BATMAN dante Which came first, the proto-chicken or the proto-chicken egg?" IIRC these are Walthers products, are they not? Maybe we can drop Walthers a line.
dante Which came first, the proto-chicken or the proto-chicken egg?"
IIRC these are Walthers products, are they not? Maybe we can drop Walthers a line.
If so, that makes Walthers the "First Cause!"
danteWhich came first, the proto-chicken or the proto-chicken egg?"
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
The last paragraph of the chicken-link says it all and demonstrates that the explanation is not a valid answer to the conundrum: "Maybe the question we should be asking is: Which came first, the proto-chicken or the proto-chicken egg?"
Regarding the electrical integrity of the spur, IIRC the OP said that the loco ran the length of the spur. We still need more detail about his solution to satisfy our curiosity!
Dante
zstripe To The One and Only. BATMAN, Some more info for the Modeler: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/finally-answered-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg Striped
To The One and Only. BATMAN,
Some more info for the Modeler:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/finally-answered-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg
Striped
Frank
Not only are the guy's on this forum some of the nicest you'll ever hear from, they are just incredibly smart! An instant answer to the chicken and egg question. Wikipedia has nothin on the MRR forum.
Rich
My "guess" of the problem of the dead spur was, not all sections of track were electrically connected. So even if the spur feeders were properly connected, the section of track the loco was sitting on in the demo could have had an intermittent connection depending on how the switch was thrown. I would have liked to have seen the demo with the loco sitting on the section of track that had the feeders connected to it. But then that might have only been part of the problem. It takes very little movement to wiggle a joiner enough to make it fail electrically and throwing a switch is more than enough to do that. (speaking from experience)
I've always came here with problems I've had with my layout, you guys are good with helping me trouble shoot. Just wished some of you lived closer so I could just call you over to the layout...lol Thanks again guys!
HO Scale modeler of Union Pacific and Iowa Chicago and Eastern Railroads.
richhotrain LOL, Chad, no one's life is dependent upon the results. You did good to bring the question to the forum and you did even better correcting the problem. What you need to understand is that you raised an issue of enormous interest, as evidenced by the sheer number of views. Fellow modelers are extremely interested in Peco turnouts, are sometimes confused by the power routing features of the turnout, and need to know more about the wiring of these turnouts. Adding to the complexity of this issue is the Peco Electrofrog. That turnout is also power routing but, unlike the Insulfrog, the Electrofrog has a live frog and needs to be gapped by the modeler. You done good, and thanks for reporting back to all of us. Rich
LOL,
Chad, no one's life is dependent upon the results.
You did good to bring the question to the forum and you did even better correcting the problem.
What you need to understand is that you raised an issue of enormous interest, as evidenced by the sheer number of views. Fellow modelers are extremely interested in Peco turnouts, are sometimes confused by the power routing features of the turnout, and need to know more about the wiring of these turnouts.
Adding to the complexity of this issue is the Peco Electrofrog. That turnout is also power routing but, unlike the Insulfrog, the Electrofrog has a live frog and needs to be gapped by the modeler.
You done good, and thanks for reporting back to all of us.
Rich I am with you 100% with this post.
Jack W.
Brent, I forgot your pick as the likely problem with the OP's wiring. What was it?
Alton Junction
zstripeBrent, We'll never know! Will we? Big Smile Frank
Nope!
Even if I was wrong (spare the thought) It would have been nice to know.
Good inquisitive bunch pounched on this thread, so while I have you all together, what came first, the chicken or the egg????????
As stated, I pull ALL wiring up and rewired everything including the feeders at the end of the track (then also added feeders right after the switch). Everything now works properly.
I'm guessing also maybe the feeders at the end of the track were not connected properly or I didn't have the rail joiners secured tight enough to the rails. I pulled the whole track up and added 2 36 inch pieces of brand new track with brand new rail joiners to make the spur instead of the 3 pieces that I had before. Keep in mind this is my first time wiring. It was a learning experience. I didn't realize so may peoples lives depended on the results. I just wanted to thank everyone who were trying to help me through this problem.
This thread is invalid from beginning to end, and here is why I say that. I, too, have grown weary reading all of the replies and getting little or no reliable input from the OP.
