Lastspikemike Which commercial turnout are you thinking of that never suffers from shorting a DCC powered track no matter what wheelsets you run?
Which commercial turnout are you thinking of that never suffers from shorting a DCC powered track no matter what wheelsets you run?
DCC or DC, Atlas Custom Line turnouts don't short out.
The points are always the same polarity as their stock rails and the frogs are long enough that even older, wide, european wheelsets cannot bridge anything they should not.
Even wheels out of gauge have no way to short out without derailing.
I gave up hand layed turnouts years ago in favor of the superior electrical design of the Atlas turnout.
Powering frogs is no problem for me, I already have an electrical infrastructure in place for other features that makes powered frogs easy.
The easy way is not always the best way to do things.
Different modelers have different goals.
You seem very concerned with this idea of "steering" advice others might get from these conversations, but the value of such advice is dependent on their goals, not just your views of what works best.
I understand all the reasons some people prefer PECO. And I have said repeatedly if you want the little spring, if you don't need other wiring, it is a good system and a good product.
But for me it is just paying more for something I then have to do more work to so I can use it for my needs.
You may not understand my needs, you have yet to engage me in a conversation about my DC control system or how it works, or what features it has.
But one thing it does not need is PECO turnouts, of any design at this point.
I use a system that allows multiple trains to be controlled on a single mainline without conventional block toggles or rotary switches to assign throttles to blocks. Over half of my control blocks are automaticly assigned to the correct throttle, the rest are assigned by the dispatcher as part of the same function of giving a clear signal, or they are assigned at local tower panels.
I have full signaling, walk around wireless throttles, CTC dispatcher control, or local control. Operators can walk around with their train and not press any more buttons than they would with DCC.
I also have automatic train control, run a red signal, your train stops. You do not run into the next block controlled by some other operators throttle and have a short or a run away.
It's magic..........
Sheldon
Lastspikemike I notice my micro engineering #5 turnouts also have long frogs. Point rails are separated more widely as a result. I meant that all brands of commercial turnouts rather than all turnouts. However, it looks like ME brand turnouts would not short either. Shinohara Wye have wide set point rails also, for example.
I notice my micro engineering #5 turnouts also have long frogs. Point rails are separated more widely as a result.
I meant that all brands of commercial turnouts rather than all turnouts.
However, it looks like ME brand turnouts would not short either.
Shinohara Wye have wide set point rails also, for example.
Neither will Walthers/Shinohara turnouts with isolated frogs.
This is a PECO issue mostly, and maybe some other Euro brands I would never even consider.
Why they did that? I don't know.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Lastspikemike I notice my micro engineering #5 turnouts also have long frogs. Point rails are separated more widely as a result. I meant that all brands of commercial turnouts rather than all turnouts. However, it looks like ME brand turnouts would not short either. Shinohara Wye have wide set point rails also, for example. Neither will Walthers/Shinohara turnouts with isolated frogs.
Rich
Alton Junction
Lastspikemike I notice my micro engineering #5 turnouts also have long frogs. Point rails are separated more widely as a result. I meant that all brands of commercial turnouts rather than all turnouts. However, it looks like ME brand turnouts would not short either.
Easy. The felt the smallest possible dead section was a worthwhile tradeoff to the possibility of a wheel shorting out. Typical British outline locos are signbificantly smaller, so either wiring up the frog, or havign the smallest possible dead frog would be highly desireable. ANd I don't see too many cases of slathering nail polish on Insulfrogs coming from modelers of British railways.
-Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL Lastspikemike I notice my micro engineering #5 turnouts also have long frogs. Point rails are separated more widely as a result. I meant that all brands of commercial turnouts rather than all turnouts. However, it looks like ME brand turnouts would not short either. Shinohara Wye have wide set point rails also, for example. Neither will Walthers/Shinohara turnouts with isolated frogs. On my prior layout, I had three back-to-back Walthers Shinohara Code 83 3-way turnouts feeding my large coach yard. All three of them shorted constantly until I applied clear nail polish. Rich
On my prior layout, I had three back-to-back Walthers Shinohara Code 83 3-way turnouts feeding my large coach yard. All three of them shorted constantly until I applied clear nail polish.
