Date   
Re: Current Protection

wirefordcc
 

I want to add some clarification to this topic.  The question was whether the power input to the DCS 240 should be fused and the answer was that the input to the power supply should be fused. 

 

Yes, it is a good idea to fuse the input to the DCS 240.  The DCS 240 is a 3/5/8 amp command station/booster.  The power supply that Lindsay intends to use is a 7A supply.  So do not use the DCS240 in the 8A mode.  Use it in the 5A mode.  If in the 8A mode, the 7A supply will never be able to source enough power for the DCS 240’s internal current protection to shut it down.  A fuse on the input of the DCS 240 should be about 6A or a 5A slo-blo fuse can be used to allow the DCS 240 to do it’s thing and not require you to change the fuse 4 times during an operating session.

 

It is also a good idea to fuse the input of the power supply on the 120V AC side.  Be aware that if it is a 7A, 13.5VDC power supply on the output, the maximum input current to the supply will be less than an amp.  So using a 2A fast-blo or a  1.5A slo-blo  would be appropriate on the 120V AC side.

 

Allan Gartner  WiringForDCC.com 

        

 

Re: Current Protection

Don Vollrath
 

Good advice Allan.
DonV

Re: Current Protection

Charles Brumbelow
 

I have seen these recommended and even used inside Lionel ZW and KW transformers. Variable current ratings available. Charles

US Stock 10pcs 6A 30V PPTC PolySwitch Resettable Fuse Electronics, Cars, Fashion, Collectibles, Coupons and More | eBay







On Wednesday, November 21, 2018, 9:17 AM, Don Vollrath <donevol43@...> wrote:

Good advice Allan.
DonV

Re: Current Protection

Carl
 

Hi Gang:

I've added these to my ZW. Much more protection than the breaker on the common wire.

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/toytrains/photos/photostream/lightbox/1508970439?orderBy=mtime&sortOrder=desc&photoFilter=ALL#zax/1508970439

Good luck, Carl.


On 11/21/2018 12:07 PM, Charles Brumbelow via Groups.Io wrote:
I have seen these recommended and even used inside Lionel ZW and KW transformers. Variable current ratings available. Charles

US Stock 10pcs 6A 30V PPTC PolySwitch Resettable Fuse Electronics, Cars, Fashion, Collectibles, Coupons and More | eBay







On Wednesday, November 21, 2018, 9:17 AM, Don Vollrath <donevol43@...> wrote:

Good advice Allan.
DonV


Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: Current Protection

 

You could also purchase my product and be able to fine tune the current setting:

http://voltscooter.com/?page_id=134

The maximum setting of my product is lower then the 6 Ampere one mentioned previously.  (the trip level of which is actually 12 Amperes).  My product is suitable for any AC circuit under 30V and will also work with DC however the wiring may need to be adjusted to make the indicator light as it has a polarity.

When using a PolySwitch type fuse you need to be aware of both the maximum voltage and the maximum current.  The maximum voltage is easy enough. 

The input voltage to the fuse should not exceed that number.  In the instance mentioned that is 30V and is just fine for Model Railroad secondary voltages but not for the primary voltages on the AC side.

Maximum current is a little harder.  Essentially the source should not be able to exceed the maximum current rating of the fuse.  I was unable to fully trace the one linked in the previous message but the maximum current of similar fuses is 40Ampere so this is certainly large enough for the purpose.

Jmri interface

vincent marino
 

Question. If I wind the interface wire around a 110 extension cord will the dcc signal be affected by the 110 current? 

Re: Jmri interface

Mark Gurries
 

Not sure what you mean by interface wire.

There are 3 classes or wires found in a layout.

1) Low Voltage Control/Communication Cables

2) Low voltage DCC Track or DC/AC cables that distribute layout power.

3)  High Voltage 120V/220V AC power cables.

In general it is bad to mix Class 1 with Class 2.  There is no hazardous power involved.  The only problem with mixing them is noise and communication problems.

You can bundle Class 1 cables in a loose group of its own and you can bundle Class 2 cable in a loose group of its own..

You cannot bundle a Class 3 cable with Class 2 or a Class 3.  When it comes to high voltage AC outlet power, I would not wrap it that cable with anything else.   The AC cable is a hazardous cable and should be protected from accidental contact with tools or anything else that one might use in wiring up a layout.  It should be run all by itself away from all other cables and given some mechanical protection thoughts as to its installation.


