Most reliable fiddle yard points

[MoonM]

All, 

Starting a OO permanent build and want to make sure I set my fiddle yard as reliably as possible. Layout will be peco bullhead but I am considering code 75 flat bottom for the fiddle yard area (cheaper). 

Reliability is highest priority with efficient use of space second. Some questions please? 

Presume the wider radius the point is the better? Will I encounter any reliability issues using medium radius peco points and not their large radius? Locos and rolling stock will be various with steam and diesels. Stock will all be relatively modern. 

Planning to stay away from 3-way points, curved points, single and double slips for reliability, but am I being overly conservative? 

Best recommendations for most reliable (preferably surface mounted) point motors? Will need to be compatible with itrain automation software. 

Anything obvious I may be missing? 

Thank you! 

 

[Oldddudders]

My fiddle yard has about a dozen points, medium radius Peco Code 75 and Code 83. All but one are powered by older Peco motors on the surface, the other with the Peco motor under the point due to lack of space. They are driven by Digitrax DS54 and DS64 decoders. I am very happy with reliability. The yard is mainly obscured from view so I have a cheap (£20) cctv system to see what is going on with the trains. 

[Michael Hodgson]

I don't see a reliability problem with 2-way or curved points, both of which tend to allow maximum use of available space. 

Larger radius makes for better running generally as well as increasing the number of models that can run on it at all; the trade-off is that sharper curves allow you to get more standage as the fan-out to fouling points tends to be noticeably shorter.  But I wouldn't rule out even 1st radius curves for a separate line serving a colliery or similar using only 4-wheel wagons and locos that are happy on it.

 

Slips might cause the odd derailment, but I generally don't see much use for them in most fiddle yards.

Point motors of any type whether above or below the baseboard will run happily with iTrain.  It's not the software you need to worry about, you just need to get driver modules compatible  with whatever motors you choose; iTrain supports most commercially available DCC modules.  For reliability you may need to switch the frogs though the module; some types of point motor have suitable switches built in for this, but my advice would be don't use the contacts built into SEEP point motors or similar - they are unreliable.

[RFS]

I have a 16-road storage yard and all bar 2 the points are code 75 curved ones because they give extra space in the yard. The other two are large radius ones necessitated by the position of the bracing under the board. Don't have a problem with reliability but you must lay the points with care making sure there's no kink in the rails where the points join flexitrack.  I use Tortoise point motors for their cast-iron reliability.

 

The storage roads are 47mm apart and I cut a straight edge that was 47mm wide minus the width of the track (I think it was 18mm) so that all roads were perfectly straight and the exact distance apart.  The track is laid on 5mm sheets of Plastazote closed-cell foam. 

 

Here are a couple of pictures of the yard entrances taken a few years ago whilst under construction.

 

 

 

 

[ikcdab]

I agree with the above ref the hardware.  You won't go far wrong using peco points of any type.

BUT if you want reliability, you do need to address the power supply. Do not rely on fishplates. Wire a separate track feed to every piece of track.  You also need to avoid using point blades for electrical continuity and wire to the crossing.  I don't use peco points but there are ways of doing this and others will come along with the details. 

Edited January 21 by ikcdab

[Bucoops]

I am slowly building up stocks of new old stock electrofrog Peco code 75 streamline points and crossings for fiddle yard use. Like you I also intend to use bullhead for the scenic section. 

 

I've gone with electrofrog as they crop up regularly for a good price and whilst are a little more complex to install, *should* be more reliable when used with a reliable point motor/switch. At the moment I am considering the current version of DCC Concepts one (the early batch has some issues which I understand have been resolved).

[DK123GWR]

I only have experience with code 100, but all Streamline points should be perfectly reliable if correctly wired. I have never had a derailment on Streamline points of any kind (when the correct route is set!) using modern rolling stock. The only reason for avoidng small radius points is aesthetic, which doesn't apply in the fiddle yard. Set-track points can cause issues, but they are an even smaller radius (and turn through a larger angle). I would focus on getting the best possible length and number of sidings (which usually means using small radius and curved  Streamline points).

3 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Slips might cause the odd derailment, but I generally don't see much use for them in most fiddle yards.

They could be useful for adding a headshunt, or allowing a dead-end extension to a through siding to store and otherwise over-length train. They might be useful if you have multiple lines feeding into the fiddle yard, depending on how easily you want to move stock between them.

[Wheatley]

I use code 75 bullhead on the scenic bits and Streamline in the fiddle yard, the only difference being I used code 100 and made up my own 100/75 rail joiners. Code 100 was even cheaper than 75 and it's bomb proof, also it meant I could use 3rd and 4th radius set track for the inside curves as tight curves are more prone to kinking. 

 

Bog standard PL10s used with the mounting base are pretty bomb proof too, the slimline surface mounted motors tend to be a bit more prone to going out of adjustment in my experience. 

 

The only restriction using small radius points will impose is that some things will buffer lock more easily when propelling through them. Shouldn't be an issue if you're using the as supplied hook and bar couplings though. 

[ITG]

I agree with the idea of any correctly installed and wired electrofrog Peco turnouts, but would also add have a look at the various  MTB turnout motors. Easy to install and adjust, plus reliable. No connection other than etc.

