# Running multiple trains on the same loop with automatic separation



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Do you know anyone doing this with battery power?

RailBoss 4 "with Multi-Train" software is now available, at no extra cost. 

Run two or more trains on the same loop, while each train makes random station stops. No wires, no trackside electronics, fully unattended. Although you will want to watch the action, as it is different all the time; trains catching up to each other, then taking corrective action to get the spacing back. It is fun to watch. 

How is this done? Each RailBoss 4 radio is actually a transceiver, i.e. two way communication is possible between all locomotives. Only two track magnets required; one for the bell/station stop trigger, and the other for the whistle/train release. The track magnets tell the loco where it is at, and the locos report their current track position to each other. Mix in some logic to avoid conflicts .... and it works great!


----------



## placitassteam (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow Dell!!! Sounds like you finally did it. I know you have been trying to do that for quite some time with varying degrees of success. Congratulations! Hope to see you the 20th or 21st.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

What does it do in the event of two trains closing in on each other from right angles at a 30/90 degree crossing?


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

..........it makes them go faster so the crash is more realistic?  

Congratulations Del. Go sock it to them.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Interesting... I assume a loco only reports it's position when it encounters one of the two magnets? 

Something tells me the "run area" is not really protected from collisions when you have more than 2 trains. 

Greg


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 03 Jul 2013 08:02 PM 
Interesting... I assume a loco only reports it's position when it encounters one of the two magnets? 

Something tells me the "run area" is not really protected from collisions when you have more than 2 trains. 

Greg 
No. It isn't. You have to use some common sense. Reasonable length of track and number of trains. It isn't supposed to be a parade of trains! I would think that most folks would be quite happy just running two trains, three on larger layouts.

After running a dozen laps or so, you will know if there is ever going to be the possibility of one train catching the other. To begin with, the speeds are "matched", so it is only when trains skip the station stop that they gain a bunch of ground on the train ahead. This is what will determine how much "run" room you need. It isn't rocket science.

(and Todd ... go start your own 555/surplus relay thread.)


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Del Tapparo on 03 Jul 2013 09:58 PM 
Posted By Greg Elmassian on 03 Jul 2013 08:02 PM 
Interesting... I assume a loco only reports it's position when it encounters one of the two magnets? 

Something tells me the "run area" is not really protected from collisions when you have more than 2 trains. 

Greg 

(and Todd ... go start your own 555/surplus relay thread.)










I think it sounds cool and was considering it for use on the two lines with the crossing, but...


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 03 Jul 2013 04:50 PM 
..........it makes them go faster so the crash is more realistic?  

Congratulations Del. Go sock it to them. 
Tony, sure you aren't thinking of how people drive cars through roundabouts and how the yellow in traffic lights is more of a fading green?

Andrew


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 03 Jul 2013 10:10 PM 
Posted By Del Tapparo on 03 Jul 2013 09:58 PM 
Posted By Greg Elmassian on 03 Jul 2013 08:02 PM 
Interesting... I assume a loco only reports it's position when it encounters one of the two magnets? 

Something tells me the "run area" is not really protected from collisions when you have more than 2 trains. 

Greg 

(and Todd ... go start your own 555/surplus relay thread.)










I think it sounds cool and was considering it for use on the two lines with the crossing, but... 
Sorry. Maybe I took that the wrong way. But there are no crossings in the loop shown in my diagram and no provisions for crossings in this system.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Del Tapparo on 04 Jul 2013 09:06 AM 
Sorry. Maybe I took that the wrong way. But there are no crossings in the loop shown in my diagram and no provisions for crossings in this system. 

I was thinking that maybe they worked by proximity and as the two trains closed on each other, one/both would eventually just stop before collision. But I guess not. 
It's no secret that I detest track power for its inability to run well at night after the dew point drops and I am not beyond setting up a couple engines with batteries if necessary for night running. But, they've got to be able to avoid each other at the crossing and I'm not convinced that any battery-powered system can accomodate that.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Andrew. 
Don't know nuffink about traffic lights. There are none in Casino, and ony one set in Lismore. The traffic in this neck of the woods does quite well without them. 

Del. 
If there are any spare I/O pins on your IC it should be relatively easy to add another sensor specifically for crossings.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 04 Jul 2013 11:59 AM 
Posted By Del Tapparo on 04 Jul 2013 09:06 AM 
Sorry. Maybe I took that the wrong way. But there are no crossings in the loop shown in my diagram and no provisions for crossings in this system. 

I was thinking that maybe they worked by proximity and as the two trains closed on each other, one/both would eventually just stop before collision. But I guess not. 
It's no secret that I detest track power for its inability to run well at night after the dew point drops and I am not beyond setting up a couple engines with batteries if necessary for night running. But, they've got to be able to avoid each other at the crossing and I'm not convinced that any battery-powered system can accomodate that.