I was not considering or referring to "specials" like three ways. They have special frog considerations. Did they have isolated frogs?
I was referring to more recent production Walthers/Shinohara turnouts, regular turnouts, with DCC friendly isolated frogs.
Because I have never personally used a three way trunout, and I am no longer in a shop regularly to see all these products, I caanot speak for every item.
The basic premise here is that if frogs are isolated from closure and running rails, and are sufficently long enough, wheel treads cannot bridge to rails of opposite polarity.
And if points and closure rails are powered "feed thru" so that they are always the same polarity as their stock rail, there is no opportunity for wheels to connect the open point to a stock rail of opposite polarity.
These things cannot be done to the same degree with specials like slips or three ways.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I was not considering or referring to "specials" like three ways. They have special frog considerations. I was referring to more recent production Walthers/Shinohara turnouts with DCC friendly isolated frogs. Because I have never personally used a three way trunout, and I am no longer in a shop regularly to see all these products, I caanot speak for every item.
I was not considering or referring to "specials" like three ways. They have special frog considerations. I was referring to more recent production Walthers/Shinohara turnouts with DCC friendly isolated frogs.
As to the W/S 3-ways, at one time I had five of them on the layout and they all shorted which leads me to believe, perhaps wrongly, that all W/S 3-ways shorted.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBecause I have never personally used a three way trunout, and I am no longer in a shop regularly to see all these products, I caanot speak for every item.
I have two Walthers/Shinohara 3-way turnouts. One is old style, and one is labeled "DCC Friendly".
Just with visual inspection, I see nothing different from one of these turnouts to the other. Before I install them, I will do lots of checks with an Ohm Meter.
They will be (if used) on opposite sides of the layout.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Because I have never personally used a three way trunout, and I am no longer in a shop regularly to see all these products, I caanot speak for every item. I have two Walthers/Shinohara 3-way turnouts. One is old style, and one is labeled "DCC Friendly". Just with visual inspection, I see nothing different from one oif these turnouts to the other. Before I install them, I will do lots of checks with an Ohm Meter. They will be (if used) on opposite sides of the layout. -Kevin
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Because I have never personally used a three way trunout, and I am no longer in a shop regularly to see all these products, I caanot speak for every item.
Just with visual inspection, I see nothing different from one oif these turnouts to the other. Before I install them, I will do lots of checks with an Ohm Meter.
Look closely, I suspect they are different. A three way switch is something I have never had a use for. like the prototype, I avoid complex turnouts unless they are really necessary.
The new layout will have a just few slips, and maybe one double crossover. The rest will be simple crossovers and crossings, even with it being an extensive double track mainline.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL A three way switch is something I have never had a use for. like the prototype, I avoid complex turnouts unless they are really necessary. The new layout will have a just few slips, and maybe one double crossover. The rest will be simple crossovers and crossings, even with it being an extensive double track mainline.
A three way switch is something I have never had a use for. like the prototype, I avoid complex turnouts unless they are really necessary.
...complex turnouts are really not bullet proof IMHO.
At one time, I had five 3-way turnouts, two wyes, three double crossovers, two double slips and 4 curved turnouts. I sold them all on eBay when I dismantled my old layout.
That said, I do have four Peco Unifrog Code 83 double slips which I use to control a 4-track mainline on a section of my new layout.
If you want a double crossover, consider two single crossovers as an alternative. Commercial double crossovers are nothing but problems, at least in my experience.
Complex trackwork exists here and there. Double-slips are very common in Europe, and were in N. America back in the day. Three ways not quite so much, but they sure open up a confined space on our cramped layouts. They have their uses. Not on yours, Sheldon, clearly, but some of us could really make good use of a three-way, myself included. And I do.
I have the Walthers/Shinohara DCC-friendly Code 83 3-Way turnout. I have had to make one slight modification, and that was to solder a single 25 gauge strand of wire between a point rail and a closure rail, can't remember where without going to a photo. That cured my electrical problem. Other than that, keep the throwbar and points well clear of crud and bits, and keep them free from contaminants that might impede electrical contact. Mine is now on its third layout, and while I haven't yet run anything live through it (I'm wiring up ladders and am then going to test), I expect it to be working just fine.
