What I have done

Greg-

I cannot comment on the "feeling like a brakeman" aspect, but I can tell you what I have done to control my turnouts with servos.

I use Iowa Scaled Engineering (an MRH advertiser) Micro-servo control boards.  They are very reasonably priced, and they offer quantity discounts.  I use the version (MRservo 2)  that has metallic DP-DT reed relay contacts in addition to the servo motor control.  I use one set of contacts to power my frog (no MERG a phobic short circuits).  I use the other set of contacts to control a bi-color red/green LED that shows the direction of the turnout.  I use a separate LED for each turnout route, so one is red when the other is green.  Easy to do this with one set of contacts by wiring the 2 LEDs in series, but with colors reversed, sharing a single resistor. The servo control circuit board includes very nice terminal screws for connecting everything.  Way better than using Tortoise, in my opinion, and less expensive for a fuller feature set.  The servo and control board are very small, and low profile, and not difficult to mount.  The small size has saved me in several cases where I ended up having the throwbar precariously close to a benchwork joist.

I have used about 20 of these so far on my layout (a few more still to go) and have been very happy with them.  Initially I used the "microservo" motors that Iowa Scale can supply (at a very reasonable price).  I found that I got better results with my turnouts (they are a little stiff, built the Joe Fugate Central Valley way) using a slightly larger servo motor.  My first couple of installations involved a bit of fiddling around, but now the installs go very smoothly.

I built one control panel that uses decent looking black toggle switches to control 8 turnouts.  No indicator lights on that one. But, friends who visit the layout seem captivated by the control panel, maybe more than by the trains sometimes.  I am in the process of building a second fancier control panel, with the red/green indicator lights, to control a yard.  I am using a Circut to cut styrene for this more ambitious control panel.  (When I have it done, I will post a new thread about it, with photos of the panel and the construction process).

Let me know if you want any further details.  I can't speak highly enough of Iowa Scaled Engineeering and their great customer service.

Dennis

I use DCC Concepts Cobalt IP

I use DCC Concepts Cobalt IP motors (not cheap at $20 a pop). These are DCC slow action motors  and provide a built in frog manager. I slave off that to drive two colour LEDs which show me how the switch is set. I then use my Digitrax handset to change the point (sorry, I come from the same country as MERG).

This feels, to me, like I am the brakeman as I can check the orientation and the do the throw.

David

"I think the cost would be

    If you want working ground throws or switch stands you might be able to eliminate the frog juicers by using Keep Alive capacitors in your engines. I'm going to try it on my new layout since the downside of trying is so small. I'm modeling a shortline with no dispatcher or tower controlled turnouts so fascia toggles and control panels would be out of place. For a busy commuter line or mainline junction I'd go the other way.....DaveB 

Cut to the Chase...

Dear Greg,

Firstly, I believe the "no short is a good short" ethos from the MERG group has been discussed previously

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/29718

In short (pun not intended), it's a theoretically-valid concern,
which simply does not transpire into an actual show-stopping issue in Real-World deployments.

(I'm reminded of a phrase from my Cert 3 Electronics teacher,
"...The difference between Theory and Practise is that,
in theory, there is no difference,
but in practise there most definitely is...:"

I'm sure Duncan from TVD could provide verified numbers of "satisfied Real-World Frog-Juicer users" if it was really required...)

Second, if your "brakeman experience" requirement can be distilled-down into
"needing to actually get physically hands-on to throw the turnout",

then almost by-definition having to "just flip an (electrical) switch" likely won't cut it...
(mounting the switches individually adjacent to the turnout-being-controlled will help,
centralising all of the switches into a single control panel definitely won't "feel brakeman"...

...if  you don't have to either walk-to or pre-position yourself to control the turnout the loco needs next,
and apply some degree of physical effort to effect the actual throwing,
it isn't like a local brakeman on-the-ground...)

