DCC and Turnouts
John Murphy
I am a bit confused on this subject and had different responses from
friends. I am going to change over to Shinohara turnouts and many say
that these have to modified in a couple of areas to work with DCC.
Others have told me that just by adding the typical plastic insulators
to each end of the frog rails they don't have any problems. I am not
concerned about power routing if this is in fact the reason for the
modifications. I'm just concerned that some say engines will short out
running through Shinohara?
wabr...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35624308...@news.earthlink.net>,
jfmu...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (John Murphy) wrote:
>
> I am a bit confused on this subject and had different responses from
> friends. I am going to change over to Shinohara turnouts and many say
> that these have to modified in a couple of areas to work with DCC.
frog -= =-... HO Code 83 or 100 anyway. This is true whether using DCC or
not. The problem stems partly from the little brass tabs that are on the
points for powering the point rails and connecting rails. If you are using
them in a yard ladder fasion -=-=-=, no problem.... Tell you what, this guy
explains it better than I can....
http://members.aol.com/wire4dcc/homepage.htm.
He dedicates this page to answering specific types of questions on the
subject.
Hope it helps,
Jeff
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jon Miller
Shinohara will work fine if they are gaped properly. All switches will
work if gaps are in the right places (no difference between DC and DCC).
To DCC switches (or buy DCC friendly switches) means switches that are
not prone to short if problems occur. With DCC a short will mean, maximum
current the system is capable of delivering, to the short, usual 4 or 5
amps. To make a switch DCC friendly means to isolate the frog and make the
point rails separate. That way if you connect the outer rail and the point
rail, no short, they are at the same potential. The frog is then switched
just like a regular switch.
John Murphy
"Jason Ciastko" <n9...@skyenet.net> wrote:
>We use Shiny Harry switches and the Lenz DCC system at the St Joseph Valley
>Club. If insulated joiners or gaps are used you will not have any problems.
>We have almosy a hundred installed with no problems.
>Jason Ciastko
>Head Electrician
>St Joseph Valley Railroad Club
>Mishawaka Indiana
Jason thanks for a straight forward reply on what works for you.
do...@sssnet.com
In article <35624308...@news.earthlink.net>,
jfmu...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (John Murphy) wrote:
>
> I am a bit confused on this subject and had different responses from
> friends. I am going to change over to Shinohara turnouts and many say
> that these have to modified in a couple of areas to work with DCC.
> to each end of the frog rails they don't have any problems. I am not
> concerned about power routing if this is in fact the reason for the
> modifications. I'm just concerned that some say engines will short out
> running through Shinohara?
As far as turnouts go with DC or DCC they work the same. As far as shorts go
with turnouts and DC or DCC, this is also the same. A short is a short.
Neither system DC or DCC increase or decrease the chance of a short, nor will
either have any difference on how they happen.
What is different though is what happens when a short does occure. With DC and
cab control, if a turnout does short, then it will have to handle the 1-2 amps
of that cab, and also the train that cab is controlling will stop.
With DCC it will have to handle the 3-10 amps of that DCC booster, and all
trains under the control of that booster will stop.
So with the added current density of DCC and the fact that more then one train
will stop when a short happens, it is a good idea to do what is needed to
prevent any type of short circuit. And turnouts are one place where shorts do
happen.
Might suggest you check out my home page and the links to Wiring with DCC.
Remember Always Have Fun and Enjoy!!
Don Crano NMRA #096211
mailto:do...@sssnet.com
Home Page:http://pages.sssnet.com/donc/
Model Railroading with DCC
Now with supported CVs for Digitrax Mobile and DS54 decoders!
Stan Ames
John Murphy wrote:
>
> I am a bit confused on this subject and had different responses from
> friends. I am going to change over to Shinohara turnouts and many say
> that these have to modified in a couple of areas to work with DCC.
> Others have told me that just by adding the typical plastic insulators
> to each end of the frog rails they don't have any problems. I am not
> concerned about power routing if this is in fact the reason for the
> modifications. I'm just concerned that some say engines will short out
> running through Shinohara?
John
This topic is covered in debth in the DCC book I wrote (soon to be on
hobby shelves). The May Model Railroading has an article on this as
well.
The key difference between DC and DCC is the current you are operating
and the effect that a momentary short can have.
With a 3 amp DCC or DC system these momentary shorts are ignored and
thus the problem is not seen.
With a 5-10 amp DCC system, these same momentary shorts can cause the
power station (booster) to turn off. The quick shutdown is to protect
your locomotives from high current shorts.
The issue here is that the frog needs to switch polarity as the turnout
is switched.
With the Shinahara turnout, there is only a very short distance where
neither of the points are connected to either stock rail. At any other
point in time the points (and thus the frog) are electrically connected
to one stock rail or the other.
Many modelers use an auxilary switch machine contacts to power the frog
as this improves the reliability of operation. If the place where the
switch machine contacts change from one side to the other differs from
the place where the points electrically change from one side to the
other, a momentary short occurs.
Rebuilding the turnouts to totally eliminate any possibility of a short
is one approach. Turnouts such as the ROCO line and Atlas Code 83 line
of turnouts have already done this and the term "DCC Friendly" is used
to describe a turnout that can not have an electrical short when the
turnout is switched. (Some have broadened the definition to include
other turnouts but in my opinion if you have to cut extra gaps and
install extra wiring, the turnout does not qualify as a DCC friendly
turnout.)
Another good approach is to make small and easy modifications to the
Shinohara turnout to remove the bronze contacts to lengthen the time
that both points are electrically netrual, and using a stiffer turnout
control throw so that the place where the switch macnine shitches its
contacts is well within this netrual area.
Hope that helps.
Stan Ames
Jeff Horstman
I have a possibly related question. It seems that at slower speeds
(such as a crawl through a switchyard) my DCC locomotive(s) will
occasionally lose power when one of the trucks is directly over the
frog.
The switches are Atlas and the locos are KATO C44-9W's so it shouldn't
be a question of the trucks being too short, should it? They didn't
have a problem before DCC.
Thanks for any input.
Jeff
(remove no.spam. and the xxx's to reply by e-mail)
Phil Hartung
Atlas uses a thin metal strip to connect power around the frog and from
the stock to the closure rails (near the pivot of the points). These
contact strips are not soldered to the rail. I have seen the contact
strip separate from the rail just enough to lose power to the other rail.
I solve this problem by soldering a U shaped wire (or C) between the stock
and closure rails about 1 inch from the points (about 1/4" separation).
I use small 24ga. solid copper (phone wire). Be sure that the solder on
the inside of the stock rail does not interfere with the wheel flanges.
I've done this modification to ALL of my atlas turnouts for reliability.
Last week I was visiting a club layout in Pocatello, ID. - they had a dead
section of track. Power was coming from the frog side, but not getting to
the point side of a turnout (Atlas) - needed ot add a jumper wire to
bypass the failed contact strip under the point pivots.
As an aside. Atlas turnouts can be made into selective tournouts by
cutting the metal strip between the point pivot rivet and the stock rail
(buried in plastic). The problem with this is that the power is
transferred to the selected route via the points and the points rivet -
not very reliable either.
Read Alan Gartners Wire4dcc web site - he discusses this briefly in his
turnout section. (His wiring methods are excellent for both DCC and DC
operation!).
On 21 May 1998, Jeff Horstman wrote:
> I have a possibly related question. It seems that at slower speeds
> (such as a crawl through a switchyard) my DCC locomotive(s) will
> occasionally lose power when one of the trucks is directly over the
> frog.
>
> The switches are Atlas and the locos are KATO C44-9W's so it shouldn't
> be a question of the trucks being too short, should it? They didn't
> have a problem before DCC.
>
> Thanks for any input.
>
> Jeff
Phil Hartung prha...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Westminster, Colorado, USA Electrical Engineer
Model Railroading is Fun!!!!! Submarine Veteran
SH
> I have a possibly related question. It seems that at slower speeds
> (such as a crawl through a switchyard) my DCC locomotive(s) will
> occasionally lose power when one of the trucks is directly over the
> frog.
>
> The switches are Atlas and the locos are KATO C44-9W's so it shouldn't
> be a question of the trucks being too short, should it? They didn't
> have a problem before DCC.
