Interlocking something just for the kicks… or a temp layout with a temp interlocking (for 1 to 3 users)

[NXCALE]

Hi people. I have to say that I was in a “cornuto” dilemma when deciding about where to place this project thread. It was because this project is basically a temporary layout that I have been working on so it could go in the Personal Layout & Projects section of the forum. However, the layout has a basic power interlocking so I could place it in the DCC Electrical & Automation section.

 

At the end, I chose using this section as this is a temporary project with some extra stuff (also this choice pushes me a little bit to explore more this section of the forum).

 

The layout is the below one.

 

 

 

My goal was/is to give a little bit more of flexibility to the train movements in this layout giving the chance that up to three people operate this layout in DC. I left the circuit here below with some case scenarios to be reviewed.

 

Scenario 1:

 

 

Scenario 2:

 

 

Scenario 3:

 

 

Scenario 4:

 

 

Scenario 5:

 

 

Scenario 6:

 

 

Scenario 7:

 

 

I will carry on updating information to explain what is going on in that circuit. Enjoy and cheers!

 

P.S. I supposed to post this info in two/three weeks once I finish my testing (this circuit is version 2.0) but I decided to start this thread early so ideas and comments can be shared.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by nxcale

[kvp]

Just a question: Since the double slips seem to be fully power routing and could route straight across or both diverging, wouldn't it be easier to place all feed points to the left and let the turnouts decide which controllers power which track? You would have one feed point on each left track, a total of 3 and:

-blue could power siding 1, 2, track A, B and platform 1, 2

-red could power track A, B and platform 1, 2

-while green could power track A and platform 1, 2

and any red or green power routed away from the mainlines through the double slips would at the same time give blue access to the now unpowered section of one of the mainlines, unless switch 105 is set to straight and if green and red is set diverging at the same time on the double slips, then green gets the platforms, red gets track A and blue gets track B. And all this without extra power routing switches, feed points or isolators. Please correct me if i'm wrong somewhere.

[NXCALE]

Thank you for the reply, comments and ideas are what I was after.

I need to review your comments more in detail as I got a little lost in your explanation.

 

As a reference, letters "A" and "B" indicated on the layout are end sections that join each other (i.e. "A" on the left joints to "A" on the right so they connect as a loop, this was show on the diagram like this instead of showing the whole loop).

 

I just edited this to add an example of a train movement:

 

1. While DOWN and UP express trains pass the station (no stopping). At the same time, another train (let’s called train 1) moves from siding one to the refuge siding ready to move to platform 1. This is achieved with “scenario 4”.
2. Then Train 1 moves from the refuge siding to platform 1 in order to pick up passengers to take them on the UP MAIN direction. While express trains are still running and passing the station. This is achieved with “scenario 3”
3. Train 1 departs from platform 1 while a second train (i.e. train 2) is arriving to platform 2.  Both trains can safely cross each other when entering /leaving the station. This is achieved with “Scenario 7”.
4. Once Train 1 clears points 103 and Train 2 already picked up and left passengers. Train 2 moves to refugee siding. “Scenario 3”
5. Now Train 2 can move from refuge siding towards the DOWN direction while other express trains are also running the UP MAIN line. “Scenario 1”

 

Notice that:

• UP and DOWN are unidirectional lines
• train movements from the refugee siding to the platforms (and viceversa) are only perform with controller #3 (CN3). So, controller 1 and 2 do not need to use the switch of direction change (only controller 3 will do it).

• As there are continue train movements, it could be necessary a “full time” interlocking control user (the third user) who also could temporary accommodate trains (from refuge siding to/from platforms) with controller 3.

Edited February 3, 2016 by nxcale

[kvp]

I would like to add, that the extra feeder doesn't really help without extra isolators and doesn't really do much with the turnouts arlready power routing. I would suggest two sets of isolators in the two loops so the station controller could also shunt to the mainline or two sets of isolators in the right legs of the double slips, so the mainlines are always controlled by their own controller. The mainlines can be unidirectional, but doesn't have to and the configuration i suggested means that if you set a route, you select a controller without any extra power routing switches or other trickery. Since the mainline power feeds are constantly connected, both your current and my suggested setup doesn't provide any interlocking, just power routing. This is one thing the Tomix turnouts are great without extra help.

 

A few routing examples, with the two sets of isolators in the double slips (cyan dots) and an all power feed points left of the turnouts (indicated with darker colors):

The first example is shunting between the station and the yard.

The second example is train arrival to the station platforms.

The third example is arrival and departure at the same time, but could be a departure from both platform 2 if you change 2 turnouts (102 A/B).

