southernman wrote: again a BIG thanks to everyone, no matter what I decide this has helped a LOT in understanding the intricacies. A few things still fuzzy, so a few more questions
again a BIG thanks to everyone, no matter what I decide this has helped a LOT in understanding the intricacies. A few things still fuzzy, so a few more questions
Not a problem. We've all been there (and sometimes still find ourselves there) at one time or another.
1. how hard is it to modify a steamer to spread pickup? Say to the tender?
Piece of cake! Call up Bachmann and order a set of tender trucks for their Spectrum 2-8-0. Once you get them in your grubby little paws just slap those puppies on your tender and solder a couple of wire leads to them and the motor leads and you're in business. You can also use Kato caboose trucks if you happen to have those.
2. if I was to use power routing turnouts WITHOUT any powered frogs, wouldnt I get a lot of shorts? It seems ineveitable that turnouts facing frog to frog might short.
There are ways around that, but it depends on the turnout as to how you go about it. If it's a plastic frog then it's no problem. Add insulating rail joiners and have some way of flipping the polarity (a switch or if you're running DCC you can use something like these). If it's a metal frog you'd have to either cut gaps in the rails or use a turnout that already has the gaps, like the Atlas code 55's do. Notice the pic.....(click to enlarge)
3. How many folks simply wire a SPDT switch to each turnout that they throw manually? Seems this may make wiring more simple.
There are indeed some people who do just that. I've even seen some who use a slide switch and drill through the slider to install a small metal rod to throw the turnout. They then wire the switch so that it flips the polarity. It's really quite slick (and cheap!). See this link.
4. why do companies not make insulated frog turnouts for anything other than code 80? Seems there would be some demand for the simplicity of insulfrog installation with the scale look of code 55 track.
The Atlas code 55 doesn't have to be wired up and can be used as a dead frog. Mine are all dead right now and they work fine for the most part, though I will wire them later. Only my small steam has issues right now. I think the thing is, companies figure if you're going to go to all the trouble of fine scale track, you probably will want to go the extra mile and wire it all up. Like I say though, look at the #10 turnout pictured above. See the little loop on the side? Thats to solder a wire to so that you can power the frog. On my layout right now there is a wire soldered to that loop (and the loop bent under so it doesn't show), but that wire is just hanging unattached under the layout, and my stuff runs pretty good. Here's a short, low quality video of my layout to show it in operation on those dead frogs. The staging area (hwere you start and end) is all Atlas code 80, but the town area is all Atlas code 55. Every frog on the layout is dead. (I've fixed the precarious drop-offs since this inagural run video)
Thanks again!
Lee
"You show me a man with both feet on the ground and I'll show you a man who can't get his pants on." -anonymous
It seems that some of the others have answered these quite well, so I'll try not to repeat too much of what has already been said.
southernman wrote:Thanks SO much for your replies guys its really helping
Thanks SO much for your replies guys its really helping
Hey, we're all in this hobby together, right? Besides, iron sharpens iron; it does me good to revisit this stuff to keep sharp on it.
SO, can it be said that rolling stock & engines run ATLEAST AS SMOOTH on a non-powered frog code 55 setup as a code 80 setup with insulated frogs (insulfrogs)? That powering the frogs simply gives the edge to consistent running for locos with pickup spread over short distances? I do have a nice little Mantua 4-4-0 that stalls on insulfrogs.
The code of the rail does not effect the frog's operation at all. The code is simply the height of the rail used, that's all. A non-powered #6 (for example) code 80 frog functions EXACTLY the same as a non-powered #6 code 55 frog, provided that the actual length of the non-powered (insulated) frog is the same on both turnouts (thats the key right there). Powering the frog will give you an edge on cosistancy and lack of stalling. If the loco mentioned runs well everywhere BUT on the frog, powering them will go a long way towards eliminating stalling. You could also make sure that you have as many wheels as possible doing electrical pickup. Making the tender wheels help with electrical pickup will often help a lot.
Some important follow-up questions that could affect my decision
OK, shoot!
1. are peco code 55 turnouts compatible with Atlas code 55 flextrack? I've heard the peco track is simply further imbedded into the ties to achieve a shorter rail height, & it can be hard to match to the atlas 55 track.
