Sorry to dredge this up again, but I really can’t figure out which way to go. I am starting a brand new HO layout. The first module has a simple yard and a switchback, about 11 switches. I have decided to go with Peco code 83 #4 turnouts. I am not really planning on any type of switch machine, mechanical or electric, besides the built-in spring - I’ll switch the turnouts by hand with the cross piece. I will be starting with DC, but if I don’t loose interest, I’m sure there is DCC in my future eventually. What I can’t figure out is insulfrog vs electrofrog. Reliability is important to me. Right now, I have only deisel, but soon I will add one or two small steam engines, and they might be rather old used ones, hopefully 0-6-0’s. I have lots of cars with metal wheels. From what I’ve read, I have two choices, and there are very strong opinions on both sides:
Option 1: Choose insulfrog turnouts. Jumper across the hinges on the points. Fairly simple to wire, no electrical switch necessary. Rumored to be better about stalling engines than Atlas. I’m pretty convinced I can solve any problems with shorting accross the frog by beveling the rail heads between the frog rails.
Option 2: Choose electrofrog turnouts. Cut jumpers provided to isolate the frog from the points. Add feeders to the point rails. Jumper across point hinges. Install an electrical switch to route power to the frog and frog rails. Install insulated rail joiners. Rumored to be much better about stalling engines than insulfrogs. I’ll need to pick out switches and figure out how to install them mechanically, or use some ground throws with a built in switch, which adds cost and complexity.
Please offer recommendations and experience. I’d like to get this right the first time. I’ll do the extra work for electrofrogs if its really worth it.
I won’t claim to have scads of experience in this, but my new track is down and proven with code 83 Walthers/Shinohara #7.5 curved turnouts and Peco DCC-friendly (insulfrog) #6. The both have given brief and intermittent signs of shorting at the frogs when the wider train wheels bridge both rails at the frog point. In the case of the Peco, an outright short protection indication and loco stall has happened so often that I painted the diverging rail points with a clear lacquer…which cured the issue.
My point is that the fix with the DCC friendly frogs is as easy as that. I am told that eventually the point rails will not transmit power down their lengths due to their pressure against the stock rails reliably, and that is when they will have to be jumpered.
You are correct to be concerned for your future shorter wheel-based locomotives with the insulfrogs, but I have a little P2K 0-6-0 which handles all of my handlaid (insulfrog) #8 turnouts, and all of my commercial ones described above. It might be much easier, in the long run, to provide better connectivity in a single locomotive than to do all that you might have to do for the other types of turnouts…how many did you say you would need?
The DCC-friendly ones work well for me with slight attention.
My experience with Peco insulfrog turnouts so far as been less than favorable. Like Selector, I’ve also had to resort to the clear fingernail polish trick to prevent shorts… and you shouldn’t have to do that. I’ve looked carefully at the frog area on about 10 of these turnouts and the distance between the converging point rails is all over the map… from almost touching to adequately spaced apart (to prevent said shorts). If I had it to do over again I think I’d go with the new(er) Walthers dcc friendly turnouts. I like the way that area of the turnouts are made.
Right for starters this ‘DCC freindly’ and not DCC freindly is a mith. If a switch shorts under DC control, it’l short with DCC control and vice versa. On my old layout i handbuilt all my switch’s and diamonds including a double slip. The best way to wire them like any other switch is to wire jumpers from the switch rails themselves to their own corrosponding stock rail. That way you wont get shorts between the wheel flange and the switch rail as the wheel set passes through the ‘planing lenght’ of the switch, ie, the open side.
Personaly, i’d go for a live frog design everytime. All you have to do is cut whatever jumpers the manufacturer has added and electricly bond both switch rails to its corrosponding stock rail, this way both stock and blade will always be the same polarity so no short will ever occur by a wheel bridging the gap between the open switch rail and stock rail causing a short.
All you need to do now is obviously switch the polarity of the crossing (frog) depending on witch way the switch is thrown (UK parlence, reverse or normal) for this job i will use the great U.S made Tortoise machine everytime, realy easy to wire up and years of trouble free operation and their queit in operation.
I think if you decide to leave the electrical operation out that will be a big regret in the long run and you’l tire of switching by hand. You’l regret it even more if you use insulfrog, especially if you plan on running short wheel base tank engines as they will more than likely be forever stalling on the dead crossing!
This maybe a help to describe the above better. Its from a maual that shall remain nameless for obvious reasons.
If you look at the dead frog design at top left, this i think was the first design of dead frog now relegated to the toy train set.
