Using signal levers to power multiple DC block sections

[KingEdwardII]

On 17/12/2021 at 15:56, t-b-g said:

I cannot understand whey people cram their layouts and locos full of complex electronics when all you really need is something that gives you plus or minus 12v and an on/off switch.

Ahem, I don't mean to be negative, but the wiring and control arrangements being discussed on this thread are hardly "simple", at least in my book.

 

There are thankfully many alternative ways of dealing with model railways. Some of us consider "rats nest" wiring undesirable and aim for simplicity in that regard.

 

My ideal is to be able to control each loco/power car individually - DCC is one approach to that, although I have a lot of sympathy for radio control too, even if those both mean "complex electronics" in the locos.

 

I can see the attraction of full lever frames mimicing signal boxes and even multiple such including the instruments used for communication between boxes. However, that's not where I'm at for my model railway.

 

For me, a computer screen (or multiple of them) used to control the turnouts, signals etc and some handhelds to drive the trains keeps me very happy. I'm more than satisfied to have a computer control route setting and perform interlocking. The ability for semi-automation with the computer driving some trains and me driving others is what I want. Electronics is one good way to achieve that. I'm sure that approach would not suit everyone - each to his own.

 

Yours, Mike

[Lacathedrale]

Mike, I don't disagree at all - but we are in the DC subforum, in a thread about using lever frames and signals to control DC block sections so I think your potential audience is skewed in one direction from the outset.

 

Though I'm still none the wiser about how I'll implement the wiring mentioned previously, it is after all still just a bunch of toggle switches, repeated N times around the layout. I think @t-b-g may well be alluding to systems which themselves are complicated (i.e. DCC block detection and occupancy feedback, CV tuning, computer controlled route setting via iTrain, etc.).

 

Speaking of simplicity, I am wondering how feasible wire in tube or bell-crank operated turnouts would be, given that the need to only swap the frog which can be done at the lever end. Obviously, it's been done before - but I've done a bit of research online and it seems the majority of suppliers are lost to the mists of time....

[Nigelcliffe]

3 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

Speaking of simplicity, I am wondering how feasible wire in tube or bell-crank operated turnouts would be, given that the need to only swap the frog which can be done at the lever end. Obviously, it's been done before - but I've done a bit of research online and it seems the majority of suppliers are lost to the mists of time....

 

Many modellers who used wire/crank links to operate turnouts used DIY setups.  Or they raided boxes of Meccano.    So, I think you'll be doing some DIY from bits of metal.  That said, there are parts from all sorts of places: 

 

Cranks - model aircraft control linkages.  Often plastic, with different throws on an arm.   Plus various linkages to connect stuff, adjusters for throw, etc. etc..      So, look at model aircraft suppliers, not model train suppliers. 

 

Combining actions for many turnouts/signals over a distance - rather than laying a number of parallel wires in tube, consider torsion arms:  use a number of pieces of brass tube which slide over each other.  To each fit a crank arm, then slide into the next.  Once assembled (largest diameter being shortest in length, fit cranks at the other end.  You can now transfer as many levers as you have nested tubes.   (Crank arms can be simpler for cross-baseboard links as well).  

 

Model train working crank parts.  The Scalefour Society has a reasonable range of etched bits to make cranks (etc) from "Morgan Designs" if the model aircraft supplies won't do what you want. 

 

 

Frog switching at the lever end is setting yourself up for miles of wiring, unless its also tied to other logic which is sensible to site at the lever end,   

 

 

 

 

The electrics, with lots of relays, isn't complicated, its just a massive pile of repetition of the same control unit doing one tiny on/off or change-over step.   If you end up needing different combinations of switches to operate particular relays, then diodes on the output of the switch will stop a back-flow from a relay, via a different switch.   

 

 

 

Whether a pile of relays is sensible is another matter, when its possible to do all the interlock and interdependency logic in software/firmware, in very cheap devices (Arduino and others), and then realise it at the layout in a single relay for each section.    

 

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AndyID]

8 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

This is the simplified block section layout, with thanks again to @IanN:

 

Simplified Blocking

 

Blocks W and T consolidated into R

Block J consolidated into F

 

Levers and resultant energisation + routing

Lever 1 (Platform 1 Starter) powers E,R, to FY

Lever 2 (Platform 2 Starter) powers F,R to FY

Lever 3 (Platform 3 Starter) powers G,S,R to FY

Lever 4 (Platform 4 Starter) powers H,S,R to FY

Lever 5 (Platform 1 Shunt) powers E,R,R to BS

Lever 6 (Platform 2 Shunt) powers F,J,R,R to BS

Lever 7 (Platform 3 Shunt) powers G,S,R to BS

Lever 8 (Platform 4 Shunt) powers H,S,R to BS

Lever 9 (Loco Shunt) powers I,R to BS

Lever 10 (Advanced Starter) powers Y to FY

Lever 18 (P2 Calling On) powers V,S,F to BS

Lever 19 (P3 Calling On) powers V,S,G to BS

Lever 20 (P4 Calling On) powers V,S,H to BS

Lever 21 (Down shunt signal) powers R + Rotary switch

Lever 22 (Platform 2 Home) powers V,S,F,B to BS

Lever 23 (Platform 3 Home) powers V,S,G,C to BS

Lever 24 (Platform 4 Home) powers V,S,H,D to BS

Lever 25 (Distant ) powers X to BS

 

I think you should be able to do all of that with a diode matrix and a relay for each electrical section. I'll think about it a bit more and post some example diagrams later.

