[Donone]

N Scale:
Point motors are my frightener and always have been. They are big, noisy and power hungry, but most they are expensive. Not when buying one or two but when buying 30-40 or more and one doesn't even get to see them, under the board. If you want something simpler and neater on top the price doubles. There rarely seems to be more than a penny or two discount for quantity.

This is probably a stupid post but I have wracked my brain trying to find an alternative. I cannot believe that nobody has found an answer to one point one solenoid.
It is easy for one switch to operate many, but not the other way round. It spoils the cost estimate prepared for the wife, when one forgets to factor the solenoids in...

Has anybody come up with anything at all, other than finger pressure.

Yes; I know I am leaving myself open here.

 

[Donone]

Well I must say I didn't actually expect anything.
Thanks all for the input, I have not come across Kato, I'll look.
Memory wire I have come across in other fields but would not have thought of its use here, worth a look I think, even just for interest.

What I probably meant was a means of doing the opposite of one switch to several points. Some clever device that has one motor to several points. i.e. perhaps a multi stage movement??? multi direction movement. Perhaps the equivalent of hooking different points to a common motor but automatically.
In fact I'm not sure what I mean or I would have done it.
I'll leave it at... 'the opposite of one switch to several points. Some clever device that has one motor to several points.'
It seems stupid, but don't all inventions at first; so I was hoping someone may have cracked it.
I would like to pay £1 per point operated.
Is this ridiculous?

 

[Donone]

poliss, I found an example of that crossover just now. Yes a slight saving. This is an example of what I meant... the crossover only has two possible positions not four (am I missing something), therefore there should only be a need for two motors (nay, dare I say one) and the rest should be done mechanically.
Correct me, that I have got the purpose of the scissors wrong.

 

[Donone]

Thanks dwb, I like one motor and wire in tube, especially if they are close. I will certainly search on that technique and see what happens. With lots of points that always change as pairs this could reduce the price from £3.50 each point to £3.50 per pair. Not Bad.
Thanks

 

[Donone]

@upnick: Thanks but money is hard earned and I have time to crawl under the boards.

Thanks for those interesting links wiggy25, I shall definitely evaluate that.

My 'point' poliss was that with peco it should have been possible with one motor and mechanics, not four.
QUOTE The Kato scissors crossover on the other hand has built in point motors
being plural I presumed that there was also more than one motor on kato but one switch required; hence they had reduced the wiring only and of course included the motors.

My problem with Kato is a box full of peco points!! as yet without motors.

I am not sure but thought I had also read that mixing the two resulted in a height discrepancy problem. Be that as it may, Kato will not help at this stage.
Do not think me ungrateful, but money is an issue.

 

[Donone]

Having just looked; thank you again; Gem seems expensive but Mercontrol would seem to work out at about £1 per foot for tube and wire as long as you don't turn corners, and don't use copper tube, but ptfe.
That is worth looking at if the pair of points are close.

Once you start adding bellcranks (and whistles) etc. then it might become marginal and not worth it.

[Edit] I also just noticed on the Modratec site this link for anybody who is not sure about signalling practice in various countries
Signalling
change doc number for others

 

[Donone]

Right, thanks for that.

 

[Donone]

Thanks to both Richard and Rowan.
@Rowan:
QUOTE Hope my ramblings were of some use Donone.
Ramblings, if that is what they are, are good from everybody in this 'think tank', how else to move forward and innovate.
If there is any loss of movement in WIT it can easily be made up or multiplied with a bell-crank, so distance, slack and quantity should not be a problem. Since the 'motor' is no longer restricted to the standard point motor, strength can be increased. Thanks for the input Rowan.

@Richard: thanks for the input, valuable as is every comment. Operating two points at the same time and always the same pair would not seem to be unusual in a situation of a passing loop. Why only change the entry end and later the exit end, why not both together even though when you exit you are not actually entering as well. So the other point is not actually traversed by the train every time, no train is likely to be close enough to the other end of the loop to be passing and requiring the point the other way. I am not saying, every position, but there are some where you may as well change them together (no harm done!).
Winding my own transformers is a thing I vowed I would never do again, so I guess this will apply to solenoids also.

In general, though maybe stupid, (due to lack of specific knowledge on railway setup, that's why I am here), in electronics 4 wires can become 15 conditions by binary coding. Using a decoder 16 possibilities become available. The opposite is true in that 15 wires in can become 4 by encoding back to binary (or BCD). The above excludes zero.
I am looking for the same mechanical answer though maybe not quite 4/16. Why not one actuator to do the final job, and another two (four combinations) or three (seven usable combinations) to select which links are actually moved. This does not restrict itself to moving the same points always together! By 'selecting' which points to change as binary or easier, BCD, there would be no restriction and a whole route could be done, with thought.

