No short cuts

Especially if you're running sound, I would not recommend taking any short cuts if you can avoid it.  While a keep alive capacitor will help, why rely on it?  Properly powering a frog is not that difficult, and it only has to be done once for each turnout.  After that, you'll be giving your engines the best possible chance to run reliably.  There's nothing like an engine suddenly screeching to a halt and restarting to ruin the illusion we're trying to create.

I like the idea of powering

I like the idea of powering the frogs as well. There is more room under a layout than in a locomotive and the locos with the least amount of room are the ones that benefit the most from having powered frogs.

The frogs only need to be powered once and in many cases can be powered via the same mechanisms we are using to throw the turn out, the only additional cost is the wire.

I also like the idea that in an emergency loss of power will stop the locomotive, think of lift gates that are open and have a short section of dead track in front of them a locomotive that is equiped with a keep alive just might make it to the floor.

Now your desires and circumstances may be different than mine so if you feel the need to do the keep alive thing by all means do so. I just listed the things for me that would make me choose not to do so.

This isn't about the

This isn't about the pros/cons of turnout wiring, and I don't have any how-to photos, but I put the TCS Keep Alive KA1 into the cab roof of my LL SD9s using a dab of Woodland Scenics track glue.  All of the SD9s have Tsunami boards and speakers, and the only place without removing more weight castings is the ceiling of the cab.  You can't see it through the windows.

 "I put the TCS Keep Alive

 "I put the TCS Keep Alive KA1 into the cab roof of my LL SD9s using a dab of Woodland Scenics track glue.  All of the SD9s have Tsunami boards and speakers, and the only place without removing more weight castings is the ceiling of the cab."

    Thanks Milt, I'll look into that one. Have you had any chance to see if the capacitor eliminates stalls or could power a loco across a dead frog? ....DaveB

Really interested.

I have been thinking along the same lines, but in terms of On30. ( more space, I hope). I have the same impression; that is, that advances in electrical systems may make it possible to greatly simplify the construction of a layout.

I hasten to note that this applies to the construction of a new layout, designed with the difficulties that such an approach introduces. (Every solution generates new problems!)

With that in mind, some thoughts related to thoughts expressed above: (Refutation is encouraged.)

"why rely on it? "

 Why not, if it proves to be reliable? That is what this thread is about...trying a different approach with some preliminary investigation as to whether it has a chance of being reliable. 

 "I would not recommend taking any short cuts if you can avoid it." , 

Why not, if it gets you there faster (and, perhaps, cheaper)?

Understood that in some circumstances, a "shortcut" gets you lost in the wilderness...but sometimes it gets you there faster and no worse for wear.  That, again, is what this thread is about: can I get there faster and none the worse for wear? 

"The frogs only need to be powered once" 

So do the loco's, and if I have twelve turnouts and only two loco's, I am probably going to come out ahead financially and in terms of effort if I go this route. 

Again, refutation is encouraged. I am not trying to pick a fight here, or to belittle anyone's observations; I am thinking along these lines and would have no problem with someone demonstrating conclusively where my thinking is at fault.

Again, I am very interested in where this thread might lead.

David Stewart

Applying a Tactical Solution to a Strategic Error...

Dear Dave S,

- Assuming One is using a control system which needs wheel/rail contact,
any condition where a wheel is stopped from contacting live rails is an inherrent, fundamental failure.

This holds for both:
- any rail which is not powered
- and wheel on the loco which is not acting as an active pickup
(all wheel pickup, all the time : not just a cute thing to say, it's a way of life)

- The 30sec time One saves now during initial turnout wiring will come back to bite in the minutes,
if not hours or days of frustration when One adds/runs another loco that is not KA-equipped by default,
and simply cannot negotiate the electrical grand-canyon of an isolation gap the "shortcut" has effectively presented.

IE We are creating an obvious fault condition,
and then wilfully ignoring it's existance any time we add a loco to the roster, or run a train over the area.

...oh, and no-one has said anything about loco speed+current-demand VS "KA-uptime" duration...

Sure it is possible to "jump the gap" with a
- KA-equipped
- long-wheelbase
- all-wheel-pickup loco
- when moving at speed,

but what of a switcher or other short-wheelbase loco regularly crawling/stopping/reversing direction over a series-of-dead-frogs on a yard throat?