It would be possible to do with this system if you put the station stop in the right place (probably near the crossing) and the rest of the track configuration allowed the other train to stay away from the crossing. Needs the proper setup and timing. Obviously, wouldn't work for every track configuration. Might be fun to play with but my layout has no crossings.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Del Tapparo on 04 Jul 2013 05:39 PM 
Posted By toddalin on 04 Jul 2013 11:59 AM 
Posted By Del Tapparo on 04 Jul 2013 09:06 AM 
Sorry. Maybe I took that the wrong way. But there are no crossings in the loop shown in my diagram and no provisions for crossings in this system. 

I was thinking that maybe they worked by proximity and as the two trains closed on each other, one/both would eventually just stop before collision. But I guess not. 
It's no secret that I detest track power for its inability to run well at night after the dew point drops and I am not beyond setting up a couple engines with batteries if necessary for night running. But, they've got to be able to avoid each other at the crossing and I'm not convinced that any battery-powered system can accomodate that.

It would be possible to do with this system if you put the station stop in the right place (probably near the crossing) and the rest of the track configuration allowed the other train to stay away from the crossing. Needs the proper setup and timing. Obviously, wouldn't work for every track configuration. Might be fun to play with but my layout has no crossings. 
Crossing is on two separate loops that can run independent. It's shown at lower center of the pike. Could it work on something like this and have these two trains avoid each other?

Thanks.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I was hoping to get an explanation of how 2 locos in the "run" area avoid hitting each other. I see how thiw works with 2 locos, and I need to convince myself that with 3 locos, if the other 2 are ready to move, a third one works, but I don't see how four or more work right. 

Did I miss something? My fundamental reservation is that the locos can only report when they cross a magnet. 

There were only 2 maqnets in the drawing I saw, so with 3 trains, how can you avoid re-ending a train that is stopped over the magnet? 

Greg


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 04 Jul 2013 07:04 PM 
Crossing is on two separate loops that can run independent. It's shown at lower center of the pike. Could it work on something like this and have these two trains avoid each other? 



Todd .... After some thought, yes it will work. The train on the longer loop (left side of drawing) needs to be setup for 100% station stops (no random stopping), just short of the crossing. The other train runs continuously on the shorter loop (right side of drawing). Place a whistle magnet somewhere after the short loop train passes and clears the crossing. This releases the long loop train from the stop and clears the crossing before the short loop train gets back to the crossing.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05 Jul 2013 01:38 AM 
I was hoping to get an explanation of how 2 locos in the "run" area avoid hitting each other. I see how thiw works with 2 locos, and I need to convince myself that with 3 locos, if the other 2 are ready to move, a third one works, but I don't see how four or more work right. 

Did I miss something? My fundamental reservation is that the locos can only report when they cross a magnet. 

There were only 2 maqnets in the drawing I saw, so with 3 trains, how can you avoid re-ending a train that is stopped over the magnet? 

Greg 
Greg ... The trains don't stop over the magnets, they simple identify the beginning of a new section of track. They continuously report "I crossed the whistle magnet last" (only I do it pig Latin, so the competition can't decode the radio transmissions). Yes the trains are running "open loop" in the "Run" section, but like I said earlier, when a trains gets too close behind a correction is made. "Too close behind" is defined as the following train has crossed the whistle magnet before the lead train gets to the station stop area. Then the lead train is forced to skip the stop, and the trailing train is forced to stop.

Believe it or not, I do test this stuff before I try to sell it. I can run two trains, making station stops only 25% of the time, forever. I have also done Three trains on my little 150 foot layout, but it gets a little crowed. So I increase the station stop %, which gets the trains back in sync more often. Even though the station stops are random, when you throw in the logic requiring forced stops, the trains end up running a somewhat repeatable pattern of stops. It is very controllable.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Interesting.

Not quite what I had hoped for, but certainly a viable alternative. I guess it really wouldn't matter which loop did the 100% station stop, just so long as one of them always waited for the other and left after it cleared the crossing. The short loop already has a loading platform just to the right of the crossing for trains that stop there using the Bump A.S.S. and it would look reasonable to stop there using batteries.

I'll have to give this some consideration.

Thanks.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Oh,I believe you test it Del, just literally what I said, wanted an explanation. 

I understand your explanation in that area, but my question is, again, in the run area, since the only "signalling" is triggered by passing over a magnet, that is the only time a "position" is transmitted. 

How does the train in the "run" section "warn" the train in the whistle section? I cannot see how this works. This is with three trains only.... with 4 trains it seems even more improbable. 

The key is that I believe you need to be able to report the position of trains more accurately. A simplistic view seems to be you need, for "N" trains, you need "N+1" "transmit position" locations. If you could guarantee that all trains ran the same speed and were short enough not to hit each other in transit and that the "transmit position" locations were equidistant, then I could see how it would work with "N" transmit locations. 

So, I was hoping for an explanation. If you will only answer my first question, then I will probably see my basic error (if there is one)... otherwise I don't see how it works for 3 or more trains. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Greg - I have tried to explain how this works, and you just want to make it more complicated than it really is. I know your engineering curiosity needs to know all the details, but I'm not going to get into it with you.