The fourth example is the same as the second but another train could cross at the same time over between the up and down mainlines. This is not really needed.

 

As you can see all movements can be done without extra power routing and trains don't have to change controllers while moving, unless you want direct movement between the mainline and the yard, but this is a safe operation too without connecting two controllers to the same block.

 

[katoftw]

Looks like fun.

 

I'd agree with kvp. Not using isolators and having to power and depower feeds will only lead to shorts.  It is all very complex the way you have done it.  But that might be what you are aiming for?

 

I'd have three feeds. One does the down and platforms. 1 does the up. One does the refuge and both sidings.

 

Isolators between 103+104 and 105+103.

 

p.s. I'm not 100% on how the Tomix double slips power route.  So I may be off one some aspects.

Edited February 3, 2016 by katoftw

[NXCALE]

As you can see all movements can be done without extra power routing and trains don't have to change controllers while moving, unless you want direct movement between the mainline and the yard, but this is a safe operation too without connecting two controllers to the same block.

 

That is a good hint of what I am trying achieve. I did not mention it before but I aimed having direct movements (i.e. only one controller operates) when a train lefts the REFUGE SIDING towards the DOWN MAIN line. The same is applicable when a train arrives to the REFUGE SIDING from the UP MAIN line.

 

The above is targeted because I designed the circuit thinking about using in-cab controllers with this layout (the ones with simulated delays and all other stuff) for the DOWN and MAIN lines. So, controllers 1 and 2 are of in-cab type but controller 3 is a traditional knob controller.

 

Having to match voltages between two in-cab controllers (or one in-cab controller and one knob controller) at the moment of moving a train from the refugee siding to the DOWN MAIN (or from the MAIN UP line to the refugee siding), it is something that I particularly prefer to stay away from.

 

By the way, there is already an isolator between 103 and 104. Also, the current circuit is working. I tried the train movements that I am aiming and no short circuits so far. At this moment, another goal is to simplify the circuit.

 

A thing that is worth to mention is that the Tomix control boxes are changed/moved at the same time. What I mean is when the 5531 change position to activate points 103, a 5533 and a 5536 also changed (these are physically linked). This can be seen in the last picture and understood from the diagrams of my first post.

 

I think that adding the isolators mentioned by KVP (thanks for the diagrams by the way), the initial circuit could be reduced by half or less. However, I am still aiming for direct movements (as mentioned it above). I will be re-designing the circuit to see what I get.

 

p.s. I will try to prepare some diagrams showing the train movements that I am trying to achieve so these goals would be (hopefully) clearer. Before I forget, the choice of unidirectional lines in this layout is just a personal preference.

Edited February 3, 2016 by nxcale

[kvp]

For direct movements, you only need two power switches besides the isolators i added. If you select one of the routes that would cross an isolator towards the siding, you just replace the sidings feed with the matching mainline cab. Still 3 feed points and 2 isolators and you are pretty much done. The extra isolator you added is not really needed at all and that eliminates the station feed point.

[NXCALE]

For direct movements, you only need two power switches besides the isolators i added. If you select one of the routes that would cross an isolator towards the siding, you just replace the sidings feed with the matching mainline cab. Still 3 feed points and 2 isolators and you are pretty much done. The extra isolator you added is not really needed at all and that eliminates the station feed point.

 

Yes, you are right. I had a similar idea after watching where you placed the isolators. For that reason a thought that the initial circuit could be reduced by half or less.

 

However, how could the risk of short circuits be minimised? What if the operator places the power control boxes in a way that two feeders are on that track section at the same time?

 

I believe that one of the principles behind “interlocking” is minimising the risks generated due to inadequate operation. That is, minimising the impact of the “human factor” in the system. So, the system aims to be simple for the user (i.e. operator) but not necessarily for the designer.

 

The initial circuit aparently minimises that risk (i.e. short circuit) as the user/operator only have to mind about properly setting routes by moving points/turnouts in the correct position. In other words, the operator does not have to think about voltage polarities as the interlocking (i.e. arrangement of power control boxes, turnouts and wires) is doing the “hard work” for him/her.

 

To be fair, I still think that is a way to simplify the circuit and at the same time minimise the risk of short circuit by using the isolators and power control boxes but I would need to think about a circuit arrangement in a way that using one feeder locks the other two (and the same for the other cases).

 

Looks like fun.

 

Yes, this is kinda a fun. Actually it is more like a challenge or puzzle to solve.

 

I'd agree with kvp. Not using isolators and having to power and depower feeds will only lead to shorts.  It is all very complex the way you have done it.  But that might be what you are aiming for?

