is there a O scale switch that can handle high rail wheels and fine scale wheels material ?

@JohnActon posted:

@JohnActon posted:

Jeff scroll up the thread to a post by me in 2018 showing early Gargraves and Trackmaster closing frog switches.  ...snip...

They remind me of Marx switches.

EDIT: They look very nice in three-rail but strange in two-rail! But it definitely would not bother me to use them if I found some.

Maybe if we tried running this stuff on the track it was designed for, on curves of reasonable radius.........naaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

ECI

PS: What's with all the 3 rail switches on the 2 rail forum?

As prrjim mentioned, one problem with using the deeper three rail flanges is the lack of a specific, consistent wheel profile standard. This is a bit of a worry to me, but by studying what the existing three rail track manufacturers are doing I think I can design turnouts that will work smoothly.

Jeff C

@jonnyspeed posted:

"There is absolutely no reason for an unrealistic 3R track system in 2023 except for the nostalgia and existing (admittedly huge) current install base. "

You must not have wired up a 2 rail reverse loop VS a 3 rail since 3rail requires no special wiring where 2 rail is quite a bit more involved. if you want it totally automatic. Or used the wheels to close circuits for automatic control. There are numerous reasons for three rails that UN-complicate wiring. But your free to build your railroad as you like.                      j        

It is interesting that the OP [ who has not been active on this Forum for 4+ years ] asked this question because he wished to run his 2R scale wheeled MTH European rolling stock on his 3R layout.  Rather than changing turnouts, I think a saner -- by model railroader standards, I mean -- approach would have  just been to swap out, in the case of the freight cars, the 2R wheelsets for 3R ones, or a truck swap in the case of the passenger cars.  A similar wheelset approach would have worked for the MTH Euro electrics too, with the exception of the Swiss Krocs.

Best, SZ

@JohnActon posted:

You must not have wired up a 2 rail reverse loop VS a 3 rail since 3rail requires no special wiring where 2 rail is quite a bit more involved. if you want it totally automatic. Or used the wheels to close circuits for automatic control. There are numerous reasons for three rails that UN-complicate wiring. But your free to build your railroad as you like.                      j       

That only applies to DC. I run DCC and it is as simple as wiring a small electronic device in that senses and switches the polarity. It is so simple it is 100% a non-issue. As I said... Today, with our technology there is no technical reason to keep the 3rd rail. None. Everything can be done just as easily with DCC and a whole lot more that could never be done in the past. All the "reasons" you speak of live only in the past or on layouts that are built that way.

@EastCoastIron posted:

Maybe if we tried running this stuff on the track it was designed for, on curves of reasonable radius.........naaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

ECI

PS: What's with all the 3 rail switches on the 2 rail forum?

You gonna build me a new house that gives me the space to run 72"r curves? naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

@jonnyspeed posted:

That only applies to DC. I run DCC and it is as simple as wiring a small electronic device in that senses and switches the polarity. It is so simple it is 100% a non-issue. As I said... Today, with our technology there is no technical reason to keep the 3rd rail. None. Everything can be done just as easily with DCC and a whole lot more that could never be done in the past. All the "reasons" you speak of live only in the past or on layouts that are built that way.

Barely applies even to DC - I have a reversing loop that is a non-issue.  Once set it's automatic until changed otherwise.

What jonnyspeed described also applies to 2 rail Legacy layouts. Only difference is an AC Legacy layout uses a PSX-AR-AC rather than a PSX-AR to power the reverse loops.

Buy a second house just for the trains, a lot easier than moving.

@jonnyspeed posted:

That only applies to DC. I run DCC and it is as simple as wiring a small electronic device in that senses and switches the polarity. It is so simple it is 100% a non-issue. As I said... Today, with our technology there is no technical reason to keep the 3rd rail. None. Everything can be done just as easily with DCC and a whole lot more that could never be done in the past. All the "reasons" you speak of live only in the past or on layouts that are built that way.