Crawling slowly back/forwards accross a series of dead-frogs will push the KA's "uptime" capability,
(for every dead-frog the KA is forced to use a portion of it's "power cache"),

and the same "dead frog" situation which the KA is keeping the loco moving over is exactly the same situation which will not give the KA a chance to recharge enough before it is called to "keep the loco moving" again.
(Run a KA-equipped loco over a series of dead-frog turnouts, and the KA has to "give a bit" every time.
Hit it with enough "dead frog" situations in close succession as is typical of a yard throat,
and the KA has to "keep giving" with no chance to recover/recharge.
This is a un-winnable situation).

Worst case scenario, I have seen a Life-Life/P2K sound-equipped switcher sitting mid-way down a yard throat of dead-frog turnouts.
Due to the turnout and loco length, it happened that both trucks were isolated on the same side simultaneously. The KA did a valiant effort to keep the loco "up" for 5 seconds,
esp given the power demands of the sound decoder and # of Lights in the "ON" state,
but with No Incoming Power, the switcher still "died" on the rails,
was understandably non-responsive
and required a nudge from the 0-5-0 switcher to get moving again...
(...And yes, understandably confused, the guest operator Did turn to the Layout Owner and ask 
"doesn't that loco have a KA installed???")

The shorter the active pickup wheelbase of the loco in question, the more likely such a situation is to occur.

Furthur, while less quantifiable, the cumulative frustration of "poor-pickup situations"/"stuttering operation" can rapidly lead to dis-illusionment with the layout, the trains, and in extreme cases, the hobby entirely.
(Viz some of the comments in recent Battery-powered threads, particularly Verne Niner's experiences in On30)

What's that worth???

- Given that a suitable microswitch and few lengths of wire cost < AUD$4,

- provides a solution which is completely hands-off in operation, 
(if you throw the turnout, the frog switches with it, automatically, no extra manual interaction reqd!)
- and is entirely back/forwards compatible with both analog and DCC,
- for any/all old/new/visiting locos you may run on the layout,

I'd be very intrigued to see a single KA unit which can achieve the same for any/all locos for the cost.

Sometimes, sure, but this is not one of "those Times". We may not be "worse for wear" in the sense that we got thru the wiring 30-seconds faster, but the ongoing subsequent pain of unreliable operations will most certainly wear on our nerves, our efforts to achieve smooth-running, and dare I say it, our long-term fun
(see above)

.As above, if the control system in use relies on active wheel/rail contact,
deliberately not powering any rail,
let along the frog area where wheel/rail contact is at it's most-critical,
consciously creating a large isolation gap is it's own "setting oneself up for failure" self-forfilling prophecy.

Re Doing it once, properly

Respectfully, lets check that:
12 turnouts @ $4/microswitch = $48
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SM1039

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2049718

VS

2x TCS KA-1 keep alive units (cheapest option) = $55.90
http://tcsdcc.com/Zen/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=69

OR

2x SoundTraxx Current-Keeper units = $49.90
http://www.soundtraxx.com/access/wiring.php

and that _assumes_:

- One can fit the KA/CK units in the locos-in-question
(shoehorning sound decoder, + speaker + KA in a space-challenged switcher or hood unit,
what's that worth in time and effort? If the answer is measured in "hours", the microswitches have us covered)

- that the locos will be the Only and Ever units on the layout
(any visiting or "I just had to buy it" locos will still "fall in the gap" and stall).

Let's consider also that it's always the smaller locos (switchers, trackmobiles, etc) which need the most help with pickup, and yet these locos are the ones with the lack of sufficient space to hold a KA/CK unit.

SO, with price being a wash,
and a one-time install of a microswitch on the turnout solving the issue permanently for any and all locos you may run on the layout, (inc those tiny switchers which cannot fit a KA/CK, and yet are the ones that need to most help),

I have to say I'd struggle to understand why one would not power the frogs...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS if we're talking about "powering the frogs", I have to assume the turnouts One has spent $$$ acquiring for the layout were deliberately chosen, and the "metal/live-frog" configuration known ahead of time.
If the thought was "I'm never going to power the frogs, no need and no want-to",
then I have to ask, why weren't plastic "dead frog" turnouts purchased to begin with?