[t-b-g]

7 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Ahem, I don't mean to be negative, but the wiring and control arrangements being discussed on this thread are hardly "simple", at least in my book.

 

There are thankfully many alternative ways of dealing with model railways. Some of us consider "rats nest" wiring undesirable and aim for simplicity in that regard.

 

My ideal is to be able to control each loco/power car individually - DCC is one approach to that, although I have a lot of sympathy for radio control too, even if those both mean "complex electronics" in the locos.

 

I can see the attraction of full lever frames mimicing signal boxes and even multiple such including the instruments used for communication between boxes. However, that's not where I'm at for my model railway.

 

For me, a computer screen (or multiple of them) used to control the turnouts, signals etc and some handhelds to drive the trains keeps me very happy. I'm more than satisfied to have a computer control route setting and perform interlocking. The ability for semi-automation with the computer driving some trains and me driving others is what I want. Electronics is one good way to achieve that. I'm sure that approach would not suit everyone - each to his own.

 

Yours, Mike

 

You may not have spotted that I corrected myself later to say that it is more a case of me not being a fan of cramming locos and layouts full of electronics that I don't understand. I do appreciate that there are people who enjoy and embrace using fancy technology to control their trains. If I can do it with simple on/off or changeover switches, I am content with that and I understand it when it goes wrong. I am a member of MERG and I know some fine and very clever people who are real experts at fancy electronics. I am not one of them. I can build a circuit board given the right bits and some good instructions and I am quite comfortable building something like a MERG Servo 4 drive board. I even have a MERG DCC kit to build as I help somebody with a DCC layout and would like to be able to fit chips at home. 

 

For layout control I would rather have a dozen on/off switches than one programmed chip. If an on/off switch doesn't work, I know what to do about it. If I can have a simple controller, which makes my volts go up and down, I don't see the need to install a voltage controller in each and every loco. It just seems like an unnecessary duplication. I don't have any RTR locos and I have no interest in lights, sound or computer control or automation. I enjoy operating and driving trains and I don't want electronics doing things for me instead of me doing things. I like a more touchy feely, pull of a lever or a switch to make the trains go.

 

To me, modern life is all about computer screens and technology. My hobby involves getting away from that as much as possible.

 

So yes, each to their own. I have been very lucky to have been given opportunities to operate a great number of layouts, including some with some very fancy control systems. Some have more flashing lights and circuit boards than the early Apollo missions. There isn't one that comes close to the joy of operating the very "old school" Buckingham.

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Nigelcliffe said:

 

Many modellers who used wire/crank links to operate turnouts used DIY setups.  Or they raided boxes of Meccano.    So, I think you'll be doing some DIY from bits of metal.  That said, there are parts from all sorts of places: 

 

Cranks - model aircraft control linkages.  Often plastic, with different throws on an arm.   Plus various linkages to connect stuff, adjusters for throw, etc. etc..      So, look at model aircraft suppliers, not model train suppliers. 

 

Combining actions for many turnouts/signals over a distance - rather than laying a number of parallel wires in tube, consider torsion arms:  use a number of pieces of brass tube which slide over each other.  To each fit a crank arm, then slide into the next.  Once assembled (largest diameter being shortest in length, fit cranks at the other end.  You can now transfer as many levers as you have nested tubes.   (Crank arms can be simpler for cross-baseboard links as well).  

 

Model train working crank parts.  The Scalefour Society has a reasonable range of etched bits to make cranks (etc) from "Morgan Designs" if the model aircraft supplies won't do what you want. 

 

 

Frog switching at the lever end is setting yourself up for miles of wiring, unless its also tied to other logic which is sensible to site at the lever end,   

 

 

 

 

The electrics, with lots of relays, isn't complicated, its just a massive pile of repetition of the same control unit doing one tiny on/off or change-over step.   If you end up needing different combinations of switches to operate particular relays, then diodes on the output of the switch will stop a back-flow from a relay, via a different switch.   

 

 

 

Whether a pile of relays is sensible is another matter, when its possible to do all the interlock and interdependency logic in software/firmware, in very cheap devices (Arduino and others), and then realise it at the layout in a single relay for each section.    

 

 

 

- Nigel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the features of the design is that all the points are on one board, so no cross baseboard joins are required. The longest wire from a crossing nose to the lever frame will be around 2ft long. Many of the levers would only require a simple microswitch, either as an on/off or a changeover. Those that need to change more than one thing (the most contacts on any one lever, as far as I can tell being two) could have a microswitch at each end of the travel of the lever or a single switch could work a relay.