>
> Thanks for any input.
>
> Jeff
One point to check. Most trucks do not allow all the wheels to touch
the track at the same time. This makes electrical pickup spotty at best.
When you assume the longer trucks will get through a frog, your
assuming
that all the wheels are touching for pickup. They usually are not.
Athearns are notorious for this prblem, but any stiff frame truck
has the same potential problem. When the truck three corners, then only
one wheel is touching. If that one is over the insulated part of the
plastic frog ...... then nada ...... zip ...... shes'a'no-go.
We make solid rail frogs with full pickup because of this and other
problems. We also make point-stock-common DCC friendly turnouts.
-Stephen Hatch
Railway Engineering
http://www.railway-eng.com/
Bruce Z. Friedman
Stan,
Boy are you guys doing a disservice to the people that have questions on DCC
"friendly " turnouts. Keep it simple!( for it is) I am an electrical
flunky. I have been building my present layout for 3
years. I have 115 Atlas HO Code 83 Mark III #6 turnouts installed on my
layout and about 8 Shinohara #8 curved turnouts installed. Here's what I
did to install them.
1. Took them out of the package
2. Placed them on the layout
3. Connected Track.
For the Shinohara Switches, I installed insulators on the rails
diverging from the frog. And powered from all directions.
I installed no jumpers, powered frogs, car turn signals, etc etc! ( I
have installed connections every six feet from the power bus to the
track. More in yards)
I have no stalls and everything works flawlessy. This DCC game is truly
simple. Why
must we complicate things? Sorry Stan, but it looks like your trying to sell
books with complicated solutions to simple problems!
Bruce Friedman
Tim O'Connor
Bruce Z. Friedman wrote:
> Boy are you guys doing a disservice to the people that have questions
> on DCC "friendly " turnouts. Keep it simple! .... Here's what I
> did to install them.
>
> 1. Took them out of the package
> 2. Placed them on the layout
> 3. Connected Track.
Your method will work fine in most cases, but switches are notorious
for failing after a few years' use. Stan describes the boiler-plate
method, which is usually a requirement for large club layouts or for
switches in inaccessible places (e.g. inside a tunnel or hidden at
a later time under scenery). If all your stuff is out in the open
and it's your home layout, chances are good that the simple method
will work for the life of your layout.
do...@sssnet.com
In article <3564A3...@concentric.net>,
no.spam....@concentric.net wrote:
>
> I have a possibly related question. It seems that at slower speeds
> (such as a crawl through a switchyard) my DCC locomotive(s) will
> occasionally lose power when one of the trucks is directly over the
> frog.
>
> The switches are Atlas and the locos are KATO C44-9W's so it shouldn't
> be a question of the trucks being too short, should it? They didn't
> have a problem before DCC.
There should be no difference between DC and DCC in reguard to this. I would
guess that the Loco pickup is just a little more dirty now then it was before.
The Atlas has a dead frog, so if the other truck can not supply power will
the other gets off the frog, this is what happens.
Try giving the wheels and rails a good cleaning and see if that helps. You
might also want to think about power routing the frog, this should cure the
problem no matter what the cause is.
--
Remember Always Have Fun and Enjoy!!
Don Crano NMRA #096211
mailto:do...@sssnet.com
Home Page:http://pages.sssnet.com/donc/
Model Railroading with DCC
Now with Digitrax mobile and DS54 stationary decoder supported CVs online.
John Murphy
Stan thanks for your comments and others who responded. I understand
your explanation and can follow it through. By all that's holy, I in
no way have any big experiences in DCC or electrical expertise. I'm
not directing my frustration at you, just out to the world of DCC
companies. Just that my common sense tells me if some people have no
problems at all, while others do, there has to be another factor.
Now over the last few years all that we have read from DCC adds,
nothing to modify works with any existing layout. No big reported
turnout problem, at least I didn't see any mentioned. Yet within the
last maybe six months this has been a hot topic on turnout problems.
With words like enough voltage to melt ties or cause fires, as stated
on one site really concern me. Plus this makes the issue of DCC
purchases very cloudy in some peoples minds. Someone should deal with
this issue and put it right. Not the following way:
A serious short MIGHT happen
You have to modify all your switches to DCC friendly
Enough heat for a fire
Add automotive light bulbs
Don't add automotive light bulbs if you use Tortoise
Light bulbs dangling under the layout may be a fire risk
Spend $20 bucks on a switch and then hack to death
If you have switches already laid down don't worry, may be no problem
Some people will never have a problem
Murphy's Law (that's a big one for me)
Never mind go to bed all will be fine
Either it has to be one way or another let's get the facts out not a
maybe. I didn't spend $500 bucks over my $60 dollar transformer to
have these worries now.
Now I went to a few of the sites suggested to read over all the
detailed suggestions on modifying switches. Now on the most popular
one there was a short paragraph stating the stall problem was really
with short engines or even larger ones, with only a few wheels picking
up power. I think this part should be in bold red, so not to lead
everyone into thinking they have to modify all their turnouts. Is this
truly a turnout problem or an engine problem??? It's time to get
feedback on shorts if they are occurring what switch, engine, and how
was it wired should be asked!
I would think if I was a company making switches this problem would be
addressed if indeed it's as wide spread as some suggest. Maybe even
jump to be the first one with a line of this type of turnouts. Yet,
not a reason to charge more for a switch like one! On the other hand
seeing the switches were here first is this something that DCC
companies didn't see coming. Wanting the standard of switches to
change to correct this problem?
Murph.............
Robert C. Schwartz
John Murphy <jfmu...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<3566df0...@news.earthlink.net>...
> Stan thanks for your comments and others who responded. I understand
> your explanation and can follow it through. By all that's holy, I in
> no way have any big experiences in DCC or electrical expertise. I'm
> not directing my frustration at you, just out to the world of DCC
> companies. Just that my common sense tells me if some people have no
> problems at all, while others do, there has to be another factor.
><BIG SNIP>
I have traced a stalling situation with an IHC Mikado that I have installed
a Soundtraxx module in (the tender). It has been stalling over a PECO 3-way
switch. I thought it was bad current pickup, since the sound and engine
stop -- not so. It is a short circuit. I haven't worked on the switch yet
but will soon after I study the archives.
I was suspicious of the stalling since I had rewired the engine to have
both sides picking up current in the engine and the tender.
73, Bob Schwartz KF0WM
James Law
I was also having a stalling problem with my new Bachman 2-8-0 but not on
switches, on straight clear track. I traced it to a short from the low metal
pilot(cowcatcher) and undulations in the track (the joys of homosote).
The very short duration of the electrical short was not noticeable on straight
DC but on DCC the electronics are so sensitive as to shut down only to reset a
second or two later, The giveaway was the warning beep and the total layout
stop. A small strip of plastic tape on the bottom of the pilot solved the
problem.
Jim Law
SH
SH
John Murphy wrote:
> I would think if I was a company making switches this problem would be
> addressed if indeed it's as wide spread as some suggest. Maybe even
> jump to be the first one with a line of this type of turnouts. Yet,
> not a reason to charge more for a switch like one! On the other hand
> seeing the switches were here first is this something that DCC
> companies didn't see coming. Wanting the standard of switches to
> change to correct this problem?
> Murph.............
Hi Murph.
I have a company called Railway Engineering. We have been making
turnouts for over forty years. In all that time we made products
that some people hate and some people love. Then along comes DCC
and a whole new gang demanding DCC friendly turnouts. So ... guess
what .... we make DCC friendly turnouts. There is nothing wrong with
the old versions, but we have to go by "public perception". As a
business, you don't have a choice in this. You must do whats asked
regardless of how unnecessary it is. Let me explain:
With a regular turnout, the switches points direct power to the frog
by contacting the stock rail. This is called power routing. The point
that is NOT touching a stock rail is the oposite polarity of the stock
rail it is near. This is "percieved" as too close and "could" cause a
short. It isn't too close if it's made right but also if the wheels
on the loco are gauged right. If they are a bit narrow gauge, then it's
possible for the wheel to be sitting on the stock rail and it's back
side touch the point rail (opposite polarity) thus causing a short.