Your non issue is an issue for most folks. How much does that auto polarity switch cost ?  About the cheapest way with a simple DPDT relay is several bucks plus the time to insulate track and wire them. You still do NOTHING with three rail but hook the nonderailing turnout to the other pieces of track. With constant 18v on the rail you have no wiring for the reverse loop switch at all. You can't say that about 2 rail.  I've been running trains and wiring layouts since the fifties and am quite competent wiring layouts, even two rail, however many people are not comfortable with wiring at all. Some people are afraid of electricity,  even 18v.   Beyond the simple loop two rail is more complicated to wire. Perhaps DEADRAIL folks have a point.  Boy has this thread gone off topic. Poor guy just wanted to know if one switch track could handle Scale and  tinplate wheels. Answer= YES.                                           j

I think the thread has been very interesting, and I believe that finding one brand of turnout that will run both scale and deep flange wheels SMOOTHLY is problematic at best—but I like my equipment to run through turnouts without clunking, juddering, or bouncing.

Jeff C

Someone is selling two Gargraves closing frog switches on eBay right now.          j

Surprised there wasn't at least a little curiosity about the video of the movable-point frog linked on the first page by 'renrew'. While it's certainly a fairly-involved DIY modification, it would handily solve the problem of smoothly running scale and hi-rail flanges through the same frog. It could even be made non-derailing in the fashion that AtlasO switches are with spring-loaded points.

---PCJ

Dave O'Connor made a "frog point" for the #8 curved turnout on the AGHR layout. It was done partially to accommodate scale wheels, but also to handle some hi-rail equipment that seemed to have issues negotiating the turnout. I added power transfer to energize the unused closure rail as a hot to extend the center rail for short locomotives (at the same time, the closure rail that the engine's wheels will be riding on is switched to common. Even running at 3 SMPH, engines don't stall.

It closes out the frog and allows the wheels to run on it as it's essentially an extension of the closure rail.

@RailRide & @AGHRMatt That's a pretty nifty idea. I wouldn't find learning to do that mod myself if such a tutorial existed.

No tutorial necessary. You needa switch template and shape a piece of metal to match the arcs. Ross has the templates on their website.

The you insert a metal shaft, drill a hole, and make some mechanical linkage to move it with the points. You should probably remove the frog to do the work.

@AGHRMatt posted:

No tutorial necessary. You needa switch template and shape a piece of metal to match the arcs. Ross has the templates on their website.

The you insert a metal shaft, drill a hole, and make some mechanical linkage to move it with the points. You should probably remove the frog to do the work.

Any idea what the dimensions of the ramp in the flangeways of the frog are? Wonder if it could be built without it? Wonder if the flangeway gaps could be decreased a bit if only using modern MTH Proto 3/2 engines and code 145 or 172 rolling stock? I think I will test build a #5 and 36r turnout. I will use scale ties and spacing but the inner dimensions of Ross and see what happens. I like quirky projects like this so why not? Can probably knock it out this weekend.

@jonnyspeed posted:

Any idea what the dimensions of the ramp in the flangeways of the frog are? Wonder if it could be built without it? Wonder if the flangeway gaps could be decreased a bit if only using modern MTH Proto 3/2 engines and code 145 or 172 rolling stock? I think I will test build a #5 and 36r turnout. I will use scale ties and spacing but the inner dimensions of Ross and see what happens. I like quirky projects like this so why not? Can probably knock it out this weekend.

It has been so long I don't remember. I do remember that the MTH, Intermountain and Atlas scale wheels are 172 tread and don't really have problems with Ross #5 turnouts. My Pecos River Brass cars have a narrower tread but didn't have problems either. I converted a trio of Lionel mill gondolas using the Lionel wheel sets which are about code 145 and they worked as well.

Slipping shims into the flangeways would probably reduce the "bobble" but probably aren't necessary.

What I did find is that you get the occasional car that seems to derail for no apparent reason. I have a couple of those and ironically they never derailed on a turnout. Go figure.