Eric220's Free-moN modules

[eric220]

As the name implies, after much debate, I decided to bite the bullet and dive into the Free-moN universe.  With the help of MC Fujiwara, a couple of weeks ago this:



Became this:



And this afternoon became this:



Ultimately, this will become a 45° crossover.



The circled element is a derail meant to protect the crossing.  Since I made this diagram, I decided to flip the lines, so the single track line is on the permanent module and the double track line is on the detachable wings.

[railnerd]

awesome!

[M.C. Fujiwara]

Muhahahaha!!!

Another one sucked into the Abyss Elysian Fields of Free-moN!


[Eric: as you can tell by his detailed post there, Railnerd (Dave) is also a goon of the Silicon Valley Free-moN anarcho-collective, and is very much into nifty electronics and signalling such as yourself]

[MichaelWinicki]

Very nice!

[pedro]

Love the idea of the x-ing module. 1000 bonus points if you get both routes working for a "live" interlocking of two active and independent routes, something I've always wanted to see done on a modular layout!

Question/comment: I've never seen a derail-protected x-ing. If there was an interchange track where cars might be left unattended, THAT would likely have a derail, but can't say I've ever seen derails on the mains. Not that it never existed somewhere...my perspective is modern prototype practices. Invoke Ed's Law if necessary.

Carry on!

[C855B]

Question/comment: I've never seen a derail-protected x-ing. If there was an interchange track where cars might be left unattended, THAT would likely have a derail, but can't say I've ever seen derails on the mains. Not that it never existed somewhere...my perspective is modern prototype practices. Invoke Ed's Law if necessary.

Oh, they definitely existed and probably still exist in some circumstances, although your assessment is correct, it was an old-school practice - belt-and-suspenders protection for busy interlockings, especially when it was a minor line intersecting a major one. Drawbridge approaches were/are another common use - better on the ground than in the drink. The practice mostly disappeared in the big push in the '70s and '80s away from local, staffed towers to DS-controlled junctions. Powered (or armstrong) derails were additional failure points that could be dealt with manually if you had a man on-site, but created headaches when remoted.

The derails were not of the type I think you are alluding to with industrial trackage, which are usually a wheel ramp or flange lifter that flips over the rail. They were a switch point, basically half a turnout into nothing. The ramp types are poor defense against train speeds as they can be pushed out of the way or broken off altogether if hit hard enough and especially by a locomotive. The split-rail type was also easier to mechanize for either armstrong or powered operation... after all, it was just half a turnout.

[eric220]

Love the idea of the x-ing module. 1000 bonus points if you get both routes working for a "live" interlocking of two active and independent routes, something I've always wanted to see done on a modular layout!

Question/comment: I've never seen a derail-protected x-ing. If there was an interchange track where cars might be left unattended, THAT would likely have a derail, but can't say I've ever seen derails on the mains. Not that it never existed somewhere...my perspective is modern prototype practices. Invoke Ed's Law if necessary.

Carry on!

Hoping to get minimally a live branch line going from the yard. We'll see; that will be up to the greater brain trust.

As for derails protecting a crossing:
Plymouth Indiana: http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Maps/Itlk/plymouth.gif
Hobart Indiana: http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Maps/Itlk/bart.gif
Liverpool Indiana (virtually identical to my plan): http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Maps/Itlk/liverpool.gif
Tollestone Indiana: http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Maps/Itlk/tollestone.gif

There are other examples, but hopefully this is enough to justify the design as more than an Ed's Law invocation.

[railnerd]

[Eric: as you can tell by his detailed post there, Railnerd (Dave) is also a goon of the Silicon Valley Free-moN anarcho-collective, and is very much into nifty electronics and signalling such as yourself]

working with mercurial software execs in the past has forced me to be "concise" by default

Eric: Curious if you have thought about which route "wins"? Is the tower operator going to have a toggle switch, or do you think you are going to automate it with sensors, etc.

-Dave

[eric220]

Eric: Curious if you have thought about which route "wins"? Is the tower operator going to have a toggle switch, or do you think you are going to automate it with sensors, etc.

My thought was to include a toggle of some kind on each side of the module that would reverse polarity to the tortoises driving both the derails and the signals. The idea would be to simulate a tower operator. For each setup there would be a default setting, either the double track line or the single, that the interlocking would be returned to manually after a train passes. Of course, I would likely designate the most inconvenient line as the default, and I'm sure I'm not the only sadistic one that would randomly flip the toggle to see who isn't paying attention to the signals. 

[C855B]

... I'm sure I'm not the only sadistic one that would randomly flip the toggle to see who isn't paying attention to the signals. 

And, of course, just like 1:1, include a time-out should somebody "play" with the toggle and reverse positions/clearances... especially if somebody has already hit OS. :evilgrin:

[M.C. Fujiwara]

I'm sure I'm not the only sadistic one that would randomly flip the toggle to see who isn't paying attention to the signals. 

Crap: we're lucky to remember where our friggin' trains are!
And it's a miracle that people actually return the turnouts to line to main, or even to look ahead to the next passing siding!

Hope you have lots of soft foam under your module or trackside cameras to catch the crashing & flopping!!
(in slo-mo, with the sound of "OOOOoooooooo!!" cranked through slow 

[eric220]

And, of course, just like 1:1, include a time-out should somebody "play" with the toggle and reverse positions/clearances... especially if somebody has already hit OS. :evilgrin:

That requires more than a few wires, and as MC said in another thread, this module is about adding a certain level of "doomsday" to operations. Put that solidly into the "we'll see" category... 

[eric220]

Crap: we're lucky to remember where our friggin' trains are!
And it's a miracle that people actually return the turnouts to line to main, or even to look ahead to the next passing siding!

Hope you have lots of soft foam under your module or trackside cameras to catch the crashing & flopping!!
(in slo-mo, with the sound of "OOOOoooooooo!!" cranked through slow 

I believe there was a discussion about berms to protect the tower. There should be plenty of landing space for any brass that any fool is willing to run.

[C855B]

Protect the tower??? Nah... towers are meant to be run into:



The plywood to the left of the window is one side of a repair from a runaway car on SP nailing a Santa Fe train in the crossing.

[eric220]

I have a question for the track plan brain trust around here.  Here's the current plan for the module, representing two railroads crossing:



MC is pushing me to include an interchange track or yard.  To me, if I'm going to do it a small yard would make more sense, since it would be more functional and could still be used without the wings in a single track cosmetic setting.  The best that I came up with was a two track lopsided job that had two 18" tracks.  Any thoughts?

For reference, the module (and wings) are 18" wide and 48" end to end.