The proposal is basically for an "axle-counter" approach.
Axle-counters are certainly used on the prototype but only for specific applications where a simple in/out count is useful and adequate for safe operation, not as a general purpose track occupancy detection approach. Robust safe-working systems are simply not designed on the basis of a single person being able to reset anything in the system.If you need a reliable axle-counter (and understand the limitations of the approach) then the proposed detctecor may be worthwhile considering, but its nowhere near a complete track occupancy detection solution.
crusader,
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I don't have all these derailment related losses of cabooses you are so worried about.
It's called good trackwork and good equipment standards (coupler heights, etc).
Sheldon
crusader27529Come up with some ideas, and maybe we can make something practical that's affordable and not too complex.
It already exists, as a number of people have pointed out. And works fine on hundreds (probably thousands) of layouts.
crusader27529IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ACTUAL ELECTRICAL BLOCKS. IT REQUIRES NO GAPS BE CUT IN ANY TRACK. So, with a DCC system, the only actual electrical blocks required would be for reversing loop segments.
That would be an extremely unwise way to wire a DCC layout (or any layout). Good practice calls for gaps for troubleshooting as well as to allow for expansion and contraction of the benchwork with humidity changes.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
The primary issue in these discussions are whether current detection is adequate with only head & tail being detected, or making all rolling stock detected. Both have issues, specifiically loss of tail detection or having SOME rolling stock not detectable (somebody bringing rolling stock that isn't detectable), and my system, which counts things as they enter or leave a block. ALL these approaches have some problems, and ALL solutions have tradeoffs.
Since I'm the 'new kid on the block' related to detection, people who already have current detection defend their systems, because they work, and the advantages of a new system don't justify replacement of a functional system. That makes perfect sense.
BUT, you've got to separate a detection system from a complete, implemented signaling system. Detection is the building block for signaling, just like any detection technique.
In the fantasy world of having perfect detection, detection with no power in the rails using metal wheels and axles would be almost perfect, but we don't have mineature batteries that last long enough to be really usable, or charge fast enough to be practical, or batteries that have charge/discharge cycles long enough to have really long life.
IMHO, the perfect detection system would be a scanner to read a barcode off every piece of rolling stock as it enters or leaves a block. This is doable, but scale sizes would be an issue, not to mention the cost. A commercial barcode reader has a rotating mirror to control the scan of the barcode eliminating the issue of the speed an item passes the scanner.....that's large and expensive. A laser diode source (IR or visible) would be requied at each block.
An RFID reader is an alternative, but the coils needed are somewhat large, and HO is the likely current minimum size that would work. Most RFID readers installed are used to keep track of rolling stock, and NOT for detection, because it would require readers at the beginning and end of EVERY block, which means MANY readers. And, it still would only read instrumented rolling stock.
Overall, the barcode scanner would be best, because adding a barcode is as simple as pasting it to the car.....since none of these fantasies are currently practical, we need something new and/or different, IMHO.
Come up with some ideas, and maybe we can make something practical that's affordable and not too complex.
In all these discussions, I've been remiss in pointing out one other major advantage with my system:
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ACTUAL ELECTRICAL BLOCKS. IT REQUIRES NO GAPS BE CUT IN ANY TRACK.
So, with a DCC system, the only actual electrical blocks required would be for reversing loop segments.
I know what you want, but the design goals were for a system were simplicity and low cost. The only real way to allow for what you want would be a complex system that transferred packets using some protocol with error correction and verifications along a common buss of some sort used to link the various entry points, which also would require some semi-complex configuration to define how it all goes together. Configuring and troubleshooting such an installation would be completely beyond the capabilities of just about all modelers, in both capability and equipment required.
Configuring and troubleshooting such an installation would be completely beyond the capabilities of just about all modelers, in both capability and equipment required.
Infinite just means many. The point is the existing systems allow for the situation I have described, a single block with many routes in or out. Since they have been in existence for decades in many different versions, and used by hundreds of people with signal systems, I can't help but think that that can't be beyond the capabilites of all modelers since virtually all modelers who have signal systems have blocks with multiple routes in or out of the block. I would think for your proposal to be useful to a broader audience it would have to replicate that type of capability.
I know I can make a block with multiple routes in to the block work, its really simple if you use a system other than yours.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
crusader27529This system works that way, but for only 3 inputs
What if you added a multiplexing device to your system that could combine the signals from multiple detectors and forward them to one pin on the counter? Design it so you could build trees of them as required.
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.
crusader27529Your proposal sound wonderful, but when you come back down to reality, no system is capable of handling an infinite number of entry points.