PPS assuming metal "live" frog turnouts with built-in frog-isolating gaps, it's very likely that the modeller will already be soldering feed-jumpers between the stock and adjacent switch/closure rails for reliable operation anyway. Are we saying that with the soldering-iron already hot, and the turnout already being "wired up", that one more wire (green, to the frog, "because frogs are green" ),
is really that-much more effort to the point of being "too much"?

PPPS in Engineering, there's a concept which says "better to build reliable and avoid a problem from the outset,
than design a problem into a system and have to apply patch-after-patch to avoid the issue later"...

Said another way, by a modeller familar to many here onlist:
"...(you're) deploying a Tactical solution to what-is-a Strategic error..."

Ath SW1500s : Sound + Speaker + Mech + KA?

Dear Dave B,

Starting with this excellent PDF from SoundTraxx
http://www.soundtraxx.com/documents/appnotes/SW1000&SW-1500App.pdf

you can get a good starting-point impression of how much room there isn't in a HH-era Ath SW1500.

If you figure it's possible to fit a KA or CK unit in there in addition to the sound install shown,
without visually intruding into the cab area,
(difficult with the large "glass" expanses which made the SW1500 so good for switching sightlines), 

then by all means...

Personally, I'd just spend the time one-time wiring the turnouts, and enjoy the confidence and operational reliability that follows...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS unfortunately ST don't have a PDF for the Atlas GP7. However, if the Atlas GP38 is in any way similar...
http://www.soundtraxx.com/documents/appnotes/atl_emdgp38-2.pdf

Dave, the KA1 seems to be

Dave, the KA1 seems to be able to give me 3-5 seconds of power/sound. I have proven to myself that it will get you through a "dead" section of track equivalent to a turnout unless you are proceeding at a VERY slow rate.

But, assuming you can fit the KA1 in your loco, you still need to have reliable contact with the rails 99.999 percent of the time.  After a loco has passed over a dead section, it needs reliable power again to replenish the KA1.

I have applied the KA1s as additional insurance against annoying drop outs of power/sound, especially when running in MU operation.  It has effectively eliminated these drop-outs layout-wide.  I have been blessed financially such that I can afford the KA1 application.  At $25US each, its cost must be considered.

Again, this is not a comment on building reliable track, just the performance of a Keep Alive.

" the KA1 seems to be able to

" the KA1 seems to be able to give me 3-5 seconds of power/sound. I have proven to myself that it will get you through a "dead" section of track equivalent to a turnout unless you are proceeding at a VERY slow rate."

  Thanks Milt,  The 3-5 seconds sounds like enough for my purposes. I ran my O layout with dead frogs and found most locos could get across them just using the power from the truck that was not on the dead frog so these capacitors will probably only be for insurance purposes if the live truck happens to hit a dirty spot while the other truck is on the frog. I'll probably lay a couple of switches and try a loco with the system before doing the whole layout....DaveB

" "why rely on it? "  Why

" "why rely on it? "

 Why not, if it proves to be reliable? That is what this thread is about...trying a different approach with some preliminary investigation as to whether it has a chance of being reliable. "

     I've found dead frogs are pretty much reliable with most diesels so adding a capacitor might be all I'd need to be 100% reliable. The big advantage I see is nothing under the table to install or maintain. No switch motors or micro switch or extra frog wire. I'd like hand thrown turnouts so not having the motors would be no problem, I don't need signaling or route lights so the contacts are not needed. If battery control gets better I wouldn't need powered frogs anyway so it might be worth not doing the extra work now? I'll proceed slowly ( glacially as I always do) and test a bit of track first before deciding, I can always screw a blue point controller under there if necessary later..DaveB

Professor,

Thank you for your salient observations. For my part, I think you have refuted the concept. It is the introduction of a tactic that is contradictory to very nature of the system that powers the models

On the cost factor, I'm glad I didn't outright declare that it was going to absolutely save me money...I admit that I was using a fairly deluxe method of actuating switches (ala LK&O, for example) as a cost standard, say, roughly, $10.00 a switch; the selection of the number twelve was a somewhat disingenuous means of putting me ahead with those numbers for the cost of equipping a couple of locomotives. (He smiles, innocently.)

Going back to the originally stated goals of DaveB (I hope, sir that these posts are illuminating the subject rather than diverting it) of keeping construction and subsequent operation as simple and straight forward as possible, how does one best employ a finger flip, over center spring method of throwing switches and power the frogs?

