Ryan:

Congrats on the move and the likely aquisition of new layout space!

For your "automated" plans, you need to look into JMRI and/or Chubb's CMRI. Digitrax Transponding and LocoNet is also an option, I suppose, but I've not seen any full-blown automated implementations of that technology. I'd love to hear about a fully automated Digitrax-based implementation if there is one out there!

 Joe,

Thanks!  I am planning on using JMRI for the brains of my operation.  I have been following them for the past few years and continue to be impressed with the features that they keep adding.  I can see already that adding automation is going to put all the complexity back into the wiring, if not make it worse than traditional block wiring.

The first phase of the model will be the track plan posted above with temporary loops on the ends.  I will keep pushing the loops farther and farther around the room until everything is connected.

Here are some of the vendors/technologies that I plan on implementing on the layout:

• L-Girder benchwork
• Homabed
• Central Valley Model Works track for all detailed visible areas
• ME Flextrack for visible areas
• Atlas track for staging
• Proto:87 turnout kits
• Tam Valley Depot Servo control for turnouts
• JMRI
• NCE DCC system

Special thanks to everyone here to everyone who has contributed directly, or posted topics that moved my design and mindset along!

More to come...

Ryan

Ryan,

You're facing an exciting time,  Congrats. Great choices on your list.  They're almost identical to mine:  (#1 son is moving to his new home this month, so the new layout room is almost available;  I've been making a very similar list). 

The only thing that I would suggest adding to your list is CMRI for the hardware side, to go along with the JMRI software side.  I've been looking into similar layout functioning, and was advised by a couple very experienced MRR electronic engineers that Bruce Chubb's newer SMINI boards make an already well-established interface system even more straight forward.  I've been lurking at JMRI for some months, and CMRI is referenced a lot.  Another site is Dick Bronson's.  http://www.rr-cirkits.com       He has those clinics that are posted on JMRI.

I'd add the cross-over.  Prototype rationale would be for runaround or for contingency if there's a fouled switch or failed equipment.

I have been following a site and blog from "Joe Daddy" who is into layout automation using the CTI system and thought it might be of interest. http://joe-daddy.com/joomla/

His ideal is to have a totally automated, computer controlled layout, not my cup of tea but his ideas are interesting when it comes to automation.

 NCE has a device that is programable and can control locomotives, turnouts, etc. and might be useful if you have an NCE DCC system. You should check out NCE's website http://www.ncedcc.com/ click on the mini panel links. lso the NCE yahoo discussion group would be available to answer your questions.

For simple layouts, the Mini Panel (or several of them to control various areas) might be preferable, but for whole railroad control for a large layout, signals etc. the Chubb CMRI system, combined with JMRI, is complex but may well give your the most control.

John

 John & Ian,

Thanks for pointing me to CMRI.  I'm looking into it, but it looks a little steep to get into.  I'll compare the costs with a NCE centric solution monitoring/signal solution.

I've also reduced the sensing blocks from the ridiculous number I had originally to 10.  I think that I can still accomplish the automation I want without seperating every turnout.  Here is the new picture.

Thanks,

Ryan

How far is it from switch #3 into the upper switching area and crossover at #1? If it's a fair distance you could have it as a separately controlled point. That way you can have a train parked over that switch but waiting just short of the crossover at #1.

Are you installing CTC/ABS signals or simply doing this for automatic operation? The blocks you end up with will be exactly what you need to make the system CTC controlled.

Joe - my N scale BD Kaiserslautern layout uses Digitrax in combination with RailRoad and Company's TrainController for full automation. With the TrainController software I don't need the transponding, so that is not implemented. Occupancy detection is using BDL168s, switches and signals are controlled by DS64s. The section I've completed so far works really well. I can even mix fully automated trains with manually controlled trains. It is really neat to see an express passenger train slowing and stopping at the station entrance signal when I don't clear the main in time with a local freight - although the dispatcher and passengers aren't thrilled!

One of the first DCC fully automated layouts was done with Digitrax Loconet (and Winlok, this was even before JMRI). It was a test/training platform for light rail in Malaysia - it's fully described in the Digitrax Big Book of DCC.

There's no special feature or capability in CMRI that makes it more or less suitable for this sort of thing. The methods mentioned in the first CMRI articles on 'tracking' a train work with any system of block detection with any control scheme, DC or DCC. It's incorporated as a feature of RR&Co, and should be fully workable in JMRI soon. You can probably do it today in JMRI if you are proficient enough to write your own scripts. No Digitrax Transponding or Lenz RailCom needed. This also does not limit you to certain brands of decoders or systems that support one of those two formats and does not subject you to the various limits inherent in either one.

 Digitrax themselves have or had a few automated setups they used at shows. On simply demonstrated block detection and the SB8C signal controller with an automated N scale RDC shuttling back and forth - Transponding was not used. I happened to be standing right next to it when presented with a great example of why the old MS100 is not a good choice for Loconet to PC interfacing - a detection packet was 'missed' by the computer running Winlok so it did not know the RDC had reached the end of the test track and never reversed it, instead it ran into the bumper and kept trying to run off the end of the track.

                                      --Randy