TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: Erik PRR on January 13, 2015, 03:06:21 PM
-
Just saw the third video instalment of building the Red Oak by Model Railroader. Just like the article in the February magazine, it gives the impression that they rely on the switch points for electrical connection in the turnout.
This is one of my favourite topics. To build a layout like this takes a brave builder - who wants to tear up all his or her turnouts after some time to solder jumpers and install microswitches? Still, David Popp does once again what I assume he did on the Naugatuck Valley layout that was started in - I think - 2000, and now on a layout built for train shows. Do any of you have long time experience of doing this?
-
Peco turnouts are spring-loaded, so as long as the contact points are kept clean there shouldn't be any issues (at least that's my hope; I'm using them on my upcoming layout).
-
FWIW, my aged 1980s-era trackwork is Peco code 80 and Shinohara code 70. The former has dead frogs, and the latter powers the frogs through the switchpoints. Both have worked perfectly for 30 years. Note however:
1) I use geared display motors which exert constant pressure on the switch points, the track is sturdy, and the code 80/70 points have a relatively large contact area. This gives good conductivity, which might be lacking with other methods.
2) I am using DC, not DCC. However, the gap between the point and stock rails is very wide (twice that of Atlas code 55), and so the chance of a short at the points is small. Also the layout is relatively small, with a planned maximum of 3 operators. Thus I could probably use DCC on the existing trackwork with acceptable reliability.
3) It is not ballasted, so has never been exposed to water and glue.
MH
-
The C&W has about 210 Peco code 55 Electrofrog switches which have been in more or less continuous monthly operation for 7 years. Roughly 1/3rd are thrown by Tortoises and the switch motor is used to route power. The balance of ~140 are hand thrown and the points route the power. I have had one switch failure in 7 years.
I run a loco over every length of track and through each turnout route to test things before an ops session. I just finished yesterday in prep for a session this Thursday. If I find poor conductivity anywhere I address it. If my memory is correct I had to clean about 10-12 hand-thrown turnouts and maybe 3-4 Tortoise-thrown ones. To clean the hand-thrown ones it is a matter of running a dry cloth between the closure rails and the points - a total of 10 seconds or so - then retest. Cleaning the top surfaces of a Tortoise-driven turnout isn't much different time wise. During a 4 hour ops session perhaps I have 1-2 stalls which are remedied the same way but generally stalls occur during a session because crews are being too delicate when throwing the switch points by hand. A reminder to throw the points more forcefully overcomes this.
Steve Stark used hand thrown Peco turnouts exclusively (I believe) for >20 years on his recently disassembled DC E&N layout. I believe he was very happy with their reliability and conductivity. I will ask him this Saturday because we (and a bunch of Vancouver N scalers) are travelling to Al Frasch's Pilchuk Division for a session.
md
-
I will ask him this Saturday because we (and a bunch of Vancouver N scalers) are travelling to Al Frasch's Pilchuk Division for a session.
md
I've been there a couple of times with a group. Ask him about the large boulder in the basement.
-
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience! I also had a layout with unmodified Peco turnouts, and only had an issue with one, that had been spray painted while it - on another layout in a setting long long time ago - was used with a SPDT-switch. Scraping the paint of fixed the problem. But I never got to ballasting, and the layout only lasted for three years, yet in a humid basement.
I like building on foam. That makes it difficult to firmly attach slide switches, and under-the-layout-devices.
-
I like building on foam. That makes it difficult to firmly attach slide switches, and under-the-layout-devices.
It does, but there's a fix. Instead of firmly mounting the switch to the foam, mount it to the switch.
I did this on my shelf and... don't have any good pics. I'll work on that for you.
-
I guess one could read the C&W results in a few ways but I'd like the take away to be that, when properly used, the hand thrown, point-power-routed Peco turnouts are as reliable as switch motor thrown Pecos and require approximately the same level of maintenance. I would expect that to be true in comparison to Pecos that use slide switches as well.
Md
-
Our N-Trak club's yard - 20+ years old - relies on only the points for power routing when we operate DC. Since the Pecos are spring-loaded and hold the points to the stock rails, there are no switch machines nor slide switches, or anything outside of the points. We route manually with a finger. It does remarkably well for its age... and significant abuse. I've dropped the yard ladder modules more than once, when I forget they don't balance well on-end. :scared:
Very recently, however, we're seeing issues. Fortunately there is a quick fix - I spritz contact cleaner on the points and hinges and flip things back and forth a few times. Done. In our case there is no interest in trying to correct the problem with external power routing since other aspects of the yard modules are showing their years, and it's time for new construction from the floor up. When that is going to happen is anybody's guess, so thank goodness for contact cleaner.
