Subject:
|
Re: Future GBCs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.laflrc
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:10:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1055 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, October 18, 2005 10:37 am, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
>
> Also, it means that RCX #2 is completely independant of RCX #3, meaning each
> of those GBC segments can be designed completely independantly. Coordination is
> all relegated to RCX #1, which as Steve points out could support a third GBC
> segment. • ...
> It could be a 3rd GBC segment (controled by a 4th RCX) if we want. Also, it
> could be used to automated the non-GBC train. For instance, have RCX #1 control
> a switch point for another "scenic" loop (powered via a train controler). Every
> other non-GBC train can be put on the "scenic" loop, varying the behavior of the
> entire display. One problem I can see immediately is the possibility of
> collisions where the "scenic" loop re-enters the primary loop... hmm, need to
> think about that.
I was just thinking about this. For non-GBC train loops, one RCX could control the
whole siding (detect train, throw switch, power track, watch for oncoming trains...)
> > Here's a pretty cool train detection light sensor:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/org/ca/rtltoronto/?n=7281
>
> And it might count cars, too, making multiple trains distinguishable by car
> count. I wonder if I can detect trains via LIDAR...
At the train show last weekend, my train had 2 GBC cars, and two container cars.
Counting would not be useful, there.
We should be able to adjust the speed of the trains by adding/removing cars. Sort of.
> The other point I like is that a two-station GBC train is a *lot* easier to
> engineer than a multi-station GBC train like we had at BF'05 (although I really
> really liked that setup, I never did get it to the 99% reliability that I feel
> it needed for BF).
I was unhappy with the reliability of our GBC train at BF. It required some
attention. The GTX GBC train did not.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Future GBCs
|
| (...) Yes, although I was hoping to come up with a way of doing it using the switching RCX's "spare" in/outputs. (...) I was thinking more along the lines of identifying GBC trains. If there were three trains along the mainline, two non-GBC with 6 & (...) (19 years ago, 18-Oct-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Future GBCs
|
| (...) (OK, I've got to say my first impression was of an octopus on LSD, but actually after looking at it a bit that's a good diagram for this stuff. Thanks, John!). (...) Also, it means that RCX #2 is completely independant of RCX #3, meaning each (...) (19 years ago, 18-Oct-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
