Topics

interlocking

jerryglow2
 

I am coming to a critical stage in my layout construction. The lower
level http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/layout/lower1.jpg is all in
and operational and I am beginning the upper level which will in most
cases be over the lower. The crossing at top center of the drawing is
at grade where the tracks climb from the loops to the upper level.
Since this will all be hidden, what can (should) I do to prevent
sideswipes at the crossing?

Jerry Glow

Earl T. Hackett <hackete1@...>
 

If the operators can not see their trains in this location, I'd isolate a 3 ft length of rail on either side of the crossing and use a relay to allow only one direction across the crossing to be powered at any one time. A detector on an entrance section will supply a logic circuit which will set and hold the relay until the train clears the crossing. Any other train trying to enter the crossing will simply stall on the dead track. Not great if there are multiple head end units as some will still be pushing while the first unit or two will just sit there, but better than crunching a bunch of models.

----- Original Message -----
From: jerryglow2
To: WiringForDCC@...
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: [WiringForDCC] interlocking


I am coming to a critical stage in my layout construction. The lower
level http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/layout/lower1.jpg is all in
and operational and I am beginning the upper level which will in most
cases be over the lower. The crossing at top center of the drawing is
at grade where the tracks climb from the loops to the upper level.
Since this will all be hidden, what can (should) I do to prevent
sideswipes at the crossing?

Jerry Glow





http://www.WiringForDCC.com



SPONSORED LINKS Lionel model train European model trains Model railroads
Ho scale model train Ho model trains Model train n scale


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "WiringForDCC" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WiringForDCC-unsubscribe@...

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jerryglow2
 

To clarify, I normally run 2 units and traffic can be all 4 ways
thru the crossing
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/layout/lower1.jpg as trains
descend on one of the purple tracks thru the crossing and continue
down to the loops. After reversing they head back thru the crossing
up the other purple track to the upper visible portion of the
layout. All on the drawing will be concealed trackage.

Jerry Glow

--- In WiringForDCC@..., "Earl T. Hackett"
<hackete1@c...> wrote:

If the operators can not see their trains in this location, I'd
isolate a 3 ft length of rail on either side of the crossing and use
a relay to allow only one direction across the crossing to be
powered at any one time. A detector on an entrance section will
supply a logic circuit which will set and hold the relay until the
train clears the crossing. Any other train trying to enter the
crossing will simply stall on the dead track. Not great if there
are multiple head end units as some will still be pushing while the
first unit or two will just sit there, but better than crunching a
bunch of models.
----- Original Message -----
From: jerryglow2
To: WiringForDCC@...
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: [WiringForDCC] interlocking


I am coming to a critical stage in my layout construction. The
lower
level http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/layout/lower1.jpg is
all in
and operational and I am beginning the upper level which will in
most
cases be over the lower. The crossing at top center of the
drawing is
at grade where the tracks climb from the loops to the upper
level.
Since this will all be hidden, what can (should) I do to prevent
sideswipes at the crossing?

Jerry Glow





http://www.WiringForDCC.com



SPONSORED LINKS Lionel model train European model trains Model
railroads
Ho scale model train Ho model trains Model train n
scale


-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "WiringForDCC" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WiringForDCC-unsubscribe@...

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------




Earl T. Hackett <hackete1@...>
 

I must admit that I did not look at the drawing before posting my reply. Rather than get all tied up with interlocking, why not simply put more distance between the switches that lead to the crossing and turn it into a bridge.

This situation is very different from the prototype where the engineer can see the signals so something different will be required than the usual interlocking rules. In the most basic approach, you select one route to have superiority. Then when a train enters that route, shut down everything that can interfere with that movement - not just an approach section, but the whole approach route including the yards. If the crossing is occupied, the superior route will have to be shut down until the crossing clears. You will also have to provide similar locks to prevent opposing movements on the same section of single track. Sections that trigger the interlocking will have to have their own detectors.

I posted a circuit I use to handle conditional reverse loop control in the files section. Similar logic circuits can be developed to handle this problem. If you need help in developing specific circuits, contact me off line.

----- Original Message -----
From: jerryglow2
To: WiringForDCC@...
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:48 PM
Subject: [WiringForDCC] Re: interlocking


To clarify, I normally run 2 units and traffic can be all 4 ways
thru the crossing
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/layout/lower1.jpg

jerryglow2
 

That is not an option. All the track is in and all tracks are at the
same elevation going thru the crossing.

Jerry Glow

--- In WiringForDCC@..., "Earl T. Hackett" <hackete1@c...>
wrote:

I must admit that I did not look at the drawing before posting my
reply. Rather than get all tied up with interlocking, why not simply
put more distance between the switches that lead to the crossing and
turn it into a bridge.
Earl

Doug Stuard <dstuard@...>
 

Hi Jerry,

I realize that the track is already in, but I think you have created a
huge operational problem, not just in traffic management, but in
physical access to address the derails that WILL happen.

