I have no Peco turnouts. There have been many threads about insulfrog, electrofrog and unifrog, but if you have never used any, it’s like a guy from Kansas reading about Sushi, who hasn’t been paying attention.
What I think I know: is they can short on the diverging side of the frog, they are power routing, one needs insulated joiners on the frog rails.
I came across a store that sells used trains and they have a bunch at $2.50 each!
They are used, some have soldering or removal damage that I don’t want to deal with, but some seem like new.
What modifications would I need or what downside would there be if I go with these for a DCC layout?
Henry, my layout is littered with Peco Code 83 #6 Insulfrogs. None of mine short on the diverging side of the frog. True, they are power routing, but you do not need insulated joiners on the frog rails because the frog is plastic (dead). As far as the power routing feature is concerned, if you power all three ends of the turnout, as I do, the Insulfrog is no longer power routing.
There are no modifications that you need to make to a Peco Insulfrog to use it on a DCC layout. If you plan to power your turnouts with switching devices (e.g., Tortoise), you can easily remove the throwbar spring. I leave mine in place and manually throw the points with a flick of the finger.
The title of your thread is Insulfrog, but in your question you mention the Electrofrog. The Electrofrog is also power routing and has a live frog, so you do need to gap the inside frog rails.
Yes, they are power routing. No, they do not short on the frog side or need insulated joiners on the frog side, unless they are part of a reversing section. Then obviously they would, just like any other turnout.
And where is this exactly? [oX)]
Seriously, unless there is something about them that would be a non-starter for you (sprung points, curved through the frog (code 100)), I would buy them up in a heartbeat. For what it’s worth, I have somewhere around 50 Peco code 100 insulfrogs on my layout. They work flawlessly. I like the sprung points. Power routing doesn’t bother me as I power all sides anyway. The curve through the diverging route doesn’t bother me a bit. Don’t even notice it honestly. Even if it bothers you, at 2.50 each use them in a staging yard.
I have Peco 83 Insulfrog on my layout exclusively. No shorting issues, I use normal joiners exclusively, and I add a feeder to the mid point of a runaround siding or spur to defeat the power routing only because I want to. Never saw the point of electrofrog anyway.
The design of the Peco code 83 may preclude you from doing some special niche things, but for average layout construction, they operate as well or better than others.
And the design of others preclude you from doing some other special niche things the Pecos don’t.
The code 100 Pecos curved through the frog, so it might make for a wierd crossover if you use two together or one with another brand. For industrial spurs, in many ways, this design is better.
I don’t have any Electrofrogs on my layout because I don’t need live frogs. But, the Electrofrog is very useful if you need or want a live frog. As long as the inner frog rails are gapped, the Electrofrog works just fine.
Peco insulfrogs are very well made turnouts. They are also more compact than the competition. They are power routing but that is easily dealt with if you wish by connecting power feeders to the tracks after the frog.
Also, Peco is no longer making the insulfrog as they are committed to their newer design, the unifrog. These newer design turnouts are not power routing (but snipping a couple of jumper wires restores this feature) but the new frog design is not perfect. Some locomotive wheels short at the new frog design. Insulfrog remain more useful as a result. Peco is said to be working on a solution to this shorting issue.
Until they succeed I’d be buying up any Code 83 Peco insulfrogs I could find at 10% of original list price!
If I found a source of used Walthers/Shinohara turnouts like I use at $2.50 each, I would buy them all. If only 1 out of 6 pass inspection for re-use, that is still quite a bargain.
I do not use Peco turnouts, but I know many who do, and they generally do not have any more complaints than anyone else.
Oh, I did use Peco turnouts on several N scale layouts with great results.
I had several Peco insulfrogs on the Code 100 part of my layout, including a few double-curved ones. I also had one electrofog. I used Peco machines so I could keep the springs. I found that nothing ever picked the points on Peco turnouts. For that reason, I used them in situations where the main line followed the divergent curved path. Whereas Atlas turnouts sometimes allowed picked-point derailments, I could rely on the Pecos for flawless performance.
I have had shorting issues. This comes from the closeness of the frog rails, which are metal over a plastic frog. However, when a wide wheel tread would cross the frog, particularly on the curved path, it would short as it momentarily bridged the narrow gap. The solution was simple - paint the rails right at the gap with nail polish. The polish never wore off, and I never had shorts afterwards either.
The only rub is the unifrog have the same flaw as the insulfrog. Shorts can occur. Peco has even admitted this to be true and have stated they plan to revise the Unifrogs to mitigate this issue. Here is the email I received from Peco:
[quote]
Thank you for your email raising concerns about short circuits on the Unifrog #6 turnouts. It is standard railway engineering practice to put a 3° taper on wheels, which normally means they only contact the rail they are sat upon and the overhanging outer edge of the wheel should pass over the top of the opposing frog rail without contact. This is what we are used to, and it works that was on our OO and N scale products. However, NMRA RP-25 only recommends a taper, and having spoken to a former colleague who is deeply into Ame
I too use Peco insulfrogs code 100 on my DCC layout. I will only add one additional comment, the point rails pick up their power by using a tab that contacts the stock rail when the turnout is thrown. I have found that those tabs can loose contact creating a dead turnout. All my Peco’s now get a feeder wire installed underneath connecting each stock rail to the point rail before installation. I just use decoder wire. I know this does not need to be done but over the years I have had one or two turnouts go dead due to the tab loosing contact. To the OP I would snag them up and play around building some test track and see what you think, you won’t have any trouble moving them on if you don’t like them.
I have had similar undercarriage issues with both Atlas and Walthers turnouts that lost power months to years after installation. Either slight warping and ensuing up and down flexing, or stray ballast glue schmutz flowing its way into the understrips/rivets.
While it does not help to power the closure rails on the Peco, I default to powering all three legs of a turnout when building the layout, sometimes several feet away down the spur, to help thwart any future problems caused by the turnout or my slopiness.
I have never had these types of failures, but my track laying approach is likely different.
I glue my track down with adhesive caulk, but I do not glue turnouts down. Turnouts are nailed down with a minimum number of track nails, 3-4 typically.
And since my roadbed is always wood or homasote, also mounted on a base that will not flex, they hold well and prevent any
The turnouts were warped. Caulked down at each extreme end, but the middle still rose up and down a bit. These were in yard/industrial areas with no roadbed. Then ballasted them in the middle to hold them down and glue likely got under them. It was during the time when a lot of the Atlas turnouts I bought also had the tangent track not exactly tangent, seemed to bow out.