 

If you take some time to review the circuits, you will notice that these are not very complex as they could initially look.

 

One of the main ideas behind this interlocking is:

 

When moving the 104 double slips control box (5531) from NORMAL to REVERSE, a 5336 also cuts any power arriving to that section (CN2 or CN3 are gone as these could generate a short circuit); and at the same time, a 5533 will choose the between CN1 or CN3 for the section close to the other double slips (103). Note that these three control boxes are moved at the same time.

 

The same process occurs in 103. From NORMAL TO REVERSE, its 5536 “kills” the power from CN1 and CN3 that could arrived to 103 and its 5533 chooses between CN2 and CN3 for the double slip 104.

 

For the case of the turnout control box for 105, the arrangement is a little different but it follows the same logic. Cheers.

[kvp]

 

However, how could the risk of short circuits be minimised? What if the operator places the power control boxes in a way that two feeders are on that track section at the same time?

I would like to highlight a problem. Namely if you throw both 103 and 104 (the double slips), you could short CN2 to CN3.

 

If you add the isolators right of the tournouts, remove the one between the two mainlines and the feed point between 104 and 102A, then you can daisy chain two power switches to override the the shunting controller at the siding's feed point by the controller of mainline A if you throw 104, and this output with mainline B if 103 is also thrown. If both 104 and 103 are thrown, you have to override either A or B on its feeding point to allow safe crossing between lines. Since the siding is already routed to mainline B, then you can drop mainline A and that would allow a movement from the station tracks to mainline A over 101 or 104, from mainline A, to mainline B over 104 and 103, then to the siding over 103. And all this while the other 2 controllers are disconnected from all 3 feed points.

 

Afaik your setup above can't really handle this example without polarity and speed matching both mainline controllers, while the one described here solves it.

[NXCALE]

If you add the isolators right of the tournouts, remove the one between the two mainlines and the feed point between 104 and 102A, then you can daisy chain two power switches to override the the shunting controller at the siding's feed point by the controller of mainline A if you throw 104, and this output with mainline B if 103 is also thrown. If both 104 and 103 are thrown, you have to override either A or B on its feeding point to allow safe crossing between lines. Since the siding is already routed to mainline B, then you can drop mainline A and that would allow a movement from the station tracks to mainline A over 101 or 104, from mainline A, to mainline B over 104 and 103, then to the siding over 103. And all this while the other 2 controllers are disconnected from all 3 feed points.

 

I think that I understand what you mean. I was trying to implement your idea in a circuit but I was not able to make it work, could you share a draft of how this should look? So I could give it a second go.

 

Perhaps I haven’t had progress with it as I am not sure if you refer to 5533 or 5536 for its implementation. Do the power control boxes work together with the turnout control boxes (i.e. physically linked) or these require individual operation?

 

I would like to highlight a problem. Namely if you throw both 103 and 104 (the double slips), you could short CN2 to CN3.

 

There is a isolator place between 103 and 104 but also notice the explanation below.

 

Afaik your setup above can't really handle this example without polarity and speed matching both mainline controllers

 

I could say yes and no…

 

Yes: Actually that is right; the initial interlocking does not handle that example of train movement.

 

No: the example above is not part of the of train movements of this unidirectional layout. Before designing this interlocking, the allowed train movements on it were determined. That is, the system requirements were initially determined then the interlocking that matches those requirements was designed. In other words, I did not consider that train movement in my design as it is not part of the method of working.

 

Checking that particular train movement in the unidirectional layout, a train will have to move against the normal direction of that line to complete the named train movement. That is, moving UP direction on the DOWN MAIN line (or A line) to cross to the UP MAIN line (or B line), passing through 104® and 103®. Or the other case, moving DOWN direction on the UP MAIN line (or B line) crossing towards the DOWN MAIN (or A line).

 

I attached pictures below to show the circuit behaviour on those scenarios.

 

Scenario 8: 105R, 103R, 104R

 

 

Sceanrio 9: 105N, 103R, 104R

 

 

Making the layout bidirectional would be interesting, I will try to carry on the design from your draft. Also, I will keep trying to simply the initial circuit.

 

p.s. While trying to implement your setup, I thought I found a way to reduce my initial circuit by removing a 5536 but… it did not work…

Edited February 5, 2016 by nxcale

[kvp]

I am not sure if you refer to 5533 or 5536 for its implementation. Do the power control boxes work together with the turnout control boxes

You need 2 power selectors, that allow choosing from two controllers. They must be linked with the turnouts.

