Thanks for all the comments/suggestions etc. I dug thru my stash of turnouts and put a few of them on fleebay to lessen my irritation of having to re-work them! from my point of view I would rather spend time building my layout than re-working turnouts.
riogrande5761 Rich, some folks are happy with Bachmann trains too and don't see what all the fuss is about with ExactRail, Genesis and Tangent. Sames goes for track with some folks; many feel it is worth the effort to use closer to scale track and follow the prototype - if you or your friends don't care, don't knock it for those who do and can see the difference and appreciate it.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain I suppose that Code83 to Code 55 could make a visible difference, Code 100 to Code 83, not so much. Your visitors must be more discriminating than mine. Rich
I suppose that Code83 to Code 55 could make a visible difference, Code 100 to Code 83, not so much.
Your visitors must be more discriminating than mine.
Rich, some folks are happy with Bachmann trains too and don't see what all the fuss is about with ExactRail, Genesis and Tangent. Sames goes for track with some folks; many feel it is worth the effort to use closer to scale track and follow the prototype - if you or your friends don't care, don't knock it for those who do and can see the difference and appreciate it. It's like that with all kinds of things - some people just need a cheap pair of speakers and don't care about audio quality, others invest in and enjoy high quality sound too.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Mark R. The only turnouts I've experienced myself that weren't DCC friendly were the OLD Atlas turnouts with the plastic frog. The two rails that approached the frog from the points side came too close together at the frog itself - although they didn't touch and were insulated from each other. On one route, a wheel "could" touch both of those tips at the same time. While this was no problem with DC as the short was was very quick. With DCC, that quick short is enough to trip the system. Mark.
The only turnouts I've experienced myself that weren't DCC friendly were the OLD Atlas turnouts with the plastic frog. The two rails that approached the frog from the points side came too close together at the frog itself - although they didn't touch and were insulated from each other.
On one route, a wheel "could" touch both of those tips at the same time. While this was no problem with DC as the short was was very quick. With DCC, that quick short is enough to trip the system.
Mark.
Peco Insulfrags have the same problem, in an attempt to make the insulated section as small as possible. Another excuse to use Electrofrogs and just power the things.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
danteBy the way, regarding those jumpers built into the DCC-friendly turnouts: I, too, had some come loose and at first I, too, soldered new jumper wires. Later, I found that the jumpers are attached with very tiny spots of solder.
Thanks for mentioning that! I always a s s u m e d that they were resistance spot welded so when I found a loose one I wouldn't even bother to try to fix it.
I started my layout 20 years ago with Shinohara code 83 when the only type available was power routing. I have since replaced 95% with all-live {AKA DCC friendly} but still have a few of the originals, mostly on stub-ended sidings.
Ed
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
I operate DCC and have a mix of older and newer (so-called DCC-friendly) turnouts by Walthers/Shinohara, Code 83. The older turnouts that are power-routing (frog is not isolated) do not have insulated throwbars but are not a problem. If such a turnout serves a stub track such as in a yard, I do not isolate the frog. Otherwise, I isolate the two rails forming the frog.
By the way, regarding those jumpers built into the DCC-friendly turnouts: I, too, had some come loose and at first I, too, soldered new jumper wires. Later, I found that the jumpers are attached with very tiny spots of solder. I was able to resecure the original jumper by simply very briefly and carefully touching the jumper at those spots with a narrow-tipped soldering iron (25W) without damaging the ties.
Dante
There is really 1 and only one issue that defines how "DCC Friendly" a turnout is or isn't. And that is the polarity of the point rails vs the stock rails. Obviously, the closed side of the points has to be the same polarity as the stock rail it is pushed up against. But - what is the polarity of the open point rail? If it is the same as the closed point rail, in other words, opposite that of the nearby stock rail, this is not DCC friendly, although if the gap is well out of scale large, it may be OK anyway. If the open point rail is at the same polairty as the nearby stock rail, then this is DCC friendly, and the gap can be narrower for a more prototypical look with no risk of shorting.
Insulated frogs, metal frogs, plastic frogs, all rail frogs - really has nothing to do with it. It may be an influence on the design of the rest of the turnout, but as seen by the Peco Electrofrog, a quick snip of a couple of jumpers on the bottom, plus adding a couple of others so as to not rely strictly on the point rail making good electrical contact with the stock rail changes them from not DCC friendly into DCC friendly. The key is an insulated throwbar, so the point rails are not electrically connected. Any such turnout can be either DCC friendly or not, out of the box, but with the insulated throwbar, it is always possible to modify it to DCC friendly. Without a insulated throwbar, more extensive modifications (namely, a new throwbar) are required.