 

I am presently thinking about the switch logic and I don't think the example given above is as simple or as user friendly as it might be. I can see a few problems and a few places where two different levers seem to switch different sections.

 

I will try to present my own thoughts on the switch logic later.  

 

These are samples of the cranks on Buckingham. These or on a baseboard away from the lever frame so include a return spring/rubber band. The cross baseboard movement is by a plunger contained in the baseboard end cross member, so when the baseboards are apart, the plungers are flush with the baseboard end. Note the use of a mix of home made wooden cranks plus an old H & M crank. This arrangement controls two points in a crossover.

 

[t-b-g]

Here we go:

 

I think there may be too many sections that need switching as drawn.

 

I would make sections r,t,i and w all one section. I don't see any advantage in splitting them. The feed would be on the section marked "w".

 

I would also join f and j.

 

For departing trains:

 

Lever 1 Pl 1 starter. Single change over switch. Back in frame, supply to "e" is in series to on/off switches on 5 and 21 via rotary switch selector.

Lever 2 Pl 2 starter. Same as above but to section "f" and signals 6 and 21.

Lever 3 Pl 3 starter. Same as above but to section "g" and signals 7 and 21.

Lever 4 Pl 4 starter. Same as above but to section "h" and signals 8 and 21.

 

When Lever 1 is pulled, section "e" is now linked to section "irtw". This means that you can run past signal 1 up as far as signal 10 on the station controller.

 

When lever 2 is pulled, section f/j is connected to the "irtw" section.

 

Pulling lever 3 connects "g" plus "s" to "irtw".

 

Pulling lever 4 connects "h" and "s" to "irtw".

 

Pulling 10, connects "irtw" to the fiddle yard controller. When 10 is back in the fram "irtw" is live to the station controller.

 

So the only lever that transfers power to the fiddle yard controller is 10. Any other combination uses the station controller.

 

Pulling any combination of 1,2,3 or 4 plus 10, allows the fiddle yard to drive a train out.

 

Arriving trains:

 

I would have s and v normally live, perhaps with an isolating switch. This allows you to bring an arriving train up to either 99, or 22,23,24 with the signals at danger. A separate isolating switch would then allow it to be held until it could proceed. 

 

22 would put b and f onto the station controller

23 would do the same for c and g

24 the same for d and h.

 

99 would connect the fiddle yard track "x" to section "v".

 

For shunting, 5 or 21 would energise "e", 6 and 21 "f" etc.

 

9 or 21 could work an isolation for the loco spur.

 

Those, plus a plunger for linking the two platform sections together, ie "a" and "e" together, seem to cover all the options.

 

I have done this rather quickly so I hope the logic is good.   

[Lacathedrale]

Tony, thank you so much. My most recent amendment quoted by @AndyID merges RTW and FJ as you have suggested, does that change what you've suggested?

 

I'll run through your amendments ASAP but at a quick glance it looks like it's benefitted from another pair of seasoned eye as yours!

[Miss Prism]

I'll re-visit this thread when I get a round tuit, and one day I'll get round to putting up the Bodmin 'conditional link control' articles on the NLG site.

 

In the meantime, I think the subject can be summed up with the following:

It's easy to power section B from section A when the signal is off. It's a bit trickier to keep B powered when the signal is returned to on after the passage of the train. What is difficult is to power A to allow a train to approach the signal at danger.

 

[AndyID]

Here's the general idea.

 

 

When you select a lever its switch closes and energizes any of the section relays that are fed through a diode on the matrix. The Section Relays feed power to their particular section. You can make any lever energize as many sections as you want.

 

For example, as shown lever 1 will energize sections C and D. Lever 2 sections B and F. etc, etc.

 

A good choice for diodes would be the 1N4001. They can handle lots of current and they are not at all expensive. I can get a pack of 50 for $3.99, and probably less.

 

I'm making a couple of assumptions.

 

1) You only select one lever at at time (although nothing bad will happen if you select more than one).

 

2) You only have one controller. (You can have more than one. It just gets a bit more complicated if you do.)

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Tony, thank you so much. My most recent amendment quoted by @AndyID merges RTW and FJ as you have suggested, does that change what you've suggested?

 

I'll run through your amendments ASAP but at a quick glance it looks like it's benefitted from another pair of seasoned eye as yours!

 

The only difference is that if the loco spur is just isolated by the point and is part of the departure line, then you don't need any switching at all on signal 9 and it saves you one set of wires to the rotary switch on 21. That is how the loco spur on Buckingham works. It simply has dummy, non working ground discs but the point isolates the loco. If the spur is long enough for two locos, it might be worth splitting it and adding another switch to isolate half of it.

[AndyID]

You might control the points mechanically but you could also do it electrically (and inexpensively) while also switching frog polarities by hacking servos like this.