 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / April 2005Model Railway control Systems
hi, I'm wondering what people would think about a model railway system which controled trains like on out british standard gauge railways. What kind of features would you want to assist the simulation (fail-safe etc)? Thanks all > hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks all Um, er, ah, well, look around you, and see what people are actually doing to simulate actual operation. It can be very realistic, depending mostly on the amount of money and time available to the modeller. Digital Command Control (DCC) can do pretty well everything, except perhaps the "dead man's switch" on the locomotive. There are even commercial signal-turnout interlocking and automatic train-control systems available (some are non-DCC, actually.) Or are you thinking of a computer controlled system? If so, google on "computer software model railroad" and see what is out there. Software for controlling layouts through a computer-DCC interface is quite well advanced, to judge from some comments I've heard. Fully automated model train control systems that simulate all actual train movements, signalling, route-control etc, have been around for a long time. In the olden golden days, they required loads of relays, which were widely available after WW2 as war-surplus, and then again in the 70s and 80s as telephone companies converted from electromechanical to solid-state switching systems. I've found such layouts fun to watch for 15 minutes or so - then I want to get my hands on a controller. :-) >> hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Thanks all >Um, er, ah, well, look around you, and see what people are actually >doing to simulate actual operation. It can be very realistic, depending >mostly on the amount of money and time available to the modeller. >Digital Command Control (DCC) can do pretty well everything, except >perhaps the "dead man's switch" on the locomotive. There are even >commercial signal-turnout interlocking and automatic train-control >systems available (some are non-DCC, actually.) I think there are ways to implement dead-man controls with DCC, and perhaps even simulate vigilance controls such as what RailCorp has fitted to all our Sydney suburban trains in the blind belief that it solves all the problems of trains going out of control when a driver becomes incapacitated... 8-) I don't think the hardware side would be too tricky - it just comes down to designing and positioning of appropriate switches and actuators for them. The software side might be a bit trickier since there needs to be a way to first of all interface a pushbutton of some sort then a way to integrate that with the command station firmware to shut down a train if the button is released when the train's 'master controller' is not in the 'off' position. Vigilance would be similar, and be a lot more of a software approach since it involves timers, etc. DCC throttles could easily be designed with one or two extra buttons - one for a deadman feature that needs to be held in at all times otherwise the train being controlled will stop, and the other for vigilance when needs to pressed within a predetermined time period or the train will be stopped. The deadman switch would need to be something easy to depress but set up in such a way that the simple action of releasing the handgrip around a handheld throttle drops out the switch. the VC switch can be a small pushbutton somewhere. Regards, Craig.  SignatureCraig Dewick - Professional Train Manager (RailCorp) + HO Scale Rail Modeller http://www.railzone.org -- Check out the RailZone Online Forums! Send email to craigd@lios.apana.org.au -- RailCorp Train Crew Council: http://www.rctcc.org Oz Rail Safety List: http://lios.apana.org.au/mailman/listinfo/aus_rail_safety > I think there are ways to implement dead-man controls with DCC, > and perhaps even simulate vigilance controls such as what [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > handgrip around a handheld throttle drops out the switch. the VC > switch can be a small pushbutton somewhere. Now let's imagine how this might work in practice. I've got a Digitrax 400 type controller which has throttle knobs for two locos but can actually run many more simutaneously by dialing one up, setting the speed, then dialing up another loco on the same knob. SO, two throttle knobs, 10 function buttons for all those nifty sound effects, and now we add 2 deadman buttons...looks like I'll have to grow some extra digits or hire a former accordion player to run my trains! <grin> Methinks our quest for realism can easily get out of control (no pun intended). Signature=========================================================== Norman Morgan <> http://www.norm-morgan.com =========================================================== Sometimes I wake up grumpy. Other times I let her sleep. =========================================================== >> The deadman switch would need to be something easy to depress >> but set up in such a way that the simple action of releasing the >> handgrip around a handheld throttle drops out the switch. the VC >> switch can be a small pushbutton somewhere. > SO, two