Atlas turnouts have 'un-powered' frogs(even the current 'metal' ones). They are DCC Compatible. The original Shinohara turnouts were not DCC compatible. The all metal frog is not isolated from the points. To be quite honest, they should work fine with DCC. The longer 'curved' turnouts may causes a short if a long wheelbase engine contacts the outside stock rail, and the point rail at the same time. Walthers changed the Walthers-Shinohara code 83 line a number of years ago to isolate the metal frog. I am not sure if the Shinohara code 100, code 70, or HOn3 turnouts ever got the upgrade.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
I did the code 83 mainline code 70 yard/sidings/spurs. I think it looks neat, and if you look, you do notice the difference, even though it's only .013 inches... I did 83/70 for two reasons, first, 83 has many, many commercially available with DCC compatable turnouts, and flex track is easy to get. (Or, was then at least....) Code 70, yes it's mostly commercial from ME, but it also allowed me to try out hand laying rail. Two of my yard tracks so far are indeed code 70 hand laid. To me, it looks good enough, yes, no tie plates, no 4 spikes per tie, but in a yard, not really looking at it that closely, you are more occupied with working the yard.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
wp8thsub richhotrain I am aware that the prototype often uses different rail profiles for mainlines and yards, but I have never bothered to reflect that on my layout. I doubt that the difference is even noticeable. The main and siding in this area of my layout are code 83, while the industry spurs are code 55. Differences like this often draw comments from visitors, so they do seem to be visible enough to justify the effort, assuming it's something you want to model.
richhotrain I am aware that the prototype often uses different rail profiles for mainlines and yards, but I have never bothered to reflect that on my layout. I doubt that the difference is even noticeable.
The main and siding in this area of my layout are code 83, while the industry spurs are code 55. Differences like this often draw comments from visitors, so they do seem to be visible enough to justify the effort, assuming it's something you want to model.
richhotrainI am aware that the prototype often uses different rail profiles for mainlines and yards, but I have never bothered to reflect that on my layout. I doubt that the difference is even noticeable.
Rob Spangler
Frank is correct. There is a separate section on converting the old Shinohara Code 100 double crossover to DCC mode. But it is a PITA with the gapping and cutting and special wiring.
If you have not already acquired your track, you might well be better off making your mainlines Code 83 and your yards and sidings Code 70. There is a lot more DCC Friendly Code 83 specialty track such as double crossovers, double slips, 3-ways and turntables.
Just a suggestion.
Sam,
If it is an older type Shinohara, it can be made DCC friendly with gaps and special wiring...I believe that site explains that. Believe it or not....all turnouts are DCC friendly with the proper wiring. That is one of the best sites for wiring. I'm pretty sure, somewhere that is explained on it. Do a little searching on it.
Take Care!
Frank
EDIT: Scroll down that page I linked to....to double crossovers and Shinohara will be in there.
Thanks Frank! I was looking on the list for SHINOHARA HO DOUBLE CROSSOVER but I don't see that listed is that a no-go???
PRRT1MAN Group, Just starting my layout and I am going DCC this time so before I start buying "switches" turnouts what brand/type is best for DCC. I am running code 100 NS on the main and code 83 on the sidings/yard. Thanks in advance! Sam
Group,
Just starting my layout and I am going DCC this time so before I start buying "switches" turnouts what brand/type is best for DCC. I am running code 100 NS on the main and code 83 on the sidings/yard.
Thanks in advance!
Sam
Do a little reading....it will talk about turnouts and what one's are DCC friendly and how to go about wiring, with diagrams:
http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches.htm
PRRT1MAN richhotrain I am curious. Why are you going to use different codes on the mainlines and the sidings/yards? Rich
richhotrain I am curious. Why are you going to use different codes on the mainlines and the sidings/yards? Rich
I am curious. Why are you going to use different codes on the mainlines and the sidings/yards?
I am aware that the prototype often uses different rail profiles for mainlines and yards, but I have never bothered to reflect that on my layout. I doubt that the difference is even noticeable.
I've been wondering about something for a few years now! However, not about turnouts that are DCC compatable; but, about turnouts that are not DCC compatable and who wounld manufacture a product such as this and why?
All my turnouts are Atlas, except one Code 100 Shinohara double crossover, All the Atlas turnouts have either powered; or, un-powered frogs and the Shinohara has powered frogs. All my turnouts work just fine with my DCC set-up.
So, what is a non-DCC compatible turnout?
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
I also use the Walthers code 83 made by Shinohara. The selection of sizes is what sold me. I have some crossovers using the #10 turnouts and they look most like main-line l-o-n-g crossovers.
Sometimes there is a little plastic that needs to be filed near the frog area and on a few I have found the electrical jumpers had come loose on the underside so additional feeder wires needed to be added but overall I'm very satisfied with them.
I have success with my Walthers/Shinohara Code 83 turnouts, including many curved models and a double-slip. But I have no experience with the other brands.