Eventhough I have used many swithches and or turnout in my time I am not sure about the difference in the insulated vs the non-insulated frog. I assume it is for power routing, maintaining and or directing power to a specific section of track.
I am getting ready to add a 10X8’ yard with multiple switching and I have found that I like the Peco Code 83 because of their dependability and I like the turnouts ability to stay in place and not slip. Any thoughts are recommendation.
This is one of those questions that comes up at least weekly. There is a box to the right of this message labeled “Search Community.” If you type “Insulfrog vs. Electrofrog” into that block several previous discussions of these two types should appear.
Just get the insulfrogs, worry free operation, no need to gap the rails, perfect for DCC. I also have feaders on all diverging route tracks. I have 24 of them on my new layout.
True enough, but the problem with referring someone to the Search Community in a situation like this is that there are 3,040 pages consisting of 30,399 items when you type “Insulfrog vs. Electrofrog”.
I appreciate the information. I have some already, that is the insulfrogs, and they work fine. Just curious what others do and it helps me a great deal
The insulfrog turnout’s main purpose is to preclude unwanted shorts that will almost certainly shut down the DCC power system…meaning your whole layout goes dead. Unbless you have power districts or other shorts management devices.
The problem with live frogs in DCC is that the frogs vary from turnout to turnout across manufacturers, and the distances between flanges, or the width of the tires, or the thickness of the flanges, all conspire to add enough variance in the transition of metal wheels through powered, closely packed, rails (the frog) that something is going to touch, and that means your system shuts down immediately. If you can get an engine across a dead frog, and most do just fine these days with better pickups, then you have eliminated a strong source of frustration. You have taken a 20-40% probability that one item in a consist is going to trip the short circuitry and reduced it to practically zero.
I only use dead frogs, and all of my engines, large and tiny, steam or diesel, do just fine on them. Mind you, none of them is more than five years old, so they have modern problem-solving working in them.
Modeling the other side of an even bigger pond, I have absolutely no use for any turnout with an insulated frog. I’ll even go a bit farther - I have no use for ANY commercially-manufactured turnout, period.
Far from worry-free operation, my DMU, EMU and short-wheelbase teakettles have proven very unhappy with insulated frogs. Since I use Analog DC, MZL system, I have to gap the rails - but I put the gaps where I (not some manufacturer) want them.
If your live frogs are powered through contacts on whatever moves the switch points they are just as good as dead frogs for DCC - unless you think it’s a good idea to be able to enter a turnout from the frog end with the points thrown for the opposing route. Of course, with DCC it’s also possible to have head-on collisions…
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with all hand-laid specialwork)
Which ones will work best for you will depend largely on what equipment you plan on running on your layout.
If you’re going to be running short-wheelbase locomotives (i.e. 0-4-0, 0-6-0, or small “critter” diesels) or running older, unmodified brass steam or even some older brass diesels that pick up power from one rail on one truck (or drivers, in the case of steam), and pick up from the other rail on the other truck (or tender, in the case of steam), then you’d be better off using electrofrog and using some sort of relay to control the polarity of the frog.
If you’re going to be running nothing but all-wheel-pickup diesels, then the insulfrog turnouts will work just fine for you.
A word of caution about the insulfrog turnouts, though…don’t rely on the points to make good electrical contact. Even though Peco has the little tabs on the bottom of the points to make contact with the stock rails, they will eventually fail. It’s not a matter of if, but when. Solder a jumper wire from each stock (outside) rail to its corresponding frog (inside) rail, and you’ll have many hours of trouble-free operation. This comes from my local clubs having used Peco switches for many years now, and having learned the quirks of the things. Now anytime we install a new switch, the first thing we do even before it is installed is to solder jumper wires, and for our purposes, we don’t use electrofrog at all.
I don’t know if this is going to be any help, but I’m in the process of replacing all of my turnouts in my stub-end yard with Peco Electrofrogs because of both their positive contact and their power routing. However, I’m strictly DC, and I have heard that ‘live’ frogs can give problems on DCC.
But using their Electrofrog power routing (current only goes to the track to which the turnout is thrown), I have saved myself a lot of unneccesary wiring (and switch machines, due to their positive ‘snap’ contact). I’m almost finished relaying the yard turnouts (about 10 or so), and I’m a Very Happy Camper with the Electrofrogs.
But again, if your layout is DCC, you might want to consider the Insulfrog. Having looked at them, it certainly appears that there would not be any ‘dead’ spot that might cause even a short wheel-based locomotive to stall out on them.
I have a problem with my Peco code 83 shorting at the point of the frog when a wheel can bridge the gap to both sides of the frog. This happens primarily with my Bachmann steam engines. I’ve filed the gap larger and it seems to work, or you can paint an insulating mat’l in that area. My point being, don’t expect them to be 100% trouble free,