On Nov 22, 2018, at 11:12 AM, vincent marino <vmarino2009@...> wrote:

Question. If I wind the interface wire around a 110 extension cord will the dcc signal be affected by the 110 current? 

Best Regards,

Mark Gurries
Electrical Engineer
DCC Website & NMRA DCC Clinics: www.markgurries.com



Re: Jmri interface

General
 

Sounds to me like he is talking about the JRMI interface wire!


On 11/22/2018 9:34 PM, Mark Gurries wrote:
Not sure what you mean by interface wire.

There are 3 classes or wires found in a layout.

1) Low Voltage Control/Communication Cables

2) Low voltage DCC Track or DC/AC cables that distribute layout power.

3)  High Voltage 120V/220V AC power cables.

In general it is bad to mix Class 1 with Class 2.  There is no hazardous power involved.  The only problem with mixing them is noise and communication problems.

You can bundle Class 1 cables in a loose group of its own and you can bundle Class 2 cable in a loose group of its own..

You cannot bundle a Class 3 cable with Class 2 or a Class 3.  When it comes to high voltage AC outlet power, I would not wrap it that cable with anything else.   The AC cable is a hazardous cable and should be protected from accidental contact with tools or anything else that one might use in wiring up a layout.  It should be run all by itself away from all other cables and given some mechanical protection thoughts as to its installation.


On Nov 22, 2018, at 11:12 AM, vincent marino <vmarino2009@...> wrote:

Question. If I wind the interface wire around a 110 extension cord will the dcc signal be affected by the 110 current? 

Best Regards,

Mark Gurries
Electrical Engineer
DCC Website & NMRA DCC Clinics: www.markgurries.com



Re: Jmri interface

vincent marino
 

I have a nce / jmri interface. The laptop USB cord to the interface circles around a 110 extension cord about 4 times in a 4' distance.  I'm wondering if the computer signal to the interface will be affected by the 110 current? 


On Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 9:44 AM General <aj81504@... wrote:

Sounds to me like he is talking about the JRMI interface wire!


On 11/22/2018 9:34 PM, Mark Gurries wrote:
Not sure what you mean by interface wire.

There are 3 classes or wires found in a layout.

1) Low Voltage Control/Communication Cables

2) Low voltage DCC Track or DC/AC cables that distribute layout power.

3)  High Voltage 120V/220V AC power cables.

In general it is bad to mix Class 1 with Class 2.  There is no hazardous power involved.  The only problem with mixing them is noise and communication problems.

You can bundle Class 1 cables in a loose group of its own and you can bundle Class 2 cable in a loose group of its own..

You cannot bundle a Class 3 cable with Class 2 or a Class 3.  When it comes to high voltage AC outlet power, I would not wrap it that cable with anything else.   The AC cable is a hazardous cable and should be protected from accidental contact with tools or anything else that one might use in wiring up a layout.  It should be run all by itself away from all other cables and given some mechanical protection thoughts as to its installation.


On Nov 22, 2018, at 11:12 AM, vincent marino <vmarino2009@...> wrote:

Question. If I wind the interface wire around a 110 extension cord will the dcc signal be affected by the 110 current? 

Best Regards,

Mark Gurries
Electrical Engineer
DCC Website & NMRA DCC Clinics: www.markgurries.com



Re: Jmri interface

 

If you are using double insulated line cord designed for 110V then you don't have a safety issue.  The cable is safe in all circumstances.  The primary source of any noise that might have an effect on low level signals is actually coming from your DCC components.  If your system is legally compliant with FCC rules then there will not be anything on the AC wires that will mess with your low level signals (this may not be the case because enforcement is rare).   The ability of the AC signals to impart interference onto the low level signals is a function of proximity, how long the wires are in close proximity and whether the fields of the wires are aligned.  This is the reason that twisted wire is recommended and used CAT5 and other internet wires.  When you twist the wire the effect of alignment and proximity is essentially eliminated.

Your DCC track wiring is actually vastly more likely to effect adjacent low level signal wires than anything else.  This is because the track wiring is higher frequency, carrying significant currents and consists of more or less square wave signals.  The frequency content of a square wave is many times higher then the basic frequency of the signal.  The higher the frequency and the greater the power the more likely it is to couple to nearby cables.  A clean 60Hz signal won't get very far.   The audio noise we associate with 60Hz power is generally because of the fluorescent light fixtures connected to it.  The fluorescent load can broadcast high frequency noise that occurs at a 60Hz rate.  Hence we hear the 60Hz but not the much higher frequency noise that is broadcasting it into the air.

