Tehachapi, BC

[MichaelWinicki]

I like Bob's solution too.

For me, anytime you have to take your eye off your train, back up from the fascia in order to have to read the schematic and then flip a switch, then you lose something.

Gary, I'm not sure why the need for the schematic there.  I mean it's a passing siding, one toggle is near one switch, the other toggle near the other.

[mark dance]

One thing that I find operators like is to have tracks labeled.  The more labeling the better as long as it doesn't contradict other labeling   And preferably all labeling in one place directly in front of the scene they are looking at so they don't need to look around.

Now as a designer I prefer simplistic and clean looking fascia and valances so our objectives are in tension here.

md

[robert3985]

Without any experience to go by, my concern would be that this is a bit too subtle for guest operators, especially in a setting where the turnouts are somewhat far from the fascia, and so could be tricky to correlate.  I'm open-minded though!

Thanks folks, I love it that I can pop a question out here and get half a dozen thoughtful responses in under a day.  Very helpful!

Gary, surprisingly, the learning curve is very short.  The tracks themselves are the schematic, and because the toggles are placed perpendicular to the headblocks, the eye naturally knows where it is...even if it's concealed under the fascia.  Must have something to do with "pointing" (the headblocks point).

The photo of my hand throwing a turnout and the fascia is a little misleading because the camera angle is low and the lens is wide.  The relationship between throwbar and toggle location is much more obvious and "natural" than this photo would suggest.

The other point is that because the toggles are located in close proximity to the turnouts, they don't get looked at...at all...and during operation, the eye follows the motive power...and doesn't have to look for a panel...the operator doesn't have to go back to a panel to switch a yard, or a turnout on either end of a long passing siding...since you're right "there".

This concept might be problematic if the turnout was way back on the other side of the layout.  However, an operator would be able to tell how the turnout is thrown simply by feeling the position of the toggle.

It also might be problematic if the trackage is perpendicular to the fascia like in an industrial area.  If I had a concrete plant with a dozen closely spaced turnouts with a curved access track (such as the Ideal Concrete plant on my own layout) I'd build a recessed panel for that.

Mike, I find the Modutrak shorted RCA "key" a VERY interesting idea!  I'm sitting here going "Hmmmmmm...."     Very innovative!!

[GaryHinshaw]

Gary, are you planning to do working signals?   Does that affect any of the wiring at this stage?  IIRC and FWIW, the Tortoise has an extra set of contacts for driving signals.

Good question.  I do want to have signals, but I think they would be mostly tied to block occupancy rather than turnout state.  FWIW, I have *not* thought through occupancy detection, and I'm hoping I haven't already ruled out some choices by the way I'm laying the track & feeders.  Along these lines, I'd also like to make the mainline turnouts be controllable by a dispatcher [in Omaha ] via DCC/JMRI, but I'm not sure how that would interact with the toggles under discussion.

(I'd love to do lighted signals for my shelf layout, but I don't have much idea where to start.  I sure wish I could get those old Sunrise parts, or that the BLMA N scale signals would release soon.)

Have you looked into the BeNscale signals?  These are the best currently-available searchlight signals I know of.  I have a pair of heads for the Walong bridge and they look pretty good to me.

-gfh

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks for the further panel ideas; the Modutrack scheme is very clever!  I still think I'm drawn to having diagrams and tangible toggles however.  To Mark's point, it is very useful - even necessary - to have diagrams for complicated areas.  The cement plant at Summit verges on that category.  For the Walong siding, which is conceptually simple, the turnouts are far from where the typical operator will be, so - per Robert's comment - having a panel display with obvious route indications will be helpful.  Picture yourself standing where the green oval is and you want to know if the siding is thrown (red circles).  These turnouts are 3-4' away and at heights of 60-65", so I'm thinking a panel with indications is helpful here:



I wouldn't be surprised if I end up with a hybrid approach; and I may treat the upper and lower decks differently because the upper deck panels are closer to eye level.

Cheers,
Gary

[mark dance]

While different solutions for different areas may make sense - for example different decks - I would argue in favor of consistency of the operator experience and to maintain the same paradigm from one area to the other.  Unless you plan on operating with the same crew every session, it is hard enough for a visiting operator to learn *a* new paradigm (and every layout is different in this regard) then *multiple* ones and then remember when one applies and another doesn't.

Pick a paradigm that works for you and provides the information a visiting operator needs and then try as best you can to stick with it everywhere.  This is one area that is pretty testable before committing to physical implementation.  If you have operators you plan to be regulars, solicit their advice now.  Not only will you get their input you can say "but you told me to do that" when they inevitably complain .

