A new PECO SL-E99 question !

[JayDee]

I had planned to install three PECO SL-E99 symmetrical 3 way turnouts on a new layout.  I have already purchased them.   I have searched the RM Web forum and am now aware of some of the issues with the PECO SL-E99 symmetrical turnout as regards radius differences left to right, there could be some height difference and pinning required to get all sections of the turnout "flat",  the fact that the two sections need the point motors to be operated sequentially, and some complexity in getting the frog wiring correct. I think I can handle that.  

But I have just seem on another forum the comment that the Code 100 SL-E99 is “very prone to frog-tip shorts and create a lot of frustration”.    If it’s true, then that’s not so easy to handle if there is a frog -tip shorting problem is endemic in the design of the turnout.  Is anyone experiencing frog-tip shorting” issues on the SL-E99?

If it is a known problem then I guess I can still change to the Code 75 asymmetric SL-E199 for these particular turnouts, but would prefer not to as the rest of the fiddle yard track  is all Code 100 (and already purchased) and I would have to add 4 x  Code 75/100 converter sections for each turnout. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by JayDee

[Mick Bonwick]

I'm asking this question from a position of ignorance (pauses for comments), but is it the employed wheel standards that create the shorting problems rather than the point design?  I have only ever used one of these points and never had any problems at all. I know that using just one is not a very good representation of the product.

[spikey]

 

1 hour ago, JayDee said:

I ... am now aware of some of the issues with the PECO SL-E99 symmetrical turnout as regards radius differences left to right, there could be some height difference and pinning required to get all sections of the turnout "flat" ... (and) is “very prone to frog-tip shorts ...

 

Really?  I wasn't aware of any of that when I installed a pair of SL-E199 (the Code 75 version) last year which have performed admirably ever since, and I'd have wagered that if there really is a shorting problem which is caused by the design of the point, that problem would be worse with Code 75 rails.

 

A pound to a penny says that any shorting at the frogs is down to wheels and/or installation.

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by spikey
Clarity

[JayDee]

Hi Spikey,  Apparently the problems are specific only to the SL-E99  .  The SL-E199 is supposed to be fine due the the quite different geometry.  

 

Think I'd better first try the SL-E99 seeing as how I have already bought them,  on go from there.  But won't ballast them until they have had a lot of testing.

[DCB]

The symetrical 3 way doesn't need to be operated sequentially, it is quite happy to have both motors fire together from full left to full right or vice versa but doesn't like having the wrong motor fire as that can bend the blades or rip the blades out of the tie bars.  With ordinary point motors its no real hassle to add link wires with diodes to make sure the wrong motor does not fire alone but it could get awkward with tortoise or servo motors  and individual point motor operation or with some DCC systems.  I use diode matrixes and have had no issues with symetrical 3 way points other than the problem that like the double slip its only 2t radius and that's a bit too sharp for my liking especially if its on the scenic bit of the layout.

[BR60103]

2 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

but it could get awkward with tortoise or servo motors  and individual point motor operation or with some DCC systems.

I have a telephone key switch (as we call them here) with two DPDT contacts that are interlocked. It should be possible to set two slide switches with a block between them so that they can't both be pushed to the middle.

The design is left as an exercise for the student.