What I would do (=<<$0.02) would be to relocate (slightly) the ramp
going up and to the right to the INSIDE of the staging tracks and have
it cross above the right hand staging loops at the far right side,
thereby eliminating the need for an at-grade crossing in the rear of
the layout. The turnouts will still be there, but the whole
interlocking issue would be avoided.


Doug Stuard

--- In WiringForDCC@..., "jerryglow2" <jerryglow@c...>
wrote:

I am coming to a critical stage in my layout construction. The lower
level http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/layout/lower1.jpg is all
in
and operational and I am beginning the upper level which will in
most
cases be over the lower. The crossing at top center of the drawing
is
at grade where the tracks climb from the loops to the upper level.
Since this will all be hidden, what can (should) I do to prevent
sideswipes at the crossing?

Jerry Glow

jerryglow2
 

The at grade crossing was a way to equalize and minimize grades.
There will be access/view panels along the facia and if I'm the only
one (or one of two) operators there shouldn't be any problem. But
you always want to design for that one case...

Jerry Glow

--- In WiringForDCC@..., "Doug Stuard" <dstuard@c...>
wrote:

Hi Jerry,

I realize that the track is already in, but I think you have
created a
huge operational problem, not just in traffic management, but in
physical access to address the derails that WILL happen.

What I would do (=<<$0.02) would be to relocate (slightly) the
ramp
going up and to the right to the INSIDE of the staging tracks and
have
it cross above the right hand staging loops at the far right side,
thereby eliminating the need for an at-grade crossing in the rear
of
the layout. The turnouts will still be there, but the whole
interlocking issue would be avoided.


Doug Stuard

Mark Gurries
 

"Doug Stuard" wrote:

Hi Jerry,

What I would do (=<<$0.02) would be to relocate (slightly) the ramp
going up and to the right to the INSIDE of the staging tracks and have
it cross above the right hand staging loops at the far right side,
thereby eliminating the need for an at-grade crossing in the rear of the
layout. The turnouts will still be there, but the whole interlocking
issue would be avoided.


The at grade crossing was a way to equalize and minimize grades.
There will be access/view panels along the facia and if I'm the only
one (or one of two) operators there shouldn't be any problem. But
you always want to design for that one case...

Jerry Glow
I think Doug is on the right track but the wrong side due to the grade
run length. However, the run on the left side has the POTENTIAL to be
much longer which we can take advantage of...

See crudely edited drawing of Jerry's called Lower1a.jpg I do not think
anyone on the "WiringforDCC" list will get this picture...Attachments
are rejected...but Jerry should since I am ALSO addressing him directly
at the same time...

On the left side of the drawing, you have a track spiralling down. What
I would do is continue the spiral a bit more such that the angle permits
it to cross over the green loop of tracks while it is still at
sufficient elevation to clear the green tracks. In other words, the
spire does not have much grade in it at first till it get over the
track. No with the track having cleared the green track no drops down
on the inside (isle side) and ramps down. But instead of connecting
back in at the current crossing location..it run longer on the straight
way and cuts back in on the green track before is starts to make the
right curve that accesses the other loop of track.

Positives:

1) Total grade will be less compared to the other line but you might be
able to extend that other grade line a foot or more down the line to
ease it a bit too!

2) The grade will be eased on the curve..a grade compensated curve.
This will really help trains get up the grade. I bet it will be easier
than the other grade!

3) Eliminates the grade crossing and collision potential all together.

Negatives:

1) The track will block a lot of access to the other track and switches
behind it. One crazy solution for that would be to have the long
straight section (that contains the grade) mounted on a long shelf that
when unlocked, can be flipped down and out towards the isle to gain
access to all those tracks and switches in the back. Use a long piano
hinge and use plywood construction to minimize dimensional shifts with
humidity and temperatures.

2) Have no idea about upper level clearances.

Anyway that my brainstorm idea...crazy huh?

Best Regards,

Mark Gurries
Linear Technology
Power Supply & Battery Charger Applications Engineer/Manager
---------------------------------------------------------
Model Railroad Club and NMRA DCC presentations are at:
http://www.siliconvalleylines.com/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------
Audio Enthusiast (Love SAE equipment)
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/gurriesm/
----------------------------------------------------------

jerryglow2
 

Aah the beauty of a layout design program - 3D PlanIt in my case. I was able to test Mark's suggestion and as ingenious as it is, there would be a clearance problem with the new track as it crosses over the tracks in the loop to the left side because the upper level main is above those tracks. I've made his sketch available to view http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/files/Jerrys_lower.jpg but as is won't work. I think I wrote Earl Hackett but not the list suggesting I could wire a couple feet of all 4 tracks going into the crossing thru a rotary switch thus create a manual interlock. Probably not very "elegant" but it should work.