I took this approach when redesigning a control panel set for a very complicated the most complicated) area on the C&W: Castlegar.  While everyone was in agreement that redesigning the panels "would improve things", I learned a couple of amazing things about how the operators were approaching the whole conceptual framework of what the panel was for.  As a result different people thought completely different things were wrong with the existing panels.  I had to make a judgment call on which route to go based on the feedback - and went with maintaining consistency across the layout - and I haven't heard a complaint about that panel since.  Of course I may just be choosing not to listen any more or the operators may be too afraid to speak up!

md

[Sokramiketes]

Good question.  I do want to have signals, but I think they would be mostly tied to block occupancy rather than turnout state.  FWIW, I have *not* thought through occupancy detection, and I'm hoping I haven't already ruled out some choices by the way I'm laying the track & feeders.  Along these lines, I'd also like to make the mainline turnouts be controllable by a dispatcher [in Omaha ] via DCC/JMRI, but I'm not sure how that would interact with the toggles under discussion.

Have you looked into the BeNscale signals?  These are the best currently-available searchlight signals I know of.  I have a pair of heads for the Walong bridge and they look pretty good to me.

-gfh

Yes, the signals will be mainly changed through occupancy detection, but remember you need to follow the track up top.  For instance, at a passing siding you will have a detector on the mainline and a detector in the siding (assuming you are not leaving the sidings dark).  But the single track mainline coming into the split for the siding needs to know which detector to look at... and that choice is made by routing the occupancy of the mainline and passing siding through the contacts on the Tortoise. 

Drop enough feeders so that you can easily separate the turnouts from the mainline wiring later and installing detectors will be less of a headache.  You will need to separately detect the turnouts with most signalling schemes, and the extents are from fouling point to fouling point. 

I like the BeNscale heads.  I bought a bunch for Modutrak and think we'll be moving in that direction. 

[mcjaco]

Ed, I wouldn't hold your breath on the BLMA signals.....

As a visitor to quite a few ops sessions at different layouts, keeping everything well laid out visually is important.  Make it easy on the noob, and he'll likely want to come back.

[GaryHinshaw]

Good discussion.  Mark, I'm listening carefully; I fully plan to ride your coat tails in these matters as much as possible.    I'm definitely still leaning towards simple diagrams with toggles at the turnout locations. The hybrid comment was mostly aimed at panel placement: e.g. flush mounted in the upper deck fascia, vs. angled in the lower deck, or something like that.  I'd love to try out a trial setup with the locals before making any further decisions.  But that requires getting more track laid first. 

Skibbe, thanks for the signal notes.  I'm presently isolating every section of track and running separate feeders to every piece.  Is there a detection scheme that senses current in a feeder and bases decisions on that (as opposed to optical/IR detectors)?  If so, I should be forward compatible.  Is there a good primer on block detection and signaling that anyone recommends (just for planning - so I don't paint myself into a corner)?

Thanks,
Gary

P.S. Awesome video John!!

[C855B]

Is there a detection scheme that senses current in a feeder and bases decisions on that (as opposed to optical/IR detectors)?

Yes. The DCC-based detectors (Digitrax has one) put a current-sensing transformer in the block circuit. Downside of current detection is you have to equip enough of your rolling stock with a resistor on an axle to indicate occupancy when there isn't a locomotive in the block. Another downside is the AC of DCC is required for the transformer to work. There are other current-detection schemes that work with DC, but I'm not "up" on those at the moment. Optoisolator behind a bridge rectifier is one which comes to mind, but it does poorly with less-than-a-locomotive current draws. I'm sure there are some op-amp circuits that will work.

My plan is to use both DCC current-sensing and IR emitter/detector optical. Occupancy is occupancy.

(Gosh... Jim Reising and Daryl Kruse are the ones to ask for advice on signaling!)

[Scottl]

Set up a trial, I booked my ticket to YVR this morning!  December 10...

[jagged ben]

A few comments on what our club has done with regard to the recent subjects in this thread...all of this could easily be a whole thread of its own.   

We design control panels in XtrkCad using custom templates one of our members made.  I will look into a way to provide them for others to use.

Turnout control is done with pushbuttons in one of two ways.  Either we use a simple rectified AC circuit in parallel with the Lenz LS150 turnout decoder, or we use a diode matrix control, either controlled by an Easy DCC AD4 where we have DCC control, or directly by pushbuttons where we don't.

Our Tortoises use one set of contacts for the frog, and the other for panel indicator lights as well as turnout status feedback for our signal system. 

