gmpullmanMy experience has shown that after 26 years I have had little trouble with any of my Walthers/Shinohara code 83 including double crossovers.
I appreciate you sharing your experiences Ed.
I hope my "New Old Stock" Walthers/Shinohara turnouts prove to be just as reliable. I don't know if I will have 26 years left for me, but that sounds like a good long lifespan for a trackage component.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I let my turnouts float except for the curved ones. I have several WS curved turnouts and big steam derailed on them until I stuck'em down. I used the thinnest layer of caulk to hold them down and they do come up easily with no residue on them if need be.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
dante Rich, Did you spike the turnout at the locations provided in the turnout ties? Dante
Rich,
Did you spike the turnout at the locations provided in the turnout ties?
Dante
Initially, when I installed the Walthers Shinohara Double Crossovers in the 2005-2006 period, a lot of thinking on the forum was to let turnouts "float". So, that is what I did. But, I eventually started to conclude that was a mistake, so I nailed the DCOs trhough the roadbed into the plywood subroadbed.
But, it proved too late. I had already begun to experience power losses on some rail segments. I believe that this was caused by the thin copper jumpers coming loose on the underside of the DCO, and that was caused by flexing of the turnout.
I will work my way down to the basement later this morning to photograph the underside of my remaining DCO so you can see the jumpers. There are lots of them.
Rich
Alton Junction
PC Board material is available.... Depending on the size and amount you want.
PC Board ties are very readily available, from several sources.
Online RS (Radio "Store" ) has PC Board in a few sizes. Other suppliers as well.
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.
DoughlessPersonally, I don't know how easy it is to source blank PC board material, but then again I've never tried.
I know that's a kind of kludge-esque solution, but it lets you stock just one kind of board for projects...
If I had it to do over with my Walthers Shinohara Double Crossovers, I would have immediately secured them to a fitted piece of styrene sheet, maybe 0.060" sheet, to prevent flexing and warping. I never use caulk to secure my track work to the subroadbed (plywood in my case), but I would caulk the DCO to the styrene sheet. It needs to be flat and stable.
DoughlessPersonally, I don't know how easy it is to source blank PC board material, but then again I've never tried. Not sure if it even exists without circuitry embedded.
Edit 2: It was a YouTube video and I had it completely backwards. The video poster originally ordered from China, but found better qualilty stuff (and less expensive) from an eBay seller in New Hampshire named "abcfab". The video is here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5HRE6ed9gg) and he starts the discussion at 2:35.
Returning to model railroading after 40 years and taking unconscionable liberties with the SP&S, Northern Pacific and Great Northern roads in the '40s and '50s.
Overmod Doughless PC board thought to be a sturdier material for its height than something like common styrene, and of course it is nonconductive. But be careful to use only single-layer without any sneaky little vias. Just removing any surface copper traces might not be enough to avoid mystery shorts...
Doughless PC board thought to be a sturdier material for its height than something like common styrene, and of course it is nonconductive.
But be careful to use only single-layer without any sneaky little vias. Just removing any surface copper traces might not be enough to avoid mystery shorts...
The read the specific remedy was PC Board material, not cutting up old PC boards with embedded circuitry, but point well made.
Personally, I don't know how easy it is to source blank PC board material, but then again I've never tried. Not sure if it even exists without circuitry embedded.
- Douglas
DoughlessPC board thought to be a sturdier material for its height than something like common styrene, and of course it is nonconductive.
riogrande5761Rob Spangler has commented that the curved turnouts have gauge issues and required some modifications.
At least one of the issues that I am aware of regarding the long Walthers SHINOHARA curved turnouts, the 7.5 and especially 8, is that the point rails are very long. They are only supported in two places, by attachment at the hinge and way down by the throwbar.
This length of unsupported rail caused them to splay out of gauge when traversed by a heavy locomotive. Personally, I never had the problem, but I run short plastic diesels.
I assume the issue could be a revealed if your layout ran big, heavy, brass steamers.
I read, and could see by looking at my turnous, where folks would use strips cut from PC board material cemented to the underside of the rails to keep them from splaying. PC board thought to be a sturdier material for its height than something like common styrene, and of course it is nonconductive.
richhotrainI'll jump in here.
gmpullman My experience has shown that after 26 years I have had little trouble with any of my Walthers/Shinohara code 83 including double crossovers, four double slip switches and maybe two dozen curved turnouts of varying degrees. Plus some seventy five or so conventional 5, 6, 8 and 10s.
