I am currently using Atlas Code 83 tracks and want to add a few turnouts. It seems that both Walthers and Peco offer some very interesting products. I have two questions:
Most of Walthers turnouts are DCC friendly. What does it mean “DCC Friendly”? Does it mean I can use DCC (I have a NCE PowerCAB) to control these turnouts without buying additinal units? Or I can upgrade these turnouts in the future to be DCC controlable? If later is the case, how much does the upgrade cost?
Peco offers some three way turnouts. It looks very attractive because this may save some space for me. But they only have code 75 and code 100. Can I use code 75 or code 100 turnouts for code 83 tracks? Since code 75 might be closer code 83 (pardon me if this silly comparison is not right), would code 75 be better?
All ‘DCC Friendly’ means is that the turnout is wired so that a direct short will not occur if an engine derails and shorts the stock rail to the ajoining moveable point rail. Usually the frog is also isolated. Your current Atlas Code 83 ‘Customline’ turnouts are basically already ‘DCC Friendly’. This does NOT mean the are set-up for DCC control from your throttles. That is a whole nother costly issue! You will still need to buy the switch machines/electronics to link them to your DCC system.
Peco turnouts come in 2 different lines:
Electrofrog - Sort of like the older Walthers/Shinohara turnouts with solid frogs.
Insulfrog - These have insulated frogs are are basically DCC friendly.
The code 75 are a little closer to the code 83 trackage, but after ballasting the visual difference will not be great. You will have to make allowances for tie/rail height…
In my opinion it is meaningless, but what they mean is that the turnouts won’t cause unusual problems when DCC power is used for the trains. There is a long history of why such a thing is even mentioned.
No, it has nothing to do with controlling the turnout.
Any turnout can be upgraded to be controlled by DCC (via stationary decoders); however, other than the case of having a fully automated (computer controlled) layout I’ve never understood the desire.
Yes, but that will be six rail size transistions that must be made going into and outof the turnouts. Another consideration is that the Peco Code-83 turnout are made to match North American geometries, while the code 75 and code 100 are European with a constant radius departure track.
100-83 = 17 83-75=8 You are correct that code 75 is closer. Which would be better depends on what you mean by better - better looking, better operating, better as in easier to do? I personally would say the code 100 would be easier to install. All one has to to is flatten the code 100 rail joiner and solder the code 83 track to the top of it. The tops of the rails match. I’ve never done a code 83 to 75 conversion but think the smaller difference in rail height might make it more difficult to shim appropriately to make the top match. Plus since it would be code 83 on all outside points it wou
Good questions… I am not an expert, but I do have a DCC pike and may be able to share some here. I use Atlas track (a few Atlas turnouts) and Peco turnouts. All of the turnouts are of the insulated type, meaning that the frogs are insulated. I was told years ago that this was the way to go, and I have to say that so far I have had NO PROBLEMS with any shorts. So if we were to make an assumption here, I would have to say that an insulated frog turnout is DCC friendly.
Regarding mixing track codes…I haven’t done this. But, from what I have read and what I have heard, this can be done as long as a rail joiner designed for such a propose is used.
Jim, Texas Zepher, JB, thanks very much for your suggestions. So I don’t have to struggle with the meaning of “DCC friendly”.
Texas Zepher, you are right. I didn’t realize that there will be 6 points of mismatch in one turnout if I mixed the code . A three way turn out will have 8 points. This will need lots of work… I should think about it. Maybe this will be the fun for this hobby…