I hope I have kept the simple and concise enough to be understandable.  The mechanisms involved are very complex and are not at all easy to predict.  Small changes in the configuration of cables can have huge effects.

Ken Harstine
BSEE with 40 years of experience in various aspects of electronics including technician work early in my career and significant experience in getting new systems to comply with with FCC rules.

QSI Connectors

Eric
 

Help!   I am trying to install a GSI sound decoder, originally installed in a DC Porto 2000 RS-27.  This decoder has JST-type mini plugs to attach the power, motor, and lights, as well as the speakers.  There are four female plug connection on the decoder board, two 2-pin, and one each 4-pin and 6-pin.  Can any one familiar with this system tell me what the sizes and type of the required male connectors/plugs are?

I have been to Digi-Key, but they have about 20,000 connectors and without the proper terminology I cannot order some without guessing.  Any help,is greatly appreciated.

RicZ

Re: Programming track "short" message on NCE Powercab

Greg Elmassian
 

So the full manual (not the quick start) talks about a programming track, how to isolate it from the main layout with a switch, and in several places encourages you to use the program track.

It also indicates that if you have problems you could be drawing excessive current, or have lights on, etc.

So, while it does not explicitly say "don't use the whole layout for a programming track" it does encourage you to have a separate programming track.

Just makes sense that if you try to use the whole layout, it's easy to leave some other loads on it... in my case, I had DCC switch controllers from Tam Valley, and have to cut them out when in program track mode.

Greg

Re: Programming track "short" message on NCE Powercab

Mark Gurries
 

On Dec 15, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Greg Elmassian <greg@...> wrote:

So the full manual (not the quick start) talks about a programming track, how to isolate it from the main layout with a switch, and in several places encourages you to use the program track.

That is correct for it will prevent a lot of problems.   The higher end DCC system typically include a set of dedicated programming track terminals so one can implement an isolated programming track.  The PowerCab does not.

It also indicates that if you have problems you could be drawing excessive current, or have lights on, etc.

The main problem with the programming track has to do with “reading" the settings stored inside the decoder such as the locomotive number (address).  If there is any electrical load such as a light that draws power from the programming track that is not under control of the decoder, then it will interfere with the reading process and result in errors.

So, while it does not explicitly say "don't use the whole layout for a programming track" it does encourage you to have a separate programming track.

Because if you take the time to remove ALL of you engines and lighted cars off the layout prior to programming so there is no current draw, you can be successful in the programming track reading.  Just place the engine on the track you wish to program and go.

The PowerCab's lower price comes at the physical expense of asking you to take time and prepare your layout for programming before you start to program.

Just makes sense that if you try to use the whole layout, it's easy to leave some other loads on it... in my case, I had DCC switch controllers from Tam Valley, and have to cut them out when in program track mode.

Yes that will interfere with the programming track.   NCE does offer a solution.   The NCE Autoswitch allows the PowerCab to have a dedicated set of programming track terminals.   


By installing the Autoswtich between the PowerCab and the layout, you will:

1) NOT have to disconnect the Tam Valley controller 
2) NOT have to remove any locomotive or lighted cars from the layout.
3) HAVE a dedicated set of terminals like a high end DCC system has to setup a dedicated programming track.   

If you want to go one more step to create a truly flexible programming track go here:


Now you can have the same dedicated programming track not only program locomotive successfully, but you will also be able to test them with a flick of a switch on the same track.



Greg

Best Regards,

Mark Gurries
Electrical Engineer
DCC Website & NMRA DCC Clinics: www.markgurries.com



