I am getting ready to start my N scale layout ( w/ DCC) and have gone back and forth on using Peco code 55 vs. code 80. The main sticking point is that peco does not offer insulfrog in the code 55, making extra wiring and gaps an issue. I wish to stay w/ Peco due to the spring mechanism in the turnouts. I have purchased some trial flex track and turnouts in code 80, but I cannot make myself commit to it! Can someone dispell the myths of complicated wiring? Electronics are not my strong suit!!
It’s true; there’s no ideal track in N. Every choice has issues and compromises.
For what it’s worth, I used Code 80 Atlas flex with Peco Insulfrog turnouts. For my choice, the pro was that I can run any size flange and my track is 100% reliable–no derailments! The con is that it doesn’t look nearly as realistic as Atlas Code 55.
What do you know about the Peco code 55? Is it more forgiving w/ flanges of all sizes, and is the wiring difficult? I have read a previous thread here that states that wiring and gapping the rail is not mandatory based on the specific situation , rather advised as a “best practices” type of deal. I am very confused!!!
I use Peco 55 with DCC. There is NO extra wiring/gapping involved if you so desire. Go to wiringfordcc.com for tips if you do wish to modify turnouts, which is recommended for better electrical continuity, but not necessary to be DCC friendly. Peco 55 electrofrogs are DCC friendly right out of the box… as long as you use insulated joiners on the two frog rails (the two inside rails of the diverging end of the turnout) instead of metal ones. Also, I have no problems with “pizza-cutter” wheels.
It does appear that Insulfrog switches in Code 55 do not appear on Peco’s website nor Walthers. So if you go code 55 in N scale, no Peco Insulfrogs, you have to go Electrofrogs. This complicates things considerably. I did my N layout (my first) in Peco track and Insulfrog layouts, code 80. Cutting all those gaps would have been a bit of a problem for me then. I could do it now, probably. Back when I started I think it would have been very frustrating (it was plenty frustrating as it was). So unless you have someone more experienced to work with you (I did not) or can take a class (I couldn’t), stick with Insulfrog which means code 80 in Peco. I had a fairly complicated layout, turnoutwise. If your layout is ultrasimple it might not be so bad.
Peco switches are the only ones I know of that you can hand throw with no modifications except the Atlas which have those black, nonprotypical switch machines. This is a MAJOR reason why so many of us use Peco switches. Then just get a wireless throttle and run your trains, following them along and do your switching by hand. Sooo much simpler than installing switch machines and/or caboose hobbies handthrows.
My only other piece of advice is to use fixed radius (NOT the 11", I recommend the Atlas 19", at any rate use 12" or greater) track when coming off a turnout with a curved section, then go with the flex track. This really helps you in tight situations. You can bend fixed track, some, you have to cut the ties. Attaching the flex track directly to the turnouts puts a lot of bending stress on the turnouts.
This is all from my somewhat limited (one layout, albiet a fairly large one 170’ track and 25 turnouts). Hope that helps.
I would add one thing. For cutting gaps I’d highly reccommend a jeweler’s saw. It is slower than a dremel, but you get a narrower cut, and it is much easier to control, especially in N scale where everything is so darned close together. I don’t think I’d not use Peco 55’s because of this issue, but that’s just me. I’m handbuilding mine using FastTracks stuff, so I have a little different perspective.
For the Peco 55 electrofrogs it looks like (and I don’t have them, just reading the info) it is desireable (though possibly not totally necessary) to add gaps in frnt of the frog so prevent short in the case of a derailment on the frog. It’s at http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches_peco.htm abouit 3/4the way down. Look at your turnouts and understand them before you do anything, it could be things have changed, though I have not read that anywhere.
Jaretos, never seen any code 55 insul frog points. Been using peco since I was a lad always used live frog (OO & N sorry HO) the main problem with using 55 live frog points & track for DCC is wheel profile & gauge. With the flanges on some of the real old stuff many modelers used when finner rails came you could get shorts on DC mate.
Just wire as per instructions & keep the point blades clean, you can always feed back from the frog using a point motor & accesory switch.