throttle knobs, 10 function buttons for all those > nifty sound effects, and now we add 2 deadman buttons...looks like > I'll have to grow some extra digits or hire a former accordion > player to run my trains! <grin> Methinks our quest for realism > can easily get out of control (no pun intended). Well i've seen pictures of one 'nut's layout where he obtained the entire cab assembly off a real locomotive, complete with control stands and wired that up to the layout. Obviously the thing to do is not modify you existing hand held throttles - but to do it properly. Get the entire control desk from a modern locomotive with all it's usual controls including the vigo, and wire them up to your layout controls. You will need an entire computer to interpret the signals from the control desk and convert to your desired layout control system (DC blocks or DCC doesn't matter), so you can implement all sorts of simulation features in that interface computer. Get it to drive actuators to shake the cab - give realistic vibration and shocks to the operator. Drive a multichannel sound system to make the right engine noises. Put large displays up in 'windows' and feed in a live camera feed from the model down on the layout.... Heck, go the whole way and buy a million dollar train simulator, or probably the best, just sign up and drive the real things :-) > Heck, go the whole way and buy a million dollar train simulator, or > probably the best, just sign up and drive the real things :-) LOL! An interesting suggestion, Matthew. I suspect that many modellers would quickly lose their interest if they had to run trains for a living! All the best, Mark. >> Heck, go the whole way and buy a million dollar train simulator, or >> probably the best, just sign up and drive the real things :-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mark. Good point. I've known VERY few 'real' railroaders that model railroads (a FEW, but not many). I HAVE known several model railroaders that became 'real' railroaders, largely because of their interest in trains. NONE of these are still active model railroaders, though a few continue the interest via railfan photography, etc. From this admittedly small sample I conclude, with reservations, that being a 'real' railroader often kills the desire to model trains. I think this is similar to the several persons I have known that decided to start a 'basement' hobby shop. Their idea was to make their work their hobby, and PLAY all the time. What really happened was that they made their hobby their WORK, and had to WORK all the time. After a few years all either gave up the business and went back to the hobby, or dropped BOTH, and are now doing something altogether different. It's another way to kill a good thing. Most of us, IMHO, are model railroaders to escape from other facets of our existence. A change of 'scenery' is often good. Too much of anything is seldom good. Dan Mitchell ============ <snipped for space> > Most of us, IMHO, are model railroaders to escape from other facets of our > existence. A change of 'scenery' is often good. Too much of anything is > seldom good. I agree, this working for a living is a royal pain {;^) Brian ><snipped for space> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Brian I think it may have been J H Ahern of Madder Valley fame who was said to have resolved the conflict between work and modelling by giving up work - Now why didn't I think of that! Mike > I think it may have been J H Ahern of Madder Valley fame who was said > to have resolved the conflict between work and modelling by giving up > work - Now why didn't I think of that! LOL! I would do that if it weren't for the fact that I tend to get bored easily, and then life becomes more expensive. Brian >> C. Dewick <craigd@lios.apana.org.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Heck, go the whole way and buy a million dollar train simulator, or > probably the best, just sign up and drive the real things :-) It's easier (and cheaper) to get MSTS or BVE. You can even drive virtual trams along Blackpool Prom! SignatureMartin S. >Now let's imagine how this might work in practice. I've got a >Digitrax 400 type controller which has throttle knobs for two >locos but can actually run many more simutaneously by dialing one >up, setting the speed, then dialing up another loco on the same >knob. SO, two throttle knobs, ..... Methinks if you are trying to control multiple locos independently in this way, you're not actually driving any one of them :-) ========================================================== John Dennis jdennis@optusnet.com.au Melbourne,Australia Home of the HOn30 Dutton Bay Tramway and the Australian Narrow Gauge Web-Exhibition Gallery Dutton Bay URL: http://members.optusnet.com.au/duttonbay WebX http://members.optusnet.com.au/jdennis/ng_webex.html >>Now let's imagine how this might work in practice. I've got a >>Digitrax 400 type controller which has throttle knobs for two [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Methinks if you are trying to control multiple locos independently in > this way, you're not actually driving any one of them :-) He's just running several units in MU mode. The lead unit controls all the