Excellent

I really enjoyed this article James!  I started investigating locks for my own layout after reading Lance's blog entries on the subject, then became convinced based on the email conversations the three of us have had, and your article really reinforced that thinking and got me even more excited about starting down this path.  Once I'm through my current project, I need to make a research trip to learn more about what switches are locked on my part of the IAIS, where derails are located, etc., and then I'd expect that installation will begin in earnest.

I have to admit I had reservations at first about how my crews would react, but I think locks would do an excellent job of setting the tone of the railroad and communicating the pace at which it's expected to be run.  Ours are not layouts designed for operators who want to be the first one to the finish line, and the locks would seem to serve as an excellent reminder of that.

One question:  I apologize if I missed this in the article, but what's the significance of the "PS" prefix on your switch lock signage?

More to Come

Thanks Joe,

You didn't miss anything. The "PS" designation is, to the best of my knowledge, IAIS specific. It appears on the engineering diagrams I have for the Grimes Line at the turnouts. I'm pretty sure it stands for "Protected Switch", i.e. one that is locked, but am not completely sure.

I decided to have the PS designation appear on the signs for two reasons. One, since I give crews a string-line diagram with every turnout and grade crossing displayed as an operating aide, I wanted the turnouts to be easily identified apart from the grade crossings. The "PS" label fits the bill.

Two, it's prototypically accurate 

I'm planning a follow-up post on my blog later this week to go into more detail on the switch locks on my layout.

James

Locks?

 I don't see the need to actually have human sized  locks and keys as long as the crew simulates the time required to unlock scale sized locks? or maybe install  "locks"  by drilling holes down thru the turnout throw bars and inserting wire "keys" that must be removed to throw the switch? Turnouts could be also  "locked" by just having reversing polarity frog switches on the fascia so the crew has to throw the switch to "unlock" the spur? ....DaveB

PS

Interesting.  After seeing your reply, I had high hopes that I'd find similar notes on the engineering diagrams for the West End, saving me a research trip, but that wasn't to be.  I found those you refer to on the Grimes line, but no "PS" notations out on the main that I could see.  I wonder if it's a holdover from the MILW or N&W days on your line?

Dave, I can't speak for James, but in my mind, anytime we can augment our imagination by actually replicating prototypical tasks, realism is improved.  Before sound, I would imagine blowing the horn for crossings, but realism took a giant leap forward when I could actually do so.  In my opinion, having real locks to work with would provide a similar bump.

On my layout, I've "locked" three neglected yard tracks, inserting a short length of code 55 rail through the activation rod in the fascia, to simulate tracks that are locked down by MOW on my prototype.  While it serves a purpose similar to the wire "keys" you're suggesting, I'm looking forward to adding hasps and real padlocks (e.g. the type used for luggage).  My plan is to use locks that require a different "MOW" key on those tracks, just as the prototype does.

IIRC, I think James, Lance, and I discussed the idea of having a lock simply kill the frog on the associated turnout.  Personally, I didn't care for the idea, since crews forgetting to unlock the switch would be reminded by shorting out on the turnout, causing the locomotive sound to reset.  Kind of an illusion-killer.

Dear Joe, On the prototype,

Dear Joe,

On the prototype, a loco crew who tries to trail thru a locked turnout, or roll over a locked derail, will have an equally unpleasant "illusion killing" experience, ....except the sound won't stop...

(you'll still be just as "on the ground" though, arguably more so...)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS Having read the article, I'm still not 100% clear. If the turnout is electrically actuated (turnout motor, servo, whatever), then interlocking the "lock" by making it a electro-mechanical switch is relatively easy.
(The "Human Interface" is still a "physical/mechanical" looking/feeling thing, but the actual actuation is via electro-mechanical means).

However, for mechanically thrown turnouts (thinking Caboose Industries throws), how does one achieve the "interlocking"?
(I saw the interferrence cam, but didn't quite "get" the practical mechanics in play...)

Alternatives

There will always be levels of comfort when it comes to simulating prototype procedures. While your preference may involve other, perhaps simpler methods... I wanted full-sized locks.

While I'm obviously biased, my article did discuss alternate methods for simulating equipment locks, including mechanical, electrical, or pure "imagination". I also took the time to mention that this process could be uncomfortable for even the most seasoned operator.

I'd love to see what you've come up with for equipment locks.

James

From the "Tower Master" end of the spectrum...

Dear James,

From the UK-esque and "Tower Master" end of the spectrum, here's a turnout<> padlock "interlock" system which can be as small or as large as one may wish...

(EDIT: Link removed, google "Modratec interlocking".

NB some modellers have reported malware warnings when accessing this site.
However, appears clean when accessed from within Australia using Chrome V31, IE9 and 10, and via Symantec, AVAST, and Trend OfficeScan).

and yes, lever-type "ground frame" units with built-in locks are significantly common...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kpiau/4021249939/

http://www.nswrail.net/locations/photo.php?name=NSW:Sandgate+Cemetery:9

http://www.nswrail.net/locations/photo.php?name=NSW:Widgiewa:2?iframe=true

http://vrhistory.com/walks/Gunning/Gunning_0014.jpg

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/3-sigs/locklever.jpg

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

I like it!

