Need help with yard wiring

[mark dance]

As my Chetwynd yard will be nearly identical track layout, I am hoping that I won't have similar problems with the Atlas Code 55 . . . .

Tim

Tim: honestly I don't understand the problems Chris is facing. 

md

[GaryHinshaw]

I'm pretty sure it's either a short due to incorrect gap placement, and/or a dead section due to incorrect feeder placement.   In my response above, I did not make feeder requirements very clear: they need to be on the point side of the turnout where the polarity of both rails is fixed.

Tim, the Atlas turnouts are wired differently: all rails have fixed polarity except the frog, so you use them more like "normal" track.  On the Pecos, the frog rails extend all the way out to the end of both routes, so care needs to be taken with those switched-polarity rails when joining them to adjacent track.  Not so with Atlas.  Of course, you need to supply switched power to the Atlas frog if you want it to be live.

[peteski]

The Peco code 55 electrofrog turnouts do have powered frogs obviously.  May I presume you mean " independently powered frogs"?

Sorry, I should have been more precise.  I meant "frogs powered by means other than depending solely on the points-to-stock-rail contact". I'll correct my post.

[pdx1955]

For me, Peco reliability has been a mixed bag over the years. They definitely are durable and will work just fine for a number of years as they are. I was finding increasing amount of contact problems that wouldn't go away with cleaning the point/stock rail areas. I've gone to jumpering the point rail and closure rail which eliminates one mechanical connection to completely isolating the frog and powering through slide switches/Frog Juicers. Sometimes I've just replaced the whole thing (some of these switches are 20+ years old) and prepping each switch with the extra jumpers. the layout is in the garage which is probably a more dirty environment but the extra wiring connections definitely help for the long haul.

Peter

[peteski]

Peteski, I believe your statement that Chris will "regret this decision after few years" is without basis and inflammatory.  I have never regretted it and neither has Steve.  If I had heard and followed your advice I believe I would be no further ahead on either reliability or reduced maintenance.  Again this comes from personal experience with not only my layout but also having operated on many N scale layouts including Atlas switches and handlaid ones ones with slide switches for locking points and powering frogs.

I participate in a round-robin building and operating session of several N scale layouts. Couple of those use the Pecos and power routing method which you advocate, and they are source of endless frustration for the operators due to the intermittent electrical contact. We keep on cleaning and tweaking the turnouts but the problem keeps coming back (on multiple turnouts). So I stand by my statement that if you spend some extra time while laying the turnouts and have the frog and closure rails area powered from a reliable power source (frog Jucer, switch machine contacts or a slide switch), the problem will never crop up.  As you can see, this is from my personal experience too.

[robert3985]

Many of you know that I hand-build all of my turnouts.  However, I have experience with Atlas (both C80 and C55), Micro Engineering (C70 & C55), Shinohara C70 (remember them?) and Peco (C80 & C55) used on other N-scale layouts and modules that I am working on, or have worked on.  Compared to the turnouts I build (over 1000 so far), ALL of them have problems I am not willing to accept, but the worst problem is turnouts that rely on the points contacting the adjacent stock rail to supply power to the route that is thrown.

I suppose way back in the 20th Century when trains ran on DC power, being able to route power to a siding by relying on the closure points butting against the stock rails was the simple solution, but nowadays, with DCC, there's absolutely no need to have dead tracks anywhere on your layout...and manufacturers should get their head out of the sand to ensure electrical reliability.

But, they don't, since they're using products designed decades ago when model trains were more "toy" trains and ran on green shag carpets or tatami mats.

Just because a modeler is used to using a business card, or a nail file, or a brass brush, or folded emery paper every operating session on several turnouts' closure points to get the siding or that part of the yard to work...or to get an engine to run through the turnout...doesn't mean this is "normal" or something that needs to be accepted.

With a bit of foresight and a little effort, every turnout I listed above can be made to be nearly trouble-free electrically...like my hand-made turnouts are.  But, it involves a bit of tedious work on each one of them before they're installed.

