faded_Glory Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Forgive me if this has already been covered before, I did a search but not much came up. I want to use the Peco Code 75 short Y point, which is Electrofrog, in my DCC layout (under construction). Other Peco points have a (filled in) isolation gap in the rails between the frog and the blades, but this one doesn't. It does have the bare wire to connect the frog to the polarity switch, which I plan to use. Why does this point not have the gaps, and will that cause problems with DCC operation? I looked at cutting a gap myself but there isn't a lot of space because the point is so short. Effectively it means that the whole of the switchblades will change polarity with the frog. Do people experience short circuits because of this? Or am I worrying too much and should I just use it out of the box? Many thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 I can understand there not being any gapped rails (these are the same as the O-16.5 ones). Peco design uses the point blades as the polarity switch so that both point blades and the frog are at whatever polarity the stock rail is that the point blade is touching. On the gapped code 75 ones you have are there wire links across the gaps underneath? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faded_Glory Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 Yes, the normal points have thin wires bridging the gap. I understand that these can be cut and jumpers attached to connect the blades to the stock rails. I can't do that on the Y if there are no gaps and if the frog switches polarity, obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 If you do not cut the wires the gapped version is electrically the same as the un-gapped Y point. I will face the same problem with the O-16.5 ones.... What type of polarity switch are you intending to use? If it switches while the point blades are in mid-position then there should not be a problem. On the gapped version, the problem with cutting the link wires is that the point blades then rely on electrical continuity by touching the stock rails. You could end up with a dead spot...unless you bond the stock rails to the adjacent point blade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faded_Glory Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 Yes I agree, using this Y out of the box is the same as using the other points without cutting the jumpers. My original question was, I guess, is this what people do on their DCC layouts, and does it cause any problems? Or do people cut gaps themselves and then bond the stock rails to the blades? I would like to know this before I lay and fix the point. I plan on using the Peco switch attached to their motor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted August 19, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 19, 2015 This is mine. I cut both gaps in one go using a cut-off disc in a mini drill. This particular point is driven by a Tortoise motor, I took out the over-centre spring on the point and the frog is switched by the motor contacts. I'm using an analogue controller at the moment but all of my points are wired this way. Years ago I built an N gauge layout and relied on the point blades to make the electrical contact, never again. - Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 And in doing so, create a short circuit Either use a mechanical switch, that must be reliably linked to the point blades, of use a frog-juicer. They come in single, pair and hex-versions. In your case, the single should suffice for the one point.Yes, I'd have to agree as the OP will be using solenoid motors which are very fast so no room for error - I think you might be able to get away with it with a Tortoise or similar, particularly as the gaps are so big..... Regarding the original question I would like to know too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 This is mine. I cut both gaps in one go using a cut-off disc in a mini drill. This particular point is driven by a Tortoise motor, I took out the over-centre spring on the point and the frog is switched by the motor contacts. I'm using an analogue controller at the moment but all of my points are wired this way. Years ago I built an N gauge layout and relied on the point blades to make the electrical contact, never again. - Richard. 20150819_221544.jpg Looks good Richard....no insulating rail joiners on the vee rails? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted August 19, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 19, 2015 Looks good Richard....no insulating rail joiners on the vee rails? No - I've sort of given up on insulating joiners. They always seem messy and awkward and mechanically doubtful. When I lay my track, I lay it all with metal rail joiners throughout. Then I go round with the cut-off disc and put the gaps where I want them. On this particular point, the gaps for the vee rails are about six inches away. If need be, I cut out the moulded sleepers each side of a rail break and solder in copper clad sleepers instead, to add some mechanical support. But often, on a curve, bending the rails with pliers will keep them in line. I fill the gaps with Araldite before I paint the rails, but I haven't got round to this yet on this point. The important thing is to never put a gap where the track changes gradient, this is asking for trouble because one rail will end up higher than the other. - Richard. Edit: I should add (to support my