running trains with more than on CS

[mobaer]

Hi Michael!

Hi Jochen,
This feature is only needed when let's say roundabout 30 to 50 locos are driving similar or you have heterogeneous electronic control equipment as the "Teppichbahner", where each station want to use his own CS mainly as control input device.
If you then want to centralize the connections to one central server PC, I can't imagine that. Keep in mind, that their could be distance up to 100m or more. With Ethernet no problem but with serial or USB I wouldn't do it.
For these situations R2Rnet and separate servers would be the better solution, I think.

I totally agree to that, especially for Teppichbahner R2R is extremly useful! And for very big Layouts, too, but this must really be very big layouts...
Regards
Jochen

[MacBarfuss]

Thanks again to Michael for participating, and also for Jochen.

I fully agree to use only one Computer and one CS on a "normal sized" home layout, but in the case of the large distances Teppichbahner can have I would suggest to use one computer for each room and one CS. This refers to the segments I mentioned before.

For a translation of "Schleusengleise" lets call it something like "conveying track"? As I understood Rob something like a conveying track would not be necessary. But I think Michael is right, whats about shorts?

[mobaer]

You usually should use conveying tracks when using multiple CSs, as it's the best possibility to seperate the current and avoid shorts.
This should be possible using actions, or am I wrong?
When using R2R there is no action needed that switches the LC-IID...
Are there any features missing to run those large layouts? I don't understand the discussion if it's about R2R, thought is about a way between R2R and a single CS...

Best regards
Jochen

[tuxlover]

As I see this discussion was about which hardware requirements for the modules and the module electric are needed to drive with multiple CS and what software requirements and how Rocrail support this.
By the way I don't thing "conveying track" would be a suitable translation for "Schleusengleis". What about "handover track"?

As we see Rocrail supports this operation method, I think, very well and scalable enough even for very big layouts. Jochen yes, I also would implement handover tracks with actions. The only thing which is not handy, that you have reconnect your client manually to the new server if a train is roaming.
A solution could be, that the server (of the leaving or the entering CS) raises a network message about this event. So a client could decide if he wants to reconnect to the new server.

How this is done technically has to be cleared in detail in further discussions. Perhaps as network wide broadcast or only to all connected clients of these servers.
The feature that a client follow his train should be optional and make for me only sense by clients, which control only one loco. Otherwise it could be that you loose the control of another loco when the client reconnect to another server.
And separate question, is there a need for a global "loco proxy", who tracks on which server each loco of the arrangement is at the moment. This could be used as entry gate for new clients, so that they can choose their loco from a global list and then reconnect to the specific server. Or this server is used as proxy so that one client can control locos which are registered on different servers.

King regards
Michael

[MacBarfuss]

I agree to the term "handover track". But such a concept would make things a lot harder to maintain. If the arrangement s going to be changed a lot of organization has to be done for each changed segment border. I try to describe everything to qualify my understanding:

Each segment border has to include some modules with plain tracks. No switches or blocks. The length should be a bit more then half the maximum train length allowed on the arrangement. Before there is some action on the track (a switch e.g.) there should be a sensor indicating IN, followed by EXIT. Between the IN and EXIT there is the electrical cut. Two combined segments then have one big block track with IN and EXIT sensor which can be electrical assigned to either left or right segment.
If the block is empty it is assign to the incoming segment. When a train reaches IN it is fully in the segment and the modules change their assignment. The train roamed. If all parts of the train left the block (indicated by the separated EXIT sensor) the block switches back to the incoming segment.

As the action is only triggered on one module for one running direction there is no need of knowing the other sides sensors. (I had in mind this would be necessary, writing this down helped me finding the missunderstanding) There only has to be a standard for assigning the track power and loco home to one segment. Power switching can be done by handing the connection from the loco giving module to the loco receiving one and switching there. The receiving module hands the correct power back to the giving one.

How does R2RNet react if the segment borders switch between some modules? Can rocrail get the correct time when the loco is assigned to the new segment?