One thing I did learn, or so it seemed on the first layout, was that it is best NOT TO use joiners from the three exits on to other rails that might also be linked with other power-routing turnouts. I use Peco Insulfrog Code 83 #6 turnouts in my yard, and I would get conflicts when I threw the points in the three-way. When I severed all those exits, my conflicts went away until a locomotive's metal tire bridged, and then the same conflict arose. But, with the severed connections (just gapped and carefully aligned), I was often moving 3-way points and not shutting down the entire layout.
Here in North America special trackwork like double slips is/was primarily used in complex junction or passenger terminal throat trackage where space was at a premium, and smooth direct multi routes necessary.
Those kinds of locations had lots of turnouts to maintain and full time track crews.
Such trackage would virtually never be used "out in the country".
And so it is on my new layout plan, I have one five track interlocking where the double track mainline joins the passenger terminal, an alternate interchange mainline, and the freight yard.
At that location there will be two double slips, a single slip, seven regular turnouts and a diamond crossing, all in about 6 feet.
In several other locations there will be double track diverging routes, that is two turnouts and a diamond.
And one other location with a double slip. But the rest will generally be simple single crossovers, with one possible exception where a double crossover may offer some space considerations.
The whole point of my approach to designing the layout was to not "crowd" things in too much. Like the prototype, I have analyzed train movements and positioned crossovers to move trains as needed with the fewest number of turnouts.
Dearborn Station in downtown Chicago was virtually covered with double slips.
richhotrain Dearborn Station in downtown Chicago was virtually covered with double slips. Rich
Exactly, I'm only modeling a four track thru passenger station in a small Appalachian city, not a stub terminal in a major city, and it will be complex enough.....but those four tracks will be long enough for 12-14 car trains.
SeeYou190Just with visual inspection, I see nothing different from one of these turnouts to the other.
Look at the throwbar. The "original" power-routing version has a solid metal tie bar between the points (top). Additionally the frog is a solid, soldered assembly of milled rail pieces as well.
IMG_8651_fix by Edmund, on Flickr
The "All Live" style, AKA DCC Friendly, has each point insulated from each other by the plastic throw bar (bottom).
Hope that helps.
Ed
gmpullman SeeYou190 Just with visual inspection, I see nothing different from one of these turnouts to the other. Look at the throwbar. The "original" power-routing version has a solid metal tie bar between the points (top). Additionally the frog is a solid, soldered assembly of milled rail pieces as well. IMG_8651_fix by Edmund, on Flickr The "All Live" style, AKA DCC Friendly, has each point insulated from each other by the plastic throw bar (bottom). Hope that helps. Ed
SeeYou190 Just with visual inspection, I see nothing different from one of these turnouts to the other.
Also note the little tab (there's one on the other, close point side as well) that contact the bottom of the stock rail to power the point area. This is what causes the problem as much as anything - it's not just a wheel back touching the open point - that really shouldn't happen unless thee wheels are badly out of gauge. But if you use a switch motor with contacts like a Tortoise to power the frog, and it's not nearly perfectly lined up, that tab can contact the destination stock rail while the Tortoise contacts are still connected to the original side. Instant short, DC or DCC. There used to be numerous posts on modifying the Tortoise to cut away some of the contact surface to make a larger dead band in the middle.
Keeping the point and closure rails always at the same polarity as the adjacent stock rail solves the problem once and for all, and allows the open point gap to be much smaller and better looking. So what if the back of a wheel happens to touch, it's the same polarity anyway, no short.
--Randy
gmpullmanLook at the throwbar. The "original" power-routing version has a solid metal tie bar between the points (top). Additionally the frog is a solid, soldered assembly of milled rail pieces as well.
I will take another close look if I ever get my trackwork tote dug out again... hoping! Thank you for the tip.
rrinker But if you use a switch motor with contacts like a Tortoise to power the frog, and it's not nearly perfectly lined up, that tab can contact the destination stock rail while the Tortoise contacts are still connected to the original side. Instant short, DC or DCC.
That is why I use external contact switches for power routing. They do not make contact until the throwbar is all the way over.
If you compare an insulfrog turnout with the same size unifrog, is the frog length the same?
