Mike Storey Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 This was my worry with moving the crossovers: There would be no less than three sets of 'dead frog' points per track, which could compromise the running of some of the small 0-4-0s, even though the main loops will generally have 4-6-0s or bigger running over them, and perhaps make point operation a little confusing at times. Nevertheless, I agree that if I were running DCC or using better track (which, alas, will not be the case) I would consider the revised plan more carefully. Also, just thought I'd point out, I don't have any children yet (and won't be considering having any for a good ten years or more!) - it was my younger siblings who I mentioned! Er, whoops! Sorry! Anyhow, all things considered, perhaps you may want to retain your original plan and choose the form of remote point operation for the crossovers that suits you best. Personally, I would not go for a mechanical method (wire in tube etc) over that distance, so your choice would be cheap and simple solenoid motors with a capacitor discharge unit to operate them, or go for Tortoise or Cobalt motors from the off. I would go for the latter, as you will find them useful later on as your hobby develops, but that depends on your budget of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 You'll need streamline Y point as well, unless you use LH point nearer to the headshunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 The number of frogs in each circuit is the same regardless of where the crossovers are in the circuit. Going live frog using streamline small radius is perfectly feasible, the right hand crossover could be moved to the curve at the right using one (or possibly two) curved points to make a bit more space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davetheroad Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 On my layout i have some points that are too far away to reach comfortably. So i attached a loop and 'pusher' to the end of a stick and it works! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirStanierFan6229 Posted November 14, 2015 Author Share Posted November 14, 2015 On my layout i have some points that are too far away to reach comfortably. So i attached a loop and 'pusher' to the end of a stick and it works! Well... That'll do it! However, I'd only do this as a last resort - I'd prefer motors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Might I suggest reversing the direction of the sidings off the inner loop? That way you would be reversing trains into the sidings which means the locos wouldn't be trapped, and it's also in accordance with how sidings would be laid on the real thing. As regards moving the crossovers, if you're concerned about locos stalling on the points, that's probably all the more reason to move them to the front, because if a loco stalls at the back, you're going to have to reach across the layout to give it a push. Having plain track at the back would also allow the possibility of hiding the back stretch behind a row of (removable) low-relief buildings so that the trains are hidden for part of their journey so it appears they're actually going somewhere! Personally I haven't had much trouble with small locos stalling on PECO Insulfrog points (avoid the Hornby ones with the horrible big plastic frogs). The only place we've really had issues with one was the one at the foot of the incline on my father's layout where the combination of a frog followed by the change in gradient could cause stalling. PECO Streamline (and I think even Setrack) points are long enough that an 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 shouldn't find itself with two wheels sat on different frogs simultaneously,leastwise not on the same side of the loco (it's possible that a loco might straddle two frogs of a crossover simultaneously but as they'd be on opposite sides of the loco, that's not quite such a big problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirStanierFan6229 Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 Might I suggest reversing the direction of the sidings off the inner loop? That way you would be reversing trains into the sidings which means the locos wouldn't be trapped, and it's also in accordance with how sidings would be laid on the real thing. As regards moving the crossovers, if you're concerned about locos stalling on the points, that's probably all the more reason to move them to the front, because if a loco stalls at the back, you're going to have to reach across the layout to give it a push. Having plain track at the back would also allow the possibility of hiding the back stretch behind a row of (removable) low-relief buildings so that the trains are hidden for part of their journey so it appears they're actually going somewhere! Personally I haven't had much trouble with small locos stalling on PECO Insulfrog points (avoid the Hornby ones with the horrible big plastic frogs). The only place we've really had issues with one was the one at the foot of the incline on my father's layout where the combination of a frog followed by the change in gradient could cause stalling. PECO Streamline (and I think even Setrack) points are long enough that an 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 shouldn't find itself with two wheels sat on different frogs simultaneously,leastwise not on the same side of the loco (it's possible that a loco might straddle two frogs of a crossover simultaneously but as they'd be on opposite sides of the loco, that's not quite such a big problem. That's a very good point (if so blindingly obvious, I couldn't see it), and will be done on the final layout... Sorry everyone, but point motors are, for the moment at least, off the shopping list! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Why are you sorry? It looks like you've read a few opinions & made a choice from them which you feel is better for you. There is no ideal solution for everybody. Going manual will get you up & running more quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Personally I haven't had much trouble with small locos stalling on PECO Insulfrog points (avoid the Hornby ones with the horrible big plastic frogs). The only place we've really had issues with one was the one at the foot of the incline on my father's layout where the combination of a frog followed by the change in gradient could cause stalling. My Lima 09 used to stall on streamline short radius pointwork when running slowly. Looking back, I believe resetting the back-to-backs correctly may have helped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PeterBB Posted February 1, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 1, 2016 I would just point out that post 3 URL is incorrect. It is www.brian-lambert.co.uk My Electrical page 1 deals with most of the basic point motor wiring. Hi Brian, Have seen your website and now I have seen you on the web I will go onto it to see if it sorts me out. The problem I have is 'taking over' some wired and part wired point motors with all the wires the same colour and am trying to work out which wires go where. Hopefully your site will explain. Cheers, Peter BB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Hi Brian, Have seen your website and now I have seen you on the web I will go onto it to see if it sorts me out. The problem I have is 'taking over' some wired and part wired point motors with all the wires the same colour and am trying to work out which wires go where. Hopefully your site will explain. Cheers, Peter BB Hi Peter Assuming they are solenoid point motors you have, what make and model of point motor are they? Seep PMx range, Hornby Surface R8243 or the under point R8014 , Peco PL10 under point or PL11 surface? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PeterBB Posted February 2, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2016 Hi Peter Assuming they are solenoid point motors you have, what make and model of point motor are they? Seep PMx range, Hornby Surface R8243 or the under point R8014 , Peco PL10 under point or PL11 surface? Brian, Thanks for your reply. I was looking for an enhanced picture of a point motor to work out what I should do - previously I have only worked with Seep which are clearly marked. The points in question look like Hornby - no idea of the actual model - and, hopefully, I have worked out which connections were made to which points this morning. There are paired sets and as I see it by connecting them up and throwing them I will find out if these interlock appropriately ... if not then I will change one pair of connections on one point. If all goes well I will then make up a control console. On another note your website has a lot of information so thanks again, cheers, Peter BB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.