Walthers Code 83 30 degree crossing?


Selector

Selector

Well-Known Member
Anyone know if the Walthers Code 83 30 degree crossing, the one with the blackened frogs, needs to be gapped? I have tested the tracks leading to a Peco insulfrog Code 83 $6 turnout, gapped just beyond the frog for both routes, and I have soldered curved lengths that meet at the crossing, and then curve outward to join two more Peco Code 83 #6's. This forms what I call a scissors-type turning wye. The rails to the first turnout are on a spiral ramp leading down to my staging. I have it gapped about 10 feet back, and contiguous to the Peco. I have that section linked through a PSX-AR to act as a reverser.

Here is a crude hand-drawn diagram. The dotted lines at left represent the lower climbing ramp that eventually links to the Peco at far right. From there, still climbing, the two branches meet, soldered, at the crossing. They are both powered. After the crossing, only the lowermost curved flex is powered. As indicated the upper left segment is not yet powered, nor is it connected to the Peco it will eventually connect to. I am pretty sure there are complete gaps at the right side Peco where the branching starts, but one is very tight...may have to clear that up to be sure.

I had thought the crossing would isolate all four exits from the frogs and from each other. If any of you knows that it is that way, then my problem lies elsewhere. I would like assurances that this item, the crossing, should be okay with all four branches extending from it hard-wired/soldered.

Diagramofcrossingproblemnewlayoutr.png
 
Carey, I didn't think to look under the crossing before I "cemented" it in place between all those rail ends. It seemed, at face value, and in this day of heavy DCC use, that its blackened frog tips would suggest isolation. I sure hope it wasn't presumptive of me. I also have yet to meter it. I'll do that next.
 
Is there power to the track marked "no feeder yet"? That would indicate there are jumpers in the crossing to bridge the power from one side to the next.
 
IH, I will test that tomorrow, along with all other Ohm's tests to find out where the heck I'm at. I have one other idea to check out, too. I'll report tomorrow what I find.

Thanks to both you and Carey for looking in.
 
I tested it with a multimeter and got the dreaded 00.0 reading on opposite sides of the crossing, meaning it 'through-routes' the power...on all exits. So, I cut two soldered joiner pairs, opposite each other to nix only the one route's power, and tried it. No short. It means I can leave the one still-soldered route and be fine, but I will have to reverse the crossing for the other route so that it is powered and won't stall small locomotives.
 
Good deal. Was there a reason, you used a Walthers, other than you had it on hand? I know the Atlas brand code 83's rails are isolated from each other.
 
Carey. Until just now,I didn't know there was difference between the two.I too would have thought that they were already somewhat isolated. Also, would this apply to a hand laid crossings as well?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carey, I was a sucker...what else can I say. In this day in the HO hobby, who would market a crossing with no other description but that it is a 30 degree HO Code 83 crossing and not have it isolated at the center 2.5 inches at most? I fully expected it to be capable of using as an anchor for four track ends soldered to it if nothing else. Silly me. :D

As for handlaid, if I were to follow the Fast Tracks method, no, it would be entirely isolated where it counts. The frogs would be dead for about an inch or less, and the rest could be wired with as much power as the materials could stand.

Disappointed in Walthers over this one.
 
Selector said:
I tested it with a multimeter and got the dreaded 00.0 reading on opposite sides of the crossing, meaning it 'through-routes' the power...on all exits. So, I cut two soldered joiner pairs, opposite each other to nix only the one route's power, and tried it. No short. It means I can leave the one still-soldered route and be fine, but I will have to reverse the crossing for the other route so that it is powered and won't stall small locomotives.
Click to expand...
That is truly odd. I would have expected power to the routed through from one side to the other, but not from one cross track to the other. It almost defeats the purpose of the insulated frogs.
 
It turns out that through routing is precisely what it does. What I had not realized, probably because I was too tired to think clearly, that the lower left curved approach conflicts at the join with the crossing. All the others conform to the correct polarity as they exit the right Peco and its stem of ascending curved spiral ramp. They even conform through to the upper left Peco. However, now that I have left the lower left curved path gapped at the crossing and resolved that conflict, I can see that I must also gap at the upper left Peco or the reverser will also try to reverse the entire main and defeat itself at the one lower gap. May sound complicated, but I have moved the reverser to be closer to the crossing, and it now controls most of the lower spiral, the right hand Peco, and the two routes to the crossing, plus the upper left one. As I said, they now have a common orientation polarity-wise and allow me a really long reversed segment.

I seem to have lost my touch, but at least I have solved it. I can now get on with ballasting it all to keep the rails nicely aligned and curved, both in azimuth and in altitude. I have tested my one critical steamer, a Sunset CPR Selkirk 2-10-4, which needs 30" radius minimums on those curved routes and it has gone through them. I can now get past the darned helix and continue to build the mains and the yard.

Thanks for lending a hand.

Crandell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top