I had a thought to use a frog juicer on old Shinohara code 70 turnouts. They have the point rails and frog electrically connected. When installed I gapped behind the frog. Anyone have experience that could help?
Just finished my layout with them, no problems and much more reliable. Use the hex ones as they take less wire and you can screw them to the layout, the double sided foam tape just did not work.
Thanks for your reply. The reason I thought of this is that the older turnouts have unreliable contact at the points. I use ground throws so a frog juicer might help keep power all the way through the turnout. That is the gist of my question.
A lot of the older Shinohara Code 70 turnouts were power routing with live frogs, sorta like the Peco Electrofrogs. It sounds like yours are that type of turnout. If so, you don’t need a Frog Juicer. Why not simply take the necessary steps to make the power routing feature work right so that the point rails remain powered? What am I missing?
Rich
You can’t. The Shinohara code 70 turnouts rely on the switch point nessiling into the side of of the stock rail and making contact there. Manythings can prevent this from happening, dirt, dust, paint and the ground throws don’t have a lot of overthrow either. So even if you tweek it and get it to run perfectly and to do this you run the risk of breaking the soulder on the throwrod (done that). To boot it will not last as it builds up slack as it is used. Shinohara tried to fix that by adding copper compersion peices under the throwrods which worked well untill the oxidation stopped that. Ever tried to remove the oxidation between the point and stockrail which is less than 1/8" with lots of nooks and cranies, even with special tools it is very hard to clean and dosn’t last. I use Caboose industries ground throws and the power routing type are a joke, huge and with many failure points. Talked personaly to the owner about making a better product but he was not really interested as he had a product that sells. Their high level switch stands are nice but don’t last as the center coulum is plastic too and over time will twist off. So anyway enter the juicer and the proublem goes away and all the oxidation areas are within easy access.
we recently had this problem with a different manufacturers switch. used tortoise contacts to power the frog/points
[quote user=“rrebell”]
richhotrain
A lot of the older Shinohara Code 70 turnouts were power routing with live frogs, sorta like the Peco Electrofrogs. It sounds like yours are that type of turnout. If so, you don’t need a Frog Juicer. Why not simply take the necessary steps to make the power routing feature work right so that the point rails remain powered? What am I missing?
Rich
You can’t. The Shinohara code 70 turnouts rely on the switch point nessiling into the side of of the stock rail and making contact there. Manythings can prevent this from happening, dirt, dust, paint and the ground throws don’t have a lot of overthrow either. So even if you tweek it and get it to run perfectly and to do this you run the risk of breaking the soulder on the throwrod (done that). To boot it will not last as it builds up slack as it is used. Shinohara tried to fix that by adding copper compersion peices under the throwrods which worked well untill the oxidation stopped that. Ever tried to remove the oxidation between the point and stockrail which is less than 1/8" with lots of nooks and cranies, even with special tools it is very hard to clean and dosn’t last. I use Caboose industries ground throws and the power routing type are a joke, huge and with many failure points. Talked personaly to the owner about making a better product but he was not really interested as he had a product that sells. Their high level switch stands are nice but don’t last as the center coulum is plastic too and over time will twist off. So anyway enter the juicer and the proublem goes away and all the oxidation areas are within easy access.
No need for DCC freindly with a juicer.
A juicer does not address the issues that “DCC friendly” does. The two main issues “DCC friendly” addresses are the potential for shorts if a wheel bridges the gao between the stock rail and point rail__*__ (although this shouldn’t happen if all of your wheels are in gauge) and the lack of power beyond the frog on the leg to which the turnout is not aligned.
*edit: I originally said closure rail when I meant to say point rail
It is impossible to bridge the gap as the frog is the correct polarity when aligned, running the point will short regardless of DCC friendly or not.
When I said closure rail I actually mean to say point rail. If you have wheels slightly undergauge, it may be possible for them to contact the open point and it’s adjacent stock rail at the same time, which will cause a short on a non DCC friendy turnout.
Thanks for all the input. Cleaning the contact area at the points will work temporarily but if trains are not run for a couple of weeks the problem returns.
I think I will try out a juicer on one turnout that seems to cause the most trouble to see if the theory is plausable.
This picture that Greg posted shows the potential point problem I need to deal with on my old style Walther/Shinohara power routing turnouts.
Metal wheels that are gauged slightly narrow seem to be the most common issue. I have notice a lot of diesel locomotives are out-of-gauge narrow right from the box.
An NMRA gauge is your friend. The turnout is rarely the problem in this case.
-Kevin
A 1/16" is a lot of play, don’t think I have ever seen something that out of gauge unless broken.
Seems more like marketing to me than a real problem, something that far out of gauge would not make it past the gaurd rails, at least on Shinohara.
They don’t have to be 1/16" out of gauge. Yes, the gap is supposed to be 1/16"; however, the width of the flange is already taking up some of that gap, plus even in-gauge wheels are not snug up against the the stock rails.
No, it’s definitely a real problem.
Notice how the gaurd rails bend away from the stock rails at each end? I don’t have any experience with Shinohara turnouts, but I do know with some others the wheels can be narrow enough to short at the points but will still hit the stock rail side of the bent end of the gaurd rail and pass through just fine.
No 1/16" is the gap after wheel is taken into the mesurment. As far as the gaurd rail, any narrower and it would not fit but just bind there.
According to NMRA standard 3.2 in HO(all dimensions in inches): G(track gauge)=0.651 and P(width of points)=0.588. 0.651-0.588=0.063=~1/16 gap, not taking into account the width of the wheel flange. Another interesting dimension is S, the outside span from the gaurd rail to the wing rail, which is 0.557, less than the width of the points. That means on a turnout built to NMRA standards, an out of gauge wheelset could be narrow enough to contact the points on the open side but still pass through the gaurd rail without binding.
As I said before, I have no experience with Shinohara turnouts. I don’t know what their dimensions are nor whether or not they are built to NMRA standards. As far as I know, it may very well be impossible to have the described short happen with them (although I do find it hard to believe since they are so often used when talking about “DCC-friendly” and “non DCC-friendly” turnouts). What I do know for a fact is the short is a real issue that I have personally experienced with other brands of turnouts.
ironically, i have read that if you don’t have problems with non DCC-friendly turnouts it’s because you have good (well gauged) trackwork and wheels