Third, there is a even cheaper solution which still covers the "need to feel like a brakeman" hands-on experience _and_ powers the frog,

IE simply deploy CI throws
(using W-i-T connections if you feel strongly about "not having an oversized throw in-the-scene, right-next-to-track"),

_and_

a simple micro-switch, thrown by the CI mech or turnout throwbar, to switch the frog polarity.
(It even avoids anything needing to "create a short" to trigger any switching circuitry,
thus keeping the MERG team happy...
...although based on the number of related posts here on MRH in that last, say, 2 years, 
the number of modellers who apparently willfully-or-otherwise drive recklessly thru any/every/all turnouts without checking to see if it's set For the intended loco movement or Against it is, shall we say, "concerning",
deploying microswitches will not save such "reckless engineers" from themselves...)

If you really want to "go mad with wires",
(I've been there, I get it , I really do  ),

there's no reason why you can't add a "mimic panel"
(routing indicator panel) to indulge the "circuit mania",

but still keep the physical TUI controls seperate and "pure manual"
(Have cake + eat to?)

Fourth, CI + MicroSW is simple, reliable, cheaper than deploying _any_ level of "smart electronics" on the layout itself,
and completely avoids the false-sense-of-security, equipment-compatibility-limiting,
needing-a-Tactical-solution-to-overcome-a-basic-Strategic-Error 
combination Dead-Frog + KA combination "solution"...

I hope this helps...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Caboose Industries and micro switch

I do not disagree with anything that the Professor has said.  I think it comes down to a matter of taste, along with what type of prototype experience you want to mimic.  I am the sort who enjoys wires and electronics.   I am having a good time designing and building my latest control panel.  It is an excuse to try out some new techniques.  And, as I said in my previous reply, many of my visitors (they are not railroad buffs) really like playing with the switch panel.  To each his own.

I would only add that Caboose Industries sells versions of their ground throws that include a set of SPDT contacts that can be used to power the frog.  The mechanical mechanism and outward appearance of these ground throws is the same as the regular ones.  I have used them once on a small layout that I built for a grandson.  They worked fine, but I do not know if they pose a long term reliability issue.  The contact mechanism looked a little bit questionable to me, but it worked.  It might be simpler to just mount these (you have to drill a hole, ideally a rectangle to let the 3 contact leads pass through, unlike for non-contact CI throws) versus mounting a microswitch so that it is activated by the ground throw in a reliable way.

Dennis

@Dennis

I have looked long and hard at Iowa Scaled Engineering. I think they make some great products and I love their opensource hardware approach. I was almost convinced to go that way. However, I can't argue with MERG's pricing on components that do a similar task. A servo mount with microswitches is $1.89 (I'll quote in USD for convenience to most readers) Their electronic control board is $2.00, yes, 2 bucks! Of course, I have to build it myself. A DPDT toggle switch is $0.31 and a servo $4.95. At those prices i have complete control with a powered frog for $9.15.

Now, there is more to the story than mere dollars and the Iowa Scaled product is more elegant than the MERG unit but the Iowa Scaled unit, with a servo is $14.00 in the quantity I would need. 5 bucks is 5 bucks! ($6.87 CDN) I'll agree, not a huge difference but I like the DIY aspect of MERG.

I have looked at the Caboose ground throw with contacts and am less than confident that they will stand up. 

Looking at Tam Valley, they have a similar product, all in one unit that is slightly more expensive at $32.49 but that includes a DCC controller build onto the board. Interesting.

@The Prof

Interesting points professor, yes I was part of the discussion on shorts etc... and am convinced that it is not an issue.

I had not considered the ground throw with micro switch, but it would require me to rig up some sort of mounting solution, not hard but still, a frig. 

In the end, it comes down to my preference for an interface, manual or remote. 

This discussion is good and is helping through my thought processes. When you can't make a decision sometimes it is good to throw it out there and see what others think or say.