Rick
Finally saw a picture of the new Unifrog #6 - and it makes me want to not buy any more #8's until they convert those over if they do the same thing - all rail points and closure rails! No mire cut and hinge! That advance in realism and reliability trumps any possible disadvantage the Unifrog might possibly have. Solid rail from the frog to the point blade - on a mass produced commercial turnout!
I can put the 8's I have now in the back where you don't see them. I really want #6 and #5 in the Code 70 version, hopefully those will also be an all-rail design, and available sometime this century - it's only been like 3 years they've been promising them. Since I've started on the yard side of my layout, those would be the next thing, more so than Code 83 #8.
rrinker Finally saw a picture of the new Unifrog #6 - and it makes me want to not buy any more #8's until they convert those over if they do the same thing - all rail points and closure rails! No mire cut and hinge! That advance in realism and reliability trumps any possible disadvantage the Unifrog might possibly have. Solid rail from the frog to the point blade - on a mass produced commercial turnout! I can put the 8's I have now in the back where you don't see them. I really want #6 and #5 in the Code 70 version, hopefully those will also be an all-rail design, and available sometime this century - it's only been like 3 years they've been promising them. Since I've started on the yard side of my layout, those would be the next thing, more so than Code 83 #8. --Randy
Randy, you're a good source for this info so I'll ask you.
The Peco Insulfrog code 83 #6 crossing is supposed to be 9.5 degrees. That tells me that it is designed for use where you want one track to cross through an adjacent parallel track using a #6 turnout.
Does that mean that I can connect the diverging routes of two #8 turnouts to the crossing, and have the tangent track remain straight? Think of the crossing as an X where a connecting line between two corners remains straight. Or will there have to be a slight curve? I guess it comes down to the angles in degrees.
- Douglas
If you use a #8 then the crossing angle has to be difference for it to come out straight, as the #8 is a shallower angle. The angle is arctan(1/frog number)
Or do you mean just connecting a pair of #8's diverging route to diverging route as a single crossover between two tangent tracks? Yes, this works fine. All of the numbered turnouts have straight diverging routes, not curved. The difference is what the center to center ditances comes out to, and how long the whole setup ends up being - with the more gentle angle, it takes more linear space to get from one main to the other - but then it also means the whole crossover is less of an S curve and easier for longer locos and cars to handle. Like everythign else, it's a trafeoff. I'm using #8's for my main crossovers, but #6 most anywhere else, since with 30" radius curves, a #6 is plenty big enough to not be the bottleneck, and they are significantly shorter than a #8. It just better fits the length of run I want in my space to use the #6 for turnouts off the main, and while I technically don't need #8's for anything I run to cross over (I has #6's two layouts ago, and my 4-8-4 would run through are ridiculous speed with no problem, and most of what I run is much shorter - 4 axle diesle, 40 foot cars), it does flow nicely and looks betterI don't have a lot of crossovers between mains, so I'm not 'wasting' too much space. If Peco changes the #8 the way they just changed the #6 - it will really look good.
rrinker Finally saw a picture of the new Unifrog #6 - and it makes me want to not buy any more #8's until they convert those over if they do the same thing - all rail points and closure rails! No mire cut and hinge! That advance in realism and reliability trumps any possible disadvantage the Unifrog might possibly have. Solid rail from the frog to the point blade - on a mass produced commercial turnout! --Randy
I did notice the stock rail points on the Unifrog. It's too bad they couldn't have an all rail frog and stock rail points. That would be the best of both worlds. Cause with the Unifrog, the frog isn't realistic looking with the plastic gap, but the formed metal points on the Electro and Insulfrog turnouts isn't as realistic looking either.
But if you are after Unifrog #8, it's hard to say when those will become available, and how long are you willing to wait? It would be a few months or maybe a year or two or longer. Look how long the Unifrog crossing and double slips have been out, and now finally one of the standard turnouts, the #6 finally went Unifrog. Probably the tooling for the #6 wore out more quickly because it is produced more and so those were then next to convert. The #8 probalby sells in much fewer number so it's anyones guess.
I have a layout going up now, and will need to install code 83 turnouts in the coming weeks, or maybe early next year. There are visual advantages to the Unifrog, but the frog itself, IMO, the Electrofrog looks better. Unfortunately it seems we can't have both in one turnout ...