Why in the Hell the manufacturer's don't do it for us is a question that should be seriously asked of them....maybe it's to keep the price a dollar or so lower, but personally, I think it's laziness on their part, with a good bit of bad engineering...and knowing the vast majority of model railroaders out there will just accept their products' shortcomings, and continue to vote with their wallets.

The electrical problems I encounter with my trackwork and switches are....ZERO, with the possible exception of having to replace a couple of Tortoises over the past 20 or 30 years because they wore out.  Every turnout I make on my bench has no dead rails, the electrical continuity is carried by the copper cladding on the PCB ties that also are the structural members of the mechanism.  My closure points are always powered, always being the same polarity as the adjacent stock rails, so shorts NEVER happen unless the engine is off the tracks or it's running against the switch.  All the other pieces of rail...every one of them on my layout and modules...has its own 22AWG feeder so rail joiners are only for mechanical stability, and everything runs just fine even if a rail joiner fails.

It took me several decades to finally do the "each-rail-has-a-feeder" thing to my layout and modules, but the week of effort it took to do it on track already laid has been worth it.

However, when I started making my own turnouts in the early '80's, I made sure they were ultimately electrically reliable because it's so damned easy to do, so in the 30 or so years since then, I have NEVER had to clean closure points to power my turnouts' tracks or where those tracks led.

So, I agree with Peteski.  Having to buff, polish, sand, or clean the closure points on turnouts to ensure electrical continuity because an engine won't traverse a turnout is a task that shouldn't have to be done.  Those of you (with several of my fellow train buddies included) who choose to view this task as "not a problem", or "normal" are living in another reality than those of us who NEVER have to worry about this aggravation...because we've solved the manufacturer's piss-poor design by either fixing it before the turnout goes down, or making our own.

Okay...rant over...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[mark dance]

Just because a modeler is used to using a business card, or a nail file, or a brass brush, or folded emery paper every operating session on several turnouts' closure points to get the siding or that part of the yard to work...or to get an engine to run through the turnout...doesn't mean this is "normal" or something that needs to be accepted.

To provide context, of the >140 hand thrown Peco code 55 turnouts that see operation in a 6-8/year, 3.5-4 hour operating session fewer than 6 on average require point cleaning prior to the session.  This takes less than 10 seconds and is accomplished during normal track cleaning preparation, which I consider this to be a part. 

During a session if there *are* any conductivity issues it is generally from operators not throwing the points forcefully enough.  A gentle reminder and this goes away as well.  Regular operators need no reminder.

I have found no need for redundant electro-mechanical switching to route power to the Peco frog/points.

md

[peteski]

To provide context, of the >140 hand thrown Peco code 55 turnouts that see operation in a 6-8/year, 3.5-4 hour operating session fewer than 6 on average require point cleaning prior to the session.  This takes less than 10 seconds and is accomplished during normal track cleaning preparation, which I consider this to be a part. 

During a session if there *are* any conductivity issues it is generally from operators not throwing the points forcefully enough.  A gentle reminder and this goes away as well.  Regular operators need no reminder.

I have found no need for redundant electro-mechanical switching to route power to the Peco frog/points.

md

Here you are making excuses again. If you had as you call "redundant" power-switching none of the above scenarios would be in play at all. You wouldn't have to think about operators no being forceful enough - you simply would not have to think about power routing at all - it would just work reliably behind the scenes.

I would not dream of trying to convince you to re-wire your switches. But since the person asking the question is in the process of building the layout, this is a good time to present them with the options available.  To me the belt and suspenders method makes perfect sense (especially since the proverbial belt buckle is prone to loosening, oxidizing and getting dirty). 

[bbussey]

I'm on the side of running leads to each piece of rail, including points and frogs. I'm still constructing, and with four single crossovers and four double crossovers in a concentrated area, it's inconceivable to me for all of the rails not to have direct feeds. I would not relish having to periodically rub oxidation off the sides of 24 sets of points, underneath catenary no less, in addition to the other dozen or so standard turnout points on the layout section.