I finally went down to my layout and pulled a Peco Insulfrog to do some bench tests.
The first test was for electrical continuity. There are 8 segments to the Insulfrog, as shown on the diagram included with this reply. Using an ohmmeter, I test these 8 segments and color coded the diagram accordingly. The only gaps in the Insulfrog are those placed there by the manufacturer. Jumpers placed on the turnout by the manufacturer provide electrical continuity around the gaps and the frog is completely isolated.
The second test was to look for completed circuits. To conduct this test, I placed 12 volt bulbs in three locations, at each end of the turnout. That way, the bulb(s) would light when power was present through a completed circuit. Then, I placed feeder wires in various locations to test for live and dead tracks as the point rails were thrown. Recall that the Insulfrog is a power routing turnout with a dead frog. If need be, I could shoot a video to validate my findings.
Using the feeder setup in the OP's video, I placed feeders at the far end of the turnout (away from the points on the straight through route) and the end of the spur track. As expected, both routes were fully powered regardless of which way the points were thrown. So, something was wrong with the OP's wiring because the divergent route was only powered for him when the points were thrown to the divergent route. I could create that scenario by disconnecting the feeder on the inner spur rail, exactly the scenario that I and others have raised in this thread. But, here is the problem. If I add feeders to the near end of the turnout, as the OP said that he did, with the inner spur rail feeder still disconnected, with the point rails set straight through, the spur track is dead. Only when the points are thrown to the divergent route are both routes live.
Why is that? Why is the spur track dead with feeders on both ends of the straight through route? Because the Insulfrog is power routing, and when the route is set straight through, with the feeder disconnected to the inner spur rail, the circuit is not completed.
The only way to have both routes live at all times is (1) feeders at the far end of the straight through route and feeders to both rails of the spur track or (2) feeders to both ends of the straight through route and feeders to both rails of the spur track.
Either the OP isn't reporting his wiring correctly, or something else is wrong. In either event, what the OP has reported is incorrect.
Humm, 57 replies and 1450 views for such a trivial problem. It is obvious from the outset that the first set of feeders at the end of the spur do not make adequate contact with the rail and the main bus.
I agree. Note that the OP did not say to which track the feeder or feeders were added and after which end of the switch.
Adding another feeder does not answer the question of what the original problem was. Were your original feeders on the siding making good contact with the rails?
Quote:
I think I was right.
Brent,
We'll never know! Will we?
THERE IS A GOD!!! Just got back up from the basement. Happy to say I have corrected my Spur problem. I took alot of your guys' suggestions and added feeder wire right after the switch and it WORKS..Have power now when switch is open and CLOSED!! thank you guys for all your help and suggestions! I'll post another video in my monthly layout updates. Tomorrow I'll be trying to wire the rest of the layout! Thanks again guys I knew I came to the right place for the answers!
Chad???
After reviewing (again and again!) the videos and all the comments, I agree with those who say the problem lies with the spur inner rail feeder and that no gaps are needed. Whew!
P.S. Regarding the question about whether or not his spur track sections are electrically continuous, he says in his video that he has power all down the track.
I have become increasing convinced that Chad has improperly connected/wired the feeder wire at the end of the spur track that powers the inner (blue) rail. That would explain what is happening on his layout.
DigitalGriffinAs I have said twice before, the points are jumpered to the inside legs.
I believe that what you are calling the inside rails are what are called the frog rails on the picture at the following link: http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches_peco.htm. As shown, the point rails are jumpered to the inside rails, beyond the insulated frog. As can be seen on the picture, the point rail shown thrown for the diverging route and the associated frog rail is at the same polarity and the other point and frog rail are unaffected. If the OP did not have any power feeds to his siding, and had feeders before the points, the siding would have power routed to it when that diverging route point rail contacted the lower stock rail. Hence the power routing. However, since he does have a set of feeders to the siding (assuming that they are connected correctly), he has basically made a connection from the siding blue rail back across the frog jumper to the blue closure rail and then to the lower blue stock rail. This is the same thing as what is described as option 2 on the diagram. The blue point rail is powered back across the hinge between itself and the blue closure rail.