This is what all the flap and "percieved problem" is all about.
We make a DCC friendly turnout where the points and their adjoining
stock rails are the same polarity. The frog is isolated and must be
switched with some kind of switch contact other than the turnout.
This prevents the wheels from ever causing a short by touching
both the stock rail and the point rail. Is it necessary? Well not
if your wheels are all gauged the correct spacing. Most wheels do
not come from the factory at the correct spacing. Some do ... some don't
SO.... one guy has a short .... the other doesn't. Could it be
prevented .... yes .... gauge your wheels. The short, by the way,
wasn't a big deal before DCC ..... because the current was no where
near as high. The train bumped for a moment and went on it's way.
With DCC and it's possible 10amps at 18 volts, well that's enough to
start fires any-day. The main problem is actually the inaccurate
wheel gauge ... not the turnout ... but as a manufacturer I have been
harping on out'o'gauge wheel sets for 30 years .... and most people
still don't check their wheels. They get shorts and don't notice.
So you see it's up to you. Regular turnouts will work just fine
....as advertised ..... if you are a good modeler that corrects the
gauge of every wheel set you own ...... if not ..... well you pays
your money and you takes your chances. I sincerely hope this will
help some to understand the DCC situation.
Any questions ... I'm happy to answer. Check out our rrhints page
at : http://www.railway-eng.com/rrhints.htm
Send me a question if this isn't clear yet.
Happy to answer.
Larry Puckett
Stephen--as someone who has recently been accused of waving the DCC Friendly
flag too high I want to say how much I apprreciate your comments here. As
you point out, it is possible to operate a model railroad with non-DCC
Friendly turnouts as long as Murphy (not John) and out of gauge wheels don't
come into play. However, with more and more rolling stock being produced
with metal wheelsets the liklihood of shorts and other problems increase due
to the reasons you outlined. I once had a turnout thrown under a brass
caboose I was hauling, this was followed by a bright flash and a puff of
smoke as the 5 amps of juice zipped through my wheelsets in a very
unprototypical fashion. There wasn't even any dust left of the truck
springs--even 5 amps can do damage--Larry Puckett, Model Railroading
magazine
Don Crano
Stephan,
Very well put. I have been telling people this for a long time.. A short is
a short, no matter if it's DC or DCC. If it does not short on DC it more
then likely will not short on DCC.
The results of the short are what is different between DC and DCC. And you
have hit this right on the money..<g>
Thanks
Don
--
Remember Always Have Fun and Enjoy!!
Don Crano NMRA #096211
mailto:do...@sssnet.com
Home Page:http://pages.sssnet.com/donc/
Model Railroading with DCC
July 98 MR Best Products of 1997- Technological Innovation, Digitrax PnP
DCC Decoders!
Mark Mathu
James Law <jl...@erols.com> wrote in article <35673F9E...@erols.com>...
> I was also having a stalling problem with my new Bachman 2-8-0 but not on
> switches, on straight clear track. I traced it to a short from the low
metal
> pilot(cowcatcher) and undulations in the track (the joys of homosote).
Were you using homosate alone, or homasote over plywood? If so, how thick?
How far apart were the supports?
Christopher Zurek
You maufacture turnouts and obviously you make sure everything is spaced
correctly. Too bad those worthless, junk Shinohara turnouts arn't like that.
Those things are so inconsistent in contruction and guage I wish I could rip
up every one of them on our club layout. I fail to see what the facination
is with them. All of the shorts that showed up on our club layout after
installing DCC were due to poor maufacture of those crappy Shinohara
turnouts.
I like to use turnouts that have the points the same polarity as the stock
rails, and have a dead frog.
Chris
SH <ha...@railway-eng.com> wrote:
: I have a company called Railway Engineering. We have been making
: turnouts for over forty years. In all that time we made products
: that some people hate and some people love. Then along comes DCC
: and a whole new gang demanding DCC friendly turnouts. So ... guess
: what .... we make DCC friendly turnouts. There is nothing wrong with
: the old versions, but we have to go by "public perception". As a
: business, you don't have a choice in this. You must do whats asked
: regardless of how unnecessary it is. Let me explain:
<snip>
Geren Mortensen
Christopher Zurek wrote:
> You maufacture turnouts and obviously you make sure everything is spaced
> correctly. Too bad those worthless, junk Shinohara turnouts arn't like that.
> Those things are so inconsistent in contruction and guage I wish I could rip
> up every one of them on our club layout. I fail to see what the facination
> is with them. All of the shorts that showed up on our club layout after
> installing DCC were due to poor maufacture of those crappy Shinohara
> turnouts.
>
There was a time when Shinahara turnouts were of excellent quality. However,
over the years, the molds and dies used have worn out. As far as Code 100
goes, they've just not retooled in many, many years. Why the Code 83 track
they make for Walthers is so terrible, I couldn't tell you. They had an
opportunity to make some very high-quality track again.
> I like to use turnouts that have the points the same polarity as the stock
> rails, and have a dead frog.
Do you route power to the frog at all? If not, how do you overcome problems
with short-wheelbase locomotives like 0-4-0Ts, or industrial diesel switchers?
> <snip>
--
Geren W Mortensen Jr
Owner
GCM Hobbies
http://home.earthlink.net/~gcmhobbies
Christopher Zurek
Geren Mortensen <gcmho...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: Christopher Zurek wrote:
:> Too bad those worthless, junk Shinohara turnouts arn't like that.
:> Those things are so inconsistent in contruction and guage I wish I could rip
:> up every one of them on our club layout. I fail to see what the facination
:> is with them. All of the shorts that showed up on our club layout after
:> installing DCC were due to poor maufacture of those crappy Shinohara
:> turnouts.
:>
: There was a time when Shinahara turnouts were of excellent quality. However,
: over the years, the molds and dies used have worn out. As far as Code 100
: goes, they've just not retooled in many, many years. Why the Code 83 track
: they make for Walthers is so terrible, I couldn't tell you. They had an
: opportunity to make some very high-quality track again.
We have quite a few old Shinohara code 100 turnouts on the club layout,
and they are some of the worse ones. Shinohara turnouts were not
(are still not?) made to NMRA standards, and that was part of the problem.
I've used some of the Code 83 turnouts on a home layout and they are
better, but not by much.
:> I like to use turnouts that have the points the same polarity as the stock
:> rails, and have a dead frog.
: Do you route power to the frog at all? If not, how do you overcome problems
: with short-wheelbase locomotives like 0-4-0Ts, or industrial diesel switchers?
I have no need to run anything like that so I don't worry about it. I do
have some brass steam engines and a couple of not so old brass diesels
that I need to add some extra pick-ups to.
I like to be able to creep up just past the frog before I stop and hand
line a switch. I know it's against the rules on some railroads, but that
doesn't stop them from doing it either.
Chris
Geren Mortensen
Christopher Zurek wrote:
> Geren Mortensen <gcmho...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> : Christopher Zurek wrote:
>
> :> Too bad those worthless, junk Shinohara turnouts arn't like that.
> :> Those things are so inconsistent in contruction and guage I wish I could rip
> :> up every one of them on our club layout. I fail to see what the facination
> :> is with them. All of the shorts that showed up on our club layout after
> :> installing DCC were due to poor maufacture of those crappy Shinohara
> :> turnouts.
> :>
>
> : There was a time when Shinahara turnouts were of excellent quality. However,
> : over the years, the molds and dies used have worn out. As far as Code 100
> : goes, they've just not retooled in many, many years. Why the Code 83 track
> : they make for Walthers is so terrible, I couldn't tell you. They had an
> : opportunity to make some very high-quality track again.
>
> We have quite a few old Shinohara code 100 turnouts on the club layout,
> and they are some of the worse ones. Shinohara turnouts were not
> (are still not?) made to NMRA standards, and that was part of the problem.
> I've used some of the Code 83 turnouts on a home layout and they are
> better, but not by much.