Fly by wire

I've thought about using ground throws with no mechanical connection to the actual turnout.  Just a hidden connection to a set of electrical contacts.   The status of the ground throw would be read by some other device that would actually control the turnout points and frog polarity.  Could be a direct electrical connection to a switch machine, a status input to JMRI or whatever you want.

Really, this is no different, electrically, than controlling a turnout from a switch on a control panel.  But, it provides you with the feeling of the ground throw, and all of the electrical information you would want for other purposes. 

There really isn't any requirement that the ground throw have a direct, physical connection to the points.

gs

That's an interesting concept

That's an interesting concept and one I had not thought of or heard about before. Certainly adds to my options.

I like the Fly by Wire and also: servo control algorithms

GS's thoughts are very intriguing.  Some people complain about the out-of-scale look of the throw levers of the Caboose Industries ground throws.  With his "fly by wire" approach. one could use one of several available models of realistic switch stands to represent the throw.  The hack would be to equip them with some sort of SPST contact that would be used to communicate the state to the electrical or electronic mechanism that actually gets the points to move.  Of course, that could be accomplished with a microswitch, per the Profesor.

On the other hand, personally I would probably have trouble in HO scale fumbling with a ground throw that had a lever smaller that the "too big" Caboose ones.

One of the stimulating things about this hobby for me is that there are so many different ways to get something done, and so there is a lot to consider and compare.

Greg- I totally relate to your comments about the cost comparisons of the MERG-sourced approach versus Iowa Scaled.  I would encourage you to look at the actual algorithm that the MERG software uses to operate the servo.  After a bit of study, I came to really appreciate the approach taken by Iowa Scaled.  They move the servo in one direction to move the points, hold it for maybe 0.5 seconds and then turn off the servo.  They rely on the friction in the gears inside the servo motor and the spring tension of the throw-wire to hold the points in place.  They have enough travel in the servo to "overdrive the points."  (they will customize the range of travel for you if you need).  This approach requires no calibration, and works consistently over time.  At first, I thought this was a bad way to go versus approaches where you actually calibrate the servo travel individually for each turnout.  Then you order the servo to go that amount of rotation and hold it there actively.  The issue with this approach seems to be that this is a very finicky adjustment:  too little travel and the points are not completely closed; too much travel and the servo will make noise as it keeps tryiing to push the points beyond where they are stopped mechanically.  Small drifts in servo operation over time would then mess up the point closure.  I believe that there is a discussion about this somewhere on Iowa's website.  Anyhow, take a look at this issue if you decide to use servos.

Dennis

There are other options!

Some times, a low tech

Some times, a low tech solution is a solution (Sorry, I'm late to this discussion). Why not just use a dpdt slide switch to throw the points and the contacts to control the polarity of the frog?  There are several different ways to mount the slide switch.

The simplest is to put it where you would put the caboose industries ground throw, right next to the turnout. While simple, the down side is it doesn't look very prototypical. You could also mount it at the edge of the fascia, with a pushrod to the throwbar. Basically, the pushrod is below the final scenery level. Or finally, you can mount it under the roadbed for the turnout, with a wire from the slide switch to the throwbar, as in a switch machine, and a pushrod extending to the fascia with a nice knob on the end.

The slide switch keeps pressure on the points and the contacts provide the proper polarity for the frog. Depending on with of the three methods used, the cost would be between $1.65 and $5.00 per turnout.

Also, the dpdt switch would have an additional set of contacts if you wanted indicator lights somewhere or even a signal.

Switch throws

Our club layout uses Blue Point switch machines from A-Line for switches in several locations.