PECO Insulfrogs

PennsyNut
 

Hello. I want to do something apparently not authorized. ?? A shelf layout, 12" deep by 24' long. On 2" foam. All wiring on top of the layout, hidden only by scenery. Switching. Want to use all PECO. Want to NOT use any machines or ground throws. Also, wish to install turnouts without fastening. i.e. Be able to slide joiners off the turnout onto attached flex track and simply lift up the turnout for repair or replacement. From the literature, Insulfrogs need no wiring. ? Unless I opt to do the simple cut and wire jumpers. But I choose not to. Now, the problem is the joiners. If the feeder is soldered to the flex track a couple inches from the joint with the point end of the turnout, and also solder feeders to the flex tracks at the frog end of the turnout. The one set of feeders is about 12" from the others. Is this clear? Won't having 6 joiners be enough to keep the turnout powered? i.e. Will all 6 joiners fail at the same time? I guess what I really want is to not restrict removal of the turnout. I've been told to "not rely on joiners". Fine. But how do you have soldered joints and wires attached - and still be able to get the turnout off to repair or replace. That would be a lot of work. What would be the odds of the turnout failing versus all 6 of the joiners failing? Actually, I think the odds are so low in either case as to not be a problem. So I want to take the easy way out. Finally, one last question: Is there a way to bypass the joiners without soldering to the turnout?
Sorry this is so long. But I guess I am stubborn and want to do it "my way". Besides, having the track wiring all on top makes it easier. And more wires mean more chance for problems. Kind of like the argument about soldering versus connectors. There is no choice for me but to solder. Period. No klutsy suitcase connectors, wire nuts, etc.
Morgan Bilbo, new to DCC

Re: PECO Insulfrogs

Carl
 

Hello Morgan:

May I suggest using a strip of PVC "wood" for the front of your layout. You can cut grooves in the PVC for buss wires and use a sheet metal screw to tap in for each track wire.

Look here:

https://www.instructables.com/id/Insulation-Displacement-Screw-Terminals/

When everything is working, make a nice cover for the front fascia.

I did a whole "O" gauge layout this way and it works great.


On my "O" gauge layout I didn't solder joiners but dropped two wires every 3'. I used crimp connectors and suitcases, since PVC wasn't in stores yet. No power problems at all.

Carl.

On 12/17/2018 11:01 AM, PennsyNut wrote:
Hello. I want to do something apparently not authorized. ?? A shelf layout, 12" deep by 24' long. On 2" foam. All wiring on top of the layout, hidden only by scenery. Switching. Want to use all PECO. Want to NOT use any machines or ground throws. Also, wish to install turnouts without fastening. i.e. Be able to slide joiners off the turnout onto attached flex track and simply lift up the turnout for repair or replacement. From the literature, Insulfrogs need no wiring. ? Unless I opt to do the simple cut and wire jumpers. But I choose not to. Now, the problem is the joiners. If the feeder is soldered to the flex track a couple inches from the joint with the point end of the turnout, and also solder feeders to the flex tracks at the frog end of the turnout. The one set of feeders is about 12" from the others. Is this clear? Won't having 6 joiners be enough to keep the turnout powered? i.e. Will all 6 joiners fail at the same time? I guess what I really want is to not restrict removal of the turnout. I've been told to "not rely on joiners". Fine. But how do you have soldered joints and wires attached - and still be able to get the turnout off to repair or replace. That would be a lot of work. What would be the odds of the turnout failing versus all 6 of the joiners failing? Actually, I think the odds are so low in either case as to not be a problem. So I want to take the easy way out. Finally, one last question: Is there a way to bypass the joiners without soldering to the turnout?
Sorry this is so long. But I guess I am stubborn and want to do it "my way". Besides, having the track wiring all on top makes it easier. And more wires mean more chance for problems. Kind of like the argument about soldering versus connectors. There is no choice for me but to solder. Period. No klutsy suitcase connectors, wire nuts, etc.
Morgan Bilbo, new to DCC

Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: PECO Insulfrogs

John Johnston <towboatjohnston@...>
 

Morgan,

 

I understand the logic, and sympathize.  It may work, but do bear in mind that it’s not a case of six joiners failing to cause a dead track.  The outside rails are continuous, so they be fed by joiners on each end.  The inside rails will depend on a single joiner.  I think if a single joiner fails to make good contact on an inside rail, that rail will be dead.  (I use Peco Electrofrogs (in N-scale) so I may not correctly understand Insulfrogs.) Also bear in mind that an unsoldered joiner has two opportunities to fail, one on the switch side and one on the flextrack side.   If either end fails, you have a dead spot.  Assuming the flextrack side has other connections, you could cut the potential failure points in half by soldering the feeders to the joiners themselves.  That can be a little tricky to do.  My experience has been that most mechanical connections (whether unsoldered joiners, or power routing through the point rails) work well for about a year before they accumulate enough oxidation to cause random gremlins. 

