interface won't support Decoder Pro? Programming a Tsunami, or even a newer QSI sound decoder, without Decoder Pro is like asking somebody to go back to programming a graphics screen with Commodore 64 Basic "pokes" and "reads" instead of using a modern GUI. There are just too many interrelated CVs to write each one by trial and error, and record the result, and repeat. The new DCC guy should get more hand-holding from his equipment and software, not less. Especially now that Bachmann and Athearn/Roundhouse are equipping locomotives with limited Tsunamis already installed. So yes, when I price the conversion to DCC I include the cost of a computer interface or a PR3.
On a side note, your DT-400 throttle is an extra cost addition to the Zephyr system. Which is where I have been all along. Converting a typical home layout to DCC with 2 operator capability (the typical DC scenario) will cost about $300 plus decoders. This is a starter system plus a 2nd throttle plus computer interface - but a very capable system for a 2 operator home layout. Overkill - I don't think so. Rather it represents the minimum cost to get the DCC goodness that makes the conversion worthwhile in the 1st place.
Decoder costs are going to be all over the place depending on personal choices and number of locomotives to be converted. I may only have 5 locomotives that I want to convert, but I'd like to squeeze a micro-Tsunami in each of them. But note that your $12 fleet decoder comes in a 10 pack, so that's $120 for decoders right there.
I've ranted long enough for today.
A few more DC FACTS:
There are DC systems that allow complete walk around operation without operators being "anchored" to a central control panel.
Many of these systems also allow and provide for the control of turnouts from multiple locations.
Many such systems are NOT very button intense and therefore are actually easy to use and easy to learn.
Even reverse loops can be made easy and automatic if properly planned.
Considered a drawback by some and a desired feature by others, all require some sort of control panels. The best systems use small simple local panels with only a few control buttons on each panel.
In additon to local panels, main CTC like panels are often desired and easily intergated into the control system providing greater operational flexablity.
What are the drawbacks/limitations?
No DC system I have seen to date is truely onboard sound friendly.
No speed matching of locos or seperate control of helpers.
They all require advance planning along with the track plan to be effective. Minor track plan changes are usually no big deal, big ones might be.
They all involve various degrees of somewhat complex wiring, but often that wiring is simple circuits repeated over and over, AND can be prewired on the bench and installed with a limited number of final connections.
Overly crowded track plans can be problematic for multi train operation.
Reverse loops can be problematic if not well thought out.
What are the advantages:
Even the most advanced/complex system use inexpensive, off the shelf components.
No modifications to locos needed.
Many advanced DC systems are well suited to more than one style of operation, easily accommodating individual walk around, dispatcher/CTC control, and automatic or semi automatic display running all with the same system.
Additional features like signaling and collision avoidance can be added or incorporated at low or no cost. Even automatic operation can be easily added in some cases.
Reliance on any one manufacturer is minimized or elliminated do to large aspects being built from generic off the shelf parts.
While it may be old technology, there is no obsolecence factor assuming you have allready accepted the given limitations (no onboard sound, no consisting/speed matching and no seperate helper control being the main ones).
Again, many in the hobby today have never seen some of these advanced DC systems in operation, but to assume all DC systems invlove panels full of block toggles or rotary switches requiring constant "flipping" is simply incorrect.
I too have tried to avoid this becoming DCC vs DC, however I will respond to all DC misinformation just as others feel they MUST respond to everything they see as DCC misinformation.
I will avoid my opinions, good and bad, about DCC as I do not wish to debate that any further, but I will rebut incomplete or limited opinions of DC that are obviously based on limited or no real experiance.
Again this was a DC question, and good, sound DC imformation was provided.
Why do so many feel they must always interject "why DCC would be better" to these threads?
I could, but would never, interject a response like "if you used DC you would not have XYZ problem" to the dozens of requests for help with DCC problems that are posted every week on this forum. In fact thank goodness there are lots of you willing to help those new to DCC.
The "Electronics and DCC" forum should just be renamed the "DCC" forum, since most of the calls for help are about DCC, and one dare not ask a question about DC without getting inundated with replies telling them DCC would solve all their problems (never telling them about all the new ones they would be asking for help with).
My rant is done as well.
I have found this thread to be a good source of info, as I am in the planning and building phase of my double deck all-DC layout. I have a working two-cab block system on the lower deck, hidden staging tracks (including a wye with reversing switch) so that trains can be stored in a double ended four track, eight train yard (each track divided in half), and can enter or leave the visible layout deck on two ramps, the PRR tunnels to Manhattan and points west, or the East New York Tunnel to Hell Gate Bridge and points east.
On my prior layout, I used on-off switches on loco storage tracks, and power routing turnouts, in order to minimze wiring and avoid buying any new switches (stuck in the poor-man syndrome back then). On the current layout, I bought out the local Radio Shacks of heavy duty DPDT switches.DCC? Never heard of it. Computers are for talking to others on the internet, not for model railroading. My opinion. Can you program those CV's on a Mac?
PS: You can build certain signals into a DC system if you use multi-contact switch machines, without going to any more expense than the cost of model signals. Or, if you use multi-contact switches to route the power, those extra contacts can be used as well. Signals can be scale models on the right of way, or panel lights.
ATLANTIC CENTRALA few random FACTS about DC control systems:Any layout that has 100 blocks controlled from a single panel is poorly planned.
ATLANTIC CENTRALA few more DC FACTS:No DC system I have seen to date is truely onboard sound friendly.
This thread grew a bit larger than I would have thought!
Just for information on the layout I asked about.
N Scale
36" X 80" (built on a door)
Track and most switches are Atlas, non power routing IIRC (sorry I'm normally an HO guy) but we do have two power routing Peco turnouts. Everything was donated to keep the cost down so we take what we can get.