How old is old? Our club has used them for 30 years. We didn't have any
significant problems with them until the last 3-4 years. These problems were
caused primarily by people who didn't know what they were doing messing with things
they ought not mess with. As far as being built to standards, our NMRA gauges
checked them fine, except for occasional tightness of gauge on the diverging route,
which was easily corrected. I've had a lot of experience with the Code 83 turnouts
on a large home layout owned by a good friend. He has, over the years, used a
mixture of Atlas, Shinahara and Peco Code 100 (on the original sections of layout)
and Walthers Code 83 on the new section. He has repeatedly commented that he
wishes he had gone with just about anything other than the Walthers. They have
been problematic since day one -- very poor quality control, and no real
consistancy of problems. We've had gauge problems through and through,
inconsistant clearance through flangeways, frogs in crooked, and the list goes on
and on.
It's too bad Atlas doesn't make a #8 in their Code 83 line.... From what I've been
seeing (and measured), the new stuff is pretty good. I've measured about twenty at
random now, and found them all to be within acceptable limits, as descibed in the
NMRA RPs for using the NMRA guage. The only real "problem" is that they're idea of
a #4 is really a #4 1/2. No big deal, as long as you plan for it. The early
problem with the #4 RH seems to have been cured.
> :> I like to use turnouts that have the points the same polarity as the stock
> :> rails, and have a dead frog.
>
> : Do you route power to the frog at all? If not, how do you overcome problems
> : with short-wheelbase locomotives like 0-4-0Ts, or industrial diesel switchers?
>
> I have no need to run anything like that so I don't worry about it. I do
> have some brass steam engines and a couple of not so old brass diesels
> that I need to add some extra pick-ups to.
>
> I like to be able to creep up just past the frog before I stop and hand
> line a switch. I know it's against the rules on some railroads, but that
> doesn't stop them from doing it either.
One thing that you will eventually run into a problem with is that the little
phospor-bronze pickups on the bottom of the points will get dirty and/or loose
their spring tension. When that happens, you'll end up with a dead spot from the
points clear up through the frog. If they just get dirty, it's not a big deal to
clean them. When they loose their spring tension, you have no choice but to put in
wire-arounds, which is much easier to do when you're installing the turnout to
begin with. Just something to think about.
Anyway, have a good holiday!
OBTW, how did those DT100 conversions go?
DHENK
In article <uhqmVirh9GA.248@uppubnews03>, "Larry Puckett"
<ljpu...@email.msn.com> writes:
> I once had a turnout thrown under a brass
>caboose I was hauling, this was followed by a bright flash and a puff of
>smoke as the 5 amps of juice zipped through my wheelsets in a very
>unprototypical fashion. There wasn't even any dust left of the truck
>springs--even 5 amps can do damage--Larry Puckett, Model Railroading
>magazine
If the wheelsets are insulated isn't it more likely that the current ran across
the sideframes? If the wheelsets shorted the the sideframe springs would not
have disiningrated. As the caboose has metal trucks and sideframes all at the
same polarity as the non insulated wheel side of the axle this would be the
source of the flash.
Another point is that with the proliferation of systems that detect and shut
down on shorts (Digitrax for one) how many current DCC systems would allow you
to draw the full amount of current (5-10 amps) across a short. These systems
would be more likely to damage equipment or cause a potential fire.
I'd be interested in hearing more about this as it's a safety issue as well.
Dave Henk
Jacksonville, FL
James Law
Mark Mathu wrote:
Mark
The support is standard module construction, 1x4 frame, 2 ft centers, 1/4 in
decking all glued and screwed. The problem comes from the variation in thickness
of the homosote. on later construction I have reduced the problem by running a
belt sander lightly over the track area to knock off the high spots. After
installing the cork roadbed (with white glue) I seal with flat black paint. I
have also gone to using homosote only under the track with foam elsewhere. I
still have found nothing I like that will match homosote for sound control.
Jim Law
Semjase
>: Christopher Zurek wrote:
>
>:> Too bad those worthless, junk Shinohara turnouts arn't like that.
>:> Those things are so inconsistent in contruction and guage I wish I could
>rip
>:> up every one of them on our club layout. I fail to see what the facination
>:> is with them. All of the shorts that showed up on our club layout after
>:> installing DCC were due to poor maufacture of those crappy Shinohara
>:> turnouts.
>:>
>
>: There was a time when Shinahara turnouts were of excellent quality.
>However,
>: over the years, the molds and dies used have worn out. As far as Code 100
>: goes, they've just not retooled in many, many years. Why the Code 83 track
>: they make for Walthers is so terrible, I couldn't tell you. They had an
>: opportunity to make some very high-quality track again.
>
>We have quite a few old Shinohara code 100 turnouts on the club layout,
>and they are some of the worse ones. Shinohara turnouts were not
>(are still not?) made to NMRA standards, and that was part of the problem.
>I've used some of the Code 83 turnouts on a home layout and they are
>better, but not by much.
>
>:> rails, and have a dead frog.
>
>: Do you route power to the frog at all? If not, how do you overcome
>problems
>: with short-wheelbase locomotives like 0-4-0Ts, or industrial diesel
>switchers?
>
>I have no need to run anything like that so I don't worry about it. I do
>have some brass steam engines and a couple of not so old brass diesels
>that I need to add some extra pick-ups to.
>
>I like to be able to creep up just past the frog before I stop and hand
>line a switch. I know it's against the rules on some railroads, but that
>doesn't stop them from doing it either.
>
></PRE></HTML>
Perhaps I live in an alternate reality but I have never had a problem with a
Shinohara turnount that was not a fault of my installation. Some very old
brass turnouts they made about 30 years ago would not accept deep wheel flanges
but they are modifiable to get around that if you need such performance
parameters. Atlas however has always been a problem, the word junk seems
adequate.
Best
S..
John Hermanson
John
wabr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
In article <35624308...@news.earthlink.net>,
jfmu...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (John Murphy) wrote:
>
> I am a bit confused on this subject and had different responses from
> friends. I am going to change over to Shinohara turnouts and many say
> that these have to modified in a couple of areas to work with DCC.
The problem with using shinohara turnouts arises when you put them frog, to
frog -= =-... HO Code 83 or 100 anyway. This is true whether using DCC or
not. The problem stems partly from the little brass tabs that are on the
points for powering the point rails and connecting rails. If you are using
them in a yard ladder fasion -=-=-=, no problem.... Tell you what, this guy
explains it better than I can....
http://members.aol.com/wire4dcc/homepage.htm.
He dedicates this page to answering specific types of questions on the
subject.
Hope it helps,
Jeff
SH
------------------------
> >:> installing DCC were due to poor maufacture of those crappy Shinohara
> >and they are some of the worse ones. Shinohara turnouts were not
> >(are still not?) made to NMRA standards, and that was part of the problem.
> Atlas however has always been a problem, the word junk >seems adequate.
--------------------------------
The problems everyone is experiencing with Shinohara or Atlas or
Walthers or what-ever ... isn't as simple as "they are junk".
The real culprit here is a sequence of "errors".
Back in the forties and fifties the flex track available was steel
rail on fiber tie strip .... stapled together. Needless to say this
combination was terrible. The rail rusted and the fiber ties curled
and shrank and warped. But we as modelers used it anyway trying to
work around those "problems". Then someone made brass rail and put
it on fiber ties. A vast improvement but still a major mess after
it was installed because the rail corroded and the ties still warped
and curled and shrank. Then the world of plastics entered the scene
and almost over-night plastic tie snap track became the norm.
Still the rail corroded but at least the ties were stable (we thought).
Then nickle silver rail was applied to plastic ties ... TA-DA !!!!
At last the perfect track ..... isn't it?
Not on your life. The rail still needs to be cleaned of it's oxides
and guess what ..... the plastic shrinks and grows and deteriorates.
The damn stuff isn't stable. Now the range of turnouts on plastic ties
increases ..... not because the stuff is stable but simply because
that's
the only kind of track the modelers will buy.
You heard me right. The buying public created all the plastic track
that won't stay in gauge and is impossible to use for turnouts.
Now add the fact that the NMRA specs allow the track to be made too
wide in the first place... and you have turnouts that don't work.
That's right ... the NMRA tolerances allow the track to be way too
wide and yet still conform to NMRA tolerances.