rest. Not common in UK or Europe, I know, but S.O.P over here. >>>Now let's imagine how this might work in practice. I've got a >>>Digitrax 400 type controller which has throttle knobs for two [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >He's just running several units in MU mode. The lead unit controls all >the rest. Not common in UK or Europe, I know, but S.O.P over here. Ummm, I don't think so. It seems to me that he described several locos operating independently, selected, put in motion and left to run, while another was selected and treated in the same manner. Not a good way to operate your models, unless you can multitask at warp speed. >>>>Now let's imagine how this might work in practice. I've got a >>>>Digitrax 400 type controller which has throttle knobs for two [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Not a good way to operate your models, unless you can multitask at warp speed. The context is Norman's remark was "consist", I believe, which means two or more locos run as a unit. But you may be right. Maybe he meant running two or more trains on independent routes. Hey, Norman, what were you thinking? >Maybe he meant running two or more trains on independent routes.< By describing what the DT400 was doing he meant lots of engines, and not MU'ing. This works just fine on a large layout that you can have loops of track on. Assuming no derailments you could have a couple of passenger trains running while you were doing switching with other trains. If you really got into trouble there is emergency stop for all trains! >>>>>Now let's imagine how this might work in practice. I've got >>>>>a Digitrax 400 type controller which has throttle knobs for [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Maybe he meant running two or more trains on independent routes. > Hey, Norman, what were you thinking? I guess I'll have to resort to a new pair of HTML tags when I post something like that: <wisecrack>......</wisecrack> I was actually referring to the ability to run multiple, independent trains from such a controller to point out the silliness of simulating a deadman switch. Signature=========================================================== Norman Morgan <> http://www.norm-morgan.com =========================================================== Sometimes I wake up grumpy. Other times I let her sleep. =========================================================== > Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in >[....] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > independent trains from such a controller to point out the > silliness of simulating a deadman switch. Ah, yes, when we don't have tone of voice and facial expression, subtle jokes are hard to recognise. How about (hah!) ? >>>>Now let's imagine how this might work in practice. I've got a >>>>Digitrax 400 type controller which has throttle knobs for two [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Not a good way to operate your models, unless you can multitask > at warp speed. And in case no one noticed, that bulge in my cheek was caused by pressure from my tongue. =========================================================== Norman Morgan <> http://www.norm-morgan.com =========================================================== Sometimes I wake up grumpy. Other times I let her sleep. =========================================================== Actually my new layout is designed to run a train or two that's not attended by the operator. It's in an area where there won't be other operators so I have a passenger train running in the background while freights are also running. I have a panic button if things go wrong. Even in my setup 4 would be an absolute maximum. > > hi, > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > commercial signal-turnout interlocking and automatic train-control > systems available (some are non-DCC, actually.) What DCC does poorly, without endless supplies of money, is operate a model railway. The whole intent of DCC is to link one controller to one locomotive so that it, and every locomotive on a layout, can be driven individually. > Or are you thinking of a computer controlled system? If so, google on > "computer software model railroad" and see what is out there. Software [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to solid-state switching systems. I've found such layouts fun to watch > for 15 minutes or so - then I want to get my hands on a controller. :-) Suitable new TTL drivable relays are available in the UK at 78p each. What you continually overlook with your "haha" joke is that automation can operate those parts of a layout that you can't, while you drive 'your' train, thereby simulating real railway operation whenever you want to. [...] >>Digital Command Control (DCC) can do pretty well everything, except >>perhaps the "dead man's switch" on the locomotive. There are even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The whole intent of DCC is to link one controller to one locomotive so that > it, and every locomotive on a layout, can be driven individually. Yeah, and that's _fun_. OTOH, DCC control modules for turnouts, signals, etc are available, and interlocking is apparently a breeze. Since each