[mark dance]

Here you are making excuses again. If you had as you call "redundant" power-switching none of the above scenarios would be in play at all. You wouldn't have to think about operators no being forceful enough - you simply would not have to think about power routing at all - it would just work reliably behind the scenes.

I would not dream of trying to convince you to re-wire your switches. But since the person asking the question is in the process of building the layout, this is a good time to present them with the options available.  To me the belt and suspenders method makes perfect sense (especially since the proverbial belt buckle is prone to loosening, oxidizing and getting dirty). 

Man, feels like flogging a dead horse here.  For you too I am sure...

If you use slide switches to route the frog power then operators may similarly not slide them over the full way, which I have seen, just like not throwing the Peco points completely, in which case you remind them to do so.  No difference. With respect to the frog power, the Peco points act as an over-center sprung electo-mechanical switch. If you add slide switches to throw the points you either do it redundantly, in which case the two mechanism can interfere with each others operation, or remove the Peco spring and replace one electrical switch with another.

Sure you are presenting options to Chris.  That is fine.  I am too - with data collected over two large layouts operated for many years - to allow him to make a full decision.  Just don't say "he will regret not powering the frogs separately".  Those same two data points do not support your definitive statement.  If you had said "may" I would have disagreed but I would have dropped this a while ago.

md

[peteski]

Man, feels like flogging a dead horse here.  For you too I am sure...

If you use slide switches to route the frog power then operators may similarly not slide them over the full way, which I have seen, just like not throwing the Peco points completely, in which case you remind them to do so.  No difference. With respect to the frog power, the Peco points act as an over-center sprung electo-mechanical switch. If you add slide switches to throw the points you either do it redundantly, in which case the two mechanism can interfere with each others operation, or remove the Peco spring and replace one electrical switch with another.

Sure you are presenting options to Chris.  That is fine.  I am too - with data collected over two large layouts operated for many years - to allow him to make a full decision.  Just don't say "he will regret not powering the frogs separately".  Those same two data points do not support your definitive statement.  If you had said "may" I would have disagreed but I would have dropped this a while ago.

md

You're right Mark - why do some extra work while building the layout when it will not really make any appreciable difference in reliability. Just a little contact cleaning here and there will not be all that bad. 

You are splitting hairs with this "will" and "may" thing. from my personally experience it is a definite "will".  True - two opposing data points (yours and mine) aren't quite enough. But look over all the comments in this thread and you will see more comments for the extra step of powering the frogs than for just depending on the points to reliably supply power.  I'm done.

[wcfn100]

 

Jason

[mmagliaro]

I'm afraid I would also disagree with Mark's approach (keeping the Peco points clean and servicing them when needed).

I used Peco for years, and even with only 20-30 turnouts on a layout, every "once in a while", I would have to clean a turnout's points when a route went dead.   It seemed like every week or two, it would happen somewhere, and this was just me running trains around my layout, not even a group operating session.  On the operations group I went to on Sunday nights, we regularly had the dead-point-rail problem and just got used to living with cleaning them when they went dead.

After those experiences, I have always used some sort of external switch (microswitch, slide switch, what have you)
to power the point rails and frog.

An electrical switch is designed to always make contact reliably.  Unless it breaks, it works (unless you use cheap switches, but let's assume you don't).  But the point rails are inherently exposed to dirt and because of that, some number of them on any layout will forever be doomed to fail and require cleaning.

Maybe I'm hyper-sensitive about this.  But of all the things that drive me mad about running my layout (besides having to make trees), stalling and cleaning track are at the top of the list.  It makes running trains so much less fun.  The lovely little train is gliding along and then... and then... stall.. and in an instant the illusion is shattered and "fun time" becomes "cleaning time".   

[GaryHinshaw]

WWCD?

What will Chris do?

[alhoop]

I agree with Pete, Max and M.C. tho he hasn't chimed in yet.
You Have to clean Peco turnouts ever so often.
Al