Electrofrog point stock and closure rail bonding?

[ejstubbs]

I acquired my first electrofrog points today (code 100).  I understand that it is good practice to bond the closure rail to the stock rail on the corresponding sides but, having examined the underside of the points, I'm a little uncertain of the best place to do so.  Below is a photo of point's underside, with the following annotations:

 

Green circles - locations of the wires that need to be cut/removed

Red arrows - indicating where the plastic under the closure rail (static portion thereof) might be removed

Blue arrows - indicating where the stock rail and the closure rail could be bonded together once the above surgery has been completed.

 

 

I'd be grateful if folks could confirm that I am planning to go about this the right way, or if I should be looking to make the bonds somewhere else.  (For example, might an alternative way to do it be to bond between the exposed part of the stock rail, and the exposed end of the closure rail ie that part within the green circle from where the existing wire to the frog/crossing is going to be removed?)

[Brian]

You are correct with the coloured items.

If you extend the two linking wires in blue (stock rail to closure rail) so as they go below the baseboard you can connect them the the DCC or DC rail supply feed wires to improve power (and data for DCC) transfer into the point.

Using your alternative will need the wires to pass along the point involving a wire sized channel being cut or the linking wires going down and back up again through the baseboard which would be very difficult to carry out! IMO this doest offer any advantage over the simple direct stock rail to closure rail link wires as per blue but extending them to below baseboard and connecting them to the supply wires.

[amdaley]

Don't forget to put a feed wire to the frog of the point as well & fit insulated rail joiners to the frog rails.

[ejstubbs]

Don't forget to put a feed wire to the frog of the point as well & fit insulated rail joiners to the frog rails.

 

Thanks but, without wishing to appear rude, I was aware of that.  It is, after all, explained quite clearly in the instructions which come with the point.

 

My question was specifically about electrically bonding the stock and closure rails.  I've looked at a lot of threads on the subject on this forum and others.  Some do have photos, but none of the examples shown seem to have quite the same construction of the underside of the point that mine do.  (In one thread, the OP caused a fair amount of damage to his point by setting about the task without adequate forethought.)  I'd also rather the bonding wires weren't visible from the top side of the points.  So I'm really looking for people's experience of doing it with these particular points (which don't seem to have an obvious place to attach a wire on the underside of the closure rail) and getting it right.

 

As an aside: it might just be me, but the dropper wire to the crossing that Peco provides looks rather thin and not very robust.  Does it need to be handled quite carefully?

[chaz]

Thanks but, without wishing to appear rude, I was aware of that.  It is, after all, explained quite clearly in the instructions which come with the point.

 

My question was specifically about electrically bonding the stock and closure rails.  I've looked at a lot of threads on the subject on this forum and others.  Some do have photos, but none of the examples shown seem to have quite the same construction of the underside of the point that mine do.  (In one thread, the OP caused a fair amount of damage to his point by setting about the task without adequate forethought.)  I'd also rather the bonding wires weren't visible from the top side of the points.  So I'm really looking for people's experience of doing it with these particular points (which don't seem to have an obvious place to attach a wire on the underside of the closure rail) and getting it right.

 

As an aside: it might just be me, but the dropper wire to the crossing that Peco provides looks rather thin and not very robust.  Does it need to be handled quite carefully?

 

I agree it looks a bit flimsy but I've not broken one. (The fiddle yard on my On30 layout is laid with Peco code 100.) Normal levels of care when track-laying should suffice.

 

Chaz

[Bernard Lamb]

I do what you suggest as per the photos.

I cut back the plastic base and then solder a short length of wire across the underside of the two rails that are to be electrically connected. About 8mm long and about 0.8mm dia straight brass wire does the trick.

Bernard

[amdaley]

Thanks but, without wishing to appear rude, I was aware of that.  It is, after all, explained quite clearly in the instructions which come with the point.

 

My question was specifically about electrically bonding the stock and closure rails.  I've looked at a lot of threads on the subject on this forum and others.  Some do have photos, but none of the examples shown seem to have quite the same construction of the underside of the point that mine do.  (In one thread, the OP caused a fair amount of damage to his point by setting about the task without adequate forethought.)  I'd also rather the bonding wires weren't visible from the top side of the points.  So I'm really looking for people's experience of doing it with these particular points (which don't seem to have an obvious place to attach a wire on the underside of the closure rail) and getting it right.

 

As an aside: it might just be me, but the dropper wire to the crossing that Peco provides looks rather thin and not very robust.  Does it need to be handled quite carefully?

 

A simple thank you would have sufficed.

Have a Merry Christmas.

[Lochinvar]

You are correct with the coloured items.

If you extend the two linking wires in blue (stock rail to closure rail) so as they go below the baseboard you can connect them the the DCC or DC rail supply feed wires to improve power (and data for DCC) transfer into the point.

Using your alternative will need the wires to pass along the point involving a wire sized channel being cut or the linking wires going down and back up again through the baseboard which would be very difficult to carry out! IMO this doest offer any advantage over the simple direct stock rail to closure rail link wires as per blue but extending them to below baseboard and connecting them to the supply wires.

 

Brian

 

Taking the stock/closure rails links direct to the feed wire sounds like a good idea. But it doesn't eliminate the need to solder the links in the restricted space between the sleepers,does it? ( I remember all too well being daunted by having to make my first-ever attempts at soldering,linking the rails with a piece of wire!)