My experience has shown that after 26 years I have had little trouble with any of my Walthers/Shinohara code 83 including double crossovers, four double slip switches and maybe two dozen curved turnouts of varying degrees. Plus some seventy five or so conventional 5, 6, 8 and 10s.
Overmod riogrande5761 I've read a number of folks who had the Walthers double cross-overs report they had issues with them... This is one of those little things that gall me, like using the phrase "Studies have shown..." If you can't (or Kalmbach won't let you) provide the original source references, you owe it to us to recap what the 'issues with them' were reported to be. (This is not a personal 'dig' -- just a plea that if you report there are problems, go ahead and report what the problems are actually said to be.)
riogrande5761 I've read a number of folks who had the Walthers double cross-overs report they had issues with them...
This is one of those little things that gall me, like using the phrase "Studies have shown..."
If you can't (or Kalmbach won't let you) provide the original source references, you owe it to us to recap what the 'issues with them' were reported to be.
(This is not a personal 'dig' -- just a plea that if you report there are problems, go ahead and report what the problems are actually said to be.)
At one time, I had three Walthers Shinohara Double Crossovers on my layout. The biggest issue was power losses. I had to wire all four ends of the WS DCO to guard against power loss.
Then, over time, I began to lose power on some of the rail segments. This loss of power was caused by the jumpers coming loose on the underside of the DCO. If you turn over a WS DCO, you can see the little thin copper jumpers.
They are not well soldered into place. In fact, they seem to be press fit rather than soldered. I sold two on eBay after clearly outlining the problem. The third one was so bad that I did not feel that I could sell it so I still own it.
The other problem was derailments caused by warped ends of the DCO. I basically had to nail down all four ends to keep the DCO in proper gauge with the adjoining tracks. Ugh!
As I think back, the DCO seemed to be too flexible. I think that caused the power loss problems as well as the derailments. That piece of specialty track just seemed like it couldn't retain its shape. It basically warped.
I have a few set aside for spares if needed and I'm glad Walthers is trying to continue a line of similar trackage in the event I would ever need to expand or replace any.
Thank you, Ed
riogrande5761I've read a number of folks who had the Walthers double cross-overs report they had issues with them...
riogrande5761I've read a number of folks who had the Walthers double cross-overs report they had issues with them, even the DCC friendly versions.
Before I decided to spend the money for two Walthers/Shinohara code 83 #6 double crossovers, I asked the folks on this forum. No one that used them on their layouts said I would expect to have problems from them.
I've read a number of folks who had the Walthers double cross-overs report they had issues with them, even the DCC friendly versions. I always thought they looked cool but after reading the various comments, I decided to avoid them. Complex commercial turnouts seem to increase likelihood of running or electrical issues. Rob Spangler has commented that the curved turnouts have gauge issues and required some modifications.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
SeeYou190I love the way curved turnouts look.
My current in-progress switching layout uses a curved turnout for the main switchback. A PECO, so its short enough to fit in a switching district.
Its installed backwards where the "tangent" outer curve track handshakes the diverging track of the mainline switch (the runaround siding actually).
This creates a U shape to the area that helps the spur and the tail track angle towards the backdrop sharply, requiring another swooping curve to get each back parallel to the back drop to continue towards the industries.
Its a series of dreaded S curves that look great naked, or when the string of cement hoppers snakes through it. Corn syrup tanks, aggregate hoppers, 53' boxcars.
crossthedog I'm bummin' here a little bit. I actually did consider straight turnouts in my yard corner.
I do not know how many curved turnouts were ever used by prototype railroads. I have only seen pictures of a few.
I love the way curved turnouts look. I have a few Walthers/Shinohara curved turnouts on hand. I have #7 Left and #7 Right, and a #7.5 Right to use on the new layout. They will be right up front and used just for visual appeal.
SeeYou190Shallow "prototype profile" ties are a stupid feature. I would prefer ties to be twice the scale thickness.
Curved turnouts are highly useful in certain situations, so consider the situation you're using them in before you get too bummed out.
I build switching layouts, out and back type of ops. Turnouts are used for either spurs or runarounds. Another aspect of the long curved turnouts, which need to be placed in the middle of the curve usually, is that it takes a long time for the loco to runaround and clear the points, almost heading up the other straight track.
For a mainline passing siding situation, or a yard lead arrival departure track, this may not be an issue. So before you get too bummed out, always look at your situation to see the options. My comments were made in a general way off of my specific experience.
