Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline Slider  
#1 Posted : 09 March 2020 13:28:56(UTC)
Slider

Netherlands   
Joined: 03/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 51
Hi all,

I have been working on a possible solution to this 5207 ground problems with small loco's.

As most might already know, there are 2 versions of this switch:

UserPostedImage
Old version, with the polarity switching center metal bars.

UserPostedImage
And the newer, unfortunatly much more common version, which has problems with the ground contact on small loco's.

I have been testing with my Marklin 5214 3-way switch.
UserPostedImage

Going straight here, does not have the same problems I have when going straight on the 5207 crossing.
That must be because the 3-way switch has longer, and fully parallel "strips" for Ground contact


So I was trying to re-create that on the 5207, without buying the old model 5207 somewhere and having to butcher my layout in order the replace them.
I have some old 5207's, rusted and stripped for inner parts laying around.
From those, I have extracted the metal diamond shaped metal from the switch.

Cut them at the Red lines and using the long parts, at the Blue line.
UserPostedImage

Those Blue parts, are the exact same shape to be placed as follow:
UserPostedImage

Note, this is just a test switch. It is rusted, it has solder marks and doesn't even work, but for loco's contact test, it's perfect to experiment on.

Since the extra strips rest on the plastic inlay of the switch, they can be glued to it. I wouldn't recommend soldering, since it would need so much heat, all plastic around it will melt, before the solder does.
Ground contact now is even larger than the old version 5207 solution, but it still relies on flange wheel contact.

I still have to test this further, but initially it does seem to give small loco's the much needed ground contact to be able to cross over at slow speeds.
And this can be applied directly on the layout, without removing the switch.


I have no idea, if this has been done before and or people have experience with this. Of have even better ideas Smile I just wanted to share this with you.
thanks 6 users liked this useful post by Slider
Offline jvuye  
#2 Posted : 09 March 2020 15:13:13(UTC)
jvuye

Belgium   
Joined: 01/03/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,832
Location: South Western France
Looks definitely like a smart and elegant solution to this problem.
Of course it basically requires that you "butcher" (to use your own wordsWink Wink ) some older ones , which not all of us could afford.
But the same result could be relatively easily be achieved using strips of brass.
In my days of running on M-track, the locos had "conducting" couplers Wink because they were metal and attached to the chassis , and would be using the "return" of all the wheels of the train behind or in front the loco.
And when the loco in solo would hang up...the "hand of god" was prompt to intervene!
This problem exists today largely because of plastic couplers... RollEyes and thinner wheels' flanges!
Thank you for sharing your idea: the grandchildren playing with the old trusty M-track layout will appreciate!
Cheers
Jacques
Jacques Vuye aka Dr.Eisenbahn
Once a vandal, learned to be better and had great success!
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by jvuye
Offline JohnjeanB  
#3 Posted : 09 March 2020 15:19:45(UTC)
JohnjeanB

France   
Joined: 04/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 893
Location: Paris, France
Hi Slider
I have both versions of the 5207 and never observed contact problems on the new ones
IMO the newer version is superior as it allows you to change the ‘programming’ of the unit by a 180 turn on one of the control bars
Make sure your contact plate (the nickeled plate at bottom of frogs) is grounded and clean
Cheers
Jean
My lay-out videos
latest vid
humping yard
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by JohnjeanB
Offline Slider  
#4 Posted : 10 March 2020 08:18:39(UTC)
Slider

Netherlands   
Joined: 03/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by: JohnjeanB Go to Quoted Post
Hi Slider
IMO the newer version is superior as it allows you to change the ‘programming’ of the unit by a 180 turn on one of the control bars

Can you explain this? I don't understand what you mean.Blushing

As far as I know, the old version has the extra contact bar for better power/ground contact, other then that they are identical.
I don't see how less contacts would be better.
Offline JohnjeanB  
#5 Posted : 11 March 2020 13:05:59(UTC)
JohnjeanB

France   
Joined: 04/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 893
Location: Paris, France
Hi Slider

Here is the bottom part of a double slip switch once the cover is removed
UserPostedImage
In the center you see a loop like driver held in place with 2 circlips
Underneath you have two driving bar terminated with springs.
If you remove one of there and rotate by 180° before putting it back and re-installing the loop-shaped driver, then you have a totally different functioning of the unit.
Instead of having a simple cross / all deviate functioning, you have a mix functioning that may be interesting for some layouts. But this is incompatible with the older version of the 5207 unit because of short circuits it will make
Cheers
Jean
My lay-out videos
latest vid
humping yard
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by JohnjeanB
Offline Slider  
#6 Posted : 11 March 2020 14:07:24(UTC)
Slider

Netherlands   
Joined: 03/04/2014(UTC)
Posts: 51
I never knew that these crossings could be changed in functionality.
But for me this is not an issue, I won't be chaning the 5207 function anyway.

So an old 5207 is still an option for me.

Thanks for explaining Jean! Smile
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2020, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.367 seconds.