I have four Peco Code 83 Insulfrog crossings on my layout. Three perform just fine, but the fourth one has been a problem for the two years that it has been on my layout. Some, but not all, of my locos stall on this crossing, and only intermittently, not every time. Typically, it is a loco with a sound decoder. When the stall occurs, the headlight goes off and the sound is interrupted. A second later, the loco begins to move again and the sound comes back on, although the headlight remains off.
I have an advantage in trying to pin down the problem in that a PSX circuit breaker protects the power district in which the problem crossing is located. I can see at a glance that the stall is not caused by an absence of power. The PSX indicates a short when a loco stalls.
Yesterday, I tried everything to solve the problem, including the use of a needle file to widen the wheel path and open the gap between the rails. Nothing that I did totally eliminated the problem. Fiinally I applied a coat of clear nail polish to the areas where the rails of opposite polarity converge. That did it. Problem solved.
This won't come as news to many of you. But for those who have not encountered the problem, I decided to post this solution. You can see the four locations in the photo where I applied clear nail polish. And, you can see how close these rails come to each other, causing short when a wheel bridges the gap and makes contact with both rails.
Rich
Alton Junction
Why is a crossing like a turnout? Both have frogs. In my experience with Peco turnouts and in my reading here, I've discovered that Peco turnout frogs don't have quite enough space between the two oppositely-polarized rails. So, when a metal wheel passes over them, sometimes the wheel momentarily bridges the gap, causing a short.
The solution is to ask your significant other for some clear nail polish, or some black polish if she's into the Goth thing. Paint a little bit of polish on to the frog where the rails are closest, and let it dry.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
richhotrain I have four Peco Code 83 Insulfrog crossings on my layout. Three perform just fine, but the fourth one has been a problem for the two years that it has been on my layout. Some, but not all, of my locos stall on this crossing, and only intermittently, not every time. Typically, it is a loco with a sound decoder. When the stall occurs, the headlight goes off and the sound is interrupted. A second later, the loco begins to move again and the sound comes back on, although the headlight remains off. I have an advantage in trying to pin down the problem in that a PSX circuit breaker protects the power district in which the problem crossing is located. I can see at a glance that the stall is not caused by an absence of power. The PSX indicates a short when a loco stalls. Yesterday, I tried everything to solve the problem, including the use of a needle file to widen the wheel path and open the gap between the rails. Nothing that I did totally eliminated the problem. Fiinally I applied a coat of clear nail polish to the areas where the rails of opposite polarity converge. That did it. Problem solved. This won't come as news to many of you. But for those who have not encountered the problem, I decided to post this solution. You can see the four locations in the photo where I applied clear nail polish. And, you can see how close these rails come to each other, causing short when a wheel bridges the gap and makes contact with both rails. Rich
Some tigh space between rails are used on Peco Track, from Nscale to HO track.
Somewhere is good to see fine scale track whith more to the scale distance space between rails in frog or anywhere were rails are near each other.
I posted some weeks ago on the Electronic community, a topic how I definitively isolate a frog on a Peco turnout, I use the Fastrack method to isolate frog, from rail, by cutting them whith a jeweler saw, the frog is powered separetely, no more short for a life long use!
The red arrows on these pictures show where I cut the rail, first on a turnout, second on a double crossover, both in Nscale.
Here is the link to the post where I explain how I modify Peco Track
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/744/t/242974.aspx
Marc, are you suggesting that additional gaps could be cut into a Peco Insulfrog crossing to prevent shorts where rails of opposite polarities converge?
[quote user="richhotrain"]
i
The instructions that come with the code 83 insulfrog crossing suggest gaps on all the rails coming from the frog to avoid the wide wheel short problem. The instrcution also refer to using a switch to power the crossing.
On our club layout and we installed it without gaps. No problem so far and we haven't had any problem with our insulfrog turnouts.
Interesting that only one of your four gives a problem.
Bill
bagal The instructions that come with the code 83 insulfrog crossing suggest gaps on all the rails coming from the frog to avoid the wide wheel short problem. The instructions also refer to using a switch to power the crossing.
The instructions that come with the code 83 insulfrog crossing suggest gaps on all the rails coming from the frog to avoid the wide wheel short problem. The instructions also refer to using a switch to power the crossing.
The Peco instructions read, "With Insulfrog diamond crossings a switch is required to ensure that only one route on the crossing is live at a time".
Instead of requiring a $15 switch to remedy the short, wouldn't it be more appropriate for Peco widen that convergence point by just a little?
After some reflexion, I maintain that isolate each frog whith a few milimeter of track before and after the frog and using a switch or an electronic device to give them the right polarity will eleminate any short on the two rail which are so close togheter.
richhotrain The Peco instructions read, "With Insulfrog diamond crossings a switch is required to ensure that only one route on the crossing is live at a time". Instead of requiring a $15 switch to remedy the short, wouldn't it be more appropriate for Peco widen that convergence point by just a little? Rich
Rich, did you use the switch in the ones you installed?
I agree, it would be better if they fixed the problem
bagal richhotrain The Peco instructions read, "With Insulfrog diamond crossings a switch is required to ensure that only one route on the crossing is live at a time". Instead of requiring a $15 switch to remedy the short, wouldn't it be more appropriate for Peco widen that convergence point by just a little? Rich Rich, did you use the switch in the ones you installed? I agree, it would be better if they fixed the problem Bill
richhotrain Bill, I did not use the switch. All four Peco crossings were installed 'out of the box', so to speak, onto my layout. Only one of the four exhibited shorts due to the tight rail convergence issue. Rich
Bill, I did not use the switch. All four Peco crossings were installed 'out of the box', so to speak, onto my layout. Only one of the four exhibited shorts due to the tight rail convergence issue.
I have a half dozen Peco turnouts on my layout. Only one has ever given me this problem. I suspect that it's no different from the others, but the variation is caused by the geometry of the approach tracks, not by the turnout itself.
Seriously, try the nail polish. What have you got to lose?
Rich,
The new code 83 insulfrog turnouts have a wider piece of plasic in the frog that prevents this from happening. Was able to run trains with wide wheel treads with no problems. You can also take a dremel tool and cut the rail right after the plastic part ends, insert and glue a piece of styrene in the gap. Dremel/cut/file down the styrene so that wheels will pass. The other solution is to gap and power them like electro frogs with a frog juicer or the contacts on a tortoise motor.
Andrew
MisterBeasley richhotrain Bill, I did not use the switch. All four Peco crossings were installed 'out of the box', so to speak, onto my layout. Only one of the four exhibited shorts due to the tight rail convergence issue. Rich I have a half dozen Peco turnouts on my layout. Only one has ever given me this problem. I suspect that it's no different from the others, but the variation is caused by the geometry of the approach tracks, not by the turnout itself. Seriously, try the nail polish. What have you got to lose?