Switch modification

[Toastie]

1 hour ago, Duq said:

We're going a little off-topic here but it's interesting.

@Duq and @Haddock51,

I don't think we are going off topic - in contrast. We are very much on topic: How to clear way with a mechanism that a) readily attaches with no track elevation required and b) does not fall apart upon repeated operation. I believe @Haddock51 set-up is geometrically very demanding AND he wants to operate his points manually. That sets the stage. Throwing the original yellow lever does not post any threat even when it is required to "reach into" the layout. It will work. When building some bricks around the point and at the same time need to operate this setup flawlessly draws up some serious requirements: These bricks are not allowed to fall apart. And that is challenging.     

Yes, I do remember that RB challenge very well and no, I don't know who did what when … I am trying to follow, but I am relying on what is printed or available online (no time for LUGs etc.).

That is the thing - it >cannot< fall apart. I had so much trouble with my own approaches. All I did to Ben's design was to minimize part count - as said before I am working on a limited budget and I like the challenge going minimalistic. It is all about restricting the throwing mechanism in its own "cage". The two 1x4 Technic bricks take care of everything, when the throwing lever is at the same elevation: You bang all surplus forces into the two restricting axles (as far as I can tell, your design does that as well, right?).   

I like your design very much!

All the best,
Thorsten

Edited May 16, 2019 by Toastie
Editor did not like the return key anymore ...

[Duq]

I can't quite remember the sequence either so I'll go with what I wrote back then. Ben's challenge in Railbricks got me thinking. Then I found this picture by Chris Alano on Brickshelf:

Then I combined it with the mechanism from set 8052; if you put axles through two half-beams (I hate the name lift-arm) and put them in adjacent holes of a Technic beam then they can turn a few degrees before they hit eachother. That few degrees turns out to be just enough for the switch.

As a bonus for Haddock you can still manually throw the switch ;-)

[Haddock51]

During the past weekend, I preliminarily mounted tracks on my new layout to check space and distances.

I reallized that I need to modify another switch to provide space for the second speed regulator with outside heatsink. On this halfcurve switch, I will have to move the throw to the opposite side.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Haddock51

[Duq]

Would it not be easier to swap the heatsink regulator with the one beside it? Or are they all eventually going to have a heatsink?

Another option is to have the speed regulators on a board that hinges or slides under the table. Something like this:

[Haddock51]

7 hours ago, Duq said:

Would it not be easier to swap the heatsink regulator with the one beside it? Or are they all eventually going to have a heatsink?

Another option is to have the speed regulators on a board that hinges or slides under the table. Something like this:

Unfortunately, to swap regulators is not an option here. The reason - again - is the nose overhang of the VT 11.5.

Your solution with speed regulators under the table looks indeed very nice and professional. In this case however, there are two major problems with this proposal: at this very corner, I have to install the cable terminal and another Voltcraft EP-925 transformer under the table. As you can see on the picture, this corner is close to the door to the porch. The remaining space between table and door is approx. 60 cm and to the shelves on the left hand side approx. 1 m, a minimum space I promised to my wife .... A speed regulator shelf under the table would by default further reduce this space, at a frequently trafficated spot in this room, including dogs ... Therefore, I have decided to place all four speed regulators on the table at the edge. And to insert another straight track before the switch is also ruled out because this would not leave enough space for the longest train shelves that will be placed at this siding.

Quite amazing, in this 40 square meters Lego room, I have to force studs and millimeters all over ...

Edited May 21, 2019 by Haddock51

[zephyr1934]

If you don't care about remote control and you are using 9v track and you want to be ultra pure (no modifications) it is hard to beat the "spear switch." The gist is that you leave the switch lined for straight, but then poke a spear through the crimping hole to push a couple of tiles and exploit the spring to line the switch to a diverging movement, e.g.,

 

I believe it was first introduced here (OMG, a world before EB, grin) with photos here. And an improved version here or here.

 

With a bit of fishing wire or string you could easily turn the idea into a "pull" mechanism form the other side.

[Haddock51]

9 hours ago, zephyr1934 said:

If you don't care about remote control and you are using 9v track and you want to be ultra pure (no modifications)

Don't worry @zephyr1934, I don't consider myself to be ultra pure w.r.t. modifications. After close to a hundred 9V track and switch modifications, I feel rather experienced in this field. To remove a throw lever however will be slightly different since it touches the "heart" of the switch. At this  point in time, I am still set to proceed with Toasties "20 minutes time frame" proposal (see his reply from May 9).  I am quite sure that this modification would fit and work nicely on both spots.

