Using Locks on Switches While Operating

[MasonJar]

Not to put words in Gary's mouth, but I think that he worked it so that the pull position is aligned for the main route. Therefore the only one that needs to be locked. Rules would dictate that crews must lock the turnout before leaving, and you would not want them to leave with it locked for the siding...!

Andrew

[Gary S]

Galen, now I see what you mean. Out of the 20 turnouts on the main, 14 of them require the knob to be pulled out from the fascia to be aligned for the main. The other 6 require the knobs to be pushed to the fascia to be aligned for the main. The locking mechanism for those 6 will be different than the other 14... the mechanism will actually be simpler in they won't require the hinge on the hasp.

I don't think the 6 different ones will be an issue - with both locking setups, the only way they can be locked is for the turnout to be aligned to the main. If the turnout is aligned to the siding, it can't be locked. This will be readily apparent to the operators from the physical aspects of the lock hardware.

As a through train crew approaches the turnout, they can definitely use the lock as an indicator of the turnout position. If the lock is in position, the turnout must be to the main. I have considered putting in scale switchstands with operating targets, and have thought out the necessary mechanism, but that is far off in the future.

I'm looking forward to my ops session on Sunday and the feedback from the crews. I decided to install 5 locks in strategic locations so the crews can have some interaction with them. I'll definitely report the results!

[Gary S]

For those that fail to close or walks ahead of his train to open the derail gets demoted to main line engineer.He has had 100% compliance.

Hey Brakie,

I've always been interested in systems for "rewarding" or "punishing" operators for their actions, but I am afraid it might put undue pressure on the crews.... even to the point that some folks would shy away from operating at places with such a system in place. I'd love to hear some feedback from those who have used such systems. Heck, I'd even like to hear what everyone thinks of that, even if they haven't used such a system.

[Ralph]

Have to admit the lock is kind of cool.

[Gary S]

Here's another view of the lock and mechanism. The screw hook to the right of the turnout control is used as a hanger for the lock when the turnout is thrown to the siding... which will be another visual indication that the turnout is not aligned to the main.

   

[Green_Elite_Cab]

I've always been interested in systems for "rewarding" or "punishing" operators for their actions,

Pavlov's Model railroaders eh?

[Brakie]

For those that fail to close or walks ahead of his train to open the derail gets demoted to main line engineer.He has had 100% compliance.

Hey Brakie,

I've always been interested in systems for "rewarding" or "punishing" operators for their actions, but I am afraid it might put undue pressure on the crews.... even to the point that some folks would shy away from operating at places with such a system in place. I'd love to hear some feedback from those who have used such systems. Heck, I'd even like to hear what everyone thinks of that, even if they haven't used such a system.

I don't think he has or had any problems since all six was at the show and they may be long time friends.

One does need some rules and discipline when he has operation sessions if one didn't then I suspect chaos would reign supreme.

[Ralph]

How about creating your own series of cards to hand out that might indicate "raises" or "promotions" for folks that do well during an ops session, and humorous "written warnings, citations or firings" for derailments or other operator mishaps. I'd think the "punishments" should be light hearted unless, of course, you have some one who is completely careless and indifferent about your equipment (I don't imagine such a person would be welcomed back) but otherwise it might be fun to get something with a funny clip art or tongue in cheek wording about their goofs.

Ralph

[Gary S]

That's not a bad idea, Ralph. In the ops session today, we had a few lighthearted moments, mostly when someone would run through a turnout from frog to point with the points in the wrong position. Since I have powered frogs, it shorts and shuts the command station down and all the trains stop. I may need to consider a Digitrax PM42 (or whatever it is) so that only the district in question shuts down.

Had another issue where a train was sitting on a siding as another one passed. The operator in the siding accidently nudged his throttle, and his train went into the turnout towards the main and sideswiped the train on the main... no damage done though!

As for the locks.... we ran three 1-person crews today. In the after-session debriefing, two of the guys said they liked the locks. The third person said the locks were good, but it was a bit tedious using the keys. He suggested that we could just hang the locks in the hasp, but not actually lock them. The turnout control would still be inoperable, and the lock would still have to be removed, only we wouldn't have to use the keys. This may be a good compromise.

[BR60103]

Gary:
Can I suggest a way around the short on the frog? If the frog power is by a DPDT switch (of whatever form), the second pole can be used to selectively power the rails beyond the frog. A length of each rail long enough to contain a loco or consist is insulated beyond the frog and from the frog. This is power by connecting the frog wire to the center pin of the DPDT and connecting the outer pins to the new insulated rails. This will give a dead rail when the turnout is against it.
It also stops the train clear of the turnout.

[Gary S]

I really like that idea! Ingenius! Did you think of that, or did you see it before? Unfortunately, my manual controls only have a single-pole double-throw switch. I have considered removing the frog power altogether to do away with the shorts, but then we would be dealing with derailed locos. Your idea takes care of all of that.

[Steamtrains]

Hey Gary..!! Long time no see....
Perhaps I didn't read it correctly (not unusual for me... :oops, but I fail to see how removing power from the frog would lead to derailments...

i also have all-powered frogs and have the same problem...Probably the best solution for that is to stick the offender's throttle hand in a pot of boiling water. That'll teach him to check the turnout position before he proceeds through it...

Seriously...The only way I've found to minimize the chance of this ocurring, is to make it a rule to ALWAYS restore the switch to its "through" position after exiting it. This will give the operator a known position to start from, and throw the switch if required.

[Gary S]

Hey Gus, hope you have been doing well.

Here is the situation:

   

With the frog powered, running from frog to point with the points wrong causes a short because the frog is the wrong polarity. This stops the train before it has a chance to run through the incorrectly aligned points. On my layout, this shuts down the command station and all locos on the layout screech to a stop.

If I deleted the frog power, the train would continue and run through the incorrectly aligned points, and generally would derail as the wheelsets jump over the points. Just from past experience, the heavy locos may not always derail, but at least several of the cars are going to derail.

In our 3 hour ops session, with three crews, we probably messed up like this about 6 times. I won't even hazard a guess as to how many times we ran from frog to point and got it right - so we could do a percentage mistakes kind of thing.

[faraway]

...On my layout, this shuts down the command station and all locos on the layout screech to a stop...

That is the way it should be! I take it as a strong warning to be more concentrated and obey the rules more closely when operating my layout. But I admit is a nuisance when I am just playing around...

[Steamtrains]

OK, OK, I gotcha.....I interpreted that the un-powered frog would directly of itself cause a derailment.... :oops: