MalcyMalcpower reached the track through a small clip that attached to the underside of the track
Again, HO Unitrack provides very robust electrical connections.
Or
Terminal rail joiners, homemade or purchased.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama MalcyMalc It seems to me that if someone could come up with a "plug & play" product that harkened back to the days of our old train sets in terms of ease of use but catered to the complexity we all crave they'd make a bomb. That's a contradictory combination of desires, IMHO. KATO Unitrack probably comes the closest. Near bullet-proof, but designs are of course limited by the fixed sections.
MalcyMalc It seems to me that if someone could come up with a "plug & play" product that harkened back to the days of our old train sets in terms of ease of use but catered to the complexity we all crave they'd make a bomb.
That's a contradictory combination of desires, IMHO. KATO Unitrack probably comes the closest. Near bullet-proof, but designs are of course limited by the fixed sections.
Well its nice to see we have a consensus.
I can't help feeling that I'm suffering paralysis by analysis and that none of these systems are close to perfect. It seems to me that if someone could come up with a "plug & play" product that harkened back to the days of our old train sets in terms of ease of use but catered to the complexity we all crave they'd make a bomb.
So I think I'll be going with Peco Code 83 + Insulfrog points. There are a couple of points that Shinohara produce that Peco lacks (I'm thinking a three-way wye is needed for the entry to my terminal) and I'll just have to work round the slight difference in track profile.
I'll use the Peco point motors as they are (a) easier to get in the UK and (b) look more straightforward to fit. I'm aware I can set the points up to work off DCC control - but DCC already looks more complicated than a technophobe like me can stand...
Thanks for your your help everyone - this has been most helpful and interesting.
BigDaddyWhere did Lambert track fit in, in terms of being DCC friendly? Saw some at the train show last weekend. One package had the Shinohara name on it too.
Lambert distributed Shinohara track. The turnouts were power routing types, and were not DCC-friendly.
Rob Spangler
All TRACK is DCC ready. Turnouts may not be. Various brands of flex track have varying degrees of flexibity. Use code 83 rail joinersfor code 83 track, etc.
Dave
Where did Lambert track fit in, in terms of being DCC friendly? Saw some at the train show last weekend. One package had the Shinohara name on it too.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
BMMECNYC I use the PECO code 83 Insulfrogs. As long as you get the ones in the plastic package with red backround card you will be fine. They have fixed the shorting issue at the frog on these turnouts.
I use the PECO code 83 Insulfrogs. As long as you get the ones in the plastic package with red backround card you will be fine. They have fixed the shorting issue at the frog on these turnouts.
How can you tell if your getting "old stock" or the newer fixed version?
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I use the PECO code 83 Insulfrogs. As long as you get the ones in the plastic package with red backround card you will be fine. They have fixed the shorting issue at the frog on these turnouts. Electrofrogs are an option, but you will have to gap them. Check out http://www.wiringfordcc.com/.
My home layout uses W/S code 83, and club layout uses Peco Insulfrog code 83. IMHO both are a good choice and both can be used out of the box without modification.
Howver there may be some other factors to consider;
How does the cost of the flex track compare? While you can mix track, it is probably better to use all one brand.
The W/S will need some form of holding position, eg ground throw or slow motion switch machine so you should factor that into the costings.
When you come to power the turnouts, the Peco switch machines will be a much lower cost than slow motion switch machines, but then either type has advantages and disadvantages.
If you are just getting back into the hobby perhaps you could get several of each and then decide which you prefer.
FWIW, if I was building a new layout I would be using Peco Electrofog with Tortoise motors.
Bill
SouthPenn The Wathers/Shinohara code 83 switches are DCC friendly. The code 100 switches are not.
The Wathers/Shinohara code 83 switches are DCC friendly. The code 100 switches are not.
Yes, this is so, however there are still some "old-stock" Walthers code 83 that show up from time-to-time. It is easy to spot the solid metal bridge between the points that tells you that they are "power-routing" style.
Old style = power routing = points electrically common
"New Style" "DCC Friendly" points insulated (from each other), throwbar insulated:
The Shinohara code 100s and code 70s come in a white box with brown printing and there is no mention of Walthers on it. They are all power routing type.
Ed
Hi, Malc,
I began layout construction 21 years ago and it was around the time Walthers became the exclusive importer for code 83 track made by Shinohara. Back then they were all "power routing" electrically. A friend was also building a large layout and he was using the Walthers/Shinohara so I got a good look at his trackwork and was convinced it was the way to go.
Like Brent, I saw the tie profile and the extensive selection of components and I knew that was the track I wanted.
In hidden staging I used code 100 Atlas and in another off-layout yard I used code 83 Atlas. Fine for those areas but I still prefer the Walthers code 83.
A club I belonged to used Peco turnouts with Atlas track. They unwittingly mixed Electrofrogs with Insulfrogs so wiring became a bit of a headache.
Then about ten years ago I began to rework everything for DCC. I replaced nearly every Walthers "power routing" turnout with it's so called DCC friendly "all live" counterpart. About eighty turnouts in all.
Durng this time they introduced a number TEN turnout and I installed several crossover pairs on the main line. As far as I know they are the only manufacturer to offer a "ready-to-lay" #10 turnout.
