Peco 3 way point.

[SquiddlyDiddly]

I am buiding a layout andam testing running at every stage. I have just put in a Peco 3-way point and find that running a class 59 Co-Co locomotive always causes a derail. If I push a couple of coaches with the 59, the coaches travesr the point just fine but the locomotive then derails. It this a known problem? I have yet to try a smaller locomotive over the point.

[centenary]

Id say check the wheel back to back on the loco if coaches and other stock go through ok.

[GeraldH]

Is it the SL-99 Medium Radius 3 Way Code 100 Turnout and does the loco only derail on the left hand exit? Do you have the Lima, Hornby or Dapol Class 59?

[Bufferstop]

Whether centenary has one of those locos or not, do let us know the why. I'm guessing it's the gears on the back of the wheels on the Ringfield bogie. Ive always been amazed that they haven't caused me a problem running through code 75 points.

[Bigmet]

I am buiding a layout and am testing running at every stage. I have just put in a Peco 3-way point and find that running a class 59 Co-Co locomotive always causes a derail. If I push a couple of coaches with the 59, the coaches travesr the point just fine but the locomotive then derails. It this a known problem? I have yet to try a smaller locomotive over the point.

Good move, making your own tests. Run 'everything' through the items on test, pushing and pulling, and in both facing and trailing directions
More information is required if the most informative answers are to be obtained. Specifically:
Which Peco 3-way point? Ideally give the catalogue number.
Which class 59 model? Ideally name manufacturer and catalogue number. Does it have traction tyres?

General information I can supply from my own testing 25 years ago when returning to use RTR OO track product with my all metal wheel stock with RP25 wheelsets as follows:
The code 100 Peco 3 way point SL-E99 proved unreliable in the facing direction.
In particular any wheelbase that placed wheels on both crossings simultaneously would be liable to derailment.
The upward bow deviation from plane found in most RTR points was very marked and difficult to fully correct; bad news with rigid three (or more) axle chassis.

Conclusion, not suitable if reliable operation is required. It is possible that the design and thus tooling has been altered since then, because that was a good while ago, but I have had no need to test this item since.

[SquiddlyDiddly]

Many Thanks for your replies. I will try and answer your questions.
1. The Class 59 is R2529 DCC ready so a probable4,conversion from the original Lima.
2. The 3 way point is the medium radius SLE-99
3. The locomotive derails no matter which of the 3 tracks are used.

As I am in the early days of track laying, I have decided to ditch the SLE-99 and use a left anf roght medium instead. It does change this a bit but not significantly. So, I am guessing the derail is caused by that specific locomotive and newre Co-Co's miight have worked OK. But I am an impatient guy so have resolved it another way. I will be selling any 3 way points I have.

Andy Kaye

[Bigmet]

Good decision on the points. I found that only the Peco large and medium points were unconditionally reliable. Carefully laid and operated over at appropriate speeds for the movement, anything the real railway could do over a point ladder is possible.

On the CoCo front, everything reliant on a traction tyred power bogie is problematic, which includes the ex-Lima that now has a Hornby power bogie. Between the drive at one end of a long vehicle only, and traction tyres, these are not fully stable on track. The transition to centre motor drives powering both bogies for twin bogie traction subjects is now effectively complete, and these are superior in performance by a country mile. It would be idle to pretend that they don't have their little wrinkles which need to be understood, but these are easily dealt with, thanks to the inherently well balanced layout which results in a stable vehicle with impressive traction. If the layout is large enough, a CoCo (or large BoBo) type easily moves 40 coaches or bogie wagons, pushing or pulling, either end leading. These cost more, but you get more...

[Bufferstop]

I guess the 3 way point in code 100 is critical in having two blades stacked at one side and two spaced apart for the wheel to catch on. Presumably this is the reason Peco only ever produced the asymmetrical 3 way point in code 75, it's really two single points overlapped. Taken at slow speed it will pass anything from the last 20 years and quite a few of the later Triang Hornby models What it (and code 75 points in general) won't accept is the massive flanges of early Triang and Lima pizza cutter wheels. I think wheels of the vintage can be problematical on code 100 as well. It's many years since I handled any Triang standard track but I think the rail section would probably now be called Code 126.

[SquiddlyDiddly]

Thanks for replies folks.

I have made a considerable outlay on track and accesories - track, points, soldered fishplates unsoldered fisplastes and isolating fishplates etc, that I am having to test using my older locomotives. These will be upgraded at a later date. To accodatemy older locos. I am testing all trackwork using a DC controoler connected to the power bus, When the trackwork is complete and proven, I will connect the power bus to my NCE Poercab and test using a DCC locomotive. Then I have to enter a world I have not been to before - using DCC to control for point motors. I fear a few more desparate calls to this forum before I have finished.

[Bufferstop]

Many of the layouts I've seen which are DCC controlled still used wired switches to operate point motors. Apart from the builders personal preference the reason quoted is convenience. Unless your DCC is capable of setting up route switching, ie one command setting all the points for a route they have found it cumbersome to have to enter the code for each point before switching it. The "just two wires" claim does not hold true for point control unless you have a decoder on each point motor, you have just as many wires between an accessory unit and a group of points, as you do between switch board and points, shorter yes, but just as many.

[Bigmet]

DCC was not designed for point control is the brief explanation. Proven systems from the DDC-less past are more effective and cheaper, and can be selectively integrated with DCC control to enable programmable route setting if that is required.

It would be possible to have a vastly superior RTL points track range with integrated motors, decoders and additional bus wires, but none of the track brands have taken a punt on this...

[SquiddlyDiddly]

I like that so DC conreolled points will wprk for me. So now I have afew traintronics DCC Slow working point motors to sell. Thanks for your help guys. Andy

[Bigmet]

I like that so DC controlled points will work for me.

It's hard work to install is all. Careful planning is everything to minimise wiring runs and make them tidy; and you won't regret it if every wire is systematically labelled, with an accompanying complete system diagram of the installation. Makes life a lot easier for layout alterations and repairs.

[peterws]

I quite fancy the 3-way point; it'd enable more space and simplify things a bit. But point motors? Mine are all (but 2 or 3) going on ebay. I fitted them religiously, under the boards, cut out the openings, wired 'em up etc etc.
All it did was save me getting out of my seat to operate them by hand! Was I that lazy then? 20 years ago?
I need the exercise now! I haveonly one electrified point, on the whole of my layout, even though it's bigger than it was. Under a tunnel though.

BTW, I'm unsure if I've been on this forum before, in the days when you had to post regularly, within a time scale, or you were out . . . .Might be a different one, though.