It’s not just the old stuff that wont work on 55. The new Athearn DCC steam with sound doesnt clear the code 55 track. Athearn makes a conversion kit, now.
Other good thing about code 55 is Atlas has lots of fixed radius, many radiii like LOTS. That is good. Atlas only has 11" (too tight) and 19" in code 80.
And like you say, only Electrofrogs in code 55 Peco turnouts.
I think that the track you are referring to with the problems is the Atlas N-Scale Code 55.
I used it on my layout and learned a lot about track and wheels on locos and cars.
If the wheels do not comply with the NMRA RP-25 spec for wheels one has problems with the flange hitting the spikes that are cast on the ties.
As for the N-Scale Athearn Challenger wheel issue; I purchased 2 of them (the first release) and both have low profile wheels and there is no problem running on the Atlas code 55 track.
It appears that not all of them have the wheel / flange issues.
Here’s what I found out on this very subject. David Popp who authored Building a Railroad Step by Step builds his railroad with Peco Code 55. In his book he never mentions making his Peco electrofrog turnouts “DCC Friendly”. I was able to find Mr. Popp’s email address and I asked him about this. He was gracious enough to reply back. He said that he did not make any modifications to his turnouts. He of course had to put insulated rail joiners on the rails leading off of the frog. And said that he has had absolutely no problem with the turnouts and DCC. Hope this helps everyone…
My first layout used Atlas 80 track with Peco 80 turnouts . Second layout used Peco 55 rail and Peco 55 turnouts. Current layout uses Atlas 80 rail and Atlas 80 turnouts.
Using Peco electrofrog turnouts may involve a few extra insulated rail joiners and feeder wires, but it’s no big deal if you think a little ahead and test as you go. The snap action of Peco turnouts is nice until you begin to have poor electrical contact between the moving point rail and the stock rail. This is also not a show-stopper as there are several ways to fix it.
I run DC so I cannot comment about DCC from personal experience, only from friends who have DCC layouts. I believe the concept of turnouts being “DCC friendly” is a mole-hill made into a mountain, along with the notion that feeder and buss wires need to be extremely heavy wire. I could be totally wrong about this and get a lot of flack, but I believe if a layout runs fine with DC using unmodified turnouts, then it should also work fine with DCC.
Thanks for the info; btw, about a year ago I emailed Mr. Popp regarding his Nantucket track plan and he emailed me within 24hrs with a detailed response. It is no wonder that he has been promoted so quickly to such an important role in this magazine. I hope he continues to promote N scale, as he seems to be the only one doing so in MRR Mag!!
You do not have to do anything to the electrofrogs. It is a common mistake that has even been recently perpetuated in one of the UK model magazines (and subsequently corrected in a later editorial comment) that you need to modify the electrofrogs. I am using the code 55 electrofrogs for the visible areas of my CP railroad and have no trouble ahatsoever straight out of the box. All you need is two insulating joiners on the inner rails on the toe of the point and the switch mechanism does the rest for you. It is really that simple. The locos never stall on the electrofrogs and I have had 30+ cars with finescale microtrain wheels running through them (and being pushed while switching) with no problems at all. As always, just make sure the track is well laid and follow John Armstrong’s rules.
i.ve been having trouble with the peco code 80 insulfrog turnouts in that the wheels of cars and locos touch the opposite rail on the frog causing a short which sometimes stops trains or makes them jerk a little going over the switch. i’m switching to electro frogs to i won’t have to keep using paint or nail polish on the rail.
Nail varnish! the old bat’d go balistic if I nicked hers.
No seriously stick to live frog there’s less chance of stalling with the smaller wheeled short wheelbase stock there is about.
The only time insul fishplates are required are with facing frogs, ie loops where there is no physical breaks in the rail such as board ends and crossings ( between tracks) or with DCC for extra live feeds to isolate locos to save amps when not in use.
You bring up a good point;What about when designing a yard ladder? Do any concerns arise regarding the need for modification; in other words, can I still just use the insulated joiners or is there a need for some wiring?