i’m very familiar with C/MRI and the benefits using I/O nodes and rs-485 communication to control a layout and minimize wiring.
but how many dispatcher panels, requiring even partial block detection and partial turnout control throughout the layout are directly wired?
by large I’m suggesting 40x25
i assume 4 pair (cat something) cables saves ones sanity
For layouts that are of more recent construction, since all that sort of technology became readily available and inexpsenvie? I’d say not many would have hundreds of wires all going back to a central point. For a layout that’s been around 50 years - unless all rewired at some point, there’s a good chance that it is all centralized.There are probably still clubs that run most of their trains from fixed engineer cab stations overlooking the whole layout. But I would also think such things are becoming more and more rare.
–Randy
i’m helping with a layout and the owner doesn’t want computer control (and i’m not sure it’s needed)
i’d really like to here from modelers who have a dispatcher panel and don’t use computer control.
Does that include a self contained microcontroller like an Arduino? Because it’s not terribly difficult to put an Arduino in the panel and connect to others in the field with RS485 or similar. No Windows or Linux PC of any sort in sight. I have to find the link again, I posted it in one of my other threads, but the details are there for making a full CTC panel and controlling remote signal and detection units and it is entirely based on microcontrollers, no PC.
–Randy
i think the majority of modelers are not tech savy (probably don’t need it) and I don’t blame them for not using tech that they don’t understand and can’t maintain themselves.
i’ll also guess that larger layouts without such tech, don’t have dispatcher’s with CTC-ish panels, but i’m hoping someone will prove me wrong
The Pacific Southern Railway is very sophisticated with over 20 nodes having as many as 32 I/O bits. But of the 100+ members, I believe there are at most 5 that can understand the hardware and/or software and I think this is representative of the typical modeler population.
OK, well I don’t have one built right now, and I use DC, but I’m going to build another hard wired dispatchers panel for my new layout.
It depends a lot on the desired goals, and there is plenty of info in older issues of MR.
CAT5 is my control cable of choice, 4 twisted pairs.
It only takes two wires per “route” to control and indicate turnout positions.
It only takes two wires per signal block to clear signals for trains to proceed with DCC control.
It only takes five wires per every other signal block for me to assign and clear routes with four DC throttles.
It only takes one wire (and a common) per block to indicate occupancy.
All of this assumes the presence of the control power feed and common.
The relay control logic boards for turnouts, cab selection and signaling are decentralized, being located near the signal block or interlocking in question.
Only the necessary dispatcher panel control wires go to the dispatcher panel.
So count the number of signal blocks, count the number of turnouts, that will give you a fair idea of the number of wires.
So, my new layout:
24 primary blocks
24 X section blocks (interlockings)
60 turnout routes (about 100 turnouts)
So that means about 300 wires comming into the dispatchers panel, or about 40 CAT5 cables. The panel will be about 10 feet long and 18" tall, so the entry of cable into the panel area can be spread out based on location on the “map”.
The layout will fill most of an L shaped room 38’ x 43’ at its longest dimensions, about 1400 sq ft total.
But here are
About a decade ago, I designed and installed a version of my radio throttle advanced cab control system on the layout of a friend.
Here are some photos of the control panels and the relay panels:
This layout uses ground thrown turnouts, and does not have signals, but uses Aristo wireless radio throttles for walk around advanced cab control.
Cabs are assigned to blocks with the pushbuttons shown on the panels. Other blocks are powered or killed, automaticly based on turnout postion.
Operators do not have to go back and “turn off” anything, there are redundant controls as you progress around the layout.
Sheldon
The KRISTENVILLE AND MICHELLEVILLE Railroad.
When I see things like that, it makes me so happy I created the STRATTON AND GILLETTE long before I met my wife.
It could have become the KEVINHUBBY AND CUTEYWIFE.
She still expects me to number all the freight cars with numbers that are significant to our family/relationship history.
If I number something like “6379” she will ask me why that number was chosen. The answer always is “because the number jumble on the decal sheet let me do it with only two decal pieces”, but I need to come up with something like "The first used car I bought after I met you was a 63 Mercury Breezeway that we bought on the seventh and kissed in it nine times the first week we owned it.
Then she is happy.
-Kevin
I have not seen a lyout like this since I went to college in Nashville in 1985.
Every layout I have visited since then larger than 50 square feet has had hand held throttles.
-Kevin
any chance you have a photo or can provide a description of you dispatcher panel?