As you can see none of this mattered because we as modelers just
worked around the problems ..... we wanted to run trains. Now comes
DCC with it's high amperage and .... it does matter.
Fiber ties ...... terrible shrink warp etc.
Plastic ties ..... terrible ... shrink ... decompose .. warp.
Plastic just takes a little longer to do this.
Since most turnouts were purchased and put in a drawer "for later"
the market boomed. But plastic has problems .... just like fiber.
That's why hand layed railroads and turnouts last and last and last
because the wood ties are stable. That's why, still, after forty years
we at Railway Engineering still use pc ties to solder our turnouts
together. They stay in gauge .... year after year after year.
We have a plastic injection machine .... we have the molds to make
plastic ties for our turnouts .... if we did we could increase our
business by probably 100 fold. But we don't do it because the damn
stuff isn't stable. In the first place it's faster and cheaper to
shoot plastic ties. Soldering turnouts together by hand takes very
expensive "time".
The next time your inclined to swear at one of the turnout makers
"because of that short" remember .... it's your choice. You don't have
to buy plastic turnouts. You can make them yourself (we'll show you how)
or you can buy them ready made from someone like us, Railway
Engineering.
Please forgive the soap-box mode. I've been explaining this to modelers
for many years and I just don't seem to get through. Sorry if I've
offended anyone, but I spoke the truth and I will try to help anyone
who asks to understand this. Perhaps model railroading can be fun again.
Stephen Hatch
Railway Engineering
http://www.railway-eng.com
Christopher Zurek
SH <ha...@railway-eng.com> wrote:
: Then the world of plastics entered the scene
Well maybe if you knew what you were talking about someone might listen. For
starters, all I see this as a way to get you more sales. Second, there are
two types of plastics used for ties, one is styrene like Atlas uses and the
other is acetal (Delrin) like Shinohara and Rail-Craft use. Styrene can have
the types of problems you talk about, but Delrin will not. Acetal platsics
are difficult to destroy, they are impervious to most chemicals and heat. It
would take high heat or some type of physical contact to cause warpage.
Third, wood is more stable????????? What makes your turnouts stable at all
is the PC board strips used as ties. I was using the same technic to build
turnouts almost 20 years ago when I was in high school.
I've seen your turnouts and they are nice. You could have a really good
turnout if you would fill that injection molding machine with Delrin, Nylon,
or some other acetal plastic and start casting.
Back to the problem of Shinohara turnouts, I think they need to update their
manufacturing technics and get things more consistent. Parft of their
problem may be removing the turnouts from the die before sufficiently
cooled. That may cure some of the problems of guage variations from turnout
to turnout.
My opinion about Shinohara is they are still surviving on the reputation
they had from years ago as being the best. At one time they were the best on
the market (nothing else decent out there) but they need to update things.
Chris (who never thought those chemistry and physics classes would ever do
anygood in the hobby! ;))
Christopher Zurek
Geren Mortensen <gcmho...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: How old is old? Our club has used them for 30 years. We didn't have any
: significant problems with them until the last 3-4 years. These problems were
: caused primarily by people who didn't know what they were doing messing with things
: they ought not mess with. As far as being built to standards, our NMRA gauges
: checked them fine, except for occasional tightness of gauge on the diverging route,
: which was easily corrected. I've had a lot of experience with the Code 83 turnouts
: on a large home layout owned by a good friend. He has, over the years, used a
: mixture of Atlas, Shinahara and Peco Code 100 (on the original sections of layout)
: and Walthers Code 83 on the new section. He has repeatedly commented that he
: wishes he had gone with just about anything other than the Walthers. They have
: been problematic since day one -- very poor quality control, and no real
: consistancy of problems. We've had gauge problems through and through,
: inconsistant clearance through flangeways, frogs in crooked, and the list goes on
: and on.
Those are the same problems we have with their code 100 turnouts. We have
had quite a few that were very tight in the guage through the frog. Tight
enough to derail locomotives and cars. Then we've had the opposite, wide
guage and everything picks the frog and derails. We haven't had the problem
lately, because of all the turnouts I've replaced.
: It's too bad Atlas doesn't make a #8 in their Code 83 line.... From what I've been
: seeing (and measured), the new stuff is pretty good. I've measured about twenty at
: random now, and found them all to be within acceptable limits, as descibed in the
: NMRA RPs for using the NMRA guage. The only real "problem" is that they're idea of
: a #4 is really a #4 1/2. No big deal, as long as you plan for it. The early
: problem with the #4 RH seems to have been cured.
Yes, people have been asking Atlas for a code 83 #8. Paul Graf hasn't said
they won't make one, but he hasn't said they will either. I believe he siad
they will look at that when all the other code 83 stuff is done.
: One thing that you will eventually run into a problem with is that the little
: phospor-bronze pickups on the bottom of the points will get dirty and/or loose
: their spring tension. When that happens, you'll end up with a dead spot from the
: points clear up through the frog. If they just get dirty, it's not a big deal to
: clean them. When they loose their spring tension, you have no choice but to put in
: wire-arounds, which is much easier to do when you're installing the turnout to
: begin with. Just something to think about.
Yep, we've had that problem already in quite a few places.
: Anyway, have a good holiday!
: OBTW, how did those DT100 conversions go?
Very, VERY easy. I expected some type of set-up, but basically it was pull
out the original chip in the DT200 and install the new one. I like having
all DT100s now.
Chris
John Murphy
SH <ha...@railway-eng.com> wrote:
Thanks Stephen this sounds very logical to me. DCC, turnouts and the
third factor out of gauge wheels. My guess was right knowing there had
to be another factor in the total scheme. This would explain why some
people would have problems and others wouldn't. The whole problem was
confusing to understand, when people say it might happen or might not.
That's like GM telling me my brakes might not work but don't worry,
more than likely you should be OK.
Anything should be a concern to people that has enough voltage to
start a fire. I know most would say, well I'm right there and would
notice it. Or nothing can happen when I shut everything down. Think
what the favorite roadbed is today, homasote. What's that made of,
nothing but compressed paper. It might have a flame retardant in it, I
kind of doubt it. Any material made of compressed paper could smolder
for a long time, then flare up hours after you have shut the layout
down. I guess I should reconsider that fire station in the middle of
the town I was planning.
As I think about this whole issue of dealing with the higher voltage
some questions come to mind. As I was building the power supply for
my Digitrax, I said to myself why wouldn't a company sell a power
supply with their unit. Would of been the first thought for most,
can't run it without one. Why not reap in the money for that obvious
market you're creating. Did they know that dealing with a higher
voltage may be a draw back. By not touching the power supply end of
the product lesson any liability if something happen?
Murph...
Stan Ames
Bruce Z. Friedman wrote:
>
> Stan,
>
> Boy are you guys doing a disservice to the people that have questions on DCC
)cut)
> I have no stalls and everything works flawlessy. This DCC game is truly
> simple. Why
> must we complicate things? Sorry Stan, but it looks like your trying to sell
> books with complicated solutions to simple problems!
>
> Bruce Friedman
Bruce
Alas it is not as simple as you state. Sorry but on this one you are
incorrect.
I present my HO layout as a good example. I use mostly Walthers code 83
and Sinaharra code 100 turnouts (with some pico thrown in in key
places. The turnouts are thrown by Tortoise switch machine and most of
these machines have the frog powered by the extra contacts of the switch
machine. When using a 3.5 amp DCC power station that uses traditional
overload protection or normal DC power, I experience no problems. In
fact when this problem was first identified several years back, my first
reaction was similar to yours, no problem.
Then I placed a larger power station on the layout. This power station
had much faster short protection in it to prevent damage to the
locomotives. I found that several turnouts on the layout always caused
a short whenever the turnout was thrown.
The problem was not the wheels being out of guage but that the
switchmachine contacts were switching before the bronze wiper was
breaking contact to the stock rails.
Apparently the Dynatrol users knew about the problem for years and they
are credited for most of the fixes identified.
Removing the bronze wipers and using a still wire for the turnout throw
solved the problem in all my turnouts. But constructing turnouts that
have the point rails electrically connected to the stock rails is a much
better solution and I am glad that several progressive manufacturers are
now doing this.
