My activated blocks are progressive, they move one ahead of the train until they conflict with other routes set. There is nothing to stop a train driver from over-running one of my signals until a conflict situation is reached. At that point, the train will hit the brick wall/dead block. I consider the dead block to be preferable to a head on collision.
If your DCC loco continues on a DCC live section of track without receiving a command specific to it's address it will continue on to the collision.
. They have a strong contingent of DC members who are interested in automatic running of trains. They have developed a block centered controller, ie one controller per block, with inputs from the blocks on either side, thus doing block control. In addition, rate of accel and decel in the block is adjustable, with provision of accurate stopping by slowing to a 'creeping' rate and stopping on a final location detector. The controller has built-in occupancy detectionand overload protection. It also allows local control of speed for local operator shunting operations.
All-in-all a very nice package, and ideal for modular groups such as NTrak.
The latest discussion centred around whether this analog system could be extended to DCC. Ie, having block-centric DCC controllers with builtin occupancy detection, adjacent block inputs etc.
In my view, this would give a nice 'meld' of the two views of driver-centric and signal-centric. In addition, the final output from this controller could be PWM DC, instead of DCC, and a large proportion of us could have our biases with essentially the same equipment.
I would like to have automatic scheduled service on my layout, while allowing me to take control for any train, or shunting duties. Or, just be the scheduler and set routes and priorities.
Personally, I run one at a time at the club, though, I can run as many as will fit on the tracks. (I do not have a railroad at home) But there are some 10 to 15 others running their trains too.
But this response wasn't about running locomotives. It was about electronic design for a computer and programming decoders.
If the control system you use doesn't have your DC trains "hitting brick walls" between blocks, then it won't happen using DCC either. That's all I'm pointing out.
And prior to the WC/Tranzrail era, the railway in NZ never had collisions, accidents, deaths and etc.? Specifically, accidents due to failures of operating employees to observe proper safeworking procedures?
Like, say;
Wellington, in October 1978, or again in March 1980? (Both SPADs)
But you do need signal/ detecting blocks for the PC :-)
Thought of it a long time ago, but didn't think that you were not use it. btw: What language do you program in and would it be possible to get a copy of your source code?
Ah, another problem:-) It is going to be hard to say what will work until people can see what your layout looks like and the computer program that you are using. As to checking on the which loco is where, what about using a web cam in the staging area as they train leaves?
Major advantage would be that you could have your friends come over and within minutes running a train around the layout without you having to worry about someone having a collision with a PC running train. Also you can run your locomotives on someone's layout without worry about if his system will handle a DC loco.
Actually there are pitifully few corespondents to this thread. I suppose we've hit the killfiles of a lot of folks. No one seems to be rallying around either flag.
like Lego or
I don't see it that way
I don't know about that. I suspect that I am just as intelligent as you or Flynn. That I do not enjoy electronics is no mark of my, or any one else's intellect. It is merely an indication of interest. In actual fact, I happen to be quite good at all the aspects of wiring a model railway for DC. I just don't like it and I am unwilling to accept the highly unrealistic limitations of a DC system.
I might also add that I find each of your alleged "limitations" of DCC to be a phantom.
your new locos - two
You seem to be stuck in that rut. I've already told you that is not a problem. You have me confused with Gomez Addams.
Well, I am not at all interested in operating in the manner of NZ/OZ prototypicallity from what I hear from you and Flynn. We do things up here rather differently than you do.
Of course, I am a former engine driver and also worked in the Signal and Communications Department for a major North American Railway after I retired from my job in mechanical engineering for an electronics manufacturing company. I am a trained, qualified signalman and signal maintainer, thus I understand how signals operate and what they do and do not do. But what do I know? I have also written a rule book for model railroaders based on the North American consolidated code, so that those who have never actually worked on a railroad or been exposed to the actual workings of one, can still operate their model railways in a prototypical manner. It covers signals as well. I belong to a model railway operating group that places prototypical operation in the number one position.
In addition to all that, I am a qualified steam locomotive engineer. When I was with the Southern Railway, the steam program was in full swing. I was fortunate enough to have some involvement with that. Additional steam locomotive experience comes from the Tennessee Valley Railway Museum where I fired and drove steam and diesel locomotives as well as worked on them. In all, I have a very respectable resume of actual railway experience. I would like to compare it to that of those who really are experts in prototype operation so that they may set me straight in the matter. I am quite sure that someone who has no actual, hands-on railroad experience- but who has read a lot about it- is a much more capable spokesman for prototypical operation than I.
Hold on there - I have DCC, I just don't use it on my main layout. I think I will migrate the MRC DCC to the garden layout, which will be a long meandering line up the hill and around the flower beds etc. (so far it consists of an LGB loco that followed me home) DCC looks ideal for this line when the LGB loco gets a friend!
Your Top Shelf system requires a video camera in each loco and an onboard computer able to recognise a signal at stop???
Let's clarify my system: Situation #1. Train operated by real live operator in visible sections of layout. Situation #2. Trains operated by computer in visible sections of layout. Situation #3. Trains operated by computer in hidden sections of layout.
In situation #1 the loco driver links the first block to his hand-held via PC input. From there the computer progressively allocates electrical blocks as available on the route ahead. The loco driver does not have to throw toggles/switches and the signals do not control the train. In situation #2 the PC controls the trains and the signals control the PC. In situation #3 the PC controls the trains and the notional signals control the PC. The signalman/timetable (your towerman/dispatcher) sets the routes on the main line. In the yard, the shunter operates his loco via the PC allocating blocks in accordance with the shunter or yard master throwing turnouts. Adding double heading locomotives or operating from both ends of the ladder requires throwing notional toggles through the PC. Generally these notional toggles reset themselves.
I don't know if you've noticed, but railways are dangerous places. I can assure you that prior to WC taking over, there was never a case of sleepers crumbling under wagons, sending said wagon tumbling over onto a yard worker. There was never before a head on collision in the circumstances I previously related. There was never before a claim that track distorted in mild weather due to welded rail being "new technology". There was never previously numerous deaths of train crew due to tiredness when said crews were left with a three hour drive home in a WC provided rental car at the end of a shift which ended several hundred kilometers from the home depot.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.