I have absolutely no regrets going with the Walthers code 83 made by Shinohara. At most I have had to lightly file a little plastic flash from around the frog area and some of the early #8 double slip switches I bought had the jumpers not very well attached on the underside so I had to solder additional jumper wires but I believe this was a small QC glitch.
I use hex frog juicers in areas where I have a concentration of turnouts, otherwise I use the Tortoise auxiliary contacts to power the frog.
If you need turnouts in tight places they make a #4 or a wye turnout.
In many areas I use Caboose ground throws and Tortoises on the main.
Much orf what is in Alan Gartners DCC site is in regards to the old "power routing" version or the code 70 or code 100 which is still imported by Shinohara.
Regards, Ed
PECO Code 83 components are also very compact relative to the Walthers versions of Shinohara track (not sure about the Shinohara-direct versions). That can be helpful in tight spots.
Does SHinohara directly sell DCC firnedly versions? It used to be that if you got the Walthers ones they were DCC friendly but the direct from Shinohara ones were not. Go WAY back and neither version was DCC friendly. They weren't very Tortoise friendly on DC, either, unless you were extremely careful in lining up the Tortoise perfectly - we had those on out old club and because the dead gap in the Tortoise contacts is very narrow, if they weren;t perfectly aligned, the opposite Tortoise contact would make before the point rail broke away from the previous stock rail, causing a short, even with DC. This is the origin of some of the "mod your Tortoise" sites that showed how to take it apart and cut away some of the copper on the board to increase the dead area. With a properly set up turnout (point rails are same polarity as adjacent stock rail, and insulated from one another) this isn;t necessary.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I returned to the hobby and went with Shinohara track just because I liked the look of it. The store where I bought it had all the top brands hanging on the wall next to each other and shinohara caught my eye as the favourite. I found out after the fact that there was also a large selection of turnouts available. I have about forty T/Os on the layout and have outfitted the frequently used ones with inexpensive Cabboose throws and the rest are held with pins or nothing at all. I still am undecided as to how I want to operate my points down the road. Shinohara has curved T/Os and they can be a big help in design problems if space is a factor. I have about 110 metres of track on the layout.
The Shinohara track stays in place when you bend it and there is a bit of a learning curve using it compared to the springy track like Atlas. If you start to curve the track at the far end of the curve and work your way backwards it goes much better than trying to curve as you go.(if that makes any sense) The springy track and the stays where you bend it track are both fine with me and it wouldn't matter to me what one I used if there were other considerations.
The DCC Shinohara T/Os have unpowered frogs and that was not an issue for me until I got a small 4-4-0 Bachmann Spectram loco. The longer frogs on the higher # T/Os needed power. As a fix I bought a bunch of Tam Valley frog juicers on sale and still have three in my drawer in case I have issues down the road with something like a high railer truck or something. The Frog juicers are quick and easy to install. If and when I decide on how I want to move my points, I will then likely power the frogs using the switch motor.
Good luck and welcome back.
EDIT; Whoops, meant to say Walthers turnouts. Must be going aaaaahhhhhhh????? SENILE! Ya that's it.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I use all Shinohara switches. You don't need a motor on them. Just a way to hold the points tight to the rails. Caboose Ind sprung ground throws work fine. Or a track nail for testing.
Connect your track to the throat of the switch. Do not connect your track to the diversion track or main track leaving the switch. End of electrical problems. Shinohara DCC ready switches work right out of the box. No jumpers to fool with.
Both SHinohara and the Peco Electrofrogs need modifications to be totally reliable with DCC. Info here: http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches.htm
I'm DCC and planning to use Peco track this time around. All Electrofrogs. There's two jumpers to cut and two to add underneath to make them nice and reliable, plus of course providing frog power - having the powered frog will all but eliminate stalling. That's on the Peco 83 line, which is the North American style track. The Code 100 and 75 ones have spots for similar modifications. Having only used the 83 line, I can say the jumper locations are quite obvious when you look on the bottom, the others may be as well.
Insulfrogs need no modification, but because the two rails come together in a tiny bit of plastic in the frog, some people have issues with wheel treads spanning both rains as they pass the frog point, causing a short. A common solution is to paint some clear nail polish in the rails to extend the insulated portion - but not too far, or you could have power problems with smaller locos, or ones that don't pick up on all wheels - the same reason you would want to power the metal frog of the Electrofrog type.
Hello All
I'm just coming back to the hobby after a long absence. I live in the UK but want to model an American prototype. I initially thought that, living in the UK, I'd be largely limited to Peco trackwork but I've found that I can get Shinohara here too.
The Shinohara is about $6 a turnout cheaper than their Peco equivalents - but I've read on here that because they lack a spring Shinohara pointwork needs to have motors fitted to each point. On the other hand I've read that the Peco points are more "fussy" and need to have parts filed down or painted with nail varnish to avoid shorts - whereas the Shinohara pointwork is a bit more forgiving. Finally, Shinohara seem to have a wider range of points in code 83 than Peco.
As a beginner I'm a bit hesitant about filing bits off my trackwork. Would the Shinohara be a better option?
Finally - I plan to use DCC - if I buy Peco do I get the Insulfrog or Electrofrog versions?
Thanks
Malc