Hi guys, I am trying to understand the options for controlling the points in my layout. I have completed the layout design using SCARM with Peco N-80 and I am now looking at the wiring and controls design. I would like to use change-over relays for switching power onto the point motors if possible as this would make the control neater. There would be occasions where 2 or possibly 3 sets of points would be switching simultaneously from one switch, but I need to be sure that this would work. I was considering using insulfrog turnouts with PL-10 motors but for no other reason than they were recommended by a local supplier. I have a number of questions, and if someone could give me some guidance it would be good.
1. Is there a problem with switching more than one set of points together, in terms of maximum current demand on the CDU. I'm still undecided whether to build my own controllers or use standard ones from somewhere like Gaugemaster.
2. Would there be problems with using change-over relays anyway as one side would always have a 16 volt AC supply permanently applied
3. Would I be better using Seep motors as opposed to PL-10 to allow switching with C/O relay contacts
4. Would I be better using electrofrog points as opposed to insulfrog.

I know that there are a number of ways I could get the controls to work, and people will have their own personal preferences, but I am just hoping to understand whether I can use relays in principle other that having to switch each set of point individually through a local switch.

I would recommend Electrofrog Points. Why choose Code 80 track rather than Code 55?

I envisage no issue with a CDU firing at least 2 points (in a crossover for example) and would also much prefer electrofrog points.
If space is at a premium and you haven't yet bought the track, I would recommend code 55 and the small radius points.

I agree with all the above, I would go code 55 electrofrog.

not quite sure I understand where the relays come in

Just about everyone on the forum will have their own opinions on this subject, so you are going to have to pick and choose.

It is not clear what you mean by using relays to switch power to the point motors.  None of the well-known control schemes require this, unless you want to get seriously into point and signal interlocking, which has its own pitfalls.  Quite a few of us do use latching relays alongside the point motors to do frog, signal and/or panel indicator switching instead of built-in or accessory switches on the point motor.

Point motors pros & cons:
- Seeps are cheapest and have the built-in switch, but draw a lot of current and so need heavier wiring and you can fire fewer of them at a time from a CDU.  The built-in switch can be tricky to align (they were originally designed for the wide movement of OO points, while N code 80 has a smaller throw and code 55 smaller still) and some of us find the longer-term reliability of the switch to be poor.  Other than the alignment issue, they are easy enough to mount under the board.
- Peco PL10s are mid-priced and draw less current than Seeps.  The PL10W model costs the same, throws just as hard but draws even less current, so are a better choice.  Mounting these is a bit harder, requiring either large holes in the baseboard or accessory mounting plates.  They don't have built-in switches, so if you want them you will need to add either a Peco accessory switch that never quite seems to work right or use an extra latching relay (the most reliable approach).
- Peco side-mounts - I haven't tried them and cannot comment
- Cobalt or similar stall motors are the most expensive, but have a built-in switch, give smooth low-powered operation, don't need a CDU and can be driven from a non-momentary toggle switch.  I am familiar with them from OO applications, but in N there may be issues with their large size (not as much space under an N gauge baseboard) and I don't know how effective their built-in switch would be with small-throw N gauge points.

For driving conventional point motors, there are three basic schemes:
- use AC from you controller accessory output or another supply - easiest to do, but the motors can be a bit underpowered, and throwing multiple motors at once takes a hefty power supply and heavy wiring and switches, plus there is a serious risk of a stuck switch burning out your point motors.  Not recommended.
- use a CDU - gives more power to the motors, lets you throw multiple motors the (number depending on the type of CDU and point motor), and avoids the
burnout problem (a sticky switch is harmless, it simply doesn't let the CDU recharge).  This approach (as well as the AC option) require momentary switches, so panel route indication takes a bit of effort:  push buttons, momentary contact toggles, stud and probe, passing contact lever switch, etc.  Allows diode-matrix push-button route setting.  Generally, two wires are needed from the panel for each point motor.
- use a separate DIY mini-CDU for each point motor - at a minimum this requires fitting a capacitor and two diodes to/near each point motor, but allows the use of non-momentary switches, may only require one wire per point motor from the panel and permits very easy implementation of panel route indication.  There are a couple of possible circuits in use.

If you go with Cobalt-type motors, you can use one power supply and two wires from the panel for each point motor, or two power supplies and one wire from the panel.

Electrofrog points will give better running, though require some extra insulated rail joiners, external frog switching and also can take a bit of thought to wire up properly.  Code 55 looks better and has a much better range of pointwork than code 80 (3-ways, slips, scissors, etc. but alas no catch points); laying the track is a bit different but no harder.

From my experience I would make the following comments:
Seep; I agree with the comments and would add that they are too long to use with the Peco scissors crossover as you can not fit two side by side.

Peco PL-10s are also fiddly to set up as there is no movement in the base plates to aid alignment so you need to be accurate for them to work properly.  The other option is to fit it directly to the turnout which requires a large hole to be cut in the baseboard.
The switch recommended by Peco is the PL-15 which is quite expensive but easy to adjust if you fit it on the end opposite the mounting plate but almost impossible if you use it to mount the switch. They do not recommend the cheaper PL-13 for N gauge.
I have used the PL-11 in two places without problems but either the track needs raising 2mm or the point motor lowered by the same amount.

The new Gaugemaster motor looks similar to the PL-10 but appears easier to mount, but is let down by the fact that there are no extended pin versions like the PL-10E. I don't know whether the Peco PL-15 will fit onto the Gaugemaster motor.