The railroad is named for his two daughters. Unfortunately he passed away a few years ago, but the family has preserved the layout. His name was Alan Anderson, he was a craftsman of the highest order. The structures and scenery are of the highest order, equal to Howard Zane, better than George Sellios in my view.
The layout was featured on the layout tours during the 2006 NMRA convention in Phily. I was part of the layout hosting team.
More later, off to work.
Sheldon
Unfortunately no pictures, I was never good at remembering to do that years ago.
But description, sure.
Much like a CTC machine, linear track diagram of the layout, actually two linear track diagrams. Upper one for visable mainline, lower one for hidden staging.
Located in the diagram, red LED lighted pushbuttons control turnouts. Example, a simple crossover on double track would have three buttons. One on each straight thru route, one for the crossover. The LED’s indicate the selected route.
Side note about route control, with two crossovers, left and right, in the same interlocking, only one would be allowed to “crossover” at a time, the other would automatically return to straight thru. No illogical routes are allowed by the controls.
White LED’s, in the track diagram indicate detection.
The next part relates to my cab control system. The blocks between interlockings are called primary blocks. Also located in the diagram, for each primary block, are four more lighted pushbuttons, and a reset button.
These buttons assign one of four radio throttles to that primary block. Pushing one button, releases any previously selected throttle, pushing reset disconnects the block from all throttles.
The interlocking territory is called an X section block. It gets its power from the adjacent primary blocks based on the route selected, so there are no cab section buttons for this tr
Like mentionned by some, before, I’m not sure about the full necessity to have a computer control.
Second, as a remark, lot of us didn’t know a lot about the use and the making of of Arduino, CMRI and other soft stuff able to control and run a layout.
Anyway I’m sure these soft are great and help a lot to control a big layout, unfortunately for me, I don’t know a lot about them, like other soft, they need a quiet long learning curve, time I prefer to use on other aspect of my layout construction.
But even in 2020 we don’t need a computirized layout to run it.
Because of the extension of my layout and my poor ( to not say very poor) knowledge of these softs, I go to the old way.
But some modern electronic features will be used to control the layout but in a way I’m able to control them, maintain them and understand them.
My basic design is a walk around line with local switching because of industry or small towns.
All the mainline turnouts are controled with stall motors by Hankscraft display motors, local are manual but probably will be motorized in the future.
I will use main line divided in block occupancy and a signal control;meaning the signal , like the real thing permit to run your train on the next block or not.
The conductor of a train need to check the aspect of the signals along the track he is using.
This mean a central control panel which has action on all the mainline turnouts and signal and this way all local are locked, block occupancy detector will repeat on this panel if the track is free or not and also the position of signals.
All the local industry and local switching will have their own panel and control, but these panel will need to be unlocked if they need to run on the main; this is done following the signal aspect by the operators.
Like a friend layout any conductor need to control the signals on the tr
it’s not a question about computer control, but communication and wiring. i’m wondering about logistics and practicality.
the layout is triple deck in two joined basements.
the dispatch panel will have ~250 connections between toggles and LEDs on the panels, and block detectors, Tortoise machine motors and contacts and signals.
C/MRI nodes could reduce the connections between the dispatcher panels and layout to a single pair of wires. Each node on the layout could provide 16, 32, … I/O points. But one or more nodes supporting the dispatcher panels would need to provide the ~250 connections to the panels which still seems daunting and node software is still required
replacing analog dispatch panels with computer graphics displays and mouse clicks would eliminate dispatcher panels and wiring but requires software. I guess this is computer control, but it’s simply replacing toggle switches and LEDs
JMRI is an option. not sure if JMRI supports interlocks and signaling.
yes. I’m wondering how practical a non-software approach is on such a layout
placing analog dispatch panels with computer graphics displays and mouse clicks would eliminate dispatcher panels and wiring but requires software. I guess this is computer control, but it’s simply replacing toggle switches and LEDs
I can only agree with you Greg, if i had the knowledge to do it sure I will use it
The miles of wire and the number of them can give you gray hairs quickly and ask a lot of time to be put together.
I’m a ferm believer of the KIS method and for sure without any comment possible, wiring is an absolute KIS necessity, and course, JMRI or alike are for sure a enormous step foward.
But
Greg,
16-17 years ago, when planning my previous layout, I considered DCC and I considered solid state/software solutions to all these issues. And I considered DC computerized block control.
If we assume basic knowledge but not “experienced” with either approach, my feeling is software solutions have a higher learning curve.
17 years ago we did not have some of the software related products of today. We did have Bruce Chubb’s work.
But we also had the work he did with relays in the 60’s and 70’s. My system is partly based on that, and on work done by Ed Ravenscroft and Paul Mallory. Search them up in the archive.
