As far as technology has advanced in the past 10 years, if it keeps going at the rate it is we will probably be able to take a cell phone and put it in our wallet like a business card.
So why hasn’t any of the major model railroad companies in the world made a turnout with a small 1/8 inch thick rectangular unit underneath it that would fit into the cork roadbed and all you have to do is hook up two wires and now you don’t have to Fiddle with connecting a separate switch machine underneath?
I guess that would make too much sense! I would gladly pay the combined 45-$50 for one of those units for the ease of use. I bet they would “sell like hotcakes”.
My thoughts? Something else to go wrong and not an easy way to repair it when it does. It would make way more sense to me to save the $$$ and purchase manual turnouts and mechanical switches. No electrical contacts needed. [Y]
Kato and Bachmann both have the solenoid under the roadbed.
I’m DC, and will not convert, and would not be interested,
I switch manually with the index finger of God.
ROI may be the biggest reason, but who knows, maybe someday it might happen.
gmpullman wrote: “Well, hasn’t Kato taken the lead in this technology? Their solenoid is self-contained in the roadbed.”
The problem with the Kato switches with the built-in switch motors is that if there’s a problem, these switches can’t be opened without them literally breaking. I’ve had a couple of the motors seize up – they were unrepairable (at least by me).
The Kato manual switches are better in that the manual lever is easily replaced by an add-on motor. It “sticks out” on the side, though, and is not as “clean” as the switches with the built-in motors. But… these CAN be opened from the bottom if need be, and the motors are replaceable if they fail.
As someone mentioned, if the switch motor broke, you wouldnt be able to fix it, unless you tear the roadbed apart and remove the entire switch. That’s why its really only common on roadbed included snap track, such as Kato, or Bachmann EZ track.
Also, many of us dont like switch motors. With my small 4x8, I find no need to install switch motors as everything can be reached by hand. Others prefer snap, or slow mo, or etc.
Instead of having track manuf. making switches with all sorts of versions of motors, they just make the switch and let the user install the machine. I think that makes sense.
There are many other things in this hobby that I wish the (arguably) outdated standards should upgraded to, such as making semi scale wheels the standard, shrinking the oversized “standard” coupler head, etc. But nope!
You gotta admit, these look so much better than our thicc chunky wheels. With the modern technology in making precision gauged track, I think switching to semi scale wouldn’t be a big enough issue, but I dont think HO modeling standards will be updated anytime soon.
I generally agree that the issue with such a device is related to ease of repair and maintenance. I feel like there’s almost nothing mechanical in this hobby that should be un-repairable or un-replacable. Since we tend to permanently mount our track turnouts, an un-reachable, under-track switch machine would be problematic.
Maybe if there was some way to make it replaceable by releasing a clip and pulling it out from the side?
How about just making the whole turnout and switch motor assembly easy to remove? Rapido’s uncouplers come with a clear plastic shield that allows ballast to be placed over the uncoupler. If you need to remove the uncoupler, you just pull it out from the bottom. The ballast stays in place. Why couldn’t a similar concept be used where the turnout and the ballast sits in a removable tray? Slide the rail joiners off, disconnect the wiring, and then lift the whole thing out including the ballast, giving easy access to the switch motor and requiring minimal repairs to the ballast if the same turnout is being reinstalled.
Just a thought. Like TF said, it might make too much sense.[swg][(-D]
While still slightly oversized, I think the Kadee #58s/#158 do look better than the #5s. And I’ve outfitted all my rolling stock and nearly all of my locomotives with #58s and they work better than just okay. I’ve never had a problem with any of them uncoupling unexpectedly - except on the rare occasion when one loses a spring. That can even happen with a Kadee #5.
And, while I do understand where you are coming from about mixing couplers, I personally have not experienced a problem with coupling any #58s to the occasional #5. That said, I do prefer using like-sized couplers on my rolling stock and locomotives.
Tom, along with my rolling tests years ago that brought me to my Kadee trucks refitted with Intermountain 110 wheels, I did some coupling force tests, and some train slack tests, and on both counts I found some disadvantages to semi scale couplers mixed with the regular Kadee.
I have never had, nor did I make any reference to unexpected uncoupling, that is not the issue.
The issue is the stretched out knuckle (which I think looks funny) that lets the 58 couple to the regular coupler. It actually creates equal or greater slack and requires slightly more force when coupling to a #5 head.
The the semi scale couplers do work fine with each other, the mixing is the problem.
There is also the issue of side to side gathering range. The semi scale coupler has a smaller tolerance there as well.
That happened to the OP TF? This seems like one of those topics created like throwing some red meat into a pool of sharks just to sit back and watch the action. Welcome to MR forums once again.
They would not be RTR so I don’t think they would sell well. The problem would be that you can’t use the turnouts without laying roadbed. All current track systems do not require a separate roadbed to be installed. Their turnouts are RTR either with no roadbed or roadbed that is part of the turnout and matching sectional track.
It’s easy to forget that there are a lot of casual hobbyists (who aren’t on the forums) for whom RTR is an important feature. They either buy track with roadbed or use track without any roadbed at all.
For some reason Kato makes two differently designed #6 turnouts in HO scale. The manual turnouts are different from the turnouts that are electric from the factory.
I prefer buying the manual turnouts and adding the retro-fit electric point motors to these. With this design the twin coil motor is much easier to replace.
Also, the replacement motor will not fit the factory electric turnouts, at least not that I was able to figure out.
Mechanical things don’t scale down as fast or as much as electronics does (due to Moore’s Law, and even it is running out of steam). A 1/8" thick switch motor would be quite the mechanical challenge.
15 or so years ago, one could buy a turnout with a switch machine and DCC stationary decoder attached as a unit. These did not, in fact, “sell like hotcakes” and have long ago been discontinued. (They required a hole in the benchwork, like the PECO “snap-on” switch motors do.) As others have pointed out, prepackaged combinations are already available in HO in click-track.
