Subject:
|
Re: Low-tech & low cost controls
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 May 2002 21:53:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
566 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Ed McGlynn writes:
(snipped)
> There's also a way to use only one controller to run at least two trains,
> but both are at the same speed. While probably not what Pedro's looking
> for, it leads into more complicated electrical block control. Here's a
> folder with an example:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=17296
>
> The electrical diagram shows how to use two switches and one controller (at
> a set speed) to have alternate and simultaneous action on two loops. If
> switch1 is used to divert train1 onto a siding, and while on the siding,
> it's switched to an opposing straight position. That stops the train by
> isolating power from the controller.
This one, I have put to work so far in my current layout. It's the easy
part, I think...
> Train2 just chugs away on it's branchline until stopped by changing the
> position of switch2 from curved to straight.
But how will the TS reach the inner loop, if the switch in the center is set
to straight? Shouldn't that be S2? And the one marked S2 be set to curve,
for instance?
> That position cuts the power
> from the controller and stops the train.
I really must be missing something.
Why the single lead, BTW?
(I should have paid more attention in Physics, I know... *sigh!* :-/)
> Control of the points is via
> motors connected to RCX outputs, and the RCX is commanded through its remote
> control. Coordinating the two trains so that they don't collide on the
> cross tracks is kinda cool. Others have posted their automated designs with
> motor driven polarity switches for this, and that gave me this more
> simplified idea.
I don't have an RCX, nor I have ever worked with one (too much €€ involved).
I dunno, but I guess the polarity-driven solution sounds appealing...
How does it work? Better, how can I test it at home?
> There's also a normal view of the layout in that brickshelf folder to give
> you a sense of actual track geometry and such.
It was helpful, yes. I'm still puzzled about that switch, though; But I
really can't say anything, I must see it working to understand it :-(
> > > How should I do insulations? Would a thin piece of scotch tape be enough?
> >
> > Yes, but I wouldn't use tape, as it can leave a sticky residue. I've
> > found that a small piece of paper is quite effective. Put it between the
> > track connectors, clamp them together, then tear away the excess. The
> > isolation is virtually invisible.
>
>
> Yes, that works like a charm. It's invisible, so I have to keep track of
> where I have the isolations during setup.
:-)
I tend to have a small "map" on the side, just in case...
> > > Where should I connect the points (and other accessories, why not)? Is it
> > > best to use a separate CU for these?
> >
> > No need to use a separate Controller for the points, since they lose
> > power when switched away from the mainline. Accessories should have
> > their own power though. Also, you may want to isolate a switchyard and
> > power it separately.
>
>
> Switches can be used in the isolation scheme.
I'm having problems with automating switches right now. So far, all the
solutions I have encoutered involve either modifiing the switch, or the use
of parts I do not have. I'll stick to manual for the time being, but I'll
design the layout in such a way that a future motorization is easy.
> > I get a sense from your questions that you would like to control
> > multiple trains at different speeds on a single loop (like a DCC
> > system). This is not practical using standard LEGO wiring systems. If
> > this is what you want, and would like to delve into the complexities of
> > electrical block wiring systems (which are inexpensive compared to DCC),
> > let me know, and I'll relay what I've learned on the topic.
> >
> > On the other hand, on a large layout, you could easily fake it, and it
> > would still be impressive. See how this sounds:
> >
> > Imagine two loops, with half of one connected to Controller A, set to
> > speed 3; half of both connected to Controller B, set to speed 4; and
> > half of the second loop connected to Controller C, set to speed 5. When
> > the train in one loop hit the dividing point, it would slow down. The
> > other train would speed up in the same way. Now expand that idea into
> > more loops, add an electrically isolated switchyard or two, and by golly
> > you've got some real action going on.
>
>
> I like that - in my example, you could add isolation and more controllers to
> provide that effect. I think I'll have to do that!
LMK what you came up with, please! :-)
Thanks, Ed. The pictorial help was especially relevant, I tend to mess up
when interpreting words... so this was pretty much what I was needing.
What else have you got on the subject? Preferably, not involving RCX ;-)
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Low-tech & low cost controls
|
| Hold on for a few weeks. I have a new design to present which meets all your criteria for a remotely operated switch. In the meantime, you should absolutely design your layout for manual switching. It is much more satisfying (and prototypical!) (...) (22 years ago, 18-May-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Low-tech & low cost controls
|
| (...) There's also a way to use only one controller to run at least two trains, but both are at the same speed. While probably not what Pedro's looking for, it leads into more complicated electrical block control. Here's a folder with an example: (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
8 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
|
|
|
|