Jerry Glow

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Gurries" <gurriesm@...>
To: <WiringForDCC@...>; <jerryglow@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WiringForDCC] Re: interlocking


"Doug Stuard" wrote:

Hi Jerry,

What I would do (=<<$0.02) would be to relocate (slightly) the ramp
going up and to the right to the INSIDE of the staging tracks and have
it cross above the right hand staging loops at the far right side,
thereby eliminating the need for an at-grade crossing in the rear of the
layout. The turnouts will still be there, but the whole interlocking
issue would be avoided.


The at grade crossing was a way to equalize and minimize grades.
There will be access/view panels along the facia and if I'm the only
one (or one of two) operators there shouldn't be any problem. But
you always want to design for that one case...

Jerry Glow
I think Doug is on the right track but the wrong side due to the grade
run length. However, the run on the left side has the POTENTIAL to be
much longer which we can take advantage of...

See crudely edited drawing of Jerry's called Lower1a.jpg I do not think
anyone on the "WiringforDCC" list will get this picture...Attachments
are rejected...but Jerry should since I am ALSO addressing him directly
at the same time...

On the left side of the drawing, you have a track spiralling down. What
I would do is continue the spiral a bit more such that the angle permits
it to cross over the green loop of tracks while it is still at
sufficient elevation to clear the green tracks. In other words, the
spire does not have much grade in it at first till it get over the
track. No with the track having cleared the green track no drops down
on the inside (isle side) and ramps down. But instead of connecting
back in at the current crossing location..it run longer on the straight
way and cuts back in on the green track before is starts to make the
right curve that accesses the other loop of track.

Positives:

1) Total grade will be less compared to the other line but you might be
able to extend that other grade line a foot or more down the line to
ease it a bit too!

2) The grade will be eased on the curve..a grade compensated curve.
This will really help trains get up the grade. I bet it will be easier
than the other grade!

3) Eliminates the grade crossing and collision potential all together.

Negatives:

1) The track will block a lot of access to the other track and switches
behind it. One crazy solution for that would be to have the long
straight section (that contains the grade) mounted on a long shelf that
when unlocked, can be flipped down and out towards the isle to gain
access to all those tracks and switches in the back. Use a long piano
hinge and use plywood construction to minimize dimensional shifts with
humidity and temperatures.

2) Have no idea about upper level clearances.

Anyway that my brainstorm idea...crazy huh?

Best Regards,

Mark Gurries
Linear Technology
Power Supply & Battery Charger Applications Engineer/Manager
---------------------------------------------------------
Model Railroad Club and NMRA DCC presentations are at:
http://www.siliconvalleylines.com/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------
Audio Enthusiast (Love SAE equipment)
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/gurriesm/
----------------------------------------------------------

Doug Stuard <dstuard@...>
 

Maybe if he ran only flat cars and gondolas???


--- In WiringForDCC@..., "Gerald Glow" <jerryglow@c...>
wrote:

Aah the beauty of a layout design program - 3D PlanIt in my case.
I was able
to test Mark's suggestion and as ingenious as it is, there would
be a
clearance problem with the new track as it crosses over the tracks
in the
loop to the left side because the upper level main is above those
tracks.
I've made his sketch available to view
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/files/Jerrys_lower.jpg but as
is won't
work. I think I wrote Earl Hackett but not the list suggesting I
could wire
a couple feet of all 4 tracks going into the crossing thru a
rotary switch
thus create a manual interlock. Probably not very "elegant" but it
should
work.

Jerry Glow

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Gurries" <gurriesm@c...>
To: <WiringForDCC@...>; <jerryglow@c...>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WiringForDCC] Re: interlocking


"Doug Stuard" wrote:

Hi Jerry,

What I would do (=<<$0.02) would be to relocate (slightly) the
ramp
going up and to the right to the INSIDE of the staging tracks and
have
it cross above the right hand staging loops at the far right side,
thereby eliminating the need for an at-grade crossing in the rear
of the
layout. The turnouts will still be there, but the whole
interlocking
issue would be avoided.


The at grade crossing was a way to equalize and minimize grades.
There will be access/view panels along the facia and if I'm the
only
one (or one of two) operators there shouldn't be any problem. But
you always want to design for that one case...

Jerry Glow
I think Doug is on the right track but the wrong side due to the
grade
run length. However, the run on the left side has the POTENTIAL
to be
much longer which we can take advantage of...

See crudely edited drawing of Jerry's called Lower1a.jpg I do not
think
anyone on the "WiringforDCC" list will get this
picture...Attachments
are rejected...but Jerry should since I am ALSO addressing him
directly
at the same time...