Stan Ames
Bruce Z. Friedman
I stand by my statements. As I stated, I use DCC friendly Atlas Code 83 Mark III turnouts. You need to do nothing to them. No powering of frogs, no car turn signals, no X2000 gizmo upgrades. I am using 2 10 amp power supplies. (2 power districts) I have 8 Shinohara's installed, - no problems. Atlas Code 83 turnouts are DCC Friendly. Atlas Code 83 turnouts are DCC friendly. How many times do we have to go through this. Unless your running old brass from the 60's and 70's with 1 electrical pickup, nothing needs to be done. You are adding to the sales of Digikey and Radio Shack for nothing. I run my layout every day with 50 active DCC engines and over 120 switches and counting. Older Shinoihara and Peco turnouts may need this attention. But the original question was "What New turnouts are DCC friendly?"
Bruce Friedman
Geren Mortensen
Bruce,
You've picked the wrong person to argue with. There are not many people
in the world who are more knowledgable with regards to DCC than Stan
Ames. Period. If you disagree with him, that's fine. However, the
more you argue, the more you look the fool.
Bruce Z. Friedman wrote:
Bruce Z. Friedman
Geren,
I've conversed on and off with Stan for a few years on this group. I've met
him twice. The last time being the East Coast Hobby Show. If you check my
posts in Deja News, I've complimented him many times as one of the father's
of DCC. But as usual, people of Stans's vast knowledge, can sometimes apply
complicated solutions to simple problems. Stan is a wonderful man who has
added greatly to DCC. So what can you add Geren? Should we just blindly
believe every word that Stan states. I have the lots of experience in the
area that is being discussed, so I'm adding. I don't want newbie DCC
entrants belieivng that they have to do tons of stuff to Atlas and Shinohara
turnouts to use DCC. It ain't so. Bottom line, you can do both ways. As for
the foolish comments, the ball is now in your court.
Bruce Friedman
Geren Mortensen wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> You've picked the wrong person to argue with. There are not many people
> in the world who are more knowledgable with regards to DCC than Stan
> Ames. Period. If you disagree with him, that's fine. However, the
> more you argue, the more you look the fool.
>
Wil
Bruce Z. Friedman wrote:
>
> Geren,
>
> I've conversed on and off with Stan for a few years on this group. I've met
> him twice. The last time being the East Coast Hobby Show. If you check my
> posts in Deja News, I've complimented him many times as one of the father's
> of DCC. But as usual, people of Stans's vast knowledge, can sometimes apply
> complicated solutions to simple problems. Stan is a wonderful man who has
> added greatly to DCC. So what can you add Geren? Should we just blindly
> believe every word that Stan states. I have the lots of experience in the
> area that is being discussed, so I'm adding. I don't want newbie DCC
> entrants belieivng that they have to do tons of stuff to Atlas and Shinohara
> turnouts to use DCC. It ain't so. Bottom line, you can do both ways. As for
> the foolish comments, the ball is now in your court.
>
> Bruce Friedman
>
> Geren Mortensen wrote:
>
> > Bruce,
> >
> > You've picked the wrong person to argue with. There are not many people
> > in the world who are more knowledgable with regards to DCC than Stan
> > Ames. Period. If you disagree with him, that's fine. However, the
> > more you argue, the more you look the fool.
> >
I have run across the shorting problem only with Walthers code 83 double
crossover. I haven't had this problem with their #5 turnouts or varoius
sizes of their curved turnouts and no problems at all with Atlas
Code 83's
lpuckett@srv1rvares
You're correct that had this been a DCC system with short protection my
springs would not have been vaporized however, a large number of folks are
recommendig using 12 volt tail light bulbs to "protect" turnouts and prevent
DCC shutdown. In those situations the current is limited by the size of the
bulb and the flow of juice isn't cut off. The real point is that no matter how
good you are at tracklaying and maintenance, shorts can and do happen and
they're most likely to happen at turnouts so using DCC Friendly turnouts is
cheap insurance--Larry
Geren Mortensen
Well, I can only add what my experience has taught me. If you're going to use
the Shinahara turnouts, you'd probably better think about going ahead and
adding the complication now to wire around the frogs properly. Sure, you don't
HAVE to do anything to them, except for gapping past the frog. And of course,
nothing really MUST be done for a Atlas turnout But that will only ask for
trouble later. In all honestly, it's probably not a bad idea to solder little
jumpers on the points of Atlas turnouts as well, to wire around those silly
rivets. I have seen that become a problem area, too. Of course, if all you
run is current plastic diesels from Atlas, Proto2000, Spectrum, Kato or
Athearn, life becomes simple. It's the "better" or more esoteric locos that
cause the problems (let's see you get a Grandt Line 23-ton box cab across a
non-wired frog on an Atlas switch).
Bruce Z. Friedman wrote:
> Geren,
>
> I've conversed on and off with Stan for a few years on this group. I've met
> him twice. The last time being the East Coast Hobby Show. If you check my
> posts in Deja News, I've complimented him many times as one of the father's
> of DCC. But as usual, people of Stans's vast knowledge, can sometimes apply
> complicated solutions to simple problems. Stan is a wonderful man who has
> added greatly to DCC. So what can you add Geren? Should we just blindly
> believe every word that Stan states. I have the lots of experience in the
> area that is being discussed, so I'm adding. I don't want newbie DCC
> entrants belieivng that they have to do tons of stuff to Atlas and Shinohara
> turnouts to use DCC. It ain't so. Bottom line, you can do both ways. As for
> the foolish comments, the ball is now in your court.
>
> Bruce Friedman
>
> Geren Mortensen wrote:
>
> > Bruce,
> >
> > You've picked the wrong person to argue with. There are not many people
> > in the world who are more knowledgable with regards to DCC than Stan
> > Ames. Period. If you disagree with him, that's fine. However, the
> > more you argue, the more you look the fool.
> >
Geren Mortensen
Ah, shoot. Let me add a couple of things here, to my last post.
One of the reasons that I think this "stuff" ought to be done to what ever
turnout is used, is because I prefer to do something right the first time. It
avoids having to go back and work in awkward places and it avoids the
frustration of damage to finished work. I am working on someone elses railroad
now where shortcuts were taken 20 years ago. The owner of the layout is paying
for those shortcuts now, in operational problems, primarily in Shinahara
turnouts. If the work had been done correctly then, there would not be
problems with those turnouts now.
What else can I add? Well, electricity is still electricity. It works the
same way now that it did when John Armstrong wrote the book "How to Wire Your
Model Railroad." NOTHING changes for DCC. The gaps go in the same places
(with regards to turnouts), and, on most layouts, it's even advantageous to put
in block or section gaps as well.
Bruce Z. Friedman
Geren,
You are assuming that Stan's methods are the right way and by not doing it " we
are cutting corners" I disagree. With Stan's method, you are adding more wiring and
gizmo's that may need service, or inturn add more complexity in a trouble shooting
situation.
Bruce Friedman
Stan Ames
Bruce Z. Friedman wrote:
> But the original question was "What New turnouts are DCC friendly?"
Bruce
I am sorry but I misinterpreted the thread.
CLearly Atlas code 83 switches are perfect as are ROCO line switches.
Also on this threas there was mention of micro-engineering turnouts (I
think this is correct).
In my opinion a perfect turnout from an electrical standpoint is a
turnout where the point rails and the stock rails are connected together
and the frog is powered but gapped from all four rails. All of these
turnouts meet this criteria and can be used with no problem whatsoever
straight out of the box no matter which control system you use.
With Shinohara and Walthers turnouts, if you power the frog, it is best
to remove the bronze wipers to provide more throw room. A still throw
wire also helps.
I did not mean this to be complex or scare users. But I have found
that many users do not center the tortoise switch machine and then use
the provided throw wire. These users experience brief shorts whenever
the Walthers or Shinohara change direction if the frog is powered by the
switch machine contacts. These users then blame DCC when in fact it is
just a poorly constructed turnout with a poor installation.
Stan Ames
Rich Weyand
>In my opinion a perfect turnout from an electrical standpoint is a
>turnout where the point rails and the stock rails are connected together
>and the frog is powered but gapped from all four rails. All of these
>turnouts meet this criteria and can be used with no problem whatsoever
>straight out of the box no matter which control system you use.
