Points - the achilles heel
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:40 am
I've been intending to try and get some technical biased threads on the board to stimulate the practically minded members into developing things for the gauge. Having seen Ivan Furnace's superb thread on custom points, I thought I'd provide some background information.
Points...or switches..are the one weakness in T gauge, and there have been attempts to create custom versions as an alternative to the Eishindo standard versions. For those not familiar with the points, here's one point in Robins Run. For information, the manual switching bar has been replaced with one that is operated from underneath by a cable....which is why there's no sign of anything to change it!
So...whats the problem with the point?
Mechanically its not that bad. Everything seems to run through the points fairly reliably without derailing. My own experience is that there needs to be a straight leading into the point to reduce the likelyhood of carriages derailing.
The big issue is the electrical properties of the point. A power unit picks up power from both axles in both bogies. Referring to the following photo, a loco entering the points in the direction of the blue arrow will be picking up power from all 4 axles. As the front bogie passes from A to B, it can't pick up power....and the same thing happens for the rear bogie. Theoretically, at least two axles can pick up power at all times....but in the (dirty) real world, the chance of the loco stopping or stuttering is very high. And as 4-wheel power cars are getting nearer, the distance from A to B is likely to be greater than the wheelbase....resulting in power loss!
Now how do we solve the problem? The problem being the excessively long "dead spot" in the metal rails. With a bit of magic with Paint Shop Pro, lets replace the two little brass strips with bigger moving blades made out of rail profile steel: The point looks better...and it looks as if wagons, etc should run more reliably through the point. And the "dead spot" has been reduced down......but I'm not sure if the stopping/stuttering issue has been addressed. The "dead spot" is still greater than the wheelbase of a bogie...so there will still be a point where the power pick-up capability drops from 4 to 2 axles.
Okay...continuing the design change in Paint Shop Pro, lets get rid of that triangle of plastic and replace it with metal: Thats got the "dead spot" down to a couple of millimetres, which is less than wheelbase of a bogie...which is about as far as we can go. Problem solved? Not really! Put power onto the track, +ve to the upper rail and -ve to the lower rail...and BANG! You're PWM controller is shorted out and blown! The metal insert has shorted the rail!
We now need to consider how the point needs to work electrically. Here's my suggested solution: Put an isolation break at the two points indicated by the orange arrows. (I've put these far enough away from the points to make modification to the existing point feasible. There shouldn't be any issue with them being closer to the triangle.) The three sections of rail, the "vee" where the rails converge A, and the two blades B & C need to be powered via a switch operated by the blade movement so that they're the same polarity as the rail the blade is moved to.
So there's the design challenge. Ivan has made a start on his version. I'd love to know if there are any others out there.....
Points...or switches..are the one weakness in T gauge, and there have been attempts to create custom versions as an alternative to the Eishindo standard versions. For those not familiar with the points, here's one point in Robins Run. For information, the manual switching bar has been replaced with one that is operated from underneath by a cable....which is why there's no sign of anything to change it!
So...whats the problem with the point?
Mechanically its not that bad. Everything seems to run through the points fairly reliably without derailing. My own experience is that there needs to be a straight leading into the point to reduce the likelyhood of carriages derailing.
The big issue is the electrical properties of the point. A power unit picks up power from both axles in both bogies. Referring to the following photo, a loco entering the points in the direction of the blue arrow will be picking up power from all 4 axles. As the front bogie passes from A to B, it can't pick up power....and the same thing happens for the rear bogie. Theoretically, at least two axles can pick up power at all times....but in the (dirty) real world, the chance of the loco stopping or stuttering is very high. And as 4-wheel power cars are getting nearer, the distance from A to B is likely to be greater than the wheelbase....resulting in power loss!
Now how do we solve the problem? The problem being the excessively long "dead spot" in the metal rails. With a bit of magic with Paint Shop Pro, lets replace the two little brass strips with bigger moving blades made out of rail profile steel: The point looks better...and it looks as if wagons, etc should run more reliably through the point. And the "dead spot" has been reduced down......but I'm not sure if the stopping/stuttering issue has been addressed. The "dead spot" is still greater than the wheelbase of a bogie...so there will still be a point where the power pick-up capability drops from 4 to 2 axles.
Okay...continuing the design change in Paint Shop Pro, lets get rid of that triangle of plastic and replace it with metal: Thats got the "dead spot" down to a couple of millimetres, which is less than wheelbase of a bogie...which is about as far as we can go. Problem solved? Not really! Put power onto the track, +ve to the upper rail and -ve to the lower rail...and BANG! You're PWM controller is shorted out and blown! The metal insert has shorted the rail!
We now need to consider how the point needs to work electrically. Here's my suggested solution: Put an isolation break at the two points indicated by the orange arrows. (I've put these far enough away from the points to make modification to the existing point feasible. There shouldn't be any issue with them being closer to the triangle.) The three sections of rail, the "vee" where the rails converge A, and the two blades B & C need to be powered via a switch operated by the blade movement so that they're the same polarity as the rail the blade is moved to.
So there's the design challenge. Ivan has made a start on his version. I'd love to know if there are any others out there.....