CODE 83 RAIL

[NW Modeling List]

Bob DCC switches have insulated frogs, power routing do not. Go to you hobby shop and look at one of each and you will see the difference. 
DCC does not like shorts and it can happen with power routing frogs as the wheel can create a short as it runs through the frog. Also some power routing switches have a common metal strip between the points, if the track gauge is not correct a short potential exists. 
Peco recently came out with a DCC line of switches and also larger numbers, like #8.
Hope this helps, write again if you wish. Cal Reynolds.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: NW Modeling List 
  To: NW Modeling List 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:00 PM
  Subject: Re: CODE 83 RAIL


  Cal,

  Could you say a little more about DCC problems with power routing frogs?  I've asked several hobby shop owners about this and some modelers who use DCC and they seem not to know what I'm talking about.

  Bob Simpson
  St. Paris, Ohio

  NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org> wrote:
    Ed I have used Walthers code 83 for mainline and code 70 for branches and sidings. No problems. Good road bed and carefull attention to curves, no verticals and no kinks and all my brass has no problems. My test is to back my seven car brass Southerner around the track work. If it stays on with full width diaphragms the track work is good. Some of my layout had power routing frogs, they cause trouble eventually with DCC, so I have changed them out for the DDC switches, especially in hidden and staging yards. If you use Tortoise switch machines I upgrade the wire to .030 from the .025 supplied, it just works better. It may be over kill but I put drops every 36" or so and used 14 ga for bus with Scotch suitcase connectors, they work great and beat stripping and soldering. If you have any questions get back to me off line at calvinr at northstate.net. Cal Reynolds
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: NW Modeling List 
      To: nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org 
      Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:10 AM
      Subject: CODE 83 RAIL


      As the big day approaches to start laying track, any thoughts on the best size?  Hopefully folks with more experience can advise if you've had good results with code 83 (or smaller???) from an operability, construction, cost and appearance standpoint?  Any feelings on brand names that have worked well for you?  At the cost of some of those #8 turnouts I sure don't want to make a mistake!  (Even worse to have a J fall 4 feet to the ground).

      Thanks!!

      Ed Svitil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      ________________________________________
      NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org
      To change your subscription go to
      http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list

    ________________________________________
    NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org
    To change your subscription go to
    http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Need Mail bonding?
  Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ________________________________________
  NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org
  To change your subscription go to
  http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/attachments/20070202/70458b9c/attachment.htm