EilifMaybe if there was some way to make it replaceable by releasing a clip and pulling it out from the side?
How about just making the whole turnout and switch motor assembly easy to remove? Rapido's uncouplers come with a clear plastic shield that allows ballast to be placed over the uncoupler. If you need to remove the uncoupler, you just pull it out from the bottom. The ballast stays in place. Why couldn't a similar concept be used where the turnout and the ballast sits in a removable tray? Slide the rail joiners off, disconnect the wiring, and then lift the whole thing out including the ballast, giving easy access to the switch motor and requiring minimal repairs to the ballast if the same turnout is being reinstalled.
Just a thought. Like TF said, it might make too much sense.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I generally agree that the issue with such a device is related to ease of repair and maintenance. I feel like there's almost nothing mechanical in this hobby that should be un-repairable or un-replacable. Since we tend to permanently mount our track turnouts, an un-reachable, under-track switch machine would be problematic.
Maybe if there was some way to make it replaceable by releasing a clip and pulling it out from the side?
Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad for Chicago Trainspotting and Budget Model Railroading.
Trainman440 As someone mentioned, if the switch motor broke, you wouldnt be able to fix it, unless you tear the roadbed apart and remove the entire switch. That's why its really only common on roadbed included snap track, such as Kato, or Bachmann EZ track. Also, many of us dont like switch motors. With my small 4x8, I find no need to install switch motors as everything can be reached by hand. Others prefer snap, or slow mo, or etc. Instead of having track manuf. making switches with all sorts of versions of motors, they just make the switch and let the user install the machine. I think that makes sense. There are many other things in this hobby that I wish the (arguably) outdated standards should upgraded to, such as making semi scale wheels the standard, shrinking the oversized "standard" coupler head, etc. But nope! You gotta admit, these look so much better than our thicc chunky wheels. With the modern technology in making precision gauged track, I think switching to semi scale wouldn't be a big enough issue, but I dont think HO modeling standards will be updated anytime soon. PS sorry my post got off topic, excuse my rant! Charles
As someone mentioned, if the switch motor broke, you wouldnt be able to fix it, unless you tear the roadbed apart and remove the entire switch. That's why its really only common on roadbed included snap track, such as Kato, or Bachmann EZ track.
Also, many of us dont like switch motors. With my small 4x8, I find no need to install switch motors as everything can be reached by hand. Others prefer snap, or slow mo, or etc.
Instead of having track manuf. making switches with all sorts of versions of motors, they just make the switch and let the user install the machine. I think that makes sense.
There are many other things in this hobby that I wish the (arguably) outdated standards should upgraded to, such as making semi scale wheels the standard, shrinking the oversized "standard" coupler head, etc. But nope!
You gotta admit, these look so much better than our thicc chunky wheels. With the modern technology in making precision gauged track, I think switching to semi scale wouldn't be a big enough issue, but I dont think HO modeling standards will be updated anytime soon.
PS sorry my post got off topic, excuse my rant!
Charles
Charles, we are welcome to our opinions, but until the truck side frames are narrower, I for one have no interest in semi scale wheels.
AND, I don't like the way they "clunk" thru NMRA Standard turnouts.
There are already fine scale standards and products for those interested in more accuracy in these areas.
Expecting long time modelers to rebuild equipment and track and making these changes the new "standard" is a non starter.
Same with semi scale couplers. They may look a little better and they work ok with their own kind. But they do not couple as smoothly to the regular Kadee.
I will not mix them, I don't use them.
On both counts, wheels and couplers, reliable operation is more important that getting "half way" to a more scale appearance in my view.
You are welcome to your view, but I will vote with my public opinion and my pocket book to keep wheel, track and coupler standards where they are.
As for the switch motor question, I believe the OP is in N scale. Since I have no experiance with, or interest in N scale, I can only say that intergrated switch machines are not a new idea, and they are an idea that has never dominated more scale/detail focused modeling.
Sheldon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
gmpullman wrote: "Well, hasn't Kato taken the lead in this technology? Their solenoid is self-contained in the roadbed."
The problem with the Kato switches with the built-in switch motors is that if there's a problem, these switches can't be opened without them literally breaking. I've had a couple of the motors seize up -- they were unrepairable (at least by me).
The Kato manual switches are better in that the manual lever is easily replaced by an add-on motor. It "sticks out" on the side, though, and is not as "clean" as the switches with the built-in motors. But... these CAN be opened from the bottom if need be, and the motors are replaceable if they fail.
They can inbed a cell phone into your hand in case you didnt know.
gmpullmanWell, hasn't Kato taken the lead in this technology? Their solenoid is self-contained in the roadbed.
Kato and Bachmann both have the solenoid under the roadbed.
Well, hasn't Kato taken the lead in this technology? Their solenoid is self-contained in the roadbed.
I lean toward Tom's thinking — where I have a choice of several options for point motors or hand control.
Cheers, Ed
My thoughts? Something else to go wrong and not an easy way to repair it when it does. It would make way more sense to me to save the $$$ and purchase manual turnouts and mechanical switches. No electrical contacts needed.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
TF, if you think it makes too much sense, why not make these yourself and profit from them while they sell like hotcakes?
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
As far as technology has advanced in the past 10 years, if it keeps going at the rate it is we will probably be able to take a cell phone and put it in our wallet like a business card.
So why hasn't any of the major model railroad companies in the world made a turnout with a small 1/8 inch thick rectangular unit underneath it that would fit into the cork roadbed and all you have to do is hook up two wires and now you don't have to Fiddle with connecting a separate switch machine underneath?
I guess that would make too much sense! I would gladly pay the combined 45-$50 for one of those units for the ease of use. I bet they would "sell like hotcakes".
Your thoughts?
TF