Bachmann Online Forum

Peco offers both electro and insulfrog turnouts.  Can someone tell me the difference between the two?  I assume the wiring is different in some way.

Thanks, Bill

Turnouts are available with 'live' (metal) or insulating (plastic) frogs. The Electrofrog points require more complex wiring, to avoid short-circuits, but are designed to give more reliable operation of locomotives. In these the frogs are powered seperately from everything else. With Insulfrog turnouts, no additional wiring is necessary because the frogs are not powered, so all you have to do is your regular wiring.

Bill, as a longtime Peco user and supporter I can tell you Electrofrog turnouts are the way to go. Before I go into that subject let me just say that Peco turnouts are bulletproof. Why? The points, in a Peco turnout, are spring loaded and make excellent contact with the stock rails (the points are usually powered through this contact). I should warn you that this spring loading would have to be disconnected if you are using a Tortoise switch machine as it may interfere with the machine's operation.

Installing Peco Electrofrog turnouts is really not that different from any other turnout. Because the frog is 'live' it must be electrically isolated. All that is required is some insulating rail joiners on the converging rails. The switching of the frog's polarity is handled within the turnout itself...you don't have to do anything - but isolate it from the rest of the track. For some excellent information on Peco products and their associated wiring try:

Because I tend to run short locomotives, I swear by Peco products: no stalls, no balking, flawless operation. Peco products tend to be more costly than others because they are made in the UK and their price reflects the unfavorable monetary exchange rate between the US dollar and the Pound Sterling.

I am just beginning the planning on my third layout featuring Peco track products and wouldn't have anything else. If you are also in the planning stages of layout construction, there is free planning software at http://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html (http://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html) that has a full library of Peco (and others) track components. If you like what you see, you can purchase the entire program...something I did.

I hope this helps,
Ray

Quote from: CNE Runner on August 09, 2009, 10:41:30 AMthere is free planning software at http://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html (http://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html) that has a full library of Peco (and others) track components. If you like what you see, you can purchase the entire program...something I did.

I hope this helps,
Ray

Too bad it like most of the others, all except one that I know of, it's for winderz only. For we few Mac users, I've only found RailModeler (http://www.railmodeller.com).  Sorry for he hijacking, but it is close to on topic....

Back on topic I wondered how the elctro frog turnouts handled polarity....  They're very nice switches, gut I have yet to be able to justify the cost over an Atlas with a ground throw.

Ray,
Thanks for the great response and website.  I have an ideal spot for a double curved turnout, but I noticed it's only offered in code 100 and I use code 83.  DRAT!!!

Hey Chris - Yes, I can feel your frustration all the way in Alabama: Mac vs PC. Frankly, although I was well trained on Macs and used them exclusively in my business; I had to go to a PC some ten years ago. Reason?..availability of software. It ain't fair; but that's the way it is.

Bill - This probably isn't of any assistance; but Peco offers a combined rail joiner (# SL-112) that joins Code 75 to Code 100 track...unfortunately I didn't find a similar product for your application. What I did find was that Walthers offers a Transition Track in their Walthers/Shinohara line (# 948-897). My proposal is that you would use a Code 100 Peco double curve turnout and use the Walthers transition track to join it to the rest of your track. Does this help?

Regards,
Ray

So, CNE Runner, I know I should just probably make another topic for this question, but the HO board has enough topics. So, what are the differences between the codes of track? Like, code 55 between code 70, and between other codes.

It is the height of the rail. Code 100 track is .100 inches high, code 83 track is .083 inches high, code 70 is .070 inches high, and etc. In real life, most mainline track is proportional to code 83 track. Very few if any track in real life was close to code 100. Code 70 and smaller can be used for non class I lines, sidings, yards, etc.
By the way, Atlas makes code 100 to 83 transition joiners, they work pretty good but not great.

Simkon, when the trains run over the joiners, do the cars and engines go up and down, like to where you would notice them? I mean, would it be like a gradual slope?

Where I used my transition joiners was on my old layout where I used code 83 24" radius curves and the flex-track and switches were code 100. The way I had it the code 83 was the same height as the code 100 because I used a slightly higher roadbed for the code 83 and the transition joiners made up the rest of the difference. The way I did it, it wasn't noticeable. What type of roadbed do you use?