-
on our cantington ntrak layout we have used unmodified peco switches out of the box and manually thrown--most of the older ones have labelle ground throws which are about half the size of the red caboose throws and were sold in the seventies by con-cor.
rail has been painted and track ballasted. we only set up 3-4 times a year, bedford and columbus being 2 venues, and the rest of the year the layout is stored in a custom trailer outside in the extreme temperatures of weather. very little maintenance required.
-
I lived with this on some of my previous layouts, and on a big club layout back in the 1990s.
Unmodified Peco did hold up surprisingly well, conducting just through the point tips.
But it did require regular cleaning when one would occasionally go dead. Still, it was not a major headache.
That group layout had hundreds of turnouts, some hand-made, and some Peco, with once-per-week
operating sessions - all DC. And dead turnout rails were never high on the list of annoyances.
I think on a table-sized layout like the Red Oak, it would be quite manageable.
I will say that personally I would never do it... I would put microswitches in place and bypass those
points. But I can see how it makes the project much easier to build and won't "ruin everything" when
some of the switch points get dirty and need cleaning.
A bigger issue to me is unpowered frogs. I forget now... is that Red Oak layout using plastic
frogs? That is something I could not live with. When I transitioned to powered-frog turnouts,
the huge drop-off in engine sputters and stalls at turnouts convinced me I would never ever go back
to dead frogs.
-
A bigger issue to me is unpowered frogs. I forget now... is that Red Oak layout using plastic frogs? That is something I could not live with. When I transitioned to powered-frog turnouts, the huge drop-off in engine sputters and stalls at turnouts convinced me I would never ever go back to dead frogs.
No, Peco code 55 turnouts are all "electro-frog"
-
<snip>
A bigger issue to me is unpowered frogs. I forget now... is that Red Oak layout using plastic
frogs?
<snip>
Powered frogs, per picture on page 57 of the January MR.
MH
-
One problem with PECO's is that the point rails are joined to the closure rails with what appear to be common rail joiners. Ballast and ballast cement can foul this joint and disrupt contact. I put electrical tape on the underside of Peco turnouts and "dry ballast" between the ties to minimize the risk. It has worked fairly well. It also keeps from fouling the spring that operates the turnout an provides good rail contact. Like others have suggested it is a good idea to add turnout throws (if not using electric switch machines) to maintain rail contact pressure as these springs can weaken over time with heavy use. The "rail joiner" issue is much more trouble some with the Shinohara powered rail turnouts. Where I've used these I've had to put a tiny solder bead on either side of the joiner to provide continuity. The joiners simply don't stand up to usage and don't make good contact after while. But you need to be very careful when doing this not to get solder in the rail gaps and keep the joint working freely.
-
One problem with PECO's is that the point rails are joined to the closure rails with what appear to be common rail joiners. Ballast and ballast cement can foul this joint and disrupt contact. I put electrical tape on the underside of Peco turnouts and "dry ballast" between the ties to minimize the risk. It has worked fairly well. It also keeps from fouling the spring that operates the turnout an provides good rail contact. Like others have suggested it is a good idea to add turnout throws (if not using electric switch machines) to maintain rail contact pressure as these springs can weaken over time with heavy use. The "rail joiner" issue is much more trouble some with the Shinohara powered rail turnouts. Where I've used these I've had to put a tiny solder bead on either side of the joiner to provide continuity. The joiners simply don't stand up to usage and don't make good contact after while. But you need to be very careful when doing this not to get solder in the rail gaps and keep the joint working freely.
Interesting points, and quite different from the other posts. Have you experienced malfunction frequently, or do you merely fear upcoming problems? The spring seems strong, and I have never noticed or heard about failures.
-
Here are Steve Stark's results from using Peco hand thrown switches on his recently departed E&N. They appear to basically mirror my own. The C&W's experience is for a combined 1000 "turnout-years" operating monthly. Steve's E&N experience is from over 8000 "turnout-years" operating more frequently than monthly.
From our experience the manually thrown Peco points are reliable mechanically and electrically without need of additional electrical or mechanical devices.
md
"Hi Mark,
I used 58 Peco Code 55 turnouts for 10 years on my Esquimalt & Nanaimo Ry. with no mechanical problems from fairly heavy usage (monthly operating sessions, sometimes two or three per month, plus operating on my own). There was the occasional electrical contact issue from dust or scenery applications, but easily fixed and non-recurring. I also had 25 plus years operating 90 Peco code 80 turnouts and 15 years operating another 26 code 80 turnouts with only two mechanical failures and one with iffy contact issues plus the same occasional electrical contact issue with the same heavy usage over the last 10 years and lighter usage before that.