And of course, you can always use plastic frog turnouts, which always
did meet the stock rail = point rail electrical condition. ;-)
Rich Weyand | _______ ___,---. ---+_______:_ |Rich Weyand
Weyand Associates| |_N_&_W_| |_N_&_W_| |__|________|_ |TracTronics
Comm Consultants | ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o\ |Model RR Electronics
wey...@mcs.com | http://www.mcs.net/~weyand/ |wey...@mcs.com
Stan Ames
Rich Weyand wrote:
> And of course, you can always use plastic frog turnouts, which always
> did meet the stock rail = point rail electrical condition. ;-)
>
> Rich Weyand
Rich
Yes you can use plastic frog turnouts and most of these do indeed have
the proper stock rail = point rail electrical condition.
However I prefer to always use powered frogs. Many locomotives have
less than ideal pickups and I prefer to whenever possible to have
electrical contact.
But thanks for pointing out the obvious that we often overlook.
Stan
Chris White
Stan Ames wrote:
...
> The problem was not the wheels being out of guage but that the
> switchmachine contacts were switching before the bronze wiper was
> breaking contact to the stock rails.
I'd suggest what you need is a DCC "friendly" switch machine rather than
turnout, i.e. two normally open auxiliary contacts at each limit of travel
rather than a simple change over at one limit.
--
Chris White
Hudson Leighton
The trade-off is that you end up with frogs that wear fairly rapidly,
especially in a club-setting with lots of traffic.
In my old club we were replacing switches before we could get the scenery
finished.
DHENK
In article <356ac...@news.dca.net>, "Bruce Z. Friedman"
<"bfriedma"@(nospam)infosysinc.com> writes:
>You are adding to the sales of
>Digikey and Radio Shack for nothing. I run my layout every day with 50 active
>DCC
>engines and over 120 switches and counting. Older Shinoihara and Peco
>turnouts may
>need this attention. But the original question was "What New turnouts are DCC
>friendly?"
As far as DCC "friendly" turnouts goes Atlas and Peco because of the type are
ok from the box. However due to limitations on physical dimensions available
you'll either have to handlay or go to Walthers/Shinohara or other brands.
These probably will require some initial adjustment. I used code 83 Atlas flex
for both by store layout and at home. In both cases I stayed with #6 Atlas as
much as possible. However I was still required to use a couple of Shinohara's
as they had the required track geometry I needed (large curved turnouts).
Chiefly the reason I don't use more Shinohara is I dislike the look of the tie
bar and rivet to move the points. I like the Pecos but they don't make anything
in code 83 or code 70 and I won't change rail codes or shim etc to use them.
The Shinohara's I have I just cut the wipers off as I use Tortoise to route
power to the turnouts. I do this to interlock trackage electrically to prevent
both collisions and derailments. This has worked extremely well on our club
layout for the two double slips off the double main that feed into the wye yard
leads.
Regards,
Dave Henk
Jacksonville, FL
DHENK
In article <356B246A...@earthlink.net>, Geren Mortensen
<gcmho...@earthlink.net> writes:
> In all honestly, it's probably not a bad idea to solder little
>jumpers on the points of Atlas turnouts as well, to wire around those silly
>rivets. I have seen that become a problem area, too.
Note that the Atlas C83 does not have the rivets as the code 100 had. Much
better in appearance.
Dave Henk
Geren Mortensen
Bruce,
Quite the contrary. I am basing my statements regarding extra "gizmos" on personal
experience (30 years in the hobby), the experience of the 40 or so other modelers I
regularly associate with, and that of the experts that have been in the hobby for a
lot of years longer than most of us. The methods Stan suggests are tried and proven.
They work, often and a lot.
At this point, it seems to me that you wish to argue just for the sake of arguing.
Quite frankly, I don't care what you do on your layout. However, I would encourage
you NOT to suggest that "newbie" users don't take the few extra minutes now to avoid
hours of frustration later.
Bruce Z. Friedman wrote:
Geren Mortensen
Chris White wrote:
Fulgarex machines fill this bill, and are still available in most areas. They
actually provide two sets of make-break contacts (SPDT) at each end of the
through, so, with a little extra work, you can add turnout position indication
off the same wiring....
Yes, Bruce, this would add additional complication.
Geren Mortensen
DHENK wrote:
> In article <356B246A...@earthlink.net>, Geren Mortensen
> <gcmho...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > In all honestly, it's probably not a bad idea to solder little
> >jumpers on the points of Atlas turnouts as well, to wire around those silly
> >rivets. I have seen that become a problem area, too.
>
> Note that the Atlas C83 does not have the rivets as the code 100 had. Much
> better in appearance.
>
> Dave Henk
Quite correct, Dave. It appears they use something like a crimped rail
joiner? Something else that probably ought to be soldered around.
Bruce Z. Friedman
Geren,
You can kill a spider in many ways. You can step on it with your shoe, quick and easy and
very inexpensive. Or you can run over it with a bulldozer. "Its defininetly dead!, I saw
the tracks go over it!" The answer to the problem is in your statement below. 30 years
of experience. OLD solutions for old switches. The newer Atlas switches don't need your
OLD solutions. Wanna use a bulldozer to kill the spider, fine. IT WILL WORK! Big deal.
I'm not impressed one bit. As for arguing, I'm right here waiting for another bulldozer
answer.
Bruce Friedman
Geren Mortensen wrote:
Geren Mortensen
OK, Bruce. You win. We're all wrong, and have no clue what we're talking about. You are
the model railroad God, and all runs according to you rule. I have nothing further to say
to you regarding this thread.
Geren
Jacques Ciana
Geren Mortensen wrote:
Chris White wrote:> Stan Ames wrote:
> ...
> > The problem was not the wheels being out of guage but that the
> > switchmachine contacts were switching before the bronze wiper was
> > breaking contact to the stock rails.
>
> I'd suggest what you need is a DCC "friendly" switch machine rather than
> turnout, i.e. two normally open auxiliary contacts at each limit of travel
> rather than a simple change over at one limit.
>
> --
> Chris WhiteFulgarex machines fill this bill, and are still available in most areas. They
actually provide two sets of make-break contacts (SPDT) at each end of the
through, so, with a little extra work, you can add turnout position indication
off the same wiring....
Not quite sure that Fulgurex switch machine is a good choise: as
the make/ brake contact jumps immediately at motor start, you need to wire
both SPDP switches in serie to avoid a short. Then you have to buy additional
contact if you want to have a signal on your control panel; this is what
a did. Furthermore Fulgurex machines are very noisy.
Jacques Ciana
Jon Miller
I am busy mounting Hankscraft (or similar) on Rix Rax 2 mounting
brackets. These brackets have holes for micro-switches. Buying longer
screws will allow you to stack two micro-switches on each side (one set for
frog power and the other set for 'whatever'). Micro-switches will hold
between 3 and 6 amps depending on which ones you buy, so good for DCC. The
pattle that comes with the Rix Rax 2 is at the end of the throw before the
micro-switches activate so no shorting as the 'turnout' above is thrown by
then. You can use these with either the regular micro-switches or the very
small ones. This method is not the cheapest way to go but it is very
reliable.
The micro-switches I buy a surplus electronics stores so the price is
reasonable. As an example, All Electronics has the small ones, 5 amp, for
50 cents each.
Geren Mortensen
Jacques Ciana wrote:
The only ones I've noticed that problem with were a case where the
little contacts on a Shinahara switch were bent. We made the
modification of removing the tabs, wiring the frog, etc. (as suggested
previously by Stan, myself and others), and it was no longer an issue.
This was under DC and while testing for DCC installation.
Ned Carey
I have been on the road and unable to read this list for several days.
This thread has been beaten to death but I just can't resist putting
in my two cents.
I believe this thread started with something like the question "do I
really need to do all this extra stuff to my turnouts for DCC?"