 

The switch thrown with the top double slip selects between the shunting controller or cab A. The switch thrown with the bottom double slip selects between the output of the top or cab B. Throwing the siding's turnout towards the yard should overridde the output of the 2nd switch with the shunting controller. This takes care of the siding.

 

Powering the station is done through the double slips or the extra line at the top. Isolation between siding power and mainline is done by the isolators right of the double slips. Isolation between mainlines is also taken care by this, so no isolator between the mainlines and the station is required.

 

I left out the override for the transition between the mainlines but this can be done too, just not required by your specification. (it would make both lines bidirectional)

[NXCALE]

This certainly reduces the number of control boxes by half, thanks for the idea.

I haven’t testing it on real life but it looks good on paper / pc screen.

 

See below some of the scenarios that the circuit generates. I haven’t included all the scenarios neither the control box for 105 but it is pretty much the same concept as per the circuit of the double slips.

 

Scenario 1B:

 

 

Scenario 2B:

 

 

Scenario 3B:

 

 

Scenario 8B:

 

 

I still consider keeping this layout as unidirectional but just for curiosity, how would you manage the override if the layout is bidirectional without leaving one of the drivers locked out of the system for long time?

[kvp]

Actually if you connect the two lines directly, then they become a twice around single track bidirectional line between the station and the siding, so there is no way to keep both drivers in control.

 

However bidirectional operation on the two mains is possible as long as they are kept independent with no train movements directly between them.

[NXCALE]

Yes, it was what I was thinking on bidirectional lines. Thanks for the help.

About the updated circuit, I will try to make some spare time to put it together with some trains to see how it works.

[NXCALE]

Hi people. I have only seen episode 1 to 4 but I can guess that the coming episode must be a good one as well.

 

Talking about Ep4, it was a surprise that the hybrid-train station looks quite similar to the one which I was playing it in another post (http://www.jnsforum.com/community/topic/11125-interlocking-something-just-for-the-kicks%E2%80%A6-or-a-temp-layout-with-a-temp-interlocking-for-1-to-3-users/).

 

Actually, the initial layout design (taken from a magazine) is for a single line. Later on, I decided to spicy things up and perform a line duplication so I ended up with a double line layout.

 

01.jpg02.jpg

 

It was a good episode, looking forward the next one (or maybe I would jump to the latest one...) Cheers.

 

 

 

The correct layout for this type of japanese bypass station is always one turnout towards the platform, one turnout towards the siding and a strictly turnoutless crossing across the line between them. Adding more than one platform siding is optional. The idea is to always stop and start the trains on flat ground, so the platform and siding tracks are level but the line isn't. This arrangement was only used (and actually only needed) on single track mountain lines, running mostly with slightly underpowered stream engines and/or loose rakes of freight trains.

 

The magazine article actually swapped the crossing for a double slip while removing one of the key turnouts, which is strictly forbidden in real life and makes the whole setup mostly unusable.

 

I agree. The issue of replacing those turnouts with a double slip is that this eliminates the flank protection for train movements which is particularly crucial for safety of this single bidirectional line.

 

It could be that the people that designed the magazine layout found the same issue than I did… space… I have not much experience but I understand that properly use of the available space really counts in railway modeling. It could not sound as much but the reduction is approx. 14mm when turnouts are replaced with a double slip (and also one turnout box control less).

 

The magazine layout is quite high level as it has a good level of scenery details, working signals and a sort of train detection. That makes me think that the modelers are not quite novice and they had the reason above or perhaps another good one to choose the double slips.

 

Thinking again about the issues about replacing the turnouts, I think that the use of double slips could be applied if trap points would be installed to regain the flank protection.

 

The layout as a single line is fun but after sometime I felt that something else was required (it actually depends of each one’s taste). A line duplication (in real life) brings several issues in a layout like this but the idea in the model layout was to get an extra train running and bring a couple of other things else.

Edited February 12, 2016 by nxcale

[kvp]

If you have derails or other protection, then the both turnouts can be left out as a lone double slip would work nicely. This has been used on lots of small and tiny layouts.

 

For the layout in question, adding the other turnout would be easy as it wont need more track length or depth. It would go immediately right of the crossing/double slip between the siding and the mainline. I would have added that extra turnout, removed the double slip and replaced it with a crossing, then moved the double slip at the connection points of the station tracks. This would allow entry and exit to any of the station/siding tracks but without crossing the mainline or a safe crossing of the mainline between the station and the siding.

 

Ps: Many times when a station like this had more than a single platform track, a full crossover was used right before the platforms.