[mobaer]

Ok my thoughts were that the roaming for mobile clients is included in R2R, as in http://wiki.rocrail.net/doku.php?id=networking-en is stated:

Mobile Client Support
Make sure the DHCP client setup is correct to announce the IP address to mobile clients.

Somebody here with R2R-experience?
Maybe I should build a virtual testlayout and test it myself...
Regards
Jochen

[tuxlover]

@MarcBarfuss: No one has said that it is trivial. Here on this PDF you can see four handover tracks (the pink ones). The arrangement has about 1200m track length. Here the handover is done by a developed electronic box. A description you can find here: http://www.dcc-mueller.de/switch/switch_e.htm
For a Rocrail solution you can do this a similar way. Put the sensors in a box, so they are independent from the modules and then use two "virtual" modules in Rocrail, which represent the sensor box and have the actions implemented.

@mobear: As I understand this text in the wiki, only all servers will be listed up no roaming for mobile clients. But I have also no experience with R2Rnet and I am only sharing my experiences from other fields and theoretical thoughts.

Michael

[MacBarfuss]

okay, its time for a summary (but beware its Weinlesefest in Neustadt/Wstr. and there is not much blood in my alcohol left)

• it is possible to roam trains
  
• we really do need handover tracks between segments
  
• these handover tracks can be reduced to a minimum per arrangement, segments are large (as seen on the example in the last post)
  
• handover tracks have to be large enough
  
• there is a need for a standard interface between modules, even if the are outside the builders domain
  
• segments are not appropriate to reduce complexity of the modular layout

especially the last point: is there any chance to get this concept back to work?

My greatest wish is to have segments dimensioned like home arrangements and this home arrangement can be included in one larger arrangement just with setting its server IP, finding the right place in the arrangement, adding the borders to global routes, connecting physically and also connecting the controlled area. This should only be dependent on having a home layout which can be controlled completely by rocrail, having separated the data in appropriate XML-Files to send them to the global leader and have the handover track available.

Having the handover track available should be a reconfiguration of the normal sensors.

Uff, again a lot of text. I look forward to all your comments.

[tuxlover]

First important point is, divide loco control and sensors / switches / signals. If you only want to drive in manual mode, than it's all. Each station can decide how they want to control their accessories, with Rocrail or also with something else.
Only the one or more "driving" CS are connected to Rocrail or a R2Rnet. But for the handover tracks you need some kind of local identification system if you want to roam trains.

If you also want to use an automatic mode, then you have do some more things. First keep driving and controlling divided. So you can reduce handover tracks to the needed minimum. Then use a powerful bus system for your accessories for example CAN or Loconet so you can use modules of different owners in different combinations at one CS and make a central assignment of the addresses.
Keep in mind that a modular arrangement is not an addition of a couple of "home arrangements". In most cases you mix all modules together. This can not be created by pressing a button. If you want a meaningful arrangement you have to think about it and use your brain and creativity.
You can use the modular approach which is build in Rocrail for this. And if you run in limitations, then use R2Rnet.

This is the way I would go, if I'm would planning to start a new modular system.

The only thing which is impossible in this concept is to have a heterogeneous electrical control landscape. If you want to support that, then you should design sensors physical independent from the module and a standardized electrical interface for them. Then each segment owner hast to equip the modules in his segment with his sensors and create a suitable plan file. Here he can also use the modular approach with "virtual modules" representing his sensors, so he has only to implement them once. The segments would then be connected by R2Rnet. Perhaps you need here a feature to keep driving and controlling divided, so that you can reduce handover tracks to a minimum. So that your server sends all loco commands to a central loco driving server, which is connected to the driving CS. With a "sniffer mode" it would also be possible to use the CS user interface to control locos. (The server will analyses all loco commands coming from the CS and send them over R2Rnet to the server which is connected to the driving CS). The Loconet slot Server still do this in a local way.

Michael