For me, total time, effort and cost did not seem like it would be much different, just a different set of tasks.
Also, once I rejected DCC, software based solutions for signaling lost a lot of their advantage.
Signaling requires blocks, DC requires blocks, my walk around radio cab control requires power level switching. Software or solid state signal solutions had no real advantage at that point.
I actually have features that would be complex and expensive to implement with DCC, but they are largely a free benefit of what I have done.
I rejected DCC for the following reasons: no interest in onboard sound, poor ergonomics of most throttles, limited selection of wireless systems at that time, existing fleet of 100 locos without decoders, and lastly cost/decoder install time vs added added features.
Control panels… I dislike computer screens for that sort of thing. That too is a big factor in which way is better. If the user is ok with computer screens, software does have at least some sort of savings/edge.
Even with computer screen interfaces, you still have the same output connections, turnouts, signals etc.
This is why I said before, it depends a lot on the goals of the operator. It sounds like Marc is doing something very similar to me signal wise…
More later,
<
my neighbor growing up was a mechanical engineer from England. On a visit from England his mom, knowing I was interested in engineering, said she told her sons to be mechanical engineers because you can see the workings of the machine, unlike electrical and software.
compared to software, electrical circuitry so much more visible with lamps, meters and scopes than software.
but with software, you can completely change your approach and simply reprogram the device. After getting basic control and display in place, you can add functionality (e.g. interlocks, signaling, fleeting) without changing any hardware.
while I think software keeps it simple, it’s relative. I’m trying to work within the knowledge of the owner of the layout. So i’m interested in understanding all the options
Greg, I will agree about the versatility of software. However, I personally am not comfortable with the “design while you build” approach.
Building a large model railroad is a project that requires focus and dedication, and figuring it out as you go may work for some people, but I don’t see it as the best approach any more than I would restore a house for one of my clients that way.
Sure, not every question needs to be answered in advance, but the goals and basic platform of methods should be.
If you know what you want, it seems more straight forward to just plan it and build it, no matter the exact tech chosen.
And while software lets you change stuff, to add real world stuff you still often have to add output hardware.
The system I developed is based primarily on MLZ control by Ed Ravenscroft, with the addition of wireless radio throttles and using a theory of pushbutton cab selection proposed by Paul Mallery.
Paul, I hope your watching from above, I demonstrated that your idea of a pushbutton walk around cab selection system works, and works well… Even the DCC guys in our local round Robin understood it and liked it.
There are any number of ways to get the job done, the first thing is to define the goals.
What does the owner want the panel to do? What info and functions are important?
How close to actual CTC does he want, or can it be highly simplified?
How does he feel about a big CTC like panel vs computer screens?
Does he want or need local controls as well?
I assume we are talking DCC.
All of these things will influence the best choice.
With some goals defined, I could and would make some more concrete suggestions.
Sheldon
your talking about the layout and trackwork, not the electrical stuff, right?
yes, but it’s just another one of what you’ve already used.
see where trains are, see turnout positions and control turnouts. The dispatcher is the interlock.
None of which requires a computer to control, but a graphic computer screen and mouse would save a lot of work wiring and allow easy corrections, exceptions and enhancements.
plans on using latching relays and momentary toggles on both the dispatch and local panel
and just to be clear, i’m not against hardware. i’m in favor of using hardware for what it does best and software for what it does best to minimize the amount of both.
No, I’m not comfortable with designing the control system after the fact, or while building either. Sure, there may be minor adjustments as you go along, that is different from not having a plan in the first place. Or even going back and filling in missing features? With signaling or DC, track needs gaps, I would rather install them while laying track, not later.
Agreed, it is more of the same, just like all my relay circuits are adaptations of the same basic circuits.
Well that is really simple, with no actual prototype CTC functions, l can’t see any reason to get too high tech, unless he likes the computer screen thing. What about signals? They need not be shown on the board, they where not shown on prototype CTC machines back in the day. But will there be signals?
Rather than latching relays, why not push buttons and lights. It is a much better approach for controlling the same turnout from multiple locations. If you use monetary toggles, you still need lights. Lights can be in the push buttons, that’s what I do. It simplifies the hardware and the panel design. Push buttons don’t require latching relays, holding circuit works just as well.
I agree, as I explained, I considered full blown computerized block control, and various other software based and/or more solid state based methods. Because I rejected the computer screen approach, I saw no reason to convert inputs into solid state or digital logic, just to convert them back at the other end.
Sheldon