I’m having flashbacks to Lost in Translation. But you are correct there is a lot of misinformation out there.
The two rails that exit the frog, the frog rails are the inner most rails of the turnout complex. The outer rails are stock rails. If you look at the second diagram on this page, you will see that in a Peco electrofrog turnout, the frog and the frog rails are powered together
I did find a youtube video by Scale Model Trains & Colorado Joint Line that claims the frog rails are not electrically connected.
The diagram on the Peco website instructions for code 100 turnouts show that stock and frog rail of the mainline should be isolated. I don’t understand that at all and don’t believe it.
Thanks for those multiple references BigDaddy. I made a hard copy of each one so I can reference them over and over.
I need to look for info as to how to ‘inspect’ these turnouts electrically, as I understand it creates problems trying to trouble shoot DCC items with ordinary DC meters?
Randy has posted many times that a cheap Harbor Freight meter on AC is adequate for HO-DCC. Before you wire anything up, a continuity check will confirm the power routing nature of these, or any other turnouts.
And they read DCC voltage close enough as well - many expensive “RMS” meters actually can;t since they are calibrated for sine wave AC and not square waves or any other wave shape. Even the ones with “True RMS” that can do any wave shape often don’t go up high enough in frequency for DCC.
Frankly, it’s not that critical. No matter what meter you use, at a nominal 15V for DCC track power, it won;t be off by more than a volt or two either way. So if you stick the meter on and see only 5V, or 30V, you have a problem. If it reads 14, or 16V, it’s fine. They key is consistency if you have multiple boosters - each section of the layout should have the same reading. If a given meter reads, say, 1/2V too low, it’s ALWAYS going to read 1/2V too low, so as you test around the layout, the reading should always be the same. Any variation you get is a variation of the source power, NOT the meter.
I agree completely with South Penn. I use Peco Electrofrog code 83 turnouts exclusively, and no special wiring is needed. The electrical contact via the switch points is dead on reliable, and the springing in the points helps with it. The points make solid contact against the stock rail. All my wheels are metal, standard width, and I have not had any shorting issues because Peco makes the flangeway thru the points wide enought to avoid shorts. The only special work needed is to insulate all four rail joints beyond the frog and add feeders beyond. And that’s not even necessary if the turnout leads to a spur that can lose power when the switch is thrown against it. If a short were to occur in the points area, my digital circuit breakers will knock off the power instantly, with no harm done. sometimes the simplest solution is the best and most elegant.
Insul and electro are certain indications that your purchase was from Peco. Shinohara simply calls them (as do the rest of the manufacturers) insulated or power routing frogs. As recently as 15 years ago (maybe more) better turnout manufacturers used what you purchased, insulfrogs. For good, bad or indifferent, DCC changed that, and insulated frogs started to become more desireable.
I suspect that 95% of model railroaders that have insulated frogs 1) don’t have any problems with operation and 2) don’t operate short wheelbase locomotives or slow speed locomotives like Shays, Heislers or Climax’s. These will stop when trying to cross over insulfrogs. The electrofrog is a power routing turnout and is much easier to wire in. Over years of continous operation, the electrofrog, being all metal (nickel silver rail) wont wear out. Of course nether will the Atlas “custom line”, but turnouts with insulated frogs that are built with plastic will wear down in just a few short years. I chose to go with Shinohara code 83 track which of course all turnouts are insulated to apease the problems that can occur with DCC operation. As a result, I have to power my frogs with ether Tortoise or sub miniature slide switches. I’m not complaining, it was my choice. It is only my opinion, but given my druthers, I would always go with an electro frog (power routing) turnout or diamond any day.
Frankly, DCC has nothing to do with insulated frog or powered frog. The wiring is exactly the same as for DC.
The difference in what is commonly called “dcc friendly” has to do with the point rails. Turnouts that are not DCC friendly can have insulated frogs. For example, the older Shinohara turnouts have the two moving point rails connected with a conductive metal tie rod. So both point rails always have the same polarity. Unless the open side is significantly out of scale, it is very easy for the back of an out of scale (even the code 88 wheels are only semi-scale in HO) wheel to touch the open point rail. With fast acting DCC circuit breakers, this can cause an instant power cut, stalling the train, where DC typically takes longer to react to a short, allowing the train to get past the momentary touch easier.
A properly wires Electrofrog or other all-rail turnout has the two point rails insulated from one another, and the open one is either dead or matches the polarity of the adjacent stock rail. Then, if the back of a wheel happens to brush the open point rail, it’s no longer a short and nothing will happen. Add frog power and these are the absolutely most reliable type of turnout you can have.
I have quite a few Peco’s that are ‘unpackaged’. What is a real quick and/or simple way to determine if they are Electrofrog, or Insulfrog?
(sorry I’m just a bit lazy this morning to go back and look thru the numerous postings on the electrical nature involved).
I’m thinking I should use all Electrofrog turnouts in my staging area, and being a little difficult to reach in by hand they should be remotely operated.
But I am not really wanting Tortoise machines, nor Frog Juicers etc. Actually I like the old capacitive discharge idea with twin coil machines? Had them on my old layout and they worked reliable. One CD unit could operate at lease 4 turnouts at a time. I had a double pole toggle switch I could set to my chosen turnout’s direction(s), then push one button to ‘snap’ the turnouts connected to it.
For quite awhile i was operating under this assumtion that the Peco’s 100’s had curved diverging routes, but upon closer inspection mosi of mine appear to have straight diverging routes??
Brian, PECO code 100 turnouts are curved thru the frog. Look at the outer diverging route rail, it is a smooth curve all the way, no “straight” segment parallel to the frog or beyond.