Obviously Bruce, Stan, Geren and other wiring savvy posters understand
the options and can make intelligent choices of how to wire their
layouts. The question is how do we answer the newbie question? I
propose something along the following. I think Bruce would agree with
the first part. Many of us start to part with Bruce after the first
paragraph
Answer to questions about DCC wiring:
Basically if you know how to or have wired a 12V system correctly and
it runs consistently, reliably and without problem just hook up your
two DCC wires and it two will work consistently, reliably and without
problems.
There are two additional considerations however. The higher power of
DCC systems has greater consequences / inconveniences when something
does go wrong. (conceivably a fire hazard in worst case scenario)
Eventually a layouts have derailments shorts etc.
Also the recommendations proposed by the "experts" (and I mean that
as a compliment) are what I would call "good wiring practice". These
procedures are just as good an idea with 12V systems as with DCC. The
are designed to add long term reliability, minimize problems, and make
your layout as failsafe as possible.
Ned Carey
stea...@bigpond.com
On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:19:12 -0400, SH <ha...@railway-eng.com> wrote:
>John Murphy wrote:
>> I would think if I was a company making switches this problem would be
>> addressed if indeed it's as wide spread as some suggest. Maybe even
>> jump to be the first one with a line of this type of turnouts. Yet,
>> not a reason to charge more for a switch like one! On the other hand
>> seeing the switches were here first is this something that DCC
>> companies didn't see coming. Wanting the standard of switches to
>> change to correct this problem?
>> Murph.............
>
> Hi Murph.
> I have a company called Railway Engineering. We have been making
>turnouts for over forty years. In all that time we made products
>that some people hate and some people love. Then along comes DCC
>and a whole new gang demanding DCC friendly turnouts. So ... guess
>what .... we make DCC friendly turnouts. There is nothing wrong with
>the old versions, but we have to go by "public perception". As a
>business, you don't have a choice in this. You must do whats asked
>regardless of how unnecessary it is. Let me explain:
>
> With a regular turnout, the switches points direct power to the frog
>by contacting the stock rail. This is called power routing. The point
>that is NOT touching a stock rail is the oposite polarity of the stock
>rail it is near. This is "percieved" as too close and "could" cause a
>short. It isn't too close if it's made right but also if the wheels
>on the loco are gauged right. If they are a bit narrow gauge, then it's
>possible for the wheel to be sitting on the stock rail and it's back
>side touch the point rail (opposite polarity) thus causing a short.
>
> This is what all the flap and "percieved problem" is all about.
>We make a DCC friendly turnout where the points and their adjoining
>stock rails are the same polarity. The frog is isolated and must be
>switched with some kind of switch contact other than the turnout.
> This prevents the wheels from ever causing a short by touching
>both the stock rail and the point rail. Is it necessary? Well not
>if your wheels are all gauged the correct spacing. Most wheels do
>not come from the factory at the correct spacing. Some do ... some don't
> SO.... one guy has a short .... the other doesn't. Could it be
>prevented .... yes .... gauge your wheels. The short, by the way,
>wasn't a big deal before DCC ..... because the current was no where
>near as high. The train bumped for a moment and went on it's way.
>With DCC and it's possible 10amps at 18 volts, well that's enough to
>start fires any-day. The main problem is actually the inaccurate
>wheel gauge ... not the turnout ... but as a manufacturer I have been
>harping on out'o'gauge wheel sets for 30 years .... and most people
>still don't check their wheels. They get shorts and don't notice.
>
> So you see it's up to you. Regular turnouts will work just fine
>....as advertised ..... if you are a good modeler that corrects the
>gauge of every wheel set you own ...... if not ..... well you pays
>your money and you takes your chances. I sincerely hope this will
>help some to understand the DCC situation.
>Any questions ... I'm happy to answer. Check out our rrhints page
>at : http://www.railway-eng.com/rrhints.htm
>
> Send me a question if this isn't clear yet.
>Happy to answer.
>Stephen Hatch
>Railway Engineering
>http://www.railway-eng.com/
Terry Flynn
For up to date HO scale model railway standards go to
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/trainstandards/index.html
Includes extra finescale standards.
Paul R. Rivers
Ahh Terry just wanted to insert his little SIG file into this thread. Of
course he even got that wrong. It should have read...
For instructions how to bugger up HO scale model railway standards go to
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/trainstandards/index.html
Includes corruption of extra finescale standards.
Regards,
Paul R. Rivers
Jim McKeever
I have a couple dozen Shinohara and Walthers turnouts installed, and am
trying to figure out if I should or even could make them more DCC
friendly without ripping them up. I've studied the diagrams published
in MRG (courtesy of Allan Gartner). Following those recommendations,
the point rails become opposite in polarity. Fine. But as the point
rails approach the frog, they are very close together (I have a Pilz
turnout, and this is the case). So if a derailment begins at the points
(a likely place) there is no short, but if the loco continues toward the
frog--short! So haven't we simply moved the potential of shorts to a
different location? I'm new at this, so maybe I'm missing something.
Also, last night I did some tests using Atlas turnouts, both code 100
and code 83. I ran various diesels (I don't have steam), including a
Bachmann 44-Tonner, through them at slow speeds. They all ran through
the turnouts smoothly. Why do I need to power the frog?!
I do have problems with a couple of Shinohara turnouts. I've determined
the problem is not with the lack of electrical continuity at the point,
but where the point rails break and pivot. Under the rails in that
place there appears to be a small piece of copper which is not always in
contact with the bottom of the rails or sometimes is even missing. I'm
thinking about leaving my turnouts power routing, but adding a single
wire near the frog (soldered to the rail, out of view) and having it
switched when the turnout direction is changed. I'm using mechanical
linkages from Bear Valley (they're in the Walthers catalog).
Looking forward to hearing from some of you experts!
Thanks
Jim McKeever
DHENK
In article <6kpep3$k8$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, "Ned Carey"
<west...@erols.com> writes:
> The higher power of
>DCC systems has greater consequences / inconveniences when something
>does go wrong. (conceivably a fire hazard in worst case scenario)
>Eventually a layouts have derailments shorts etc.
If you have a DCC system that allows a continuous short circuit at high power
then I'd certainly look into providing some kind of relief to prevent this.
With modern electronics we don't need to have "welding circuits" added to the
hobby. Seriously safety in any endeavor should be paramount.
Just out of curiousity what DCC systems currently available do not provide
protection if a short circuit occurred?
Rich Weyand
>If you have a DCC system that allows a continuous short circuit at high power
>then I'd certainly look into providing some kind of relief to prevent this.
>With modern electronics we don't need to have "welding circuits" added to the
>hobby. Seriously safety in any endeavor should be paramount.
>Just out of curiousity what DCC systems currently available do not provide
>protection if a short circuit occurred?
I believe all of the commercial systems provide short circuit protection,
_IF_ the supply can provide the full short-circuit trip current, and
the short is a 'hard short', on the order of one ohm or less.
Consider a 10 amp DCC booster supplied from a transformer which falls
short of its stats and can only deliver 9 amps. The short-circuit
protection will never trip, and the short will get 9 amps continuous.
This can be detected in the booster, as the transformer voltage will
sag, though I am not aware of whether any commercial boosters provide
this protection.
The other dangerous scenario is a 'soft-short'. Consider 18 volts DCC
signal on the rails, and a 2.5 ohm short. This short will conduct
7 amps continuously, without ever tripping the short-circuit protection.
I cannot think of a way to detect this in all circumstances in the
booster, but some could be caught by deciding whether the throttle
settings of the locos on the layout could justify the current load.
Multiple-booster layouts make this decision difficult.
Chris White
My initial reaction to the proposed "DCC friendly" wiring of a turnout was
that it was an unnecessary overkill. If you got a short any decent booster
would shut down almost instantaneously.
Then I read a post about the difference in the consequences of a short under
normal DC and DCC. It occurred to me that some of the stalling I have
experienced at turnouts could be due to a short between the inner face of a
wheel and a point blade. This being the case then adopting the proposed bonding
of the point blade and adjacent running rail would probably give more reliable
operation and is probably justifiable on these grounds regardless of any
electrical safety considerations.
I'd even go so far as to propose that manufacturers adopt it as standard,
along with live frogs, and build a separate frog polarity switch into the tie
bar mechanisms. There's no need for this to add any significant cost to the
turnout.
--
Chris White