The iffy contact issue in Wellcox yard was a spring problem, while the two mechanical issues, one in Courtenay and the other in Bellingham yard were points becoming separated from the throw bar as a result of operators using the points to throw the turnout rather than the throw bar. The Bellingham turnout was used upwards of 30 times per operating session. It probably was thrown over 7,000 times before it failed. Even then, I was able to repair it using a soldering iron on the plastic throw bar.
I have not used any other turnouts since 1975 except for one Micro Engineering turnout. It was located on a lightly used (maybe 4 times a year for 15 years) Milwaukee branch line and did not give me any problems.
See you on Saturday.
Steve"
-
Erik I have two particular older PECO turnouts that the spring action is not as solid as the rest. This pair is probably at least 25 years old, and were bought as part of a lot of used turnouts. The problem appears to be spring related, as the "springs" appear to have more play when thrown in one direction than the other. I spent quite a bit of time trying to fix the problem and to make sure there wasn't something else in play but it is clearly related to the lack of tension in the spring. I added a Caboose Industries sprung manual ground throw and this is that was needed to fix the problem. Mark, thanks for the feedback and for the most part I fully agree. I have at least 30 other PECO turnouts laid and except for this pair they are the most problem free turnouts on the layout. (Excluding the 'what would you call it' raised plastic block in the center of the throwbar that likes to catch Accumate's dummy trip pins, but I suppose this is more a problem with the accumate since it doesn't catch a properly gauged MT trip pin). So while it may be rare, it does happen.
-
I think it is worth noting as well that other point throw and conductivity mechanisms you could use with the Peco electrofrogs also have their issues.
When I put the first 1/2 dozen Peco electrofrogs into the layout they were located in hidden trackage and so I used Tortoises to throw them after removing the switch toggle spring. I initially thought that the force of the Tortoise holding the points closed would prove adequate to assure good electrical contact. That wasn't the case and I often found the frogs were un-powered and that conductivity performance, at least in my application, was far, far inferior to the stock Peco toggle spring thrown by hand. After that I bit the bullet and the Tortoise all route power to the frog/point areas of their turnouts through the Tortoise contacts often through a pair of redundant feeders soldered to the frog.
On my layout this arrangement does introduce 4 more soldered joints (two feeders and two to the connector which hooks up to the Tortoise) as well as four mechanical connections (two in the contacts inside the Tortoise and two more on the edge connectors). I have had occasional problems with a bad solder joint and intermittent connections inside the edge connectors. So even with the additional time, effort, space and cost, even the Tortoise approach requires maintenance and will experience failures.
In light of their relatively low maintenance, high reliability, very high robustness, extreme simplicity of use and the flexibility to put turnouts anywhere even in the most congested yard throat, I think the Peco solution is pretty good. (end paid political announcement! :) )
md
-
I have around 50 Peco code 80 turnouts (95% Electrofrog) on my PRSL. Most date back to the early 1970s and have gone through 3 layouts (being re-ballasted each time). Most have been spray painted a tie brown color with small pieces of painters tape protecting the points. Other than occasionally having to clean the point areas I have had no problems.
(This week I thought I had an issue with one but it turned out that some ballast outside the throwbar leading to a very close secondary track had crept in and was preventing the turnout from throwing all the way over. Once it was pushed out, electrical conductivity returned when the points closed all the way.)
-
Just chiming in like others to say I've never had any problems with conductivity on my peco turnouts. Sometimes after doing scenery work in an area and not masking my turnouts I have to clean the points a little extra, but otherwise perfect. Very robust too, you don't have to be super paranoid when ballasting around them. The turnout can get quite soaked in glue, but so long as no ballast jams things up it pops the glue after it dries and works fine.
-
I have over 200 insul-frog Peco turnouts on my Santa Fe-All the way layout and some of these turnouts are 35 years old and have been on 3 layouts!!!! cleaning the points with a paper towel with either 90% alcohol or atlas conduct-a-lube fixes any contact problem. The "other" problem that I have had is a wearing down of the plastic frog then a short if an older metal wheel (stock 70's atlas wheels on unit trains) at the point where the two inner rails meet. A bottle of clear nail polish, put a dot where the rails meet, "tap" it down with your finger so there is no "bump" and that will last 6-8 months depending on how often I run my track cleaning cars. But at $25 each, I look for used replacements at train shows for 10 or less. Gordon.................And the nail polish 20 years later Still looks full!!!!!!!
-
I wonder if the fact that they're made in England has something to do with their reliability.