New Walthers code 100 available later this month
Peco SLE 88 & 89 electro frog code 100
Advantages/disadvantages?
Ease of wiring frog, etc?
Thanks.
Walthers are pretty much identical to Peco Unifrog practically speaking. Walthers are significantly longer in total but the operating part of the turnout is essentially identical.
Two recent articles in MRR, one on October the second in November 2021, provide handy information. The October issue shows a neat and tidy method of trimming the diverging route to fit down to 2" track centres.
Both are all powered designs with continuous point/closure rails and stock rail jumpers.
Peco wires the frog for you with a bare wire soldered under the metal frog tip, the bare wire is intended to pass under the track. Unifrog dead frog is tiny anyway. Walthers provides a metal tab with a hole outside the straight through stock rail sticking out beyond the end of a tie, similar to Atlas.
Peco Electrofrog are power routing so require insulating gaps from power entering the turnout from the frog rails (point rails) heel end of the frog.
Peco wire their closure rail to frog rail (point rail) with jumpers under the frog as Atlas does. Walthers wires their jumpers from the stock rail across to the frog rail.
Peco Insulfrog and Electrofrog have gaps in the tie strips to facilitate soldering jumpers from the underside of each stock rail to the adjacent closure rail if an all powered turnout is desired. Unifrog has the jumpers installed which you can cut if you wish to return the turnout to a power routing design.
I used to run Code 100 on the old part of my layout. I now have Code 83 and the old section is gone. I now use mostly Walthers/Shinohara turnouts and like them a lot. In my previous years I used Atlas and Peco.
I liked both the Peco Insulfrogs and Electrofrogs. These were both plastic frogs, and the difference was whether they were power routing or not. You could not power the frogs.
My Walthers/Shinohara turnouts are not power routing and have metal frogs. I found it simple (and advisable) to wire these frogs by just soldering on a green wire and controlling the frog polarity with the Tortoise machines I use to drive the turnouts.
My old Peco machines were driven by Peco twin-coil machines. These machines took more power than, for example, Atlas machines, so a capacitive discharge circuit is a good idea. It’s always a good idea for twin coils, anyway.
Peco code 100 are UK style turnouts. Walthers are North American style. If that matters.
Peco Electrofrogs have metal frogs. The frog rails are joined at the point of the frog.
PECO Code 100 are substantially more space-efficient than the upcoming Walthers Code 100 due to smaller size overall and the curved diverging leg. Some find the appearance objectionable, others are OK with it to fit more in a given space.
Byron
The MRR article points out that the Code 83 Peco is actually “the same size” as the Walthers new turnout of the same frog number. What Walthers does is give you a lot more rail to work with. The turnout bit is pretty much the same size.
Looks like the OP is asking about Code 100, not Code 83.
Yes. Peco Code 100 are similar to their Code 83 in terms of footprint. Peco Code 100 use different terminology for their Code 100 turnouts so direct comparisons are harder to make.
One assumes Walthers will be the same dimensions in either Code. Whether this will be exactly true can’t be verified just yet as far as I know.
The point made is that the Walthers turnouts only look big, the extra footprint is just rail and not turnout.
Isn’t Byron’s analysis correct?
Semantics aside, footprint is not the same as space-efficiency overall. The smallest PECO Code 83 is about 8¼” long, the PECO Code 100 “Small” is about 7 5/16” long. That difference, plus the curved diverging leg, make PECO Code 100 more space-efficient in the tightest situations – and elsewhere.
Even if one trims the Walthers #6, the PECO Code 100 will still be more space-efficient. And the Walthers #4 is tighter through the frog than the PECO Code 100 “Small”.
The facts are well-known and should not be controversial.
Pro tip: Yes.
[Y] [(-D]
-Kevin
[Y]+1
I’ll take Byron’s advice over the other’s anyday. The OP was asking about code 100 specifically, not 83, so why even go there?
There seem to be two different conversations happening in this thread. One is comparing the new Walthers code 83 turnouts (not the old Walthers by Shinohara) with Peco code 83. Both are high quality code 83 North American prototype turnouts built to NMRA standards, so they have many similarities. The biggest difference is that Walthers turnouts include a little more track past the frog. The other conversation (and the OP’s question) is about the new Walthers code 100 turnouts and Peco code 100 turnouts. Walthers says their new code 100 turnouts will have the same North American geometry and features (including solid points) as their code 83 turnouts and are engineered to NMRA standards. Peco code 100 turnouts are European prototype turnouts with European geometry, use hinged points, and are built to accommodate a variety of wheel types, including NEM wheels. I have installed many of them in locations where their geometry was useful. In my experience, shimming the guardrails helps when operating North American equipment on them. They are a quality product but are quite different from a North American prototype turnout.
They were not both plastic frogs. The electrofrog has metal rail to the tip of the frog and can be powered.
They were not both plastic frogs. The electrofrog has metal rail to the tip of the frog and can be powered.
Probably because Peco code 100 are not of north American style. I am using them in my staging yard where appearence isn’t really important as it is under the main yard.
Peco Electrofrog frogs are always powered which is one reason they are power routed. If you use them as power routing turnouts the frog polarity is corrected when power reaches the frog from the closure rail and point rail contacting the appropriate stock rail.
The wire you may connect is to allow polarity of the frog rails to be controlled. To use that you need to cut the power fed to the frog rails by insulating the ends and cutting the jumpers, I believe. I just checked and the frog power jumpers from the closure rails to the frog are cut if you also intend to power the frog separately for polarity control if you wish to add stock rail jumpers.
Insulfrog use an electrically dead frog instead (Edit deleting inaccuracy.)
Unifrog combine both features or try to. In reality the Unifrog is a modified Insulfrog with a very tiny frog, metal, that can be wired to control its polarity. The big difference with Unifrog is they are not power routing unless you clip two jumpers connecting the point rails to their respective stock rails. The point rail and closure rail are solid continuous rail also, which is what Walthers did. Electrically Walthers and Peco Unifrog are the same now.
There is no frog wire on Insulfrog and no way to control it’s polarity. It’s non-conductive.