[Roadmonkeytj]

@Haddock51 could you simply elevate the regulators by 4 bricks to allow a hand to reach under it to throw the corner switch?

[Haddock51]

1 hour ago, Roadmonkeytj said:

@Haddock51 could you simply elevate the regulators by 4 bricks to allow a hand to reach under it to throw the corner switch?

@Roadmonkeytj

My feeling is that this is both a functional and a design matter.

From a design point of view, I would probably give duq's suggestion with the speed regulators under the table a second thought, rather than elevate these speed regulators by 4 bricks. I don't want these regulators to dominate this layout at the very front.

In addition, this switch will be one of the most important and trafficated switches of the entire layout since most of the trains in the future will access/exit the train shelves through this siding.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Haddock51

[Haddock51]

@Toastie

A modification of the throw lever to the opposite side would also imply that the lever would point in the opposite direction. A trained "switch eye" would of course immediately notice this difference compared to standard throw levers on the layout. Strange that no one so far has commented this consequence (either because it is simply too obvious or because it doesn't matter for non fundamentalists ...).

I checked some switches IRL (Weichensignale Deutschland) and found among others these two pictures. Unlike LEGO's standard switches, they both show levers (combined with switch signals) on the straight side of the switch which seems to be standard in Germany (and most likely in other countries as well). So the modified version with throw lever on the straight side would actually be the "correct" one compared to reality, showing straight position when lever points away from track.

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Haddock51

[Roadmonkeytj]

7 hours ago, Haddock51 said:I checked some switches IRL (Weichensignale Deutschland) and found among others these two pictures. Unlike LEGO's standard switches, they both show levers (combined with switch signals) on the straight side of the switch which seems to be standard in Germany (and most likely in other countries as well). So the modified version with throw lever on the straight side would actually be the "correct" one compared to reality, showing straight position when lever points away from track.

 

It seems that there is no standard ... More so that where ever is convenient for the location. (Images from Google)

So if keeping to a more "prototypical" location.  Then modifying your switch so as to not "foul the track" would be prototypical for your railroad

 

[Toastie]

@Haddock51

I have actually never thought about this issue. However, I believe it is simply mechanically much more straight forward to it that way. The counterweight for the lever (also present in the LEGO version) points indeed into different directions depending on the location of the throw mechanism, however all switches on main train lines have that signal type thing attached to it, which shows the right point direction even from far away.

One could argue that a simple additional mechanism would take care of that in reality, but reliability is much better with as simple as possible mechanics. 

Best regards,
Thorsten 

 

[Haddock51]

38 minutes ago, Toastie said:

@Haddock51

The counterweight for the lever (also present in the LEGO version) points indeed into different directions depending on the location of the throw mechanism, however all switches on main train lines have that signal type thing attached to it, which shows the right point direction even from far away.

So here's the challenge! Any suggestions on how to combine the LEGO throw lever with a simple signal that always shows the right point direction irrespective location of the throw mechanism!

[ALCO]

Easy! With the standard un-modified Lego Switch, the yellow throw lever always "leans" in the direction of travel . Even if the switch has been modified such that the yellow throw lever is moved to the other side, it moves the bar under the track in the same manor thus even if moved to the other side of the track the yellow throw lever will still "lean" in the direction of travel. 

 

If you look closely at these points, You can see how the levers lean in the direction of travel. The above switch is set to Through and the lever is leaning to the through side. The lower switch, the points are set to diverging, and the yellow lever is "leaning" toward the diverging side. This will be the same even if the throw levers are moved to the other side of the track. This is because the bar under the track that moves the points still travels in the same direction when moved to change the points. 

[Toastie]

Sure, but I guess @Haddock51 needs to modify one switch to have the throw on the straight side due to space and layout limitations.

Best,
Thorsten  

[Haddock51]

2 hours ago, Toastie said:

Sure, but I guess @Haddock51 needs to modify one switch to have the throw on the straight side due to space and layout limitations.

Best,
Thorsten  

This is what this entire topic is all about!!

With the risk of repeating myself, the fact remains that the levers are pointing in different directions (relative to the point) - for the same point position - depending on which side of the point the levers are mounted!

Having used 9V tracks and points for more than 20 years, of course I can immediately read all my point postions by just watching the throw levers. For somebody who is not familiar with the discussed modifications, this might be more confusing in the future, particularly on layout sections with multiple points - and levers on different sides. (One solution could be to go for different lever colours...)

Having said that, I am still set to proceed with the modification to move the lever to the opposite side, in both cases shown in this topic.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Haddock51

[Toastie]

@Haddock51

I am just wildly guessing here; but I am sure others will have brilliant ideas:

Let us presume you made the modification as discussed above, i.e. the invasive but nevertheless apparently straight forward modification. Also, let us presume that it is not the yellow throw bar but rather any kind of any bar pointing into the direction of travel.

In that case, the brick-built mechanism by Duq/Ben and others can easily be modified with a set of two gears to "reverse" the end position of the then technic axle serving as throw lever.

The sturdiness of the mechanism is then sacrificed a little, as any elevation translates to building lifting forces. But: 1) you are throwing your switch points manually and not with a bang-bang type motor drive and 2) once you have the internal switch bar in your hands, you can file-off some material of the extrusions securing the end position of the bar. This will result in a much smoother operation of the switch. When throwing the switch manually, this creates no problem at all. (When operating the switch in bang-bang style with a motor however, the stressed driving axle driven all the way to the corresponding stop may move the point blade back a little - this is why I am using power adjusted RCX outputs for that purpose.)

All the best,
Thorsten

          

[Haddock51]

Thank you @Toastie

I am still interested in seeing your rendering you mentionned on May 16!

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by Haddock51

[Toastie]

@Haddock51

I am very sorry! I thought the images provided above from @Duq were making that useless.

Give me time until Wednesday as we are preparing our annual research group "trip" to the US tomorrow and on Tuesday.

Best,
Thorsten

 

[Toastie]

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 1:16 AM, Duq said:

As a bonus for Haddock you can still manually throw the switch ;-)

@Haddock51, @Duq

(Experiments done, spent hours in the lab the past days with a bunch of my group and we got it to work: We have temperature and electron energy resolved mass spectra of an "interesting" MOCVD compound to be presented next Tuesday in Atlanta - I am happy. "Interesting" as in: These compounds see air - and start to burn - and see water and they explode. Now if this is not off-topic then I don't know)

OK, back on topic. I feel like an idiot showing some screen shots of my simple MLCAD file for the switch drive - which is the work of Duq and others, but so be it. And: No renders, simple snipping tool screen shots. Sorry.

Here we go:

1 is the entire drive with PF motor attached that you don't want anyway. In 2 all decorative stuff is removed. 3 is the actual brilliant idea.

On the left, only the driving mechanism is shown. On the right the end points that prevent any uplifting forces (as all three axles are on one sturdy technic brick) are shown; the arrows mark the stop on either side. The travel path of the #42003 Technic cross block 1x3 is just right to throw the switch, as Duq pointed out above. 

The entire brick-work in 2 above is just to snap the entire mechanism onto the switch with minimal brick count. It does not have to withstand any shear forces; these are even less of concern, when manually throwing the switch as you won't bang it as hard as the PF motor does.

You can also see that the axles easily allow a gearing that will reverse the motion of the throw - it will then point into the way of travel, when invasively modifying the switch, as you are planning.

Hope that helps.

Once again: This is the work of others! Duq may want to comment on this, as he was deeply involved in designing this mechanism.

All the best,
Thorsten  

Edited May 30, 2019 by Toastie

[Haddock51]

 

Fixed - finally... Not after 20 minutes, but after several hours...

 

 

 

 

This has indeed been a rather challenging exercise with several difficult modifications. Since the system is not symmetric, I had to add an additional pin to the bar to get contact with the "tongue" of the switch.

 

 

 

Unfortunately. OnDrew J. Hardigan did not reveal the details inside his modification (see first picture at the beginning of this topic).

In fact I doubt if this modfied switch really works, unless modifications on the bar have been done - which would certainly require more than 20 minutes for the entire modification...

Also notice that the bar (with unchanged length) requires a space of 7 (not 5) studs on the opposite side.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Haddock51

[sed6]

Interesting read so far. I solved this problem on my layout by just removing the yellow throw levers. I don't have any problem flipping the switches without them. 

[Haddock51]

It's possible if you have plastic tracks/switches. In the case of 9V switches, to change direction without throw lever is more difficult because of the resistance related to the metal plates.

[Selander]

You certainly earn your title as Track Modification Expert !

[Haddock51]

Thanks! TME - why not? Interesting to see what's coming up next ...