Or can we? The new Walthers turnouts, now delayed until Jan 28, 2021, may be even better. But it may be delayed again to Feb or Mar as can happen with Walthers often. I am interested to see how they turnout, no pun intented.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Well, as slow as I work - the real bet is what's going to show up first, an all-rail Unifrog #8 in Code 83, or a #6 in Code 70.
The area I have put up benchwork so far, calls for one #8 crossover, back against the wall, behind what will be the most complex part of the yard where the ladder connecto to the AD tracks and where the AD tracks connect to the main, and the whole works feeds to the engine terminal. So I can use the #8's I have there, and the connections off the main can use the #6's I already have, but I'd almost rather the Code 70 turnouts came in first so I could build the rest of the yard. I have to figure out my moveable section to allow access to the water heater and furnace before I get to where the next set of #8s will be needed. Or plan the connection between the town side and where the helix will be for the crossover that will be there, both to allow either track in the helix to be used for either direction, and also allow a train coming off the branch that loops around the outside of th ehelix to get on to the correct main.
If I worked at normal speeds, I would ahve had an order in for more turnouts weeks ago, and already have the capability to run a train around in that whole section where the yard will be, well over 50' of main. Which is more than a complete loop of my previous layout. But, I am slow. Plus been down because of eye issues. ANd people approriating my sheet of plywood on sawhorses to use as a table to wrap Christmas presents... that's all gone now. Maybe this weekend, since previous plans have canceled. I need to finish the backdrop, but between sanding, waiting for spackle to dry, sanding again, and waiting for paint to dry (3 coats) - that's not going to get completed in just a weekend. And I can't start cutting up plywood strips while the paint is wet - sawdust in the sky is not a good look. Too cold and too much of a pain to haul it outside to cut it.
rrinker If you use a #8 then the crossing angle has to be difference for it to come out straight, as the #8 is a shallower angle. The angle is arctan(1/frog number) Or do you mean just connecting a pair of #8's diverging route to diverging route as a single crossover between two tangent tracks? Yes, this works fine. All of the numbered turnouts have straight diverging routes, not curved. The difference is what the center to center ditances comes out to, and how long the whole setup ends up being - with the more gentle angle, it takes more linear space to get from one main to the other - but then it also means the whole crossover is less of an S curve and easier for longer locos and cars to handle. Like everythign else, it's a trafeoff. I'm using #8's for my main crossovers, but #6 most anywhere else, since with 30" radius curves, a #6 is plenty big enough to not be the bottleneck, and they are significantly shorter than a #8. It just better fits the length of run I want in my space to use the #6 for turnouts off the main, and while I technically don't need #8's for anything I run to cross over (I has #6's two layouts ago, and my 4-8-4 would run through are ridiculous speed with no problem, and most of what I run is much shorter - 4 axle diesle, 40 foot cars), it does flow nicely and looks betterI don't have a lot of crossovers between mains, so I'm not 'wasting' too much space. If Peco changes the #8 the way they just changed the #6 - it will really look good. --Randy
I was referring to two stub spurs crossing each other near the turnouts.
Placing the tangent tracks of two #'s together, and have the diverging tracks point in the same direction (so it would be a LH and a RH joined at their tops), then joining the diverging routes with a crossing.
I guess for a #6 crossing to work I would need #12 turnouts. No such commerically produced product.
I'm using Peco 8s for all turnouts, including industrial spurs.
Doughless The Peco Insulfrog code 83 #6 crossing is supposed to be 9.5 degrees. That tells me that it is designed for use where you want one track to cross through an adjacent parallel track using a #6 turnout. Does that mean that I can connect the diverging routes of two #8 turnouts to the crossing, and have the tangent track remain straight?
Does that mean that I can connect the diverging routes of two #8 turnouts to the crossing, and have the tangent track remain straight?
So you have two turnouts, one left, one right, the diverging sides facing each other, adn then a crossing in the middle, and these are two industrial sidings? Unless I am picturing this all wrong, I'm not sure what the point of such an arrangment would be. Why would you go on track 1, only to take the diverging route of a turnout and cross to track 2, instead of just going in track 2 from the beginning?
