I just need help understanding these two, how they work, and if there is one which is better for DCC use. I am just starting a new N Scale layout, first one in 30 years believe it or not, so i am a bit behind. I would appreciate any input you may have.
Hi, RScot - I, too am confused by the terms . I await responses.
Strictly DC locomotives seem to be more tolerant of the odd minimal contact between the metal tire surfaces on HO and N scale rolling stock and the closely located rails of opposite polarity just outboard of the frog point. DCC decoders are much less tolerant because of the finer electronics, and purposefully so as far as the sensitivity of the base controller is concerned. This is so that your expensive decoders, which are not only costly, but a pain, to replace, are not inadvertently burnt…the magic smoke escapes from them and leaves a distinct odour around the train room. You know what I mean.
Insulated frog turnouts of all makes and codes/numbers are designed with spacers, insulators, just past the part where the two frog points rails actually split. Similarly, there is an insulated spacer close to the kink where the wing rails diverge around either side of the frog. I mean the closure rails, properly, that converge to the frog point and then bend to run parallel to the points to act as guards. So, you get a frog that is neutral, or electrically “dead”. It means problems with gauge or with variances in tire width, and with the occasional consequent contact with two rails at the same time in close quarters, you won’t get the shorts that result, and your system won’t shut down. More importantly, your decoders don’t keep getting spikes and short current running through them, however briefly. It’s always a risk.
Electro-frog have no insulating spacers, and the frog is electrically active for the route lined by the points rails. If gauges and tire widths are good, there should be no problems because there would almost never be any unwanted and dangerous (to the decoder) shorts, however brief and limited. The problems do seem more prevalent at the frogs when they happen, and they will happen much more often with electro-frog turnouts, supposedly, and will result in frustrations that electrically isolated and dead frogs just
There is no such thing as a best.
The difference is simply that the Insul Frog turnouts work very similar to the Atlas you are probably used to. Connect power to the the point end of the turnout and it gets to the proper rails on the frog side. The problem is that the frog is plastic and electrically dead so some locomotives can stall. Track wiring is definitely easier with the Insul-frog.
Electrofrog turnouts are similar to the HO Shinohara brand. The frog is connected to the points such that they are either electrically right or left depending on the orientation of the turnout. Either one or the other of the routes out of the turnout is powered but not both. The opposite route has two rails of the same polarity. If feeders are put on the tracks on the tracks coming from the frog (such as a loop back to the points side) gaps are necessary to prevent short circuits. Track wiring is more involved but I find it more useful.
There are no problems at the frogs with Electrofrog or any other non-insulated frog turnout. The potential for short circuits (if any ever occur) is at the points because Peco and other manufacturers of power routing turnouts use the points to switch the frog polarity instead of isolating the frog and using an electrical contact to change the frog polarity.
The open point is of the opposite polarity of the adjacent stock rail. If the open space is too small (I haven’t heard of this on Peco Electrofrog), the back of a metal wheel can brush against the open point while riding on the stock rail of opposite polarity. This creates a momentary short circuit, which is often ignored in DC but trips the circuit breaker in DCC. Like I said, I have not of heard of this problem with Peco Electrofrog, but 10-20% of older Shinohara turnouts have this going on. The problem is exacerbated by wheel sets that are narrow in gauge.
[quote]
In theory. In practice, the truth is that some manufacturers have placed those frog points rails spacers too close to the diversion point, and they are too small. The result is that some wide metal tires still manage to make contact with the two divergent (and electrically opposite) frog rails. The inevitable short shuts down the system, and you are just as frustrated. This is especially true with longer curved turnouts
My n scale layout uses all Peco electrofrog turnouts and runs on DCC. It works just fine. I prefer this method to the “DCC ready” turnouts that require you to separately power the frogs through esome form of polarity reversing system. I find this method to be a terrible bandaid for just doing it properly and “DCC ready” has brainwashed people into thinking these types of turnouts must be used with DCC. The issue with electrofrog turnouts comes from understanding how to wire them initially. Once you see it diagrammed it becomes very. Complications may arise in places that have opposing direction turnouts or multiples placed against each other or directly to crossing tracks so this is where you have to think things through in regards where to put insulating pins and power drops. For most people this isn’t much of an issue though. Insulfrog turnouts obviously aren’t “DCC ready” either as the frog can never be powered. This isn’t necessarily a problem unless you run the very shortest wheelbase engines.
Sorry to say, the more that I learn about Electro Frog turnouts, the less that I understand.
I get the basics of wiring Electro Frog turnouts, but why would you want them on a DCC layout?
Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler in DCC to just use Insul Frog turnouts?
On a DCC layout, what advantage, if any, would electrofrog have over insufrog?
Thanks.
Rich
I have 2 reasons (it doesn’t matter whether I’m using DCC or DC):
-
the frog is powered. I don’t have to worry about my small locomotives stalling, especially at switching speeds. If you use delayed uncoupling, a stall undoes your uncoupling moves. Lights flicker when electrical contact is lost - passenger cars and cabooses are pretty obvious. Worst case is a sound decoder resets itself and starts the sound sequence over again. To me, stalls are every bit as annoying as short circuits.
-
the all rail frog looks a lot better than molded plastic.
To me, good looking, no stall turnouts are worth the slight extra effort in wiring - which is really the same in DC or DCC. The Peco Electrofrog needs no extra wires for DCC - only a gap at the end of the frog rails. The feeders further down the diverging paths take care of powering track up to the gaps (I assume you do use more than one set of feeders in DCC to avoid voltage drop). If you want to provide a backup path for power to the frog (points are primary) you can add a contact and 3 wires - just as in DC.
Because track and switching operations are models, too.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Thanks guys for the opinions. They are appreciated. My frustrations in the past have been dead spots and shorts and there are answers to both with ether switch typ.
R. Scot
wiring wise yes.
In addition to the ones about locomotives stalling and looks…
- The hot frog can be used to indicate the direction of the turnout for signaling. Either local signals or back to the dispatcher (or DCC computer for automatic operations).
- A locomotive approaching a turnout set against it will not jump the points it will stop one way or another. Either it will become dead as both rails have the same polarity or it will short circuit. Prevents collisions.
And then you are in “N” scale so you don’t have the issue the code 100 Insulfrog Pecos have of shorting “across” the point rails.