Then look at an Atlas, or PECO code 83, they straighten out before the frog, and they stay straight thru the frog and out to the end of the turnout.
What happens after that us up to the track arrangement.
Personally the only place I will use curved frog turnouts is “in street” or similar industrial trackage.
Look at the tip of the frog where the rails come together. If there is a small piece of black plastic, then they are insulfrogs. If metal, then electrofrog.
What is the equivelent you would use in code 100, and why is it you don’t like the curved frog turnout? Is it just for looks? If so, for hidden staging, shouldn’t be an issue?
OK, first, I’m a little bit of a neurotic perfectionist, so I don’t like the idea of randomly using different brands of track/turnouts without very specific reason.
Next neurosis, I would not bother to change rail sizes just because track is hidden.
BUT, Atlas code 100 turnouts work fine.
Why no curved frogs? Why are they straight on the prototype?
Because of the rail/wheel relationship theory that says under ideal conditions, the flange does not touch the rail.
If a given wheelset is “in a curve”, it is pushed toward the outside of the curve, even if the flange is not making contact. The wheel taper makes the outer wheel “larger” and the inner wheel “smaller”, steering the wheel around the curve.
Which side is the frog gap on? The outside.
OK the guard rail will pull it over and prevent problems - BUT, it does that at greater friction in a curve than in a straight.
Turnout theory says the wheel is rolling the down the straight track, centered by gravity and the wheel taper. If the points are set to the diverging route, the “outside” wheel passes onto the closed point rail which is effectively a straight piece of rail that diverges at a very small angle
Neurotic is ok. I am somewhat of a perfectionsist with track laying myself. That said, I’ve mixed differing brands of track on my past two layouts for specific reasons, mainly that Atlas didn’t offer #8 turnouts at the time, or large radius curved, or other specialty turnouts. I purchased mostly Walthers (made by Shinohara) code 83 turnouts to fill those needs. Since then Atlas has offered a #8, of which I bought one, but still have the Walthers for where they may be required.
As for hidden staging, I already have a good deal of code 100 track. In general code 100 is cheaper and more durable and if appearance is not important, then all the these combined reasons are for me compelling to continue to use code 100 in hidden staging on my next layout. Even if I didn’t have a bunch of code 100 already, I’d probably go with it anyway because it would save on cost and being raised by depression era parents and not bleeding money, I like to keep costs down where ever possible.
I’ve used the Atlas code 100 turnouts for many years but really don’t care for them and the large pothole at the frog; maybe thats just me but I’m ready to retire them on my next layout and substitute something else for the staging yard. You’ve made your point about Atlas turnouts well enough so no need to belabor it any longer on my behalf. You know what they say about repeating something over and over and expecting a different result - heading in to insanity territory. Maybe I
Again agreed, I have no idea if rail/wheel theory really has any measureable effect on our model turnouts.
And, it depends on the application. Building a yard ladder, PECO curved frogs likely don’t have any negetive effects.
But it really bugs me to use them to build a crossover - it’s like the idea of putting two pieces of snap track back to back as an S curve, going right from one curve to the other direction curve with no striaght in the middle.
And then for me there is the PECO springs that have to be removed and the extra wiring to make them work the way I want.
Having build my own turnouts, I now much prefer the feed thru wiring and the seperate live frog. This type of wiring scheme works best with my Advanced Cab Control system. So Atlas is ready to use out of the box.
Is the Atlas code 100 a little “clunky”? Yes, agreed.
One thought on cost. As a construction professional I always look at time as well as materials when measuring cost. I know we are not paying anyone to build our layouts, but time is time, the faster, easier tasks go, the more we get done.
But more different materials, more detailed purchase lists, more steps in preping materials are all time factors which seem to eat up small savings very quickly - we see it all the time in our work. Not saying this is true about your choices, but there is that saying - penny wise and dollar (or pound) foolish.
And I guess I was just looking at those Peco turnouts with a distorted eye. I was orinally understanding that those were curved diverging routes, but as I viewed them while mocking up my staging tracks I began to think that the very end of the diverging tracks were actually more straight than curved,…my error.
One advantage of these Peco turnouts is they occupy less linear length than many others (more compact).
IMHO the easier solution to the shorting issue in the second paragraph is to gap the frog and isolate it. This is easier to do before installation and does require soldering a feeder to the newly isolated frog, but I find it easier and more reliable than trying to modify tortoises. This does leave the points powered by contact to the stock rail (or by tabs - depending on the age of the TO).
As for the curved turnout discussion, I do agree that it is frustrating to try and plan trackwork without the actual switch in hand. I took a radius tool with me to buy my Shinohara/ Walthers curved TOS and checked the turnouts before buying, to avoid going below my minimum radius - they are notorious for overstating the radi…
In another instance, I had to scratchbuild a curved turnout for the top of my helix when none of the commercial products would fit - I discovered they wouldn’t fit after purchasing several of them and trying them in the space. An expensive miss…
Guy and Other Fine People: I am not going to comment on whether or not one should or should not use insulated frogs. That is for others to comment on. However, I want do want to comment on the question of Shinohara power routing TOs and Tortoise switch machines and the “shorting” issue. I use (almost exclusively) Shinohara (not Walthers Shinohara!) code 70 track and TOs and have done so for many years and I have been using Tortoise switch machines for better than twenty years. I cannot ever recall a “short” happening from this arrangement. Never. I am not even sure how it would happen, but assuming the wire actuator rod (only way I can think of this happening) touched the rivet on the throwbar/tie and caused a short the easiest and quickest way I can see to fix would be to to slip some insulation over the actuator rod. Just my couple of shillings.