 

If you are in HO scale, you may be able to get Peco’s new Unifrog, which I understand combines the best qualities of both.  I haven’t seen one yet, but it may be worth investigating. If you are running long engines with lots of pickups, it may not matter.  You also may want to consider putting “keep-alive” supercapacitors in your locos, which makes them less sensitive to track power imperfections.

 

From: w4dccqa@groups.io <w4dccqa@groups.io> On Behalf Of PennsyNut
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 11:02 AM
To: w4dccqa@groups.io
Subject: [w4dccqa] PECO Insulfrogs

 

Hello. I want to do something apparently not authorized. ?? A shelf layout, 12" deep by 24' long. On 2" foam. All wiring on top of the layout, hidden only by scenery. Switching. Want to use all PECO. Want to NOT use any machines or ground throws. Also, wish to install turnouts without fastening. i.e. Be able to slide joiners off the turnout onto attached flex track and simply lift up the turnout for repair or replacement. From the literature, Insulfrogs need no wiring. ? Unless I opt to do the simple cut and wire jumpers. But I choose not to. Now, the problem is the joiners. If the feeder is soldered to the flex track a couple inches from the joint with the point end of the turnout, and also solder feeders to the flex tracks at the frog end of the turnout. The one set of feeders is about 12" from the others. Is this clear? Won't having 6 joiners be enough to keep the turnout powered? i.e. Will all 6 joiners fail at the same time? I guess what I really want is to not restrict removal of the turnout. I've been told to "not rely on joiners". Fine. But how do you have soldered joints and wires attached - and still be able to get the turnout off to repair or replace. That would be a lot of work. What would be the odds of the turnout failing versus all 6 of the joiners failing? Actually, I think the odds are so low in either case as to not be a problem. So I want to take the easy way out. Finally, one last question: Is there a way to bypass the joiners without soldering to the turnout?
Sorry this is so long. But I guess I am stubborn and want to do it "my way". Besides, having the track wiring all on top makes it easier. And more wires mean more chance for problems. Kind of like the argument about soldering versus connectors. There is no choice for me but to solder. Period. No klutsy suitcase connectors, wire nuts, etc.
Morgan Bilbo, new to DCC

Re: PECO Insulfrogs --- Sidetrack

Glenn
 

Try this with your wiring.

Use a pointed soldering iron or point foam cutter to cut a shallow trench in the foam. press the wires into the trench with a blunt instrument like a popsicle stick, The trench can be hidden with ground cover, or filled in with some sort of filler.

Glenn



-----Original Message-----
From: PennsyNut
Sent: Dec 17, 2018 11:01 AM .
To: w4dccqa@groups.io
Subject: [w4dccqa] PECO Insulfrogs

Hello. I want to do something apparently not authorized. ?? A shelf layout, 12" deep by 24' long. On 2" foam. All wiring on top of the layout, hidden only by scenery. Switching.

Re: PECO Insulfrogs

john
 

I may be giving away my age but once upon a time, to jumper a rail joint, a jumper was soldered from rail to rail avoiding the rail joiner. The rail joiner could be soldered but that would condemn the connection to be there for ever. Rail used to be code 100 and often brass which needed a tremendous amount to solder the joiner. The newer rolled joiners are much better connectors and are much better physical connecters but they will eventually fail if they are not soldered. soldering a jumper is easy.
I didn't invent this joint, the railroad still does it.
jd



On ‎Monday‎, ‎December‎ ‎17‎, ‎2018‎ ‎07‎:‎06‎:‎08‎ ‎PM‎ ‎EST, John Johnston <towboatjohnston@...> wrote:


Morgan,

 

I understand the logic, and sympathize.  It may work, but do bear in mind that it’s not a case of six joiners failing to cause a dead track.  The outside rails are continuous, so they be fed by joiners on each end.  The inside rails will depend on a single joiner.  I think if a single joiner fails to make good contact on an inside rail, that rail will be dead.  (I use Peco Electrofrogs (in N-scale) so I may not correctly understand Insulfrogs.) Also bear in mind that an unsoldered joiner has two opportunities to fail, one on the switch side and one on the flextrack side.   If either end fails, you have a dead spot.  Assuming the flextrack side has other connections, you could cut the potential failure points in half by soldering the feeders to the joiners themselves.  That can be a little tricky to do.  My experience has been that most mechanical connections (whether unsoldered joiners, or power routing through the point rails) work well for about a year before they accumulate enough oxidation to cause random gremlins. 