If anybody is going to suggest that binary coding cannot be used in mechanics, then look at the 'Teletype' If you remember the old fashioned football scores on Saturday evening. The keyboard is entirely mechanical and by operation of some, say 60, keys, 8 bars encode this at right angles into binary movement, i.e. which combination of the eight bars move. This is done with cutouts in the top of the slider bars.
No that won't work here but, something a little simpler and smaller and more limited??
A mechanical decoder.

 

[Donone]

I can't actually describe this because it doesn't exist but...
Basically having a motor/solenoid/stepper ??? to operate links or whatever, once they have been selected (chosen) as the ones to operate (by binary or whatever mechanically, by another two or more motors as discussed above.
I cannot draw on here (and probably couldn't anyway) but there would be a selection of links going to points waiting to be connected to the main gubbins/wheel/bellcrank set or whatever (favourite word).

Crudely, if you could imagine a piece of flat metal round or square or triangular with holes and the links above waiting to drop in the holes. The other two solenoids?? would select which links dropped in the holes and then the main solenoid operates and pulls those selected links. They are then lifted clear by releasing the solenoids to zero (binary)and another binary selection drops one or more of the links into the holes again and then the main operated again, but of course different links have now been selected which go to different points.

Remember that I am asking if anybody could/would/thinks etc. etc. it could be/has been done.
Babbage's result was numerical, mine is which of a selection of points will operate, using one final solenoid to operate all those selected.

If its not possible, then it will become apparent in the next few minutes.

 

[Donone]

Well Richard, you seem to tread a very precise path with everything. One often starts out with a question that then leads to responses. Those responses oftem guide/drag the original off course and down another track, unintentionally, and so it goes on.
If one must always obey the rules of question and answer I don't think things progress.

So! It went off 'track' and off subject. Nobody had to respond. You chose to! Everybody could have stayed 'in the box'. Everybody could have said I was a time wasting fool and in fact I virtually invited it.

This is not to say I don't agree with your long lecture, I do actually, but things go off track and often one is trapped in a sequence.
Of course what I have ended up saying is stupid. I hope you haven't done anything similar.

By the way... an encoder takes 1 only of several independent inputs and produces a coded output which (in the case of BCD for example) would consist of four outputs, some on and some off representing the position of the single input chosen.

A decoder does the opposite and takes a code in, say four (some on some off) and ends up sending a signal down one only of several available outputs.

Therefore a decoder (not an encoder) takes in a few and gives out one of many things, but only one at a time.

Finally not every train layout must follow prototypical practices, some simply want a bit of fun from life, instead of having to follow every rule and castigate others for not doing so.

You may choose to respond or not, as you please! I will try to only ask sensible, solvable questions in future and will think carefully before I do so.

 

[Donone]

Thank you wiggy25. You are right as of course was Ricard.

My final point in ?defence? is as I said above, I soon realised from the comments and suggestions that there was not a hope of anything sensible in mechanics that would be cheaper than the point motors. My problem was that when someone asked for clarification or made suggestions or the like I got sucked in further to a futile chain of events, that I could only have stopped by being rude and not replying or being rude and saying I think that is the end.

I apologise to all concerned and will be more ???whatever in the future.

get me outa here.

I think that is an 'over and out'.

 

[Donone]

Despite your last comments, that is an interesting innovation. Unfortunately in my case, I require non-manual control, but it does show what can be achieved.
Thanks

 

[Donone]

@Robert Stokes
This was meant for you but I forgot to add your name
QUOTE Despite your last comments, that is an interesting innovation. Unfortunately in my case, I require non-manual control, but it does show what can be achieved.
Thanks

@Richard
Thank you for the links, I will certainly follow them up, I have no experience of memory wire though I have heard of it in various fields.

@34C
I must confess I haven't looked at Fulgarex, the price frightened me, but I will because several people have mentioned them. One of my problems is not knowing what is compatible with what before buying. Much of my track and pointwork was bought ten years ago or more.

Thank you all for your assistance on this subject.
[Edit] I have just visited Richard's links and the wire is very interesting, just to experiment with if nothing else.

 

[Donone]

What brilliance is emerging!
I can only say that I feel a little bit vindicated for starting this off, and maybe it wasn't so stupid?

 

[Donone]

Well Lancashire Fusilier, this seems to show that all the brains reside in Ausy. I think the concept is clever, using a turntable.

 

[Donone]

I really love your sense of humour wiggy25.

 

[Donone]

Nothing more to be said then. I look forward to much more help from you guys.
Already had success from the workbench area with cog wheels.
I anticipate needing quite a bit as a newbie to railways, I don't even know which side of the tracks we drive on in UK, left or right

Thanks

 

[Donone]

Look forward to your return Rowan; Hopefully you will bring something good to the table!

 

[Donone]

Not having used any of this wire type stuff rossi, I find it difficult to see how the movement can be so accurate as to not cause overrun in either direction. Is the inner and outer difference precisely the movement the point requires.
It is possible to save money by using some manual points, so it is of interest.