Good Evening All,

          First of all,  really the only thing different about the insulfrog and electrofrog is the need to cap the two converging rails at the frog on the two track end of the turnout.  I use the Peco electrofrog turnouts on my DCC controled railroad and love them.
          I also use Tortoise switch machines on three of my Peco turnouts.  I left the spring in the throw arm and substituted a heavier wire than the one supplied with the motor.   Again,  no problems
          As far as using code 100 and code 83 rail,  there are a number things that can be done.   There are transitional railjoiners,  Walthers has a transision track and here is another interesting fact.   If you are using Atlas track,  take a piece of code 100 rail track and a piece of code 83 track and put them together without the railjoiners and you will find the rails meet at an even height because the code 83 joiner is thicker.

Bob

To join one code to another, simply slide a rail joiner halfway onto the end of the larger rail, crush the "empty" half of the rail joiner with a pair of pliers and solder the small rail onto the top of the now crushed rail joiner.  A little bit of clean up filing with a jeweler's file and there you go, one transition joint.

That's how I do join the code 100 rail used on the staging yard approach track and all through the staging yard to the code 70 rail I use on the visible parts of the GER.  Had zero problems in over ten years and neither should anyone else, if you just take a little care with that one pair of rail joiners.

Hi Bill
The difference has allready been explained well enough between insulfrog and electro frog
I have used Peco track for many years mostly insulfrog as that suited my style of layout I have used there set and flex track
It isn't cheap in Aus either the only other track I have used and found to be as good is flieschmann (spelling) but I don't have enough arms and legs to use flieschmann track.
I will not use anything other than Peco points I have yet to find any other brand as good at an affordable price
wonder will the LHS supply 1 Peco concrete sleeper length of track rather than a box.
A word of caution it might just be me using the wrong ground throw, but I have had problems with Caboose industries ground throws possably something to do with the point spring in Peco points.
any one got any ideas on this.
regards John

Hi Buzz - I had the same problem, with Caboose ground throws, and assumed the problem was the Peco point springs. I took out all the ground throws and now use the 'Finger of God' method to throw the points...works everytime. One of the best things about Peco turnouts is the spring tension that holds the point rails against the stock rails...something I do not want to do away with. Should I eventually install switch motors; I will probably use Peco units as they are designed to overcome the spring tension.

Ray

Buzz,

       I use nothing but Peco electorfrog HO turnouts, remounted on wood ties on my On30 railroad.    There are about 9 of the original plastic ties still in place including those around the point rail throw bar.   I use Caboose Industries hand throws with no problem.   Now,  that being said, I use the sprung version,  such as a 218S.   They are a sprung throw as opposed to the rigid version,  i.e. 218R.  Use the sprung version as they are a bit more forgiving when you install them.    Using the rigid version,  you placement of the handthrow needs to be, basically,  dead on.  Take the handle and put it vertical to the turnout.   Center the points and install the hand throw.  I prefer the 218S because this hand throw comes with a variety
of attachments to allow you to use any type of turnout available.  I leave the spring in the turnout also.   BTW....I have a number of turnouts that I had to make throw arm extentions so that the hand throws are back far enough from the track so my K27's cylinders do not hit the throw.

my experiences with peco, from before i started handlaying all my switches

i preferred to electrofrog for their power routing feature. it greatly simplified yard wiring (i was using dc back then) by eliminating seperate blocks for each yard track. you have to use more insulated joints than with regular frog, and you have to be careful where you put your feeders so that things don't short when yopu throw the switch.

on either type, you need to be careful how you throw them using the "finger of god" method. pushing on the switchpoints will cause them to eventually loosen, and in the case of electrofrog, will also affect their ability to conduct power through the points. there is a little metal tab uunder the point rail which can be adjusted to restore contact, but throwing the switches using the plastic nubs on the end of the throwbar will minimize the need to adjust the points.

with the insulfrog ones, you have to watch. earlier versions did not conform to nmra specs, and the flangeways in the guard rails and frog were spaced too wide. you can use styrene glued to the plastic guardrails to minimize the flangeway width. the wide flangeways will cause wheels to pick the frog when backing. later versions seem to conform better to nmra specs, and will probably work much better.

