Of switch machines and ground throws

[DKS]

First, news: A special version of the switch machine just for Atlas Code 55 track is in the works. Also in the works is a version for Peco and Atlas Code 80 track. And finally, a "back saver" (ergonomic) ground throw is being developed as well.

Which brings me to a question I'd like to pose to the  s here...

A ground throw for Atlas Code 55 track is a challenge because of the super-wide spacing between the ties at the throwbar.

I could spin up a version of a ground throw that would span the ties, but I fear it would be absurdly out of proportion. Alternatively, I could mount a more realistic ground throw on some sort of kludgy adapter plate thingy that would hopefully look somewhat plausible, but I'm not certain about that, either. So I'm opening up this topic for discussion.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

[chuck geiger]

DKS - Code 80 GT?

[wcfn100]

I would just go with the plate, or at least see what it looks like.  I have no doubt you could come up with something that would look better than what Atlas decided to do on the headblock, but I think you should be true to what you've started here which is detail parts that are lacking in N (and Z) scale.  Fixing other companies designs is going to start down a path of distraction.  Besides, if you do something which visually fixes one side, then you have to do the other side as well.  A plate could also hide some sort of mechanism for turning the switch mast, if you go there.

The key, to me, is making the thinnest plate you can reasonably do.  Just finish the sample up with some surface rust and you'll have the whole c55 nation needing to cleaning their pants.


Jason

[wazzou]

Are we talking a functional, yet aesthetic ground throw here, not the remote switch motor...right?

[DKS]

Are we talking a functional, yet aesthetic ground throw here, not the remote switch motor...right?

No, a non-functional, simulated ground throw, along the lines of this--



Functional ground throw is on the list, however.

[wazzou]

Ah...roger that.  Nice but too Eastern.   

[pnolan48]

David,

I don't need a non-functional ground throw as I've got 87 functional, but very over-sized Caboose Hobbies throws. While I hate their look, they do work, and actually force operators to pay attention when approaching switches. I've got only three under-table switch machines where I could use a dummy scale throw. So I'm not sure of the market for this--at least, I'm not too interested. I know that a smaller functional throw--not even scale--would be a problem to design and manufacture. I haven't found a way to defeat the physics involved with a scale throw.

[MichaelWinicki]

David,

I don't need a non-functional ground throw as I've got 87 functional, but very over-sized Caboose Hobbies throws. While I hate their look, they do work, and actually force operators to pay attention when approaching switches. I've got only three under-table switch machines where I could use a dummy scale throw. So I'm not sure of the market for this--at least, I'm not too interested. I know that a smaller functional throw--not even scale--would be a problem to design and manufacture. I haven't found a way to defeat the physics involved with a scale throw.

I'm in the same boat Pete. 

You make a great point about them prodding operators to pay attention.

[sirenwerks]

The way I imagine it, the back saver design has greatest potential. If you can take the Caboose Industries ground throw design and orient it to be parallel to the ties and build the mechanism out of a thick etched one-piece back saver loop with a cog and gear clockwork mechanism, it would have excellent strength. Besides the obvious unprototypical mechanism orientation, the trade offs would be the contemporary design (for those of us not modeling contemporary eras) and, the majority of us being ham fisted, a hook similar to an uncoupler tool would likely have to be used to throw the darn things and keep the loops from being bent to hell. BUT, it could be small/thin enough to be hardly noticeable. Can everyone else "see" what I'm talking about or am I just crazy?

[nscalemike]

The way I imagine it, the back saver design has greatest potential. If you can take the Caboose Industries ground throw design and orient it to be parallel to the ties and build the mechanism out of a thick etched one-piece back saver loop with a cog and gear clockwork mechanism, it would have excellent strength. Besides the obvious unprototypical mechanism orientation, the trade offs would be the contemporary design (for those of us not modeling contemporary eras) and, the majority of us being ham fisted, a hook similar to an uncoupler tool would likely have to be used to throw the darn things and keep the loops from being bent to hell. BUT, it could be small/thin enough to be hardly noticeable. Can everyone else "see" what I'm talking about or am I just crazy?

I can see what you are talking about and if it can be done I'd line up to buy them, even if you need an uncoupler type tool to throw them.  Heck, I may even be ok with replacing one every now and then if they hold up to all but the roughest handeling!

As for the code 55 issue David, I agree not to try and fix the manufacturing mistakes,  make it as close as possible to being realistic without needing to do extra mods to the other side of the turnout to look 'right'.  I'm sure what you have in mind will be great.

Mike

[sizemore]

Plate it.

The S.

[Ian MacMillan]

What if I pet these ground throws too hard?

I say make the throws scale size and we can work out something for them to sit on the ties...like a plate of steel or something.

[DKS]

[delamaize]

 

[Pomperaugrr]

That looks great!  I'm thinking that combining this with the earring backing like Dan Crowley uses will provide a functional option, albeit without frog polarity control.  I'll be following this closely.  I'm contemplating servo control on main line turnouts and using these for industrial and yard turnouts.   

Eric