photo above), I usually solder one end of each rail joiner. The idea is to halve the probability of a poor electrical contact, but keep the ability for the rails to slide when the temperature changes. Probably paranoia, but it's easy to do when the iron is to hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewlisle Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Here we go again! I am the heretic in this continuing discussion. I have used Peco Code 100 points for over 40 years on my 00 gauge DCC layout Crewlisle. I converted my original Insul Frogs to Electro Frogs by replacing the plastic frog with a hand crafted metal one. After 40 years use my original Peco points had worn out & I started replacing them with new Electro Frogs about 5 years ago. They are fitted as they came out of the box using Peco solenoid motors & Peco's stud contact operation on mini track diagrams. I have 30 Peco Code 100 Electro Frog points on my layout & the only polarity switch is for my live diamond crossing. I have had no problem with polarity of the frogs because the secret is to keep your track clean, keep the inside of the moveable rails clean with very fine wet & dry abrasive paper & ensure there is no ballast trapped between the moveable rails to prevent positive contact with the fixed rail. Peco springs are strong enough to provide good electrical contact. Over the years at exhibitions, the number of polarity problems I have had I can count on one hand. Also it has saved me a lot of money by not having to buy other expensive point motors + frog juicers + accessory decoders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faded_Glory Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 This is mine. I cut both gaps in one go using a cut-off disc in a mini drill. This particular point is driven by a Tortoise motor, I took out the over-centre spring on the point and the frog is switched by the motor contacts. I'm using an analogue controller at the moment but all of my points are wired this way. Years ago I built an N gauge layout and relied on the point blades to make the electrical contact, never again. - Richard. Thanks Richard, that is a very clear picture. Checking with my point I notice that there is no webbing underneath the rails right where you cut them. That would have made it easier to solder the jumper wires. Did you have any problem with the rails getting loose after you cut them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faded_Glory Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 Crewlisle, the issue here is not how to power the frog. This can be done easily enough through the blades making contact with the stock rail, or with the jumper wire that is already there out of the box and a switch mounted to the motor. What I am concerned about with this particular model of point is the risk of the wheels causing a short circuit at the toe end, because the blades will have the opposite polarity from the adjacent stock rail since there is no isolation gap between the frog and the blades. Cutting the gaps and installing the jumpers will eliminate this risk by permanently powering the blades at the same polarity as the adjacent stock rails. I wasn't sure if there is enough room here to cut a gap without the whole thing falling apart. Richard's post show that it can be done. On the other hand, your account suggests that there is little risk of the wheel induced short circuit anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted August 20, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 20, 2015 I haven't got a Streamline code 100 point to look at, but photographs show the gap at the tie-bar end to be quite a bit bigger than the gap for a code 75 point. I guess this is all tied into the expected wheel standards. I've never had a problem with a short on any point (code 100 or 75) except during a derailment. The whole assembly is very solid and the rails are still held firm, it won't fall apart :-) - Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted August 20, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 20, 2015 Here we go again! I am the heretic in this continuing discussion. I have used Peco Code 100 points for over 40 years on my 00 gauge DCC layout Crewlisle. I converted my original Insul Frogs to Electro Frogs by replacing the plastic frog with a hand crafted metal one. After 40 years use my original Peco points had worn out & I started replacing them with new Electro Frogs about 5 years ago. They are fitted as they came out of the box using Peco solenoid motors & Peco's stud contact operation on mini track diagrams. I have 30 Peco Code 100 Electro Frog points on my layout & the only polarity switch is for my live diamond crossing. I have had no problem with polarity of the frogs because the secret is to keep your track clean, keep the inside of the moveable rails clean with very fine wet & dry abrasive paper & ensure there is no ballast trapped between the moveable rails to prevent positive contact with the fixed rail. Peco springs are strong enough to provide good electrical contact. Over the years at exhibitions, the number of polarity problems I have had I can count on one hand. Also it has saved me a lot of money by not having to buy other expensive point motors + frog juicers + accessory decoders. Hi Crewlisle. Well it MAY be possible to keep Eletrofrog points WITHOUT additional switching working correctly on a one man layout, without too much trouble. But I found exactly the opposite