I agree.  I also like the valves that Lance uses to simulate setting the brake on a spot, IIRC.

Good article!

Malware

FYI, I got a malware warning when I clicked on the above link.

Illusion killers

Very true.   To be clear, the conversation with James I was referring to earlier was specifically about his manually-actuated turnouts.  The idea that was floated at the time was to have the "lock" simply reverse the frog polarity, but since James uses manually-actuated turnouts, there'd be no threat of derailment.  Crews could physically route themselves into a "locked" spur, but likely wouldn't realize their mistake until they shorted out.

Dear Joe, Crews could

Dear Joe,

Agreed, there's a definite difference between stopping someone doing some action from the outset,
(having the turnout locked so it can't be moved to start with)

and letting them do it without any warning, and then saying "Gotcha"...
(letting it be moved, and then saying "...but you should have known that you shouldn't have done that...")

Now, how to "lock" C.I. ground throws... hmmm...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Lots of Locks

Very, very true. A dead frog isn't a long enough space to kill a locomotive. You need something at least the length of your longest locomotive for a dead-electrical solution to work. Reversing the polarity on the frog and forcing the locomotive to stop via short circuit is too jarring. Shorts are something I go out of my way to avoid, and as Joe mentioned, completely takes you out of the environment I'm trying to create.

Again, as the article mentions, my technique was based on my specific situation. It's compounded by the fact that the locks were an afterthought. My turnouts were already installed, wired, scenicked, and ballasted. Had I planned for locks at the get-go I would probably have gone with another solution.

My hope was that the article would give inspiration to others to pursue their own solutions, or at least consider the roles that equipment locks play on a prototype railroad.

Very nice stuff Professor. I remember an old article in MR, or perhaps RMC, about a modeler that built a complete interlocking panel using styrene strips.

James

CI throws

Perhaps James could confirm, but I think his solution would work very well in that situation.  If I'm understanding things correctly, his locks physically prevent the points from moving, regardless of the chosen method of throwing the turnout manually.

I really should just shut it and get out of James' way here, but his article got me pretty jazzed about this subject all over again, and I've been enjoying the discussion. 

Restrictions

The main point of the article, which I hope came across, is that whatever method you choose should prevent the movement of the points without first being unlocked or freed from restricted movement.

If you use an electric method to throw your switches, i.e. Tortoise motors, then you should prevent access to the control somehow. Perhaps a locking cover over the toggle switch or button, such as what Lance Mindheim has done on his Downtown Spur layout.

Mechanical methods require a bit more planning, but can still be done. For Caboose Industries throws you could fashion a wire in a shepherd's crook shape that hooks over the throw bar when the turnout is on the normal position. You lift up the wire and it allows the handle to be thrown.

There are countless methods you could use well beyond the, as mentioned in my article, "Rube Goldberg method" I devised for my own layout.

James

The "PS" designation?

My first thought would be power switch if these are on the mainline? ....DaveB

Branch of a Branch

Fair guess... except this track has never been a true mainline.

Before the Grimes Line was the Grimes Line, it was a Milwaukee Road branch. There's never been any sort of powered switches or dispatcher control on the turnouts in the more than 100 year history of the line.

James

Mebbe I'm just being thick....

... but for manual turnouts, why not just have the "tab" on the lock operate the turnout, too?

But then...

It would work but that would be like operating the turnout with the turn of the key in the "padlock" as opposed to unlocking the "padlock" so the turnout can be manually thrown.  Right?

...

So you put a DPDT switch above the key hole and run the wiring through the key knife style switch.  You an throw the DPDT switch all day log, but until you turn the key to complete continuity, you'll get nothing.

Two Actions

Correct. Unlocking the turnout allows the switch to be thrown, but doesn't thrown the switch. We're talking about two different actions.

Another valid setup, but I wanted to use a mechanical method, for reasons described above.

James

Locking electrical operated turnouts

Following in his Footsteps

Thanks Rick!

I hope I gave Lance the proper credit he deserves in my article. I'm definitely the Jim Whittaker to his Edmund Hillary. While I took my own route to the top, I wouldn't have tried had he not gone first.

James

" this track has never been a true mainline"

If the PS designation is on a map with a station shown( numbers something like 234+55)  it probably means point of switch, the location of the switch points in distance from a selected starting point......DaveB

options

I am wholly impressed by the article. There are many options out there as we see in this string of thought alone. On the LDSiG site I saw one guy even took G-scale switch stand and placed them on a shelf and actually ran the points with them. Not only having to unlock the stand, but physically turn the prototype stand. --- Mind you he had very few points in one location. 

I was thinking as the discussion also turned of the covers that Lance M uses and that James indicated for the crossing lights/gates operation. How this adds to one's run - especially if your alone.