0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
there's an advantage to not having any complicated exceptions to a consistent set of rules. If it's just yourself, you really can do whatever pleases you most.
... Which approach best serves that purpose?
I follow the prototype practice based on the actual track configuration on the layout. ...manual ...automatic...
I follow the prototype practice based on the actual track configuration on the layout. I have a prototype rulebook that includes all the proper signal aspects. My feeling is that anyone that would appreciate 'all the signals' would also be sharp enough to know you're blowing smoke with additional aspects that are there just for decoration....One thing I will remind you is that the more complex the interlocking, the more likely it was to be manually controlled. There may not be a tower there, but a dispatcher someplace may still essentially have an 'east/west/go/stop' on that diamond along with the switch positions. Track up to it may be automatic block but the actual interlocking - and the related approach - is more often than not NOT part of an automatic block. Translation? You may still be manually setting those signals with DPDT's or a computer setting and that's the prototype here.
In terms of operating a layout, it is nice to have routing confirmations from displayed aspects. So I wouldn't display nonsense aspects that don't reflect the routing. But that shouldn't stop you from populating a mast with single-color heads if you were modeling a specific 1:1 scene that has three heads that don't match the layout configuration. Like Daryl and Randy said, leave them red.Here's something different - I have an interlocking scene with a crossing against non-operating track that would otherwise be very busy on the prototype I'm modeling. What I am contemplating is using a cheap microcontroller like an Arduino to generate a random occupancy on the conflicting track. It would be fed by detection on the operating tracks so it wouldn't be stupid enough to throw a red in the face of an approaching movement, but it would still be there to create operational variety and reflect the (frustrating!) delays normally part of the 1:1. Part of the scene would be functioning signals on the dummy track that would indicate when the microcontroller has cleared a simulated conflicting movement.
What is the purpose of your layout? Which approach best serves that purpose?