We are a small club currently building a layout. We have a yard with a 3-way switch on each end. The switches are both Walthers/Shinohara code-100. They both have 2 manual throws for each 'switch'. Both 3-ways experience the same problem:
1. Problem only occurs when a train is routing from the 1 track to the middle path of the 3-way.
2. When moving in the opposite direction along the same path, there are NO problems.
3. When taking the path for either of the 2 outer paths, there are NO problems.
4. When a train proceeds thru (middle path only), it will trip the circuit breaker momentarily and then self-correct and proceed subsequently tripping and correcting a few times until all cars are past the 3-way.
5. We have not observed a predictable pattern except possibly metal versus plastic wheels.
6. About a week ago I did some tests and the plastic wheels still had the problem – I think. But yesterday at our group session, we ran several tests with plastic wheels and were unable to re-create the problem. We are all novices when it comes to wiring.
The layout is DCC controlled using NCE and has 4 power districts. The problems surface while the train is fully within a single power district.
Any thoughts on what is going on here?
Most likely, the metal wheels are shorting where rails of opposite polarity converge. The short term solution is to apply clear nail polish at the point of convergence to insulate the rails and prevent shorts.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain Most likely, the metal wheels are shorting where rails of opposite polarity converge. The short term solution is to apply clear nail polish at the point of convergence to insulate the rails and prevent shorts. Rich
That solution apply to Peco insulfrog and not to Shinohara. I know you are aware of this, only a slight oversight of your part.
Jack W.
jalajoie richhotrain Most likely, the metal wheels are shorting where rails of opposite polarity converge. The short term solution is to apply clear nail polish at the point of convergence to insulate the rails and prevent shorts. Rich That solution apply to Peco insulfrog and not to Shinohara. I know you are aware of this, only a slight oversight of your part.
Ah I see, I missunderstood you sorry. If the short occurs between the points and stock rail, out of gage wheels may also cause that kind of short.
jalajoie Ah I see, I missunderstood you sorry. If the short occurs between the points and stock rail, out of gage wheels may also cause that kind of short.
Actually, I did wonder if he meant Walthers Shinohara Code 83 since he mentioned Walthers Shinohara and I believe the Code 100 is only Shinohara.
Here's an earllier thread (you may have to paste it in your browser) on the problem with Walthers-shinohara code 83 3-way. If you read down the thread, Middleman points out a particular rail piece that often can be a problem. Rich had the same problem, I think. But the photo no longer comes up. Middleman's solution was to make that short piece of rail dead. I have a photo of my code 83 turnout with the piece (I'm pretty sure) highlighted. I used nail polish as a 1st solution on my 2012 vintage 3-way. So based on photo highlighting, I've taken a current photo with the offending piece identified. Of course this may or may not be a problem with the code 100 version.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/744/t/214350.aspx?sort=ASC&pi314=2
IMG_7604 (2) by Paul Ahrens, on Flickr
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
I did not understand the distinction on the Walthers & Shinohara track. Now I know. The track is definitly Shinohara code-100.
Thanks for all the replies and especially the picture.
We'll try the nail polish fix and see how that does.
richhotrain Actually, I did wonder if he meant Walthers Shinohara Code 83 since he mentioned Walthers Shinohara and I believe the Code 100 is only Shinohara. Rich
What difference does it make except for rail size? Shinohara makes their own branded code 70 and 100 3-way turnouts and manufacture the code 83 for Walthers - same construction on all three as far as I can tell; all made by Shinohara. Main difference is the name one the box and branding.
I have installed a Walthers code 83 3-way in my yard and a Shinohara code 100 in my staging yard. They are essentially the same except for rail.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
The newer Walthers Code 83 turnouts are more DCC friendly - the point rails are insulated from each other. Vs the older ones and the Shinhara branded ones in other rail codes, where the points are electrically connected to each other so the open point has the same polarity as the closed point and the back of a wheelset brushing the open point as it goes past could cause a momentary short. Also this can cause issues with powering the frog via Tortoise contacts, if the points touch the opposite side before the Tortoise has moved enough, the frog/points have one polarity through the Tortoise contacts but the opposite polarity by touching the opposing stock rail = short. Or the other way around, which is probbaly more common - the Tortoise contact changes before the points have pulled away from the previous stock rail, but the result is the same. This is one of the source of the Tortoise contact mode, to make the dead spot in the middle of the contacts larger.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
riogrande5761 richhotrain Actually, I did wonder if he meant Walthers Shinohara Code 83 since he mentioned Walthers Shinohara and I believe the Code 100 is only Shinohara. Rich What difference does it make except for rail size? Shinohara makes their own branded code 70 and 100 3-way turnouts and manufacture the code 83 for Walthers - same construction on all three as far as I can tell; all made by Shinohara. Main difference is the name one the box and branding. I have installed a Walthers code 83 3-way in my yard and a Shinohara code 100 in my staging yard. They are essentially the same except for rail.
I read the title of this thread completely out of context !
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
Mark R. I read the title of this thread completely out of context ! Mark.
I finally got these things solved. The first one went very well - I made two attempts and solved the problem.
The switch at the other end of the yard was quite a bit more difficult. Maybe I was applying to the wrong place and maybe I wasn't putting enough on. But I eventually got it. After I failed about 5 times, I got out the picture again and painted on lots of polish. That did the trick. I put so much on that I was worried that I insulated the diverging paths but testing proved them to be fine.
Thanks for the pointers and the pic was a big help.
Thanks again.