 

DR

[Brian]

Brian

 

Taking the stock/closure rails links direct to the feed wire sounds like a good idea. But it doesn't eliminate the need to solder the links in the restricted space between the sleepers,does it? ( I remember all too well being daunted by having to make my first-ever attempts at soldering,linking the rails with a piece of wire!)

 

DR

 

No, you still have to solder between two sleepers once the webbing is removed.

It isn't that hard to do if you have a soldering iron with a small bit but plenty of heating watts.   I use either a temperature controlled 60 watt soldering iron with a pointed tip or  a 25 watt Antex with a  1mm pointed tip and throughly clean the rails underside before starting (I use a fibre pencil for this). Then for easier soldering using 60/40 lead content rosen cored solder or one with silver added.

[DCB]

It is good practice for DCC as when you get a short circuit from a derailment or similar the DCC overload current is excessive for the point blade contact tags.   The current is much less with DC and I have never found the need to do any modifications to peco points in 30 years of using live frog points on DC, and in converting dead frog points and crossovers to live frog.  

 

The only qualification would be that I would 1) ensure you did not steamroller flanges or wheel tyres or less than 14.2 mm back to back on metal wheels as as standard stock and closure rails are opposite polarities and 2) I would not recommend putting more than about 4 or 5 yards of track beyond the heel of the point which is switching power to that track. I have regularly put the best part of 2 amps through a 12 foot section climbing at 1 in 30 when double heading worn out Wrenn mechanisms flat out p a 1 in 30 gradient on 20 plus die cast chassis wagons.

 

Even on code 100 if you get much over 2 amps the fishplates wont take the current, they can glow red hot even on 2 amps (I found this out the hard way ) hence the need for droppers and all the other complications of DCC which \i simply can't see the point of.

 

I see DCC as being like a jet engine, it seemed like the future in 1948 but was a dead end with only 3 (5 inc APT) unsuccessful locos built.  The future was electrics and diesels and for models is Radio control with onboard batteries.

 

I know a lot of vested interests say otherwise.   

[Dunsignalling]

......... I have regularly put the best part of 2 amps through a 12 foot section climbing at 1 in 30 when double heading worn out Wrenn mechanisms flat out p a 1 in 30 gradient on 20 plus die cast chassis wagons.

 

Even on code 100 if you get much over 2 amps the fishplates wont take the current, they can glow red hot even on 2 amps (I found this out the hard way ) hence the need for droppers and all the other complications of DCC which \i simply can't see the point of.

 

I see DCC as being like a jet engine, it seemed like the future in 1948 but was a dead end with only 3 (5 inc APT) unsuccessful locos built.  The future was electrics and diesels and for models is Radio control with onboard batteries.

 

I know a lot of vested interests say otherwise.   

With modern low-current motors, I tend to agree (I'm not convinced by DCC either) but on-board power and control has to be designed into models from scratch. Transferring the technology into existing ones (certainly in 4mm scale and smaller) would involve junking pretty much everything except the body shell and wheels.  

 

Using your own example, unless someone comes up with an entirely different kind of battery that is several times smaller and more efficient than any existing type, I can't envisage getting enough capacity (and the necessary control gear) inside a Wrenn tender to give out a full amp for more than a minute before needing a recharge. Battery size and weight make it impractical to convert internal combustion cars to electric operation and will preclude such systems being retro-fitted to most existing model locomotives for the foreseeable future unless one is also willing to replace all the old technology that gives the model its appeal in the first place. 

 

Gas Turbines were only a dead end for rail use because the conditions under which they produce power economically just don't match the way railways use it.

 

I understand they have been quite successful in certain other modes of transport....... 

 

John

[Gordon H]

Even on code 100 if you get much over 2 amps the fishplates wont take the current, they can glow red hot even on 2 amps (I found this out the hard way ) hence the need for droppers and all the other complications of DCC which \i simply can't see the point of.

 

 

The problem is not with the fishplates themselves as such - with the amount of conductive material they contain they could take tens of amps in an ideal situation. The problem lies with the limited contact area they make with the rails they are meant to connect together. That, and their slow but constant movement with expansion and contraction of the rails, means that the contact resistance is variable and likely to increase over time with wear, leading to the issue highlighted. A fishplate design using more independently sprung contact fingers would fare much better, as is the case with high quality connector contacts - but that would likely make them a lot more expensive and difficult to handle without damage.

[Grovenor]

The real railway does not rely on fishplates for electrical connection either. They have to be bonded around, for signalling or traction currents as appropriate.

Regards

[Crosland]

It is good practice for DCC

It is good practice for DC. You will not see many track builders relying on contact between the switch rails and stock rails for power routing.

 

I have regularly put the best part of 2 amps through a 12 foot section

 

[snip]

 

Even on code 100 if you get much over 2 amps the fishplates wont take the current, they can glow red hot even on 2 amps (I found this out the hard way ) hence the need for droppers and all the other complications of DCC which \i simply can't see the point of.

The short circuit current in a DCC layout can be limited to less than your 2 amps. It does not follow that DCC is worse than DC.

 

What unnecessary complications of DC did you use to get that 2 amps to that 12 foot section without employing droppers or fishplates? Bonding rail sections? I can't see the point in doing that.

 

What unnecessary complications of DC did you use to make your DC layout controllable with more than one train running at a time? Lots of section switches? I can't see the point of those.

 

See, the sarcasm can flow both ways

 

Merry Christmas!