Our club has gone with JMRI and Dick Bronson's RR Cirkits equipment for detection and signals.  His system has a lot of flexibility and I think comes out cheaper for most particular applications.  We are using the following component boards with the Tower Controllers:
BOD-8 attached to CT coils for block occupancy - works for both DC and DCC
OIB-8 with added capacitors for turnout feedback detection - we managed to do this in parallel with indicator lights on the panels.
FOB-8 for signals  - we are so far using all Sunrise signals we managed to obtain, but will probably use a Benscale as well.

Our club plan will eventually involve 26 Tower Controllers (!!!).  But Gary, I think your layout could probably be handled with one or two.

All of this has been done with much of an eye toward the cheapest solutions because the layout is so big.

I would be happy to provide more details if anyone has questions, although I wouldn't want to hijack the thread.  Maybe PM me and I will start a new one with answers.

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks! Sounds like I can plow ahead with my feeder plan and study this in parallel.  jb, I'd encourage you to start a thread in the Electronics area with some expanded info there.  I'd be very interested.  I'm also interested in the XTrackCAD templates.

Scott - Great!  That's the first day of winter break here (which I'm so looking forward to now....).  I'll try to arrange an a$$hat/BC gathering, which will give me a target date for real progress too.

Cheers,
Gary

[GaryHinshaw]

Switching gears a little bit, I have finally gotten up the gumption to deal with a certain elephant in the room: my ops/staging plan.  To date, I have simply had a messy drawing showing Bakersfield (north) staging along the bottom wall, and Mojave (south) staging in the helix:



This has never been very well fleshed out and I have been especially apprehensive about the stub-end staging at Bakersfield, with its fairly congested yard throat partly under the Loop shelf.  So I set out to make some changes in the plan while it's still easy to do so and I invite feedback.  Recall the basic prototype scheme is quite simple:



The line over the pass is a single-track main owned by UP and used by them for N-S traffic.  BNSF has trackage rights and uses the pass as part of their route from the Bay Area (and the PNW) to points south and east.  The goal of staging is to accommodate trains coming and going from both routes in each direction (in a limited amount of space).   In the new scheme, I have added an online, stub-end storage yard and I have converted the 'Bakersfield' staging into a loop yard that effectively serves as all 4 endpoints on the line.  Here's the scheme:



The running track is shown in black and schematically indicates the Pass, with clockwise being southbound in this rendition.  The orange tracks are lower level staging (colored for clarity).  The red connection is for continuous running.   

Staging yard 1 (SY1) is the main nerve center.  The concept is that UP trains will originate and terminate from the right side of the yard, and BNSF trains from the left.  There will be separate loco servicing tracks for each railroad inside the loop.  This yard represents both ends of the line and feeds the running tracks as shown.   I have drawn this up in CAD to make sure it works (plan to follow) and I was able to incorporate 8 tracks in this yard with lengths ranging from 16 to 19 feet.   Even better, the yard throat(s) are much more accessible than previously.

Staging yard 2 (SY2) is a stub-end storage yard that can relieve pressure on SY1.  Trains to and from this yard must enter or leave the layout via SY1.  That yard has 6 tracks (under Edison) with lengths from 12 to 16 feet.  (Even if it ends up being under-used in a session, it will be valuable for rolling stock storage.)

SY3 is sequential staging in the helix which brings the upper deck back down to staging.  4-5 northbound trains can queue up in SY3, and a similar number of southbounds can wait there too, if SY1 is too congested to handle them.  With the crossovers discussed earlier, northbound trains in SY3 can depart in a flexible order, as conditions dictate.

I feel much better about this scheme than I did before.  I knew something like this would eventually shake loose, it just took a while to happen.  I'll post the latest draft of the CAD drawings shortly.  In the meantime, comments welcome.

-gfh

[mark dance]

Hi Gary...I think I get it and it looks like it has lots of staging and storage capacity. 

If I understand correctly the helix under the Loop (track South of the Loop?) can be used for staging which is just out of sight so operators could terminate their jobs there.  Then these tracks could be emptied and "replenished" by a staging operator so that operators running trains over the summit would not have a long, complicated hidden run to or from staging...this work could be the domain of a single experienced operator (or host ) who understands how the whole thing works and can manage this somewhat boring job.  This would be similar to the Nelson Sub operator position on the C&W, correct?  (I think you ran this position once if I recall...during Vanrail 2011?)

If I get it, then my question is “are things this simple for the North end staging as wel?” If SY1 is just out of sight of the visible portion of the rail North end of the layout, then the operators do not face any complicated hidden trackage they must circumnavigate.  If it isn't immediately adjacent, is there room for a 3 track buffer yard which can act as just-out-of-sight-staging at the North end and could be similarly replenished by a dedicated staging operator?

I hope this reply isn't too confusing.

Oh, and I really like the separation of central storage and staging in the plan!

md