Thanks,

David Stewart 

Is a powered frog always necessary?

I also plan to use over center spring switches, Peco to be exact, thrown by hand. I plan to use Insulfrog switches, no power. I want to keep it as simple as possible, both to build and to operate. I like reaching in to the switch I want to throw and manually throwing it.  I will be running four-axle diesels almost exclusively, HO, and don't expect problems over the turnouts.  Am I wrong? I'd run all battery-powered with no power to the switches or tracks at all if things were just a bit further along in that area.  Track power is the devil, but I digress.  

Randy

Is a powered frog always necessary?

   The only place I found it absolutely necessary was a four wheel "critter" running over a curved #20 turnout where the length of dead frog was longer than the tiny loco's wheelbase. for that one frog and one loco I added a toggle to the fascia that could be set to power the frog with correct polarity for the desired route. With normal turnouts and four wheel diesels 3 of the 4 axles are on powered rail at all times so a keep alive capacitor would only need to serve as  backup power if the other 3 axles somehow get on dirty rail at the same time( of course some effort will need to be taken to ensure that all the pickup wires are connected to the trucks so you are not actually drawing power from 2 axles instead of 4 axles). .DaveB

Dear Dave B, No switch

Dear Dave B,

All of my last 5 show layouts used Caboose-Industries ground throws and micro switches.
If you're taking the time to install ground-throws, adding a micro switch is less than a minute's "time penalty" n overall task duration.

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

I think, Professor,

that his intention is to employ the finger or skewer flick method of manually throwing his switches...no ground throws, no nuttin'.

Is a powered frog always necessary?

I think the answer would be no...but i think the Professor's observations show that it is always best.

David Stewart

Randy's situation

Dear Randy,

"By Hand", do I take this to mean literally "flick the PECO throwbar",
or "by hand, via a groundthrow a la Caboose Industries"?

PECO turnouts will certainly handle either, 
although some modellers have noted the former technique may introduce skin oils and other contaminants to the turnout directly...

That's cool, UK modellers have been using PECO Insulfrog turnouts on both analog and DCC layouts for decades now without any of the handwringing or stress iver such deployments as commonly seen in the US.
(and check out the average UK loco, much smaller and shorter active-pickup footprint than most any US B-B diesel! ).

Insulfrogs will certainly do that. However, be aware that at least for older Insulfrogs,
the contact point between the switchrail and the stock rail was the primary method of providing power to the "chosen route".

A small jumper between said rails will negate the "insul" part of the "Insulfrog" design,
(IE the not-selected route will no longer be electrically "dead"),

but will Up the reliability stakes, particularly for show work
(as me how I know this).

As long as you take care that there is no scenery or structures which can be snagged by errant fingers/hands/forearms/clothing, this should work fine

Unfortunately it's not quite as simple as saying "HO 4 axle diesels",
the key is the active wheelbase "footprint" of the loco relative to the position/frequency of the "dead spots",
and the length of said "dead spots".

A quick check, based purely on the locos I have readily to hand on the workbench right now:

A 4-wheel Trackmobile can be stopped cold by a single dead spot of 2",
or 2-dead-spots of 1/4" length, spaced around 1 1/2" apart

(NB arguably it only takes 1 dead spot of < 1/4" on either rail,
based on the physics concept that "a 4-legged chair only ever has 3 legs guaranteed in solid contact with the ground". However, we're giving the Trackmobile the benefit of the doubt here... )

No wonder Dave B's stopped on a long curved turnout, where the "isolated frog distance" can be measured in multiple inches. Now consider, if Dave had wired a micro switch to the turnout at point of install, he would not have had to:
- work out why the trackmobile was stalling
- retrofit a manual switch
- and remember to throw said manual switch appropriately anytime any loco negotiates the turnout
Did someone say "setting a (continually annoying) problem for oneself"?

A 44tonner can be stopped by a dead-spot 3 1/2" long,
or a pair of 1" long dead spots on the same rail which happen to be 1 1/2" apart

A SW7/9/900/1200 has an active pickup wheelbase of 4 1/2", and can be stopped by a dead-spot of same length, or 2x dead spots 1" long spaced 2 1/2" apart.

