I’d like to get some opinions on caboose hobbies ground throws. Which do you think is the better choice…sprung or ridgid and why? I’m curious as to which would be best. I’m using mostly atlas switches code 100. Thanks
Since the Atlas turnouts have no means of holding the points in position, you should use the sprung ground-throws.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by rigid, but if you’re talking about the hand operated cam-on-rotating cylinder throws like the #202 190 degree in HO, I’ve got about 50 on Atlas code 100 switches. If you are careful about their placement as regards the switch point closure, they should work fine.
Mike
What he’s talking about is the two kinds of ground throws Caboose Industries makes: rigid and sprung. The sprung ones have a spring in them (no kidding!) that takes up the extra tension; thats why they kind of like, snap into position when you throw them. When the points hit the stock rails, but theres still more travel in the ground throw, there isn’t any extra unnecessary pressure applied because the spring takes it.
The rigid ones have no spring, and simply apply constant force… which is why you need to have the points and ground throw position EXACTLY centered when installing, or else the ground throw will apply extra pressure on the stock rails (if you try to throw them ALL the way), potentially throwing them out of guage, or pulling the ground throw off of its foundation, if the connection is at all weak.
the sprung ones are wayyy better, because they allow imprecision. with the rigid ones, the extremes of either direction must be the correct position for the points, unless you dont have a problem with the throwbar not being all the way down on either side, when the points have been completely moved. if you try forcing it down, so that its thrown fully, then you’re applying damaging force on the turnout, ground throw, or both.
I have the ridgid and the sprung and I like both .
For Atlas turnouts I’d go with the sprung. That’s what I have on my Atlas turnouts, and installation and operation are both very easy.
Hi!
I used 16 of them with Atlas code 100 HO turnouts on my recently dismantled HO layout. All were “sprung”, and once mounted correctly - they worked flawlessly and stood the test of time. I strongly urge you to get the “sprung” ones, as they hold the points solidly in place.
Yes, I am using them on the new layout now under construction…
ENJOY,
Mobilman44
I have about 60 tortoise machines on my layout but I had to install the caboose hobbies ground throws on about 5 turnouts because the tortoise machines wouldn’t work in these locations. (the train traveling under the layout would crash into them because they are so tall in reference to the turnoutlocations above the layout trackage.) I use both spring and rigid and as far as i’m concerned they both work well on atlas code 100 and shinohara code 100 turnouts…chuck
I’ve used them in the past and they work fine but I don’t find them to be very realistic looking. If you have the option, I’d use a Blue Point control system or similar arrangement that works through the fascia with a rod and control knob and then add a dummy switchstand for looks. The downside is that it is more complicated. The upside is that it looks better and also offers the opportunity to power the frog if you wish.
John Timm
I’ve been known to make my own:
Even in N scale (this picture is from my 1978 N-scale layout - there is a ground-throw visible on the left side of the picture):
Granted, they are still not scale, but I think they look better that the plastic ones, and they can be painted/weathered.
Thanks to everyone who had an opinion. I can tell by the answers that the sprung ground throws seem the way to go, also like the thought of the rod system for some of the swithches, thanks abunch
I USE 100% spring loaded throws based on General Principles.
I like continuous pressure on the points to maintain electrical flow & alignment…
I use and like them both