Same here. Besides, I don’t have a single loco that stalls on unpowered frogs.
Rich
Did that on a yard on my last layout. Took awhile to get right and was not as cheap as you might think. Mine used tubing and wire and of course the switch and sometimes a lot of brackets depending on location. The ones with the turntable in thw way were fun.
What I do for manual turnouts is even easier and cheaper.
I mount the slide switch right next to the throw bar and make a small spring rod to connect them.
A sub mini slide switch may not look like a ground throw, but it is visually the right size compared to the grossly oversized Caboose ground throw.
And it has reliable contacts.
So while I do use Tortoise machines for my CTC controlled turnouts, I guess I fail the “real model railroader” test as well, since I don’t even use DCC to control my trains let alone stationary decoders for turnouts …
Happy to report I don’t even know which forum that “other” one is…
Sheldon
I do not know if I do or not. I have always used old style Walthers/Shinohara solid metal power routing turnouts. I have a feeling my brass steamers with tender-only pickup might have some issues.
I tried this on my first HO layout, and had problems keeping ground cover glue out of the switches.
I never have been, never will be, and never will strive to be a “real model railroader.”
NEVER!
[:)] Just Having My Fun!
-Kevin
I still have a few of these that function perfectly:
Turnout_slide by Edmund, on Flickr
50¢ for the switch, 50¢ for the knob, a couple dollars’ worth of 1/4" dowel. I made the brackets which have slotted mounting holes for final adjustment.
DPDT switch so I can power a frog or points and still have contacts for a signal or panel indicator.
Easy-peasy, as someone once must have said [:-^]
Good Luck, Ed
Here’s something close to what I remember:
These would be on top of the fascia.
Ed
it seems layouts focused on operation care less about looks. manually operated slide switches power the frogs and control a lamp, and use linkage or push rod embedded in homasote to move the points,
Model railroading is all about compermise, each scale has its problems and details.
Well, in this day and age that may be an over simplification.
I have a high interest in operation, I have a high interest in appearance.
But appearance is subjective. For me, setting aside all issues of electrical requirements, the Caboose Industries ground throw has never been acceptable from an appearance standpoint.
Now, considering that I do require electrical feedback for frog power and other uses, the slide switch is a logical solution.
I don’t know if you looked at the video or understood my description, but I don’t care for the idea random knobs in the fascia or a row of switches along its top edge. All of which require some sort of identification as to which turnout they control.
In my view, at that point you might as well put a Tortoise machine on them and build a control panel.
I carefully designed my layout so that trackage requiring manual operation of turnouts and manual uncoupling would be close to the operator allowing the use of ground throws at each turnout.
As I suggested earlier, while a slide switch may not look like a real switch stand from any era, its small size is much more visually acceptable than the Caboose ground throw to my eyes.
And they are easy to operate with the same small screwdrivers I use for manual uncoupling.
So for the compromises I am willing to make, the local slide switch at each turnout is the best solution, both in terms of appearance and operation.
Sheldon
i doubt tortoise machines mounted on top of the layout would be acceptable to you either.
the above is two staging loops (boston & harford). below show both levels, newspapers cover the lower staging. panel is for the lower staging (new york)
operation is for a specific time (day), with specific trains, locos, sets of passengers cars and mix of freight cars from specific RRs. (an aspect of MRing i’m just learning about)
more, if interested
I was refering to the scenic part of the layout.
In a hidden staging yard they might be, assuming space was not an issue.
As it turns out, my hidden staging will require them to be under the trackage simply from a space standpoint.
I am more than familiar with detailed recreations of exact prototype schedules for ops sessions, but it is an ulta detailed aspect of the hobby that does not fit my interests.
My new layout makes no effort to replicate actual places or times, only to capture the “spirit” of this region as it might have been in the early fall of 1954.
Sheldon
not all layouts look like the ones in magazines. i’m seeing more layouts that are more focused on operability than looks and using techniques i haven’t seen described in magazines or these forums.
My layout is ending up being a stylised verson of real life, just don’t have the skill to make it photo real though I try. Speaking of which I just learned my Emma is too big, John used a smaller one but the same look.
We have had this discussion partly before. I have seen hundreds of layouts in person, many equally as impressive as those in the press. I have seen a few of the more well know layouts that have appeared in the press. And, I was a member of a club that appeared in MR many times back in the day.
I get that different people have different interests and goals in the hobby that the model press does not cover at all or evenly.
My personal interests represent a mix of the serious and the casual, a blend not always understood by others.
As much as I have an interest in operation, and model building, and prototype history, my primary goal is the overall visual and functional presentation of the layout as a whole.
That’s why close coupling and working diaphragms are more important than the accuracy of the models they are on.
That’s why a little “blob” of a slide switch is an acceptable stand in for switch stand that is generally viewed from three feet away by those not operating trains .
That’s why the signal system does not need to display every detailed aspect, only needing to guide operators and look representitive.
That’s why onboard sound is not needed because with 20 locomotives moving 7-8 trains all at the same time the din would be unbearable.
That’s why not every car needs to be a museum piece, but we don’t mind that some
For me powering the frogs is a cost vs. time issue on my dcc layout. I can afford some hex frog juicers and can wire them faster than I would be able to rig a microswitch do-dad. Presently I have 5 hex frog juicers and estimate I need a couple more for the planned turnouts.
Now if I were retired and on a fixed income, the microswitch solution would be more attractive.
The ease of installing frog-juicers is very appealing.
For the life of me I do not understand why they won’t work with DC. If they just detect the short super-quick and flip polarity automatically, why are they DCC only?
-Kevin
Good question.
I suspect at least part of the issue is the trip current - according to the website it’s 1.7 amps and apparently not adjustable. Many DC power packs won’t supply that much and ones that can might not at reduced throttle settings. Remember, with DCC there is full power on the rails at all times, so you know, for example, with a 2 amp system with adequate wiring a short is going to draw close to 2 amps. If they back off on the current requirement to trip, then they would likely have issues with some higher powered DC systems and higher current drawing locomotives.
at least one technique for detecting the short is to use the voltage across a low Ohm value, 0.22 resistor (R6 and R10) when there is excessive current to bias (turn on) a transistor triggering a reverser or circuit breaker . such a value resistor requires ~3A (0.7V / 0.22)
both the track voltage needs to be high enough and the current large enough to cause such a circuit to work. i believe trip current can be adjusted by jumpering additional resistors either in series or parallel. lower voltage DC may no be sufficient.