It will be controlled from a dual power pack and a central panel. We do have two locos
While DCC may have made this a bit easier, it was not an option due to cost. We may have gone a bit overboard in the design but we had the materials and the (mostly) knowledge to build and control it. (almost sounds like a bad B monster movie!)
We have posted some pictures and will post more as I get them sent to me.
I do thank all for their help.
Texas Zepher ATLANTIC CENTRALA few more DC FACTS: No DC system I have seen to date is truely onboard sound friendly. Another major opinion. In my opinion the PFM mini-sound, PFM sound system II, and PBL II systems still put the current DCC sound systems to shame.
ATLANTIC CENTRALA few more DC FACTS: No DC system I have seen to date is truely onboard sound friendly.
I should have been more specific, I was refering to totally self contained onboard sound, not systems like those you mention which are built into the throttle.
As good as they are, and I agree they are better than the rest, the systems you mention are not currently readily available and preclude or prevent the use of other throttle options like the Aristo Train Engineer.
For me personally, onboard sound is a non issue in my chosen scale of HO. I do not care for the sound quality of any speaker that fits in an HO loco.
I have no problem with central control panels and do not consider them "obsolete" as many today do. In fact my own layouts control system design provides for both local panels and a master CTC panel with throttles for central control.
The 100 block reference was simply to the point that few layouts, even very large ones, seldom need that many seperately asignable blocks even for the maximum operational felxablity. X sections and power routing should keep even very large layouts below such a number without giving up any operational flexablity normally found in a cab control system. In fact they should add to such flexablity and to ease of use.
Opinion - maybe some, but an opinion from someone still using, researching and expanding the development of advanced DC cab control.
davidmbedard Opinion - maybe some, but an opinion from someone still using, researching and expanding the development of advanced DC cab control. Sheldon And what have you contributed or expanded to the development of advanced DC cab control that wasn't thought of before? David B
Opinion - maybe some, but an opinion from someone still using, researching and expanding the development of advanced DC cab control. Sheldon
And what have you contributed or expanded to the development of advanced DC cab control that wasn't thought of before?
David B
Well let's see, based on the extensive reading and research I've done on the subject, I was the first to:
Combine the idea of the automatic buffer zone (staggered rail joints and seperate power sources to prevent trains from over running their asigned section) with the X section. I developed circuits that make each X section into buffer zone unless the whole route is set and asigned to the cab in question. This is an improvement over the conventional X section for a number of reasons.
Paul Mallory proposed, but never built or saw built the use of X sections for passing tracks where the passing tracks are the X section, rather than the single track portions being the X section. I combined this never applied idea, with the development above, and my walk around cab selector circuit to provide true walk around control to a single track mainline layout using the Aristo Craft Train Engineer wireless throttle. This control scheme has been in use on a friend's layout for more than a year now, works well, had no problems and even the DCC users in our group like and understand it.
And I developed a simple, inexpensive, prototypically correct signaling circuit to provide Absolute/Permissive block signals for a succession of passing sidings that are wired as described above.
And my one touch turnout control circuit provides one button operation of complex interlockings while also directing the power for them to be combined buffer zone/X sections and providing all necessary interlocking logic for proper signaling of the interlocking. And is even able to provide prototypical lockout of turnout operation when a train is in the interlocking territory.
And all these circuits are designed to allow the control inputs to be easily duplicated on both local and main/CTC panels.
Maybe somewhere, sometime, some lone wolf may have done these things and never told anyone, but based on all the published material I can find, no one has done all of them and no one has combined them all to this effect.
But then again I did design and install the first use of a programable controller (primative computer for those who don't know) to control a pumping station in the Baltimore City waste water system back in 1981.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL davidmbedard Opinion - maybe some, but an opinion from someone still using, researching and expanding the development of advanced DC cab control. Sheldon And what have you contributed or expanded to the development of advanced DC cab control that wasn't thought of before? David B Well let's see, based on the extensive reading and research I've done on the subject, I was the first to: Combine the idea of the automatic buffer zone (staggered rail joints and seperate power sources to prevent trains from over running their asigned section) with the X section. I developed circuits that make each X section into buffer zone unless the whole route is set and asigned to the cab in question. This is an improvement over the conventional X section for a number of reasons. Paul Mallory proposed, but never built or saw built the use of X sections for passing tracks where the passing tracks are the X section, rather than the single track portions being the X section. I combined this never applied idea, with the development above, and my walk around cab selector circuit to provide true walk around control to a single track mainline layout using the Aristo Craft Train Engineer wireless throttle. This control scheme has been in use on a friend's layout for more than a year now, works well, had no problems and even the DCC users in our group like and understand it. And I developed a simple, inexpensive, prototypically correct signaling circuit to provide Absolute/Permissive block signals for a succession of passing sidings that are wired as described above. And my one touch turnout control circuit provides one button operation of complex interlockings while also directing the power for them to be combined buffer zone/X sections and providing all necessary interlocking logic for proper signaling of the interlocking. And is even able to provide prototypical lockout of turnout operation when a train is in the interlocking territory. And all these circuits are designed to allow the control inputs to be easily duplicated on both local and main/CTC panels. Maybe somewhere, sometime, some lone wolf may have done these things and never told anyone, but based on all the published material I can find, no one has done all of them and no one has combined them all to this effect. But then again I did design and install the first use of a programable controller (primative computer for those who don't know) to control a pumping station in the Baltimore City waste water system back in 1981. Sheldon
Oh boy. This could get ugly!
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut then again I did design and install the first use of a programable controller (primative computer for those who don't know) to control a pumping station in the Baltimore City waste water system back in 1981. Sheldon
That's about the time my sewage bill started going up. Must be that Jones Falls station or the one down at North and Greenmount.