 

If you are in HO scale, you may be able to get Peco’s new Unifrog, which I understand combines the best qualities of both.  I haven’t seen one yet, but it may be worth investigating. If you are running long engines with lots of pickups, it may not matter.  You also may want to consider putting “keep-alive” supercapacitors in your locos, which makes them less sensitive to track power imperfections.

 

From: w4dccqa@groups.io <w4dccqa@groups.io> On Behalf Of PennsyNut
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 11:02 AM
To: w4dccqa@groups.io
Subject: [w4dccqa] PECO Insulfrogs

 

Hello. I want to do something apparently not authorized. ?? A shelf layout, 12" deep by 24' long. On 2" foam. All wiring on top of the layout, hidden only by scenery. Switching. Want to use all PECO. Want to NOT use any machines or ground throws. Also, wish to install turnouts without fastening. i.e. Be able to slide joiners off the turnout onto attached flex track and simply lift up the turnout for repair or replacement. From the literature, Insulfrogs need no wiring. ? Unless I opt to do the simple cut and wire jumpers. But I choose not to. Now, the problem is the joiners. If the feeder is soldered to the flex track a couple inches from the joint with the point end of the turnout, and also solder feeders to the flex tracks at the frog end of the turnout. The one set of feeders is about 12" from the others. Is this clear? Won't having 6 joiners be enough to keep the turnout powered? i.e. Will all 6 joiners fail at the same time? I guess what I really want is to not restrict removal of the turnout. I've been told to "not rely on joiners". Fine. But how do you have soldered joints and wires attached - and still be able to get the turnout off to repair or replace. That would be a lot of work. What would be the odds of the turnout failing versus all 6 of the joiners failing? Actually, I think the odds are so low in either case as to not be a problem. So I want to take the easy way out. Finally, one last question: Is there a way to bypass the joiners without soldering to the turnout?
Sorry this is so long. But I guess I am stubborn and want to do it "my way". Besides, having the track wiring all on top makes it easier. And more wires mean more chance for problems. Kind of like the argument about soldering versus connectors. There is no choice for me but to solder. Period. No klutsy suitcase connectors, wire nuts, etc.
Morgan Bilbo, new to DCC

Re: PECO Insulfrogs

PennsyNut
 

Carl: Yes. An excellent idea. I did see something similar and your idea is worth a try. I will let y'all know.
John J: I understand. I had thought of using joiners with a feeder wire soldered to the bottom and just slid on the rails. That isn't much better, but again, worth a try. I sure wish PECO would get their Unifrogs on the market. They do seem to solve a lot of problems.
John: Yes, I'm in HO, and code 83 . You are suggesting I solder a wire from the flex to the turnout without a joiner? A very simple solder job. Yes, I can do that. But it still requires unsoldering when needing to replace the turnout. And yes, I had thought of doing that for "leaving a gap" in the rail for expansion/contraction. Of course, then the rail alignment becomes critical. But I can see how it would be easier to remove the turnout. Just clip the wire. The unsoldering of a "little wire" from the turnout would be easy.
I even thought of using code 70, but I show my age by saying "too hard to see". LOL And yes, I remember code 100 brass. Do you remember Midlin track? Now that will show your age.
Thanks to y'all. I look forward to trying the suggestions.
Morgan Bilbo, new to DCC

Re: PECO Insulfrogs

Don Vollrath
 

It is your RR. You do not need to follow the recommendations. However... Experience tells us that the rail joiners are not gas tight connections. Movement due to vibration, expansion and contraction will eventually cause the electrical connection to suffer. Yes, they can work very well for a while. The best way to avoid problems is to have an electrical feeder wire soldered to every piece of rail you want electrified. Soldering rail joiners to the rails is one way to minimize the number of track feeders but brings up the issue of making sure you leave a mechanism to relieve track expansion. Using unsoldered joiners at a turnout will allow you to slide them off and remove the turnout if necessary. However what is likely to go wrong at a well designed turnout??? A poor electrical connection to the turnout rails is the most likely issue... Particularly those of the movable points. It may take a few months or years to find that out depending on your environment and/or luck. A simple solution is to drop a soldered feeder wire to each rail inside the turnout. If you leave enough slack you can easily slide the joiners off and clip or unsolder the feeder wires.

For those who say to solder a feeder wire to the joiner... Think about where the connection issue actually occurs. It is the partially crimped 'sliding' joint between the rail and joiner itself that gets corroded.

DonV