The obvious solution is to make the frogs live so that current pick up is available from every piece of rail. Fig 6. I think this method is used by Peco electro frogs, correct me if im wrong!
The frog and rails beyond are conected permanently to the switch rails which in turn make contact with the appropriate stock rail. Thus the frog must always have the correct polarity according to which way the turnout is set.
This is where the ‘short’ i was on about comes into play. The wheel set rolling through the flangeway can touch the back of the ‘unused’ switch rail.
These problems can be overcome by putting 2 rail breaks at each end of the frog, Fig 7.
The switch and closure rails being connected to their adjacent stock rails. Since none of the moving parts can now be used as switch’s, this is where a Tortoise comes in, to switch the polarity of the frog when the switch is thrown. If you also have a break in the stock rails (lower end of Fig 8), jumpers can then be used to carry power from the front (toe end) of the switch to the rest of the spur or through line when the switch is thrown against that route or spur. If you dont it can be seen that the switch is self isolating and no power will flow to the route that the switch is set against. Whilst this can be useful for DC control, its not desirable for DCC control.
Thanks for the input guys. Gary, I don’t see your pictures, so I couldn’t quite follow your discussion, but I think what you said is what I was planning for the electrofrogs. I understand where the shorts you are discussing occur - at the moveable end of the points. It sounds like lots of folks have problems with insulfrogs shorting as the engine rolls past the frog onto the frog rails.
I know you are talking Peco turnouts here but I’ve use all Atlas turnouts and not had to do any fancy wiring for DCC or DC. I am not sure if the issues mentioned are because of the types of locomotives or not. I would expect manufacturers to have addressed these types of issues by now. It isn’t like DCC came out yesterday. As consumers we should demand more quality and less time spending on the wiring of turnouts.
jbinkley60,
Funny you should mention Atlas. I bought a couple Atlas code 84 customline turnouts to try. They need a switch machine of some sort to hold the points against the rail. They have an isolated frog, but I think it could be powered through a separate electronic switch. I have had pretty good luck with the two I bought, and they are much cheaper than Peco. I have a Proto1K RS11 which seems to have pickup problems in general, but when otherwise running ok, runs over the frogs with no problems. Atlas is another option for me - I get the impression the Peco turnouts are better on guage, etc. Like I said, I am having trouble deciding which way to go…
Jim
Jim, this is the area on Peco’s where shorts are likely to occur. If a wheel reaches over and touches the other rail ( red area), you get a short.
I like the ‘snap’ spring of the Pecos for holding the rails in place. They have that nice, solid CLICK!
And as far as Atlas, well…, I still have a few on spurs etc. Atlas kinda gets a bad rap because of their ‘unprototypical’ looks, but I’ve never had a moments trouble with any of them.
Use CLEAR fingernail polish and only on about 1/4 to 3/8th inch on the rails starting at where the metal rails become plastic insulator or about in the area of the red colored spot except put it on BOTH rails. Let it dry and then put on a second little dab. No more shorts but will have to be reapplied occasionally. It’s not a permanent solution. but it takes me just a few minutes to do all my turnouts.
I will also be using Peco code 83 switches on my layout. I have purchased 10 #5 electrofrog switches for yard tracks, I wasn’t aware that Peco made a #4 code 83 turnout. The only ones I’ve heard of are the #5’s, 6’s and soon to be released #8’s. Did I miss the release of the #4’s, because if they do exist I will definately get some for my yard?
On some of my Pecos I had to shim the guard rail just .005 to prevent shorts. Just glue a piece of styrene to the frog guard rail not the stock rail and no more shorting. Check it with your NMRA standards gage. Dont make the flangeway too tite or youll pinch the wheels. Then again Ive been told to switch to proto 87 wheels and I wouldnt have that problem. Proto 87 wheels are thinner than standard HO wheels. I would need thousands of wheelsets. Styrene is a lot cheaper.
Pete
Peco Insulfrog and Electrofrog code 83 turnouts are both built significantly different, electrically, than their code 100 counterparts. My suggestion would be to purchase one of each type and carefully read through the documentation that comes in the package. Because of the way they have been re-engineered I could find no significant difference between them unless you’re going to be operating a lot of very short wheelbased engines, i.e., 0-4-0s.
I was forced into using a couple of code 83 Electrofrog turnouts because my supplier didn’t check the package closely enough. I did nothing special as far as wiring the frogs on them and can’t tell any difference between Electrofrog and Insulfrog, operationally.
