A Layout designed by a NASA Design Engineer

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Let's take a look back over the last 25 years, over the "command control" era.  Investing significant time and money, even if it's free, to fix expensive things that should not be broken if they were designed properly in the first place, may not be not conducive to the future health of the hobby.

What do you think?

I think you are looking at it from the "glass half empty" viewpoint.  There are countless folks running simpler layouts that never see anything like the issues being discussed.  I've had plenty of people I talked to tell me they've been using TMCC, Legacy, or DCS for years and never had any issues.

As has been stated many times in the past, we see the worst of the picture as a rule, not the best of the picture.  People that have run for aren't routinely posting a "ho hum" it's been another uneventful decade for my TMCC layout...

@Adrian! posted:

One thing to note is the PH180 breakers are super fast but a regular relay is not (if you look at this on millisecond timescales of the fault). That’s why you probably want an electronic solution not an electromechanical one. You want to keep the reaction time fast so nothing gets cooked.

Remember, a PH180 breaker IS a relay that's activated by an electronic circuit, so it's indeed an electromechanical solution.  Also, the stated goal was to simply disable the other power districts if one goes down to avoid a crash.  That's not a task that demands "super fast" response, and I think a relay solution is more than sufficient.

Personally, I'd probably just put four AC optocouplers with a resistor and filter cap that would be camped on each transformer output.  All of these would dump into an single AND circuit that requires all the transformer outputs to be active to hold this IDEC RH4B-UDC12V 10 amp 4-Pole relay energized to allow the four outputs to continue on to the tracks from the transformers.  If any input is lost, the relay immediately drops out and kills all the track power.  Should be a piece of cake to build and solves the stated problem.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Remember, a PH180 breaker IS a relay that's activated by an electronic circuit, so it's indeed an electromechanical solution.

Right PH180 not PSX. What was I thinking? Minus two points for me for not reading more carefully.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

These two sets of comments, coming from wildly opposite, but each quite valid, perspectives, convey the present breadth and depth of our hobby.

Does anyone see a problem here?

      What ever happened to K.I.S.S.?

A number of times I've attempted to coach @Mannyrock and others like him, trying to bring encouragement that things are always less complex than they seem, that the hobby's about learning and that tinkering is a big part of it, that the products we buy are generally solid but may not be bulletproof, and that many of us forumites are here to help folks turn small steps forward into big ones.  Thank goodness that he, and they, have been patient with us.

But, from this video the sheer number of big problems that the AGHR folks have encountered, characterized, and solved is nothing less that a show-stopper for the average Joe.

Talk about intimidation.

How did things get this to this point?  Is it just because the AGHR layout is so big?

I applaud @Adrian! and his fellow club members for digging in and solving these vexing problems.

Don't get me wrong.  Like many of us I learned the very first technical things I encountered at, 6, 7 or 8 years old, by playing with my Lionel 1513S set.  I have deep respect for the learning process that comes out of using your hands and the right tools (starting with toys) to make amazing things happen.  As I approach retirement within the next few years, I'm deeply thankful for what our hobby has taught me -- what I have used every day of my work life as an electrical engineer, for over 45 years.

I don't like saying this but from what we see in the video it seems to me that the folks who designed TMCC/Legacy and DCS didn't think them through deeply enough before putting them into the field.

Even more troubling is the fact that they evidently didn't embrace K.I.S.S.

Why else would so many big, but in the end solvable, problems present themselves?

This is a double-edged sword.  Giving the hobbyist a way to build on little things in order to solve big problems is good.  This is a large part of what we now call S.T.E.M.  At the same time what about those that get left behind?

Let's take a look back over the last 25 years, over the "command control" era.  Investing significant time and money, even if it's free, to fix expensive things that should not be broken if they were designed properly in the first place, may not be not conducive to the future health of the hobby.

What do you think?

Mike

My thoughts:

so first… Digital command and control is more complex and so the problems it creates are more complex to solve. DCS and Legacy works well at home with no problems, it’s only in the big club with the giant layout and up to 8 trains at once when things start to fall apart. That’s a unique situation and a very small subset of customers so I don’t expect MTH and Lionel to come solve our problems for us that no one else has.

However digital control also creates a lot of benefits. Like imagine the alternative… conventional trains in our club with 3 loops and 30-ish members. Without digital control we’d be lining up one by one all weekend to get layout time. Being able to run together and coordinate in the club makes the hobby more social and less sitting at home running a train in a loop by yourself. Like @gunrunnerjohn said you only see the issues posted here, not the countless hours of smooth running.

Second, I’ll be the first one to say that 99% of the issues we solve with technology could be much easier solved if members would modify their habits (watch their train, avoid too many passenger cars) but with 30 ish members and new members joining and members leaving (about a 20% yearly member turnover) that’s just not something we can realistically seem to accomplish.

third… the thing about K.I.S.S. is it depends who things are made simple for? Is it the designer (me) or is it the people using the layout? We have members ages 8-80 in our club so my guiding philosophy is to make things as complicated as they need to be for me in order to make things simple as possible for them. No one in the club needs to know about all these levels of circuit protection or complex control schemes they just need to know what button to push to turn on the power, what track to put their train on, and my phone number for when there’s an issue.

Trying to change behavior and habits of a large membership doesn’t work and doesn’t last with turnover, and trying to enforce complicated procedures to enable smooth operation also doesn’t work, so we’re left with complex technical solutions “under the hood” to keep the place enjoyable and running smooth for everyone.

Excellent, concise overview of the electronics controlling and monitoring a large club layout.  I can certainly see how these circuits were designed to solve problems when many trains are operated at the same time, with different systems (DCS, Legacy) in a large layout.  I never knew those little scopes existed.  Slick at $26 each for what they can do.

Right off the bat, I saw the chokes on the TIU inputs and thought, Whoops!  I bought some after following that discussion, but forgot all about them when I wired up my 'extensive' 2-input layout last winter.  They are still sitting in the electronics parts drawer. 

@Adrian! posted:

Right PH180 not PSX. What was I thinking? Minus two points for me for not reading more carefully.

I visualize something like this for killing the four power districts when any one fails.  The monitor is powered by a totally independent 1A DC supply  Each transformer is monitored using an AC optocoupler, no issues of any kind for common grounds, etc. each one it totally isolated.  They're all combined to trigger the FET that closes the relay.  Any transformer output failing will cause a high voltage and fire the FET.

@clem k posted:

OK I need help... I have one loop of track 300' long, divided into four blocks, each powered a single Lionel 180 brick, going through a single TIU using four channels.  I run multiple trains, some with engines front and rear. I need a system that when one block trips the breaker on all four blocks trip, One heck of a derailment if they all don't trip.

See my previous posts:

https://ogrforum.com/...7#160364097329362027

https://ogrforum.com/...2#160364097330601982

Hi Adrian

Just catching up with your post and its GREAT!  Thanks for posting and showing us some of your clubs electronics to address issues encountered with large and heavy used layouts.  At NJ-HI railers with our 30' X 200', 8 TIU, multi level layout, we have already implemented several of your suggestions and I see more coming from this post.  Thanks again and keep the great ideas coming.

Bob D