A 8-40CW can be stopped by an 8" long dead spot, or a pair of 2" long dead spots 4" apart

In practical terms, a HO EMD SW switcher, on either analog or DCC, with all-wheel pickup known-working correctly, should be able to crawl accross a series of PECO #5 code 83 "US Geometry" turnouts end-to-end without issue,
(dead-frog occurance =/= same length as active pickup wheelbase, at least 2-axles on each rail are always in contact),

and a GP2x, 3x, or 4x loco, should be capable of same.

FWIW, I just measured it, the distance between frogs on a pair of entirely-stock, fresh-out-of-packet PECO #5 Code 83 "US Geometry" turnouts heel-to-toe along the straight route is exactly 8". If you have a loco with a truck<> truck bolster measurement of 8", then it is entirely possible that the loco could straddle "2x dead spots" simultaneously, and be isolated.

No, i don't think you are wrong by any stretch. However, there's "making it work by sheer hapstance",
and then there's "doing just enough research, and being prep'd to put in as much effort as the research reveals is required, to confidently say 'I Know this will work' ".

Not sure I agree with this characterisation of wheel/track contact systems. As above:
- get the basics done right
- do them once
- and enjoy the results forever more
(and a swish of graphite on the railheads to promote surface contact every so often doesn't hurt... )

Battery Power/Control is a logical and very-do-able solution for situations where the mission requires it,
(I'm thinking primarily of the loggers who desperately want to model Pole-road and spar-line wood-railed operations),

but again, for common situations where there is a working "power-buss" (IE the rails)
available anywhere the trains will be,
(if not, then the train is derailed, and you have more basic inherrent issues to attend to! ),

having to (as opposed to wanting to​) use Battery power to overcome a situation suggests to me that again,
we're using a Tactical Solution to patch-over/around an inherrent Strategic Error...
(Willy Occum was onto something).

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Can, Should, Optimised

Dear Dave S,

Understood, and I'm the first to admit that for quick testing and other ad-hoc purposes, I'm not "above" just slapping down some track on whatever flat surface is available, sans micro-switches/groundthrows/anything extra. (and yes, PECO is my Go-To brand of track and turnouts for such missions ).

However, building a layout, whether for home or "touring" use, is not "ad-hoc" in nature. We want and expect more from a "solid layout" installation. Indeed, our "fun quotient" from the hobby is in no-small-measure influenced by the reliability, both mechanical and electrical, of the operation of the trains.

One of the key differentiators between model-trains and most other forms of scale-modelling is that trains automatically have the movement characteristic and inherrent in the prototype appeal. "Lack-of-movement-capability" renders a model train no more "exciting" in "first-glance-appeal" terms than a static plastic model.

Ergo, to achieve the reliability-level we (consciously or otherwise) expect out of our hard-won hobby time and equipment, the deployment has to "cross the t's and dot the lower-case j's"...

If I may be so bold as to re-assign the emphasis:

Q: Is a powered frog always necessary?

A: Not Always, assuming:
- the turnout is suitably designed/constructed as a unit
- the turnout is suitably installed
- the turnout is suitably installed WRT the surrounding trackage in context
(EG series of turnouts/dead-areas "yard-throat" style)

- the turnout is suitable wired WRT the surrounding trackage in context
(EG series of turnouts yard-throat style)

- the locos and powered-units envisaged to run over said turnout are of suitable pickup-footprint length
(Dave B's Trackmobile-VS-curved-turnout situation)

- the locos and powered-units envisaged to run over said turnout are suitably configured WRT pickup operation
(a all-wheel-pickup 4-axle diesel with a broken pickup wire to one of the trucks is not operating "as all-wheel-pickup" any longer. Do not blame the turnout or wiring for a loco-based issue).

However, virtually all of the caveats/"conditions which must all be OK for the answer to be True" listed above can be eliminated from consideration, if only for the 30-seconds time and effort it takes to install a micro-switch or similar... 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Micro switch ground throw

On the subject of manual, inexpensive ground throws and power routing, I very successfully used inexpensive (purchased in bulk) SPDT slide switches to do both jobs at once.  The idea is hardly a new or unique one, and it worked beautifully.  I didn't even do any under-layout wiring.  Instead, I wired the switches on the bench, and then dropped them into holes beside the turnouts and soldered the wires to the proper rails.