On my layout for point switching I use a Selectapoint which has a built in CDU and will operate a pair of points without problems. The fiddle yard points are controlled by a Microminatures IR control unit which will control up to 24 points, one per channel. For multiple simultaneous operation of points several channels can be set up and triggered  with the push of one button. The website explains it a lot better than I can. Furthermore it has outputs for signal or mimic board leds. This saves on switches to control the point motors and for leds.

I have twenty six points in my fiddle yard with two crossovers consisting of a pair of points changing together, one channel of the  IR unit will not change two points at once so I set it up to change a point motor and switch assembly which triggers a DCC Concepts Masterswitch which then changes the pair of points.

These Masterswitches have a built in CDU and contacts for leds and frog polarity switching, a look at their website will show what can be done with them, a viable alternative to one CDU and lots of separate switches.

Just take your time and study what is available, what suits you and what you wish to achieve. Some things may seem expensive but may save time and money on fitting switches and wiring and be a lot easier to use.

Geoff

Many thanks for your responses guys, the consensus appears to be electrofrog as opposed insulfrog, and N55 as opposed to N-80. My reasoning for this (other than the recommendation of a local supplier) was what I assumed to be limitations in N-55 options. Using SCARM as the track layout design tool gives more choice in track sections (curve radii etc) for N-80 than N-55, and the local supplier I had met led me to believe that this was more readily available, and easier to work with due to the slightly raised profile, making soldering that much easier etc. As an example I would have struggled to fit my layout design within my available space without using the N-80 ST-12 / ST-3 curve radii of 228mm, which does not appear to be available in N-55 (unless this is a limitation in the SCARM software). Again, the choice between insulfrog and electrofrog was made following a recommendation although I am not convinced. I am aware that more connections are required for electrofrog (which is not a real problem), and if this outweighs the risk of occasional stalling on the points then it is probably worth doing. The main point of my post was the issue of multiple switching and using interfacing relays. I had originally envisaged using PL-10 motors, although now I'm not so sure, so I will need to look more closely at the options available. Recommended switches for PL-10 motors seems to be PL-26, and my thoughts were that where 'multiple points' could be switched simultaneously with interfacing relays, then that would make the operation easier (and save on PL-26 switches). For instance using a two-position switch to energise or de-energise a 3-pole change-over relay, which could then simultaneously switch 16V AC onto two sets of points (via a CDU), and also switch 12V DC from the speed controller onto an 'isolated' section of track, as opposed to three individual switches. Clearly I would need to understand first of all which turnout motors would be suitable for this (if any), as the switching voltage would be continuously applied to one side or other of the track at the turnout (as opposed to using momentary switches), and this could potentially damage the motors?. I needed to be sure that the CDU would be 'man-enough' for switches multiple sets of points simultaneously, and I think the obvious answer is to try it and see.  I need to give more thought to this and investigate the options more closely, but thank you all for your comments.

I'm an Anyrail user rather than scarm but it sounds similar in as much as you can pull more setrack curves off for code 80 whereas there aren't any for code 55. Personally I've tried code 80 and 55 and I've gone back to 80 as I find it much easier to use (and normally don't need to resort to mail ordering) -but the pro's cons etc etc are everywhere and easy to find.  I would suspect if your retailer told you to go with one or the other, then they're advising you to go with what stock they personally carry.  I'd stick with electrofrog though, it's not much more hassle wiring-wise (not on DCC anyway).  I just use a small cheap microswitch on whatever point motor or manual pushrod to change frog polarity.

Rich

Quote from: floppygoose on January 02, 2016, 08:55:34 PM
Using SCARM as the track layout design tool gives more choice in track sections (curve radii etc) for N-80 than N-55, and the local supplier I had met led me to believe that this was more readily available,

There is a greater variety of radii available in code 80 than code 55 because Peco make all of their set track in code 80. When using Code 55 you need to be using flexi track which will give you an infinite variety of radii and a far more realistic flow to the track.

One other key advantage of code 55 is it's strength. Because it has part of the rail embedded in the sleeper (to give the code 55 section) it is stronger than code 80. This can mean that it is harder to work however.

If you are using Peco paintwork I would suggest sticking with the solenoid point motors (Peco, Seep, Gaugemaster) rather than a motor driven one (Colbolt, Tortoise) as the motor driven ones use a wire to through the point, and this wire does not always have the strength to throw a sprung Peco point unless you change the wire or remove the spring from the point.

One often overlooked point with Code 55 is that with two exceptions the crossing angles are 10 degrees, which means that a small radius turnout will connect to either a medium radius turnout, a Y turnout, long crossing, a single slip, a double slip and a threeway turnout or any combination thereof and give parallel running lines without any problems. As mentioned before code 55 flexible is meant to be bent in one direction only and is marked with arrows underneath, I have found it easier to lay straight track with code 55 than with code 80.

Geoff

I must admit that when I have used SCARM to plan a layout I use the code 80 library but in the knowledge I will actually use code 55. The only drawback to this is the smallest code 80 points (other than the ghastly set track ones) are medium. However, at least I'm safe in that when I use the code 55 small radius points I will gain a little extra room to manoeuvre.
Frankly I just cannot get on with using flexitrack in SCARM as, being a bit of a numpty, I just end up with one end of the track flailing about the screen