Guess you have a lot of room - #8s on industrial tracks? Unless you have nothing less than 43" radius curves everywhere - that's a lot of room that could extend car capacities of sidings just by using a #6 instead. It's nearly an extra 50 foot car per #8 replaced with a #6.
rrinker So you have two turnouts, one left, one right, the diverging sides facing each other, adn then a crossing in the middle, and these are two industrial sidings? Unless I am picturing this all wrong, I'm not sure what the point of such an arrangment would be. Why would you go on track 1, only to take the diverging route of a turnout and cross to track 2, instead of just going in track 2 from the beginning? Guess you have a lot of room - #8s on industrial tracks? Unless you have nothing less than 43" radius curves everywhere - that's a lot of room that could extend car capacities of sidings just by using a #6 instead. It's nearly an extra 50 foot car per #8 replaced with a #6. --Randy
Yes, I have the space, and I'm using it.
A better question, a double crossover made with a #6 crossing, what is the proper frog number for the turnouts?
I looked it up and I read where a #6 crossing would work with the 4 turnouts, #8 frogs, but I don't think that's right.
Peco makes insulfrog #8s which I have, and they have a new UniFrog #6 crossing.
Doughless rrinker So you have two turnouts, one left, one right, the diverging sides facing each other, adn then a crossing in the middle, and these are two industrial sidings? Unless I am picturing this all wrong, I'm not sure what the point of such an arrangment would be. Why would you go on track 1, only to take the diverging route of a turnout and cross to track 2, instead of just going in track 2 from the beginning? Guess you have a lot of room - #8s on industrial tracks? Unless you have nothing less than 43" radius curves everywhere - that's a lot of room that could extend car capacities of sidings just by using a #6 instead. It's nearly an extra 50 foot car per #8 replaced with a #6. --Randy Yes, I have the space, and I'm using it. A better question, a double crossover made with a #6 crossing, what is the proper frog number for the turnouts? I looked it up and I read where a #6 crossing would work with the 4 turnouts, #8 frogs, but I don't think that's right. Peco makes insulfrog #8s which I have, and a new UniFrog #6 crossing.
Peco makes insulfrog #8s which I have, and a new UniFrog #6 crossing.
The #6 crossing needs $6 turnouts to come out square. With #8s, the turnouts will lean in towards one another as you move away from the crossing. I just drew it quick in 3rdPlanIt. To make it work with #8s, you's need to add some straight track to the 4 legs of the crossing, the at the point end of each of the 4 turnouts, you'd have to put in some curves to get the two tracks parallel again. If you mean just 2 turnouts, so there are 3 tracks, with the turnouts there to allow a train to move from track 1 to track 3, crossing over track 2, if you do that with #8s, then you will need curves on the point ends of the turnouts to bring them parallel with the center track.
One of the things I am not doing is making double crossovers - I am building thm up out of 4 turnouts and just having one cross from track 1 to track 2, then a follow up one cross from track 2 back to track 1. One reason is - Peco doesn't have a crossing that matches #8 turnouts.
richhotrain Doughless rrinker So you have two turnouts, one left, one right, the diverging sides facing each other, adn then a crossing in the middle, and these are two industrial sidings? Unless I am picturing this all wrong, I'm not sure what the point of such an arrangment would be. Why would you go on track 1, only to take the diverging route of a turnout and cross to track 2, instead of just going in track 2 from the beginning? Guess you have a lot of room - #8s on industrial tracks? Unless you have nothing less than 43" radius curves everywhere - that's a lot of room that could extend car capacities of sidings just by using a #6 instead. It's nearly an extra 50 foot car per #8 replaced with a #6. --Randy Yes, I have the space, and I'm using it. A better question, a double crossover made with a #6 crossing, what is the proper frog number for the turnouts? I looked it up and I read where a #6 crossing would work with the 4 turnouts, #8 frogs, but I don't think that's right. Peco makes insulfrog #8s which I have, and a new UniFrog #6 crossing. Douglas, if this is any help to you, the Peco Code 83 #6 crossing is set at a 9.5 degree angle. Rich
Douglas, if this is any help to you, the Peco Code 83 #6 crossing is set at a 9.5 degree angle.
Rich, you're making me have to do the math. Shame on you.