For me, it was a no-brainer.  While it might not have been absolutely mandatory, I would much rather never have to worry about it.  As long as I am using rails to power my models, I'll do everything I can to make sure that the rails are powering my models all the time.

...

A stitch in time saves nine.

BTW really digging the new editor.

Low tech turnout control

Here is what I have done on the Ruphe and Tumbelle.

I wanted something cheap but bulletproof, and eventually came up with the idea of using regular household 3-way switches to control both the mechanical movement as well as flipping the polarity of the frog. I link the switch with the turnout using RC airplane control lines (basically a metal cable in a plastic tube).

This is what it looks like at the fascia end:

The only modification to the switch is drilling a small hole in the toggle to accept the fancy clevis that comes with the RC line. I bent up a zig zag wire spring to place between the switch and RC line as the switch throw is much more than your average turnout. You can see the beginning of the RC line at the far left.

I was originally going to run a wire from the toggle out to the fascia and stick a knob of some kind onto it but realized that this would clutter up my fascia, get snagged on peoples clothing and there was really no reason for it. I simply label the fascia, right above the toggle, and it is an easy proccess to reach under and flip the switch.

You can then run the RC line anywhere you need. My turnouts have PCB throw bars so I simply solder the cable to them.

If I were to do this again I would use a length of thinner wire to span this area as it would look more like the real bar that connects the switch stand with the turnout.

I've been using this system for 6 years now and have never had a failure. Assembly is easy as you can do most of the work at the bench, slide the cable into the tube and screw on the toggle which is conveniently located at the front of the layout, not in some dark inaccessible corner. Wiring is easy also, no soldering, just the screw terminals on the toggle.

That's my system, for what it's worth.

household 3-way switch installation

Very elegant installation Rick.  I've been mulling over different ways to use those inexpensive but robust and mechanically well-suited switches but had never considered using a spring-loaded cable between the toggle and the throwbar. (My thoughts were to mount them sideways under the points with a vertical wire in the toggle via a pivot to the points).

Your setup is much more flexible and as you point out, should be easy to set up with a prototypical throw bar. 

Very cool, thanks for posting this!

Jeff A.

Shorts in powered frogs?

Thank you, Dave B, for bringing up this subject just in time for me. I was this close to ordering CurrentKeepers for some of my locos.

And thank you, Prof K, for strongly making the case for always powering the frogs.

I have not run much trains on my layout the last weeks, but the last couple of days I have done some switching with my Bachmann S4 SoundValue. It used to run very fine, but guess what, now it had problems stalling at some of the frogs in my yard, even in one Atlas #8 which do have a frog juicer.

Strange, the track might need some cleaning, but so also the wheels on that engine, or maybe there is a loose wire. I had not planned to install a CurrentKeeper/KeepAlive in that loco which has factory installed sound. Your post and this engine make it clear that I shall use powered frogs were ever possible, and do it from the start on.

But what do you do if you run against the switch causing a short in the frog? You're crew might be well trained and do not do that, or the enginere run as far as possible to switch to let the brakeman walk be short. A frogjuicer would deal with this easy and fast, but the microswitches or slideswitches would not.

I know some guys use a lamp, and some uses a polyswitch or multifuse. These are cheap off Ebay and relative simple to install. What are you're thoughts on this?

Sound's the villain

The advent of sound-equipped locomotives brought the frog problem back to the forefront. It really shatters the illusion to hear a sound engine cut out, go silent, and then restart over a dead frog.

We're using Bluepoint switch controllers http://www.ppw-aline.com/Blue_Point_Manual_Turnout_Control.htm to solve the problem on our club's layout in many locations. There's only a linkage to fabricate and the price is acceptable when they're bought in lots of 10.

The club's electronic tinkerer has also created a polarity-switching circuit using a magnetic switch and neodymium magnets glued to the arm of a Caboose Industries switchstand, but these require his custom circuit board and a little more work to install.

Because it is a club layout and motive power can come and go, for us modifying the track switches is a better solution than modifying the engines.

Turnouts

Back in the early 1980's our club layout was put in with all handlaid track and turnouts. PFM switch machines. No issues, EXCEPT, solder with Sal Ammoniac flux was used and came back to haunt us about twenty years later with feeders eventually coning loose at times, corrosion. The flux was good for making a solder connection and a couple people decided that was the way to go.

Rich