Actually, existing current-detection systems do that just fine, no computer. Don't they? A few cents per car for a resistor-equipped wheelset.
Edit: Plus, no visible detectors sticking up all over the layout -- which would be the biggest non-starter for many with your proposal.
dehusman It seems to me that the key to making this work is to have a "total" for each block and all the detectors on the inbound side add to that total and all the detectors on the outbound side subtract from the total. No matter how many inputs there are. On block 4 there are 4 detectors on entrances to the blocks so the total in the block is the sum of all the input detectors, regardless of which one was the input, less the outbound on which ever detector measured outbound flow. If you did that then there would be no need to split the block. If I had the end of a 6 track staging yard that fed into a single main that fed into a yard with a main, siding and switch lead, I would have 6 detectors on one end and 3 detectors on the other. The combinations of which route inbound and which routes outbound are immaterial. If the sum of any of the inbound routes less the sum of all the outbound routes is not zero, then the block is occupied. The problem that it has opportunities for failure issues if the train car count changes (whether its and increase or decrease) is still a concern. If the system would accomodate an "infinite" number of exit and entrance points on a single block, then the way to fix the set out/pick up problem is that you put a detector at every switch into the block, then the totals will always be right (assuming a high degree of detection reliability). With that many detectors, how to hide them may be an issue.
It seems to me that the key to making this work is to have a "total" for each block and all the detectors on the inbound side add to that total and all the detectors on the outbound side subtract from the total. No matter how many inputs there are.
On block 4 there are 4 detectors on entrances to the blocks so the total in the block is the sum of all the input detectors, regardless of which one was the input, less the outbound on which ever detector measured outbound flow. If you did that then there would be no need to split the block. If I had the end of a 6 track staging yard that fed into a single main that fed into a yard with a main, siding and switch lead, I would have 6 detectors on one end and 3 detectors on the other. The combinations of which route inbound and which routes outbound are immaterial. If the sum of any of the inbound routes less the sum of all the outbound routes is not zero, then the block is occupied.
The problem that it has opportunities for failure issues if the train car count changes (whether its and increase or decrease) is still a concern.
If the system would accomodate an "infinite" number of exit and entrance points on a single block, then the way to fix the set out/pick up problem is that you put a detector at every switch into the block, then the totals will always be right (assuming a high degree of detection reliability).
With that many detectors, how to hide them may be an issue.
This system works that way, but for only 3 inputs, limited by the number of pins available, and the requirement for absolute communications reliability.....that's the reason for the 3 pins for each detector communications link. Anything less would not be reliable.
My system is designed the way it is specifically to remove the computer from the installation....the fact that the Arduino is used to implement the internal logic is immaterial. Logically, the computer is invisible.
Your proposal sound wonderful, but when you come back down to reality, no system is capable of handling an infinite number of entry points.
I know what you want, but the design goals were for a system were simplicity and low cost. The only real way to allow for what you want would be a complex system that transferred packets using some protocol with error correction and verifications along a common buss of some sort used to link the various entry points, which also would require some semi-complex configuration to define how it all goes together.
But I'm sure that you're up to it....please keep us updated on you progress.
Just a little insight on how prototype signaling fits into this. Generally, manual turnouts in CTC controlled blocks put the block into apsolute stop at both ends when thrown to the diverging route.
So a local freight switching a siding on the main locks out other traffic simply by throwing the turnout, even if he leaves the mainline completely. Or, in the case of our models, leaves undetected cars on the main.
That is how my few mainline industries are set up. So the block stays red no matter where the caboose and loco are. They are either on the main, making it red, or the turnout is not set to the main, making it red. Or, the whole train is in the siding and the dispatcher requests they clear the main for other traffic.
As long as your outputs are all open collectoor, you can do a simple wired-OR. Otherwise you need to add an additional logic layer.
As valiant an effort this is to build a system that works with no modifactions to the rolling stock, it is FAR easier to do it the prototype way and just detect that there is something in the block, ANYWHERE in the block, instead of counting objects entering and comparing it to the count of objects leaving. There is a place for this, but it's just not going to be suitable for more complex track arrangements. A combination system may enable complete trains of unmodified rolling stock to otherwise be detected , but for mainline trains, doing what Sheldon does and just have the engine and caboose detected is sufficient. For switching moves this may not work in the current sense system because there are plenty of photos to prove that there are many times when you might have the caboose ahead of the engine and 3 cars trailing behind, or the order being engine-caboose-rest of train.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
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.
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).
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?
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.....
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.
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 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 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.
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.
Rich
Alton Junction
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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.
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?
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.
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.