They run about $1O each when bought in groups of 10. The Blue Point has a good-quality integrated electrical switch with terminals for changing frog power. Setting up the linkage is pretty simple and our only problem so far is ham-fisted operators yanking the control knobs off the assemble. Using model aircraft control cables, it's possible to fit a fairly long run between the switch location and the fascia.

https://ppw-aline.com/collections/blue-point-manual-turnout-controller

Hand of God

I would suggest that your first decision is how you want to operate, and then consider the electrical requirements after. Do you want " The Hand of God" entering the scene to throw the points, or do want to keep the hands away from your scenery, structures etc. Do you want to walk along with your train or do you want the 1950's style operating pit in the middle of the layout? My preference was to walk along with the train but not put my hand in the scene, so I settled on mechanical linkages (using DTDP Slide switches) in the facia next to each switch. I was then able to use the slide switch to control the frog and am now adding indicator lights using the spare contacts.

I tried DCC controlled switches on other layouts and really don't like them! Fooling around with the throttle and trying to remember which switch number is which is a royal pain! To me a central control panel has little to do with how a railroad operates(with the exception of large terminals), so I don't like those either. Plus I could never understand why anyone wants point motors when it is so much simpler and realistic to use a mechanical device.

To each his own, I guess.

Much to ponder.

I have some checking to do on the circuit I am planning to use to control the servos. I am concerned about servo jitter at start up etc... 

Also, I think I have come to the conclusion that I don't want the "hand of God" involved. I am going to have to have some reaching into the scene for uncoupling but my plan is to use fairly long skewers, so the hand won't have to be too close to the scenery. I am thinking anything at track level invites accidental damage of scenic elements.

This leaves a toggle on fascia approach. I think I will keep the control panels fairly small, with a representation of the track and LEDs to indicate which way the turnout is thrown using this circuit:

With the MERG servo control boards, just a spst switch is needed. In one area, the track is fairly congested so I'll have a slightly larger panel.

WIth regards to powered vs. dead frogs, I've decided I want powered. KAs are nice and a few of my locos are equipped but I'd rather rely on powered track than a capacitor unit.

@Greg: servo jitter and DCC powering

Hi Greg- One way to avoid servo jitter is to do what Iowa Scale does: use the servo to move the points, then turn it off and rely on the servo gear friction plus spring wire tension to hold things in place.  Iowa Scaled makes their software source code available on their web site, in addition to their hardware design information.

Your schematic is based on powering the LEDs from DCC track power.  Are you sure you want to do that?  Each of the colored LEDs is going to suck about 20 ma continuous from your DCC booster.  Two LEDs per turn out on at any time, so 10 turnouts will use 400 ma.  I am guessing that the MERG approach that you are considering also powers the servo microprocessor control and the servo motor from the DCC as well.  In my case I run a separate 12v bus to power my servos and LEDs.

I would agree with various posters who are saying that using no motor to throw the points is probably a lot simpler, and with things like Blue Points, it can still be done without putting your hand on the throwbar or near it.    I assume you are well aware that your great Canadian company FastTracks supplies Bull Frog mechanical mechanisms for controlling switch points.  As I recall, the Bull Frogs are less expensive than Blue Points, plus you could buy them with Loonies.  The servo approach is not the simplest, and as your thought that you need to investigate servo jitter indicates, it involves a reasonable amount of time and effort to decide how to get it "done properly."  I think it is all a matter of taste and interests-- it is a personal style issue.  At least, for me it is.

Dennis

Power

Yes, I have figured on the current consumed by the LEDs. I will have only a total of 13 turnouts and have a 5 amp booster running the layout with only one or two locos at a time so I should be OK. I do plan to run a 12v buss for the servo power.

I'm going to dig deeper into the circuit and code for the "Easy Points" circuit to see how it works and what, if anything, they do to address jitter. The MERG servo mount makes things easy for mounting and their circuit includes pots to adjust both end points and the speed of the servo. 

I chose this solution because it allows me to have frog polarity control via the micro switches on the servo mount and LED indication of turnout position without any further contacts. If I was building a larger layout I would not use this option but instead use the MERG CBUS system that has a variety of input and output modules that run on a 12v bus.

I've posted this before.......

...............but it's relevant to this discussion.  I use the HO Caboose Industries High Switch Stand in O scale and mount a micro switch underneath it.  So far they have worked well for me.

Peter