Ian

[Vecchio]

I personally prefer code 100 for the fiddle yard. Much more robust than code 75. On the transition to the scenic part you need to use the adapter track SL113 to go to your code 75 

[DCB]

Another vote for code 100.   3ft radius is a good minimum which rules out double slips (2ft) as points and curved points (2ft 6")       However double slips are more reliable than long crossings when used as crossings and easier to wire as live frog.  A lot of locos (Bachmann 2-8-0s in particular "turn the corner   A lot depends on the circuit breaker   "DCC" usually implies around 4 amps, "DC" about 1 amp.    Design amperage is 1 amp.    So what is bullet proof on DC is woefully inadequate on DCC   You can use 1 amp breakers on DCC and power areas and avoid the issues. or like myself use 2 amps DC and get all the DCC fishplate and point blade failures without DCC.  If there is access surface mount point motors, make sense, I prefer under baseboard motors driving through bell cranks and omega loops. Many of my Peco live frog code 100 points used straight out of the box just work and keep working and have had no maintenance in 35 years, one or two suffered point blades coming loose but just one or two, I have never changed a fish plate in the FY  but they live in the dark under a station, so don't get UV light or the oxidisation the ones in sunlight get and the ones outside need fishplates changing about every two years droppers to every bit of rail and all the DCC faddle while being DC,      Lots of solutions to lots of problems,j ust identify the problem before parting wi cash.

[MoonM]

Thanks all.  Some v helpful advice.  Sounds like I should not be too afraid of Peco curved points and that Code 100 could be a better bet for the fiddle yard.  I'll stick away from slips however.  Being able to use curved points is a plus as it looks to give me enough length to split each fiddle yard siding in half - tricky to explain but I hope a track plan helps.  More of the project (inc first draft track plan) here...  

Still to make a decision on point motors.  

 

[The Johnster]

In addition to the above advice, club layouts I was once involved with had scratchbuilt copperclad 'sleepered' spring loaded trailing turnouts (turnins?) on the exit roads, which worked very reliably and saved money on point motors.  The fiddle yards were laid with code 100 rail on copperclad sleepers about every four inches, pva-ed direct to the board, bombproof reliable.

 

The question of radius, and curved turnouts, is a moveable feast and a function of space available (which can be saved, and reverse curves avoided with curved turnouts) and speed of entry/exit. I'd suggest 4' minimum radius for APT/Pendolino-type running at scale top speeds, especially if the power car is propelling.  Smaller radii are fine if stock is shorter and speeds lower.

 

If you can use the space approaching the fy to lay curved turnouts at the approaches at each end, you will be able to increase the length of the main fy storage roads.  This can also be done to some extent by arranging 'normal' turnouts so that the straight setting leads to an outer road, but the innermost roads will be shortened.  There is, of course never, ever enough space and compromises must be made.  The fy has to work 'out of sight' in many cases, and must be reliable both electrically and in terms of running.  I would definitely use Peco code 100 Streamline as my go-to for this job, or scratchbuilt copperclad, with code 100 rail.

 

[Ian Smeeton]

How about curved points on the exits to the fiddle yards, with straight points on the entry.Increases the length somewhat

 

That way the curved points are only used in the trailing direction..

 

Regards

 

Ian

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Take the spring and gubbins out of the Peco points and you won't need point motors for the exit pointwork.

 

Mike.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

22 hours ago, MoonM said:

Anything obvious I may be missing? 

The constructional standard of the baseboard, track laying, point motor fitting and wiring is entirely in your own hands; as also is the choice of stock and its set-up, and how you operate the trains. A trial of what your own work standard and stock choices deliver in satisfying your expectation of 'reliability' is advisable.

 

(Personally by a process of trialling I have qualified  Peco medium and large radius points in code 100 or 75 FB as unconditionally reliable in combination with minimum 36" radius plain track, but my reliability standard includes the ability to propel any train of up to 60 SWB wagons or 15 bogie carriages through any point arrangement, which is fairly demanding. I am assessing some of the Peco code 83 track pieces at present with a view to future use in off-scene locations, results to date very good.)

[westernfan]

I have a two feet wide, 12 road fiddle yard situated underneath scenic boards, (on which is built a country terminus). The 12 roads comprise 9 bi-directional loops, 2 one direction loops and one terminal road. There are a total of 30 points. The "king" points at each end are either Hornby or Peco set track curved points with surface mounted motors. All the others are Hornby standard points with the original style above board motors. Since being built I have only had one problem, (which admittedly occurred with two sets of points), in that the motor moved slightly when being operated causing the blades to fail to fully close. Easily rectified by applying a little blacktack under the motor. I should add that I have used this yard successfully with all types of loco ranging from little 0-4-0T's to Kings, Castles, A3's, A4's, 9F's Bulleid pacifics and anything in between; plus a whole range of diesels (I have a somewhat eclectic collection.) Incidentally, there are a couple of No. 1 radius set track curves in the single direction loops which are also negotiated by all stock without problems.

Incidentally, if anyone doubts that it is possible to fit 12 roads onto a 24 inch wide board using set track points bearing in mind the crossing angle, I would be happy to add photo's. To be honest, I was surprised it worked myself!

 

I forgot to add that most of the points are wired up to operate in pairs, i.e. two sets of points to one switch. They are operated by Hornby passing contact switches via a CDU and have been 100% reliable apart from the aforementioned problem. I am aware that it is generally thought that Hornby lever switches cannot be used in conjunction with a CDU, but the late ChrisAF on the Hornby site said they will work if the "throw" of the switch is paused momentarily half way across and I have found this to be perfectly true.

Edited January 27 by westernfan
Additional information