problem, on a mid-size club layout, where we were forever having problems with point blades losing contact. We ended up replacing some of the worst offenders with Electrofrogs & auxiliary switches/relays. The others we added DPDT relays on the rest of the Insulfrog points on the main lines - we didn't bother with all the sidings/loops - only those as they gave trouble. Perhaps part of the problem, is that our clubroom is very stable weather wise - it is in the bottom of a shopping centre (underground car park), so lots of concrete. Whereas, some of the exhibitions we attended with the layout, were in non air-conditioned halls, where the outside temperature was 42C plus! Whatever the reason, adding this extra switching transformed the performance and reliability of the layout, no end & the exercise was definitely worth the effort. The layout is under being totally rewired for DCC operation, but I'm not sure what is happening with the points. I'll follow it up. Edited slightly as wrong type of frog mentioned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 It is an interesting testament to the usefulness of sites like this to voice the wide range of experiences people have had. Peco obviously design their points to be fit and forget but it doesn't always work like that for everyone. Personally I will not be relying on blade contact alone on my code 100 O-16.5 layout despite the relatively large point-blade/stock-rail clearance, and will modify as per Richard above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted August 20, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 20, 2015 The contact area for point blades with code 100 will be bigger than the similar area for code 75. Perhaps this swings the difference in contact reliability. Problems with a layout the size of Crewlisle ought to show up more quickly than on a small end-to-end scheme. This reminds me of the Peco turntables, where the N gauge one is a scaled-down version of the 00/HO one. The one for 00/HO works well, but the one for N gauge has stories of burning out its contacts. - Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Slamming the point blades into the stock rails with a solenoid may also establish a better initial contact...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 It is an interesting testament to the usefulness of sites like this to voice the wide range of experiences people have had. Peco obviously design their points to be fit and forget but it doesn't always work like that for everyone. Personally I will not be relying on blade contact alone on my code 100 O-16.5 layout despite the relatively large point-blade/stock-rail clearance, and will modify as per Richard above. I think they are built to the intelligence level of the lowest common denominator, so they work out of the box and with a minimum of wiring. But once they've spent several years in the hostile environment of a shed or attic and subjected to scenery treatments, it's better to invest time at the initial stage and use proper switching and a soldered wire to every rail as cutting corners initially will only show up issues later on. Earlier this year I spent a weekend fighting with a resurrected exhibition layout that had been wired with push rod turnout throws actuating microswitches which was fine for DC but the links hadn't been broken underneath so shorts occurred when the switch/stock rail made contact but the microswitch hadn't thrown, causing a short that the DCC controller detected. My previous exhibition layout had short code 75 Y's, and I ended up using both pairs of microswitches on the Fulgurex motors so contact would only be made at the end of the throw travel, Tortoise motors should be easier to fit because of the larger dead zone in the centre of travel. But stray or derailed wheelsets sometimes caused an issue with always having a different polarity between a stock rail and open switch rail, and if I was using them again I'd razor saw a cut where other turnouts have gaps and cuttable links. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 298 - agreed, however to be politically correct perhaps 'skill' rather than 'intelligence' would have been a better word...... The extra large and visually unappealing gaps between point and stock rails on Peco turnouts is no doubt explained by the opposite polarity issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewlisle Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 The contact area for point blades with code 100 will be bigger than the similar area for code 75. Perhaps this swings the difference in contact reliability. Problems with a layout the size of Crewlisle ought to show up more quickly than on a small end-to-end scheme. Agree. The 30% smaller contact area on the Code 75 rails could make a big difference in electrical contact. I have noticed on some Code 100 points, the electrical surface contact between the fixed & moveable rail is not always 100%. I have had to 'squeeze' them together to increase the electrical contact area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 298 - agreed, however to be politically correct perhaps 'skill' rather than 'intelligence' would have been a better word...... Duly noted, but reading between the lines and summarising comments made whenever this subject crops up, I'm always surprised that the belt 'n braces approach is often sacrificed in favour of the quick fix that always ends up costing more time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.