No gaps are necessary, and there will be no shorts unless a wheel happens to be wide enough to span the insulation where the two frog rails join.
DG,
What you're describing is the Electrofrog.
On the Insulfrog, inside rails are dead. As a power routing turnout, the inner rail picks up power as the point rail makes contact with the stock rail.
Here is my crude attempt at a diagram. In the third variation, neither point rail makes contact with either stock rail, so no power is routed to the inner rails. The unpowered inner rails are colored black.
Here is a similar diagram for the Electrofrog. In this case, unless gaps are cut in the inner rails just beyond the frog, a short will result when the turnout connects to the next track since both rails on the turnout have the same polarity.
richhotrain The OP has left the room, so we are left to debate the issue among ourselves. But, there should be no debate over the powered spur track. With the feeders at the end of the spur track, as the OP has done, if those feeders are connected to the main bus wires, then the spur track will be live at all times. There is no reason gap the inside rails on an Insulfrog. Rich
The OP has left the room, so we are left to debate the issue among ourselves.
But, there should be no debate over the powered spur track. With the feeders at the end of the spur track, as the OP has done, if those feeders are connected to the main bus wires, then the spur track will be live at all times.
There is no reason gap the inside rails on an Insulfrog.
Rich,
There are two distinct possiblities if he's using power routing turnouts:
1) He failed to properly solder the spur track to the feeder wires
and/or
2) He didn't gap the inside legs causing a short condition. Because they are power routing you need to gap the inside legs. The inside legs always are connected to the bus with power routing turnouts. Both inside legs will always have the same polarity. I know this sounds confusing, but trust me it works for power routing. So on the dead route, both rails are either + & + or - & -. This prevents a complete circuit and therefore the train from running. (You have to match up + on one and - on the other to make a complete circuit) Now if he fed the inside leg on the spur, and he threw the switch, then he set the inside spur to one polarity, and his rail head to the other, creating a short circuit.
As I have said twice before, the points are jumpered to the inside legs. The type of FROG has ZIP to do with it.
I have actual experience working with these switches. I laid over 20 personally on our club layout when we did our pier front.
If you are having a problem understanding this, I can draw up a diagram of how power routing switches work, and you'll get a "AHA" moment.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
jalajoie DigitalGriffin Kay.Div. If you want constant power to the spur then the feeders to the end of the spur are correct but it would appear they are either not properly connected to the main bus or there is a poor solder connection to the rails. Kay.Div. However if he forgot to gap the inside legs of the switch, and he has feeders for the siding, then he is likely inducing a short. As we don't know what he's using for a breaker, it's hard to check for this. Why is there a need to gap the inside legs of the switch? This is an insulfrog as we can clearly see in the video.
DigitalGriffin Kay.Div. If you want constant power to the spur then the feeders to the end of the spur are correct but it would appear they are either not properly connected to the main bus or there is a poor solder connection to the rails. Kay.Div. However if he forgot to gap the inside legs of the switch, and he has feeders for the siding, then he is likely inducing a short. As we don't know what he's using for a breaker, it's hard to check for this.
Kay.Div. If you want constant power to the spur then the feeders to the end of the spur are correct but it would appear they are either not properly connected to the main bus or there is a poor solder connection to the rails. Kay.Div.
If you want constant power to the spur then the feeders to the end of the spur are correct but it would appear they are either not properly connected to the main bus or there is a poor solder connection to the rails.
Kay.Div.
However if he forgot to gap the inside legs of the switch, and he has feeders for the siding, then he is likely inducing a short. As we don't know what he's using for a breaker, it's hard to check for this.
Why is there a need to gap the inside legs of the switch? This is an insulfrog as we can clearly see in the video.
Because as I said before, the inside legs are JUMPERED to the switches past the insulated frog. If they weren't jumpered then power routing switches wouldn't work the way they do.You guys will have to trust me on this as I actually worked with PECO power routing switches on the club layout.
DigitalGriffinHowever if he forgot to gap the inside legs of the switch,
Again, if he is using the insulfrog, I don't think he needs those frog rails gapped.
I agree. However if he forgot to gap the inside legs of the switch, and he has feeders for the siding, then he is likely inducing a short. As we don't know what he's using for a breaker, it's hard to check for this.