On the left side of the drawing, you have a track spiralling
down. What
I would do is continue the spiral a bit more such that the angle
permits
it to cross over the green loop of tracks while it is still at
sufficient elevation to clear the green tracks. In other words,
the
spire does not have much grade in it at first till it get over the
track. No with the track having cleared the green track no drops
down
on the inside (isle side) and ramps down. But instead of
connecting
back in at the current crossing location..it run longer on the
straight
way and cuts back in on the green track before is starts to make
the
right curve that accesses the other loop of track.

Positives:

1) Total grade will be less compared to the other line but you
might be
able to extend that other grade line a foot or more down the line
to
ease it a bit too!

2) The grade will be eased on the curve..a grade compensated curve.
This will really help trains get up the grade. I bet it will be
easier
than the other grade!

3) Eliminates the grade crossing and collision potential all
together.

Negatives:

1) The track will block a lot of access to the other track and
switches
behind it. One crazy solution for that would be to have the long
straight section (that contains the grade) mounted on a long shelf
that
when unlocked, can be flipped down and out towards the isle to gain
access to all those tracks and switches in the back. Use a long
piano
hinge and use plywood construction to minimize dimensional shifts
with
humidity and temperatures.

2) Have no idea about upper level clearances.

Anyway that my brainstorm idea...crazy huh?

Best Regards,

Mark Gurries
Linear Technology
Power Supply & Battery Charger Applications Engineer/Manager
---------------------------------------------------------
Model Railroad Club and NMRA DCC presentations are at:
http://www.siliconvalleylines.com/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------
Audio Enthusiast (Love SAE equipment)
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/gurriesm/
----------------------------------------------------------

Earl T. Hackett <hackete1@...>
 

I'm not sure how it would avoid the occasional head on collision.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gerald Glow
To: Mark Gurries ; WiringForDCC@...
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WiringForDCC] Re: interlocking


I think I wrote Earl Hackett but not the list suggesting I could wire
a couple feet of all 4 tracks going into the crossing thru a rotary switch
thus create a manual interlock. Probably not very "elegant" but it should
work.

jerryglow2
 

It wouldn't if wired like I wired one for an all rail crossing I
made once. I guess if I wanted all leads independent, I could add
toggle switches also somewhat like people do when using a rotary for
cab selection or just have them all toggle switch controlled. I wish
I could predict how often (if ever) trains would be heading thru at
opposite directions. It's best to prepare for the worst since it
will be hidden and little chance to do anything about it when
covered.

Jerry Glow

--- In WiringForDCC@..., "Earl T. Hackett"
<hackete1@c...> wrote:

I'm not sure how it would avoid the occasional head on collision.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerald Glow
To: Mark Gurries ; WiringForDCC@...
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WiringForDCC] Re: interlocking


I think I wrote Earl Hackett but not the list suggesting I could
wire
a couple feet of all 4 tracks going into the crossing thru a
rotary switch
thus create a manual interlock. Probably not very "elegant" but
it should
work.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Earl T. Hackett <hackete1@...>
 

If this was DC, you could use a multi layer rotary switch to allow power to only one route and diodes to allow travel in only one direction. DCC is much more like the prototype with all the inherent problems they have been working through for the last 150 years.

----- Original Message -----
From: jerryglow2
To: WiringForDCC@...
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:09 PM
Subject: [WiringForDCC] Re: interlocking


It wouldn't if wired like I wired one for an all rail crossing I
made once. I guess if I wanted all leads independent, I could add
toggle switches also somewhat like people do when using a rotary for
cab selection or just have them all toggle switch controlled. I wish
I could predict how often (if ever) trains would be heading thru at
opposite directions. It's best to prepare for the worst since it
will be hidden and little chance to do anything about it when
covered.

Jerry Glow

--- In WiringForDCC@..., "Earl T. Hackett"
<hackete1@c...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how it would avoid the occasional head on collision.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerald Glow
> To: Mark Gurries ; WiringForDCC@...
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [WiringForDCC] Re: interlocking
>
>
> I think I wrote Earl Hackett but not the list suggesting I could
wire
> a couple feet of all 4 tracks going into the crossing thru a
rotary switch
> thus create a manual interlock. Probably not very "elegant" but
it should
> work.
>
>
>
>
>







http://www.WiringForDCC.com



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "WiringForDCC" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WiringForDCC-unsubscribe@...

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jerryglow2
 

That's an excellent point but this will be DCC. The lower level is
essentially for staging so depending on the number of operators and
trains running at one time, all this might be a moot point. But like I
said, better plan for the worst case scenario (heavy traffic).

Jerry Glow

--- In WiringForDCC@..., "Earl T. Hackett" <hackete1@c...>
wrote:

If this was DC, you could use a multi layer rotary switch to allow
power to only one route and diodes to allow travel in only one
direction. DCC is much more like the prototype with all the inherent
problems they have been working through for the last 150 years.
Earl