i have never used peco on dcc, so i don't know if this problem affects them or not, but be aware of the potential for momentary shorts in the electrofrog versions when metal wheels run through them. these shorts are present with dc as well, but with the slower response of the circuit breakers in dc packs you won't notice them. what happens is that both point rails and the frog are the same polarity. which polarity is determined by which rail the points are snug against. if the point not touching a stock rail is too close to the adjacent stock rail, metal wheels can touch both causing a short. since the train is moving, on dc you won't notice anything except maybe a spark, but on dcc this can trip your circuit breaker and stop the train. this makes the insulfrog by far the better choice for dcc.

overall i liked the pecos. they were far more reliable than the atlas switches and i eventually replaced all my atlas with peco.

Jeff - I probably should have been more specific about the 'Finger of God' method of throwing the points in a turnout. [To the reader: I sincerely hope I am not offending anyone with the use of my FOG terminology.] I do use the plastic 'nibs' and never push on the point rails themselves. One of the reasons Peco turnouts are so reliable (at least electrically) is that the little metal tabs that make contact with the stock rails have a small roll on them. The roll makes much better contact than, say, a Walthers/Shinohara turnout with uses flat metal strips...strips that eventually bend away from the stock rail and therefore degrade the electrical contact. If you can get past the 'sticker shock', Peco products are a great investment.

Regards,
Ray

i agree that they are a great investment, and last time i checqued they were comparable in price to the shinoharas. i also liked the under the table switch motors. they are very robust, and i never burnt one out, something i couldn't say about atlas motors.

another thing i think pecos would be good for is use with the nj international switchstands, which don't have a locking feature.

While Peco switches may be reliable, unless they are the latest "Code 83 North American Style" switches they are really unrealistic.

They are neither North American nor British in their design but are a Peco freelance idea of a compromise, sort of mid Atlantic freelance design at best.

jward - You mentioned that you use Peco under the table switch machines. This is something I am contemplating for my new layout - so hence the question: Will these machines work if the accentuating rod has to extend from the bottom of the 'table' through 1/4" birch plywood and 1" Styrofoam? If I remember correctly, one has to make a cutout for the machine such that it snugs up against the bottom of the turnout. Are you using something different? [Inquiring minds and unsteady hands want to know.]

Rogerta - I guess you are correct in saying Peco turnouts are not prototypically realistic. From my experience (bad and good) I will take a little 'funky' look and reliability over realism and endless problems any day. My current layout (soon to be dismantled) has spent the last 3 years in our unheated/un-airconditioned garage. In all that time I have not had one problem with any Peco turnout, track, or crossing. Temperatures in the garage can easily get to 95F+ in the summer and 30F- in the winter...let's not even discuss the humidity! BTW: all the track components will be salvaged and used on my new (indoor) layout.

Ray

ray,
i always used the clip on feature to attatch them directly to the bottom of the switch. i suspended them through a hole cut on the roadbed/subroadbed. at the time, i was laying my track on tru scale pine roadbed, which is no longer available. what a great loss for the hobby.......
i felt that any other method of mounting would need adjustment, but there were extension pins supplied with the switch motors. i prewired them before i installed them, and covered the holes in the roadbed with ballasted index cards.

i no longer use either the peco switches, or the motors. i build everything myself now, and on the current layout will use switchstands to throw them.

i was, and still am, willing to sacrifice realism for reliability. something that looks better than it works will not have a place on my layout.

Jeff - I think I read somewhere (MR?) that someone made a 'filler' out of styrene sheet that goes between the Peco switch machine and the turnout itself. I assume he can then ballast over this 'filler' without fouling the switch machine. Additionally, if the machine requires maintenance or replacement, it is simple to remove...preserving the ballasted turnout. When I get home tonight, I will try to find the article. I appreciate your alacrity in replying. I guess I'd better order some Peco switch machines...so I can make a template for the 'filler' sheets I will need.

Thanks,
Ray

I just viewed the latest issue of Cody's Office on the Model Railroader website. In this installment he told how to blacken metal frogs using a product called Neolube. All one has to do is: 1) clean the frog with alcohol and allow a couple of minutes drying time and 2) lightly brush on the Neolube product and allow to dry. From what I could see, the results were excellent.

Ray