It's a simple concept. It works. If it doesn't work, you probably need more track length between trains to allow for more variability. If and when you ever run into a configuration that isn't working; i.e. trains are getting too close or on top of each other, you can always just program it for 100% station stops. It then works just like the track powered equivalent systems currently on the market.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No, I don't want to make it complicated, I just don't see how it will work reliably. You are getting upset because you think I'm attacking your new product. 

Don't advertise it here on an open forum if you won't accept questions. 

I asked a simple question (twice), and there's no answer. 

So, if someone asks me my opinion, then I will have to say "I cannot see how it will work, and was refused an explanation".... if it's so simple, why not a simple explanation to a simple answer? 

Sorry Del, but you put yourself in this position by your own decision. 

I won't ask any more.. 

Greg


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Greg - I tried to answer your question twice. What more can I do? Just because I don't satisfy your demands, that does not put me in any "position". Please move on to moderating the next thread of your choice. I'm certainly not afraid of losing business just because you don't' recommend my products. Have you ever even run a battery powered train?


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Gee Whiz ... I understand it. 

Trains only stop at the station. Any train crossing magnet W tells any stopped train to start. 
Magnet B tells the train over it, to stop at the station. A featuure of Del's is Random Stops, you can program Alll, Some or None. It may or maynot stop. 
The 3rd train is in your hands and you adjust the speed or the number of stops, to keep space between the trains. When you hand it off to the station mag, you take control of the following train. 

Hope this helps. 

John


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Oh, I see, I guess I missed the answer because it was too close to the insult: "No. It isn't. You have to use some common sense" 

So the "no it isn't refers to my question: "Something tells me the "run area" is not really protected from collisions when you have more than 2 trains. " 

OK, so I apologize, you stated that the "run area" is not really protected from collisions. (see how distracted people get when you insult them?) 
' 
OK, so the "run area" is not protected from collisions... so with 3 trains, as long as the previous 2 leave in time, the one in the run area will not smash into the one by the "whistle magnet" 

that assumes that the "station magnet" train moves out in time so that the "whistle magnet" train moves to leave room for the "run area" train.. but you hope that the "run area" is big enough so that the train is never in danger of being rear-ended by the "station magnet" train which has no clue as to the whereabouts of the "run area" train. 

OK, so if you have a large run area, and the other 2 magnets situated to always get the trains out of the way of the "run area" train it can work. 

But claiming that it will work for more trains, or that it can skip station stops seems that it would have problems. 

Just 3 locations but only reporting 2 of them just cannot be reliable without "tweaking" the locations, train lengths, and train speeds. 

Got it. 

Greg 

p.s. John, the problem is not telling stopped trains to start, it's that you cannot tell the train in the run area to stop, and nobody knows if it is about to be rear-ended by the "station train" or it is about to rear-end the train at the "whistle magnet" since it cannot report it's position. The 3rd train, the "run area" train only makes it's position known when it goes over the "whistle magnet" and by then there SHOULD be a NEW "run area" train, somewhere between the "station magnet" and the "whistle magnet" 

If that does not perplex you, put 2 trains in the "run area" where one could be rear-ended and the other can be colliding with the "whistle magnet" train.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Yes you can tell the train in the run area to stop, it's just not automated. Del's controller (tx) switches from loco to loco. You control the speed, if any. The train entering the stop zone and the one at the station are automated. Ya gotta use your eyes and ability to use a throttle, it's not go have a cegar DCC. 

No I'm not perplexed, I see and appreciate Del's vision. 

One needs only adjust the train in the run block and you have full throttle control. No sensors and no iphone apps etc... KISS The problem is trying to remake it your way. 
There is some fiddling to get the gaps/speed and number of stops, once the automated section is set then one can run 3 trains at a time, while only minding one train at a time. 

With Del's system the magnet triggers a deceleration stop, so the audience sees a train glide to a stop and then accelerate away, while you are the stage mother sending the actors in on cue. 
Having another train communicate with the stopped one is quite innovative in R/C control. It's not a reed activating a section of powered rail, it's one R/C unit sending an instruction to another with out human input.....


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

the point is that this is an automated control, or advertised as such 

( re-read the original post: "fully unattended".... pretty plain English, not "assisted operation" but FULLY unattended)

you say that the automation does not extend to the train in the run area 

that jives with what I think.

thanks John! 


I actually think it's pretty cool, but could not figure out how it runs fully unattended with 3 or more trains. Two, I get, but as stated before, for N trains, "N" sensors works, just barely, but N+1 would be better. The claim of 3 trains with 2 sensors just cannot be fully unattended, as far as I can figure.

I just like to understand, but insults and other aspersions won't make logic go away.

Greg


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I have not seen the product, but I trust Del and won't be negative until proven wrong. 

John


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Just one correction, there is no need for manual intervention via speed adjustments, other than getting the initial trains speeds approximently matched. Again, if you have to do that, you just don't have enough room for the process to work with the number of trains you are running.


----------