The long turnouts placed in the middle of the curve usually gave me about 12 inches of extra siding/spur length. Not bad, but not leaps and bounds more than a straight turnout placed at the end of the curve and about the same than one placed at the beginning, IMO.
SeeYou190When the two "effective radius" of the curved turnout become closer to one another, the entire turnout becomes longer
That makes intuitive sense to me, and it rhymes with what Doughless posted just after you, about how much more track it takes after the divergence to make the siding useful. I'm bummin' here a little bit. I actually did consider straight turnouts in my yard corner.
But this string isn't about me or my curve problems, and anyway my motto is, hey, just get something down and run some trains. Yes, there is much to be said for proper planning, but when you're a newbie you don't know enough to plan well anyway. I can fix stuff later.
SeeYou190 crossthedog Wish I'd known that before I spent 60 clams on those big 30-inchers. The Atlas 24/30s are taking up quite a bit of space. The new Walthers curved turnouts sound similar to the Walthers/Shinohara #7 curved turnouts, and they are even larger than the Atlas curved turnouts. When the two "effective radius" of the curved turnout become closer to one another, the entire turnout becomes longer because of how much more rail is required between the point tips and the frog. -Kevin
crossthedog Wish I'd known that before I spent 60 clams on those big 30-inchers. The Atlas 24/30s are taking up quite a bit of space.
The new Walthers curved turnouts sound similar to the Walthers/Shinohara #7 curved turnouts, and they are even larger than the Atlas curved turnouts.
When the two "effective radius" of the curved turnout become closer to one another, the entire turnout becomes longer because of how much more rail is required between the point tips and the frog.
I've owned every Walthers Shinohara curved turnout from the 6.5, 7, 7.5, and 8. Once the turnout gets really long, its use becomes limited. The tracks are so narrow that it takes many inches to separate them to where the siding becomes useful. Its almost just as handy to put in a #6 straight turnout.
I think the places that a long curved turnout can be used are really not that frequent.
The sharper curved turnouts are more useful because space is already at a premium on layouts with 22 and 24 inch radius curves.
IIRC, despite their advertisment, the radii of the 6.5 thru 8 are...24/20, 28/24, 32/28 and 36/32. That 8 is really long that a person can find alternatives within that same amount of real estate.
crossthedogWish I'd known that before I spent 60 clams on those big 30-inchers. The Atlas 24/30s are taking up quite a bit of space.
LastspikemikeWalthers new curved turnouts are due August this year, 24" inside and 28" outside radius
Wish I'd known that before I spent 60 clams on those big 30-inchers. The Atlas 24/30s are taking up quite a bit of space. I haven't soldered any part of the yard yet, so if they really do show up soon I could redo my cork and have a shorter lead and still have my outside track be at least 24" for the passenger trains.
SeeYou190They certainly do look better than my older Walthers/Shinohara code 83s
I was looking for Shinoharas on ebay for those curves, but I could'nae find them. I think Shinohara was the only curved turnout that actually stated the outside radius as 24", which is what I wanted. The alternative was a sharper curve, which wouldn't work when I want to bring passenger trains into a station at the yard.
I eventually had to go with Atlas turnouts that are 30" radius on the outside, which meant a longer curve into the yard (and alas, shorter yard tracks) and as I mentioned, it forced me to realign the yard lead curve so that I had to break off from parallel with the main.
crossthedogHere are photos of two of my new Walthers code 83 #6 lefties
Thank you.
I do like the "no hinge" look, and the throwbar looks pretty good too. They certainly do look better than my older Walthers/Shinohara code 83s.
Here are photos of two of my new Walthers code 83 #6 lefties -- the ones that are behaving well. I put a short piece between them because the direct handshake would have been too close in this case. I need to get the track away from the main to be able to get some wide curves into my yard lead.
LastspikemikeThe tie depth is shallow which will reduce ballast material required but makes mixing track brands trickier.
@Lastspikemike, that explains why the joint seemed "off" between the rails of the Walthers turnout and the Atlas curved turnouts just beyond them in the pic below. Thanks for pointing that out. I just looked, and sure enough, the Atlas ties are taller, which makes just a bit of a stumble there.
-Matt
Edit: For some reason, photos I'm hosting on my old blog are behaving in such a way that the first time you click on them here, they open in a small frame, not full size. If you close that and click the image again, it opens full resolution. Don't know why. Wordpress voodoo.