module controls 4, 8, 16, or 32 devices, the overall cost/device isn't that bad. I've not done it myself, but an acquaintnace a hour's drive away had his layout set up that way, and it worked very nicely. He also used a computer as a dispatcher to control the signals, turnouts, and control blocks. >>Or are you thinking of a computer controlled system? If so, google on >>"computer software model railroad" and see what is out there. Software [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Suitable new TTL drivable relays are available in the UK at 78p each. Um, lessee, that's about $2 Can. Not exactly cheap, but cheap compared to the 50s/60s when relays cost about 50 cents-$1 (or about $10 in today's money.) I think one would consider the cost/device, not individual component prices, though. Then DCC, while it might still cost more, might not be as out of reach as you appear to imply. I know that in the UK everything electronic costs ourrageously much - a GBP buys about as much as a Can$, which means you pay about twice as much as we do. The side effect of having a currency that other people use for stashing their loot, I suppose. (The Swiss have the same problem, to judge from some comments from my cousin's daughter, who works in Zurich.) > What you continually ????? > overlook with your "haha" joke is that automation can > operate those parts of a layout that you can't, while you drive 'your' > train, thereby simulating real railway operation whenever you want to. Hey, it wasn't a joke. It was just my preference - I prefer operating to watching trains, is all. I use smileys as just that: "smiles" - friendly-like, y'know. I agree that if you want to run, for example, a major modern junction w/ all sorts of trains running through it on very short headways, then automating large parts of it would be necessary. If you want to do that all on your lonesome, there's no other way. If you want to do it with your mates, it will make it smoother for everybody. I think that it would be hard to operate such a layout without interlocked signals/power sections/turnouts, whether automated or controlled by a dispatcher. What I was referring to are those fully automated layouts where everything runs without human intervention. OK for tech museums, where people stand and watch for a few minutes, but o'wise major boredom. Dispatcher: person who controls train movements by means of controling signals, turnouts etc, from a central location, and issuing operating instructions ("train orders") to train crews. His word is law. On lightly travelled lines, ATC performs many of the functions of a dispatcher, but all "districts" are under the control and supervision of a dispatcher. In N. America, model railroaders will "model" the dispatcher's job, too. Some people even build a dispatcher's console in another room. > [...] > >>Digital Command Control (DCC) can do pretty well everything, except [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yeah, and that's _fun_. Just how many locos can you operate at once when you're alone on an evening ? > OTOH, DCC control modules for turnouts, signals, etc are available, and > interlocking is apparently a breeze. Since each module controls 4, 8, > 16, or 32 devices, the overall cost/device isn't that bad. I've not done > it myself, but an acquaintnace a hour's drive away had his layout set up > that way, and it worked very nicely. He also used a computer as a > dispatcher to control the signals, turnouts, and control blocks. I do all that _without_ DCC. The point being that that much can be done with or without the extra cost of DCC. > >>Or are you thinking of a computer controlled system? If so, google on > >>"computer software model railroad" and see what is out there. Software [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > would be hard to operate such a layout without interlocked signals/power > sections/turnouts, whether automated or controlled by a dispatcher. My layout can be operated either with mates or without. I can wander through to the layout and operate for half an hour anytime, not just during monthly (or whatever) meetings. Some of my friends would be around at a moment's notice for a spell of operating, but my wife gets grumpy when too many "train freaks" are around at meal times! :-) > What I was referring to are those fully automated layouts where > everything runs without human intervention. OK for tech museums, where > people stand and watch for a few minutes, but o'wise major boredom. Agreed. That's just like watching the real thing ... > Dispatcher: person who controls train movements by means of controling > signals, turnouts etc, from a central location, and issuing operating [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dispatcher's job, too. Some people even build a dispatcher's console in > another room. Sure, but if you set up a control system where you _must_ have people in specific roles then you limit operation to those times when you have sufficient manpower. I just have the computer "step in" to take over the vacant role. Whether I was to use DCC or analogue is irrelevant, except for the additional costs of DCC. Regards, Greg.P. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.