There are levels of "improvement" - in some ways, emplying a little technology to make routing a train through a complex set of turnouts as simple as pressing a button or two to indicate where the train is coming from and where you would like it to go to is a lot easier to operate than individually controlling each turnout. But then going to the next degree and replacing the simply pushbuttons with a touch screen so you just trace your finger over the path? Not so much better for a large expense.
I am not anti-technology, nor do I want excess technology just because it's flashy and new - DCC makes things work better for me. Touch screen full color throttles on said DCC system do nothing for me, and detract from the experience for me.
There's nothing wrong with relay logic, if you have a handty supply of relays ready to go. But the same thought process that you use to figure out that for event A to happen, you need condition X and condition Y or condition Z (to figure out which relay contacts to link together) IS the programming language to implement using a microcontroller. Or if implenting it with digital logic gates the wording is almost exactly the line of code to implement the same thing in programming logic. This disconnect between hardware and software has always puzzled me, maybe I should have gone into psychology and studied this because it's very hard for me to get this - to me it's exactly the same thing.
I can understnad an anti-PCB sentiment - until fairly recently, you either had to mess with a bunch of nasty chemicals to DIY, or else pay a fortune. Now however - there's really no reason NOT to get a PCB for somethign you need multiples of, especially if making dozens of the same thing. It's too cheap. And when making many of the same thing, the reliability vs hard wiring each and every one goes way up using a PCB. It's not technology for the sake of technology - it's technology that offers very tangible benefits.
I have no problem with a simple toggle switch to control a crossover. I've done it plenty of times. The initial problem statement though, sounded a bit more complex, making the simple toggle approach not the easiest to use or implement. As it turns out, this is not the case, a toggle switch works just fine.
I'm not even anti-relay. I've never had a problem, even with multiple sound locos, using the relay-based PM42 as my DCC power protection. Others say putting even one sound loco in a section, the PM42 will not recover from a short, blaming, usually, the "slow" relays and lack on "intelligent" inrush sensing as touted by makers of other circuit breaker devices. I'm also of the mind to use a relay controlled by switch machine contacts to change the polarity for simple reverse loops - resolve the issue BEFORE a short happens instead of waiting for a fault (short) and then correcting it. If you don't have to, why cause a deliberate fault?
Even my servo controllers use a relay to provide frog power switching. Why not? I could take a whole lot more board space and use solid state switching, and maybe not spend more money than the relay, transistor, resistor, and flyback diode cost, although making the PCB larger would up the cost. For what gain? The turnout has to be lined one way or the other before the train can proceed, so any 'slowness' in how fast the relay contacts move is irrelevant. If you use a Tortoise - the switching time of the contacts is in seconds, not milliseconds, and that's fine, so what's the big deal?
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Randy,
I agree completely.
I had circuit boards made, complete, ready to go, for my primary cab control circuit. It is a board with eight relay sockets, terminals and all the relay jumpers obviously on the board.
The same relays I use for everything else just plug right in. In the pictures I have posted of relay panels you can see the cluster of eight relays.
In my many years as a commercial/industrial electrician, designer, project manager, I never found screw terminals on relay bases to be unreliable or problematic, in way worse environments than under my layout.
As I said, I buy relatively expensive inductive detectors from Dallee, and it does not bother me that they will not detect every car, I have no motivation to put resistor wheel sets on 1200 pieces of rolling stock.
Caboose have lights, so do passenger cars, especially the ones commonly at the end of the train.
Yes, I wire some stuff with larger gauge wire than I need because it suits the screw terminal/Sta-Kon method, well proven in industry.
My CAT5 cables are obviously soldered to my LED pushbuttons, easy to build on the work bench.
Most of my wiring is built on the workbench and installed with minimal connections to be done under the layout.
I use a power wiring scheme that gives me free automatic train control, I should post a diagram. But it requires track power switching based on turnout position, by the same relays that position the turnout and provide the interlocking signal logic. So I need my heavy wire and 5 amp contacts there anyway.
Without trying to explain it here, just consider this, until a route is clear, and the block on either side of a CTC interlocking is assigned to the same cab, there is no power path thru the interlocking.
So, if you run a red signal at an interlocking, you train just stops.
See, I am about the easy to understand user interface, on that I think we are of like mind.
Take care,
Sheldon
and sometimes the solution is determined by what is in the junk box
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc and sometimes the solution is determined by what is in the junk box
Agreed there as well. As long as my OCD perfectionism is not too offended.
ATLANTIC CENTRALgregc and sometimes the solution is determined by what is in the junk box Agreed there as well. As long as my OCD perfectionism is not too offended.
mother of invention