Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Technical consultant. Computer Science, Automation, Statistic, AI
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello,
Though I am more familiar (experienced) in PIC, hence Arduino, the Raspberry Pi vs Arduino is a question of what you have in hand and how much time do you have at your disposal.
There is a good example of model of controlled railway, including hardware, coding and connection steps.


After several personal trials, I have went through it as well.
Is there any body out there? With IoT experiments?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,695 Posts
I assume you've seen Hans on the YouTube IOTT channel. If not, watch it. His style can take a little while to adjust to, but he's got some interesting ideas.

I've done some stuff with RFID tags which report via a MQTT server as part of developments for David Townend's McKinley layout. Some of that might get to Southampton show, though I'm not likely to be at the show.
 

·
C55
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
For those confused {FTC}...

IOTT = Intensity of Tin Tacks Internet of Trusted Things.
RFID tag = Red Flag Indicating Distress Small objects with a chip and an antenna for wireless identification of the objects they are attached to.
MQTT server = Maximally Quoted Top Table waiter a lightweight, publish-subscribe network protocol that transports messages between devices.
🙃

Ta-Ta for now {TTFN}
Julian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,617 Posts
I came across an article recently where a fella in a UK model railway club had used either Arduinos or Pis (I don't remember which) extensively on a layout. It worked well until he took the layout to an exhibition where there was enormous amounts of 'interference' which had the effect of crashing the system. Apparently, each of the devices had their own Wifi module and became overloaded (and crashed) by all the mobile phones at the exhibition which were polling to make contact.

Going forward, I think solutions to this issue need to be found. I'm not sure that every device on a model railway necessarily needs to be connected to the internet. A safer solution might be to have them all on their own private network communicating with a suitably 'beefed up' base station. The base station could connect to regular wireless. Of course, this is a 'hub' type arrangement as opposed to a true IOT configuration, but if interference due to use of a common network is causing a problem, maybe it isn't the way to go.
 

·
Registered
Technical consultant. Computer Science, Automation, Statistic, AI
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thank you all for the feedback and suggestions.
It is not that I am trying to find the best, but the most practical one for the model rail.
Regarding the interference, that's a bottleneck, right.
I have only two devices to run. The experiences of many told me one good thing for going forward.
Necessary to have a master controller on a station and proprietary protocol for the slaves on the trains.
I will come back with more ideas.
 

·
Registered
Technical consultant. Computer Science, Automation, Statistic, AI
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Real rail networks are coming to the same solution (hub to internal network). Till now it is GSM-R (which is hard enough to apply for modelling, placing antennas and TR/TX for every locomotive).

Till 2030 GMS-R is going to be abandoned and new networks with complex hierarchy built: Satellites/5G 'orchestration' installed on sites with acceptable coverage, then distributed through the hybrid satellite and 5G terrestrial network.

My vision is that my space engineering company 'satellite' will be Wi-Fi to the station and '5G' - signaling through power/DCC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
I came across an article recently where a fella in a UK model railway club had used either Arduinos or Pis (I don't remember which) extensively on a layout. It worked well until he took the layout to an exhibition where there was enormous amounts of 'interference' which had the effect of crashing the system. Apparently, each of the devices had their own Wifi module and became overloaded (and crashed) by all the mobile phones at the exhibition which were polling to make contact.

Going forward, I think solutions to this issue need to be found. I'm not sure that every device on a model railway necessarily needs to be connected to the internet. A safer solution might be to have them all on their own private network communicating with a suitably 'beefed up' base station. The base station could connect to regular wireless. Of course, this is a 'hub' type arrangement as opposed to a true IOT configuration, but if interference due to use of a common network is causing a problem, maybe it isn't the way to go.
2.4GHz Wi-Fi is too crowded for exhibition use, if you are going to use Wi-Fi it has to be a 802.11ac or newer 5GHz router with beam-forming (the type that has at least three aerials). Fortunately the new Pis have 5GHz Wi-Fi so can be used, but otherwise you will be best using a more resilient wireless solution such as Zigbee with a gateway to Wi-Fi.
 

·
Registered
Technical consultant. Computer Science, Automation, Statistic, AI
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
2.4GHz Wi-Fi is too crowded for exhibition use, if you are going to use Wi-Fi it has to be a 802.11ac or newer 5GHz router with beam-forming (the type that has at least three aerials). Fortunately the new Pis have 5GHz Wi-Fi so can be used, but otherwise you will be best using a more resilient wireless solution such as Zigbee with a gateway to Wi-Fi.
I've attended automation exhibition. But it was more stuffed with LoRa and more expensive analogues, including operator class Wi-Fi (which was used during Olympic games in London).
ZigBEE really is a leader for a budget friendly choice.
Thank you.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top