You're right, Peco's code 55 is really code 80 that's buried further into the ties whereas Atlas code 55 is true code 55 rail, so they aren't compatable just straight up. That doesn't mean that they can't play together though. It's funny, I just took this pic last night and it works well to illustrate this point. It shows Atlas code 80 and Atlas code 55 track joined together (on a curve actually). The way I did it was I put a rail joiner onto the code 80 side and then flattened the end of the joiner sticking out with some needle nose pliers. Then I laid the code 55 rail on top of the flattened joiner and checked that the railtops lined up. If needed, I bent the joiner slightly so they lined up. Once I was satasfied I just soldered the whole thing together. Since Peco code 55 is really code 80, if you wanted to join Atlas code 55 to it I imagine that something like this would work quite well.
2. I have 15 insulfrog code 80's I'd need to sell, do they have much resale value? Where could I sell them? 9 are opened but UNUSED, the other 6 have been used very lightly. I mean, I'd be happy to get say $9 or $10 for each, would save me a headache.
You should be able to do OK on EvilBay?
3. If I do go powered code 55 frogs all around, can I still use humpyard purveyances? How would I get power to the frogs?
I believe Humpyard has some throws that are power routing, so it should be no problem.
4. with the caboose throws shown above, does the power for the SPDT come off the track nearest? Or from the main bus? Meaning, is the wiring job local to the turnout?
You're gonna love this.....the answer is yes! You can power them from the rails or the main bus, it's up to you.
I hope this is helping to illuminate things, but if you have more questions, lets hear them.
One big advantage of Peco turnouts is you don't need throws or switches at all. You can hand throw a peco turnout with no modifications.
Peco Insulfrog vs Electrofrog is more difficult decision.
If you want to do all the work, the Electrofrogs are better, but you have to do some extra wiring and cut gaps. IMO, the plastic rail joiners arent satisfactory, you will have to get a Dremel tool and cut at least two gaps for each switch. You will also have to drop at least two power wires for every switch (or run two jumpers per switch on the bottom). There may be some other issues I don't know about.
Insulfrogs simplify life considerably, but steam engines tend to stall when run at low speed over the Insulfrogs. Electrofrogs eliminate that problem.
I went with Insulfrogs and am fairly happy, and I do run quite a bit of steam (N scale).
One other tip. I found that it is best to use a fixed curve piece coming off of a switch if you are coming off curved. The flex track puts strain on the switch and makes things less reliable. Use one piece of fixed curve and the use your flex. You can use flex coming off a switch if you are going with straight track.
Good luck!
southernman wrote: Thanks SO much for your replies guys its really helpingSO, can it be said that rolling stock & engines run ATLEAST AS SMOOTH on a non-powered frog code 55 setup as a code 80 setup with insulated frogs (insulfrogs)? That powering the frogs simply gives the edge to consistent running for locos with pickup spread over short distances? I do have a nice little Mantua 4-4-0 that stalls on insulfrogs.The difference is going to come down to the length of track that is unpowered, nothing to do with the code. Different manufacturers do things a little differently, so there could be differences. But you've got the main point there. Some important follow-up questions that could affect my decision1. are peco code 55 turnouts compatible with Atlas code 55 flextrack? I've heard the peco track is simply further imbedded into the ties to achieve a shorter rail height, & it can be hard to match to the atlas 55 track.I don't remember if there is a joiner made to do this, but you can hack Atlas joiners (or probably any others) to do the trick. I've connected Atlass 80 and 55 by mashing half a joiner down, sliding it onto the 80 and then soldering the 55 on top of the mashed part. Takes a little care, but not really that hard.2. I have 15 insulfrog code 80's I'd need to sell, do they have much resale value? Where could I sell them? 9 are opened but UNUSED, the other 6 have been used very lightly. I mean, I'd be happy to get say $9 or $10 for each, would save me a headache.I would guess that there is a demand for Peco turnouts.3. If I do go powered code 55 frogs all around, can I still use humpyard purveyances? How would I get power to the frogs?The Humpyard controls include a switch for power routing.4. with the caboose throws shown above, does the power for the SPDT come off the track nearest? Or from the main bus? Meaning, is the wiring job local to the turnout?Wherever you want. With DCC you'd just grab it off the bus. (By the way, I'd argue that you'll save yourself time, and enjoy things a lot more if you went with an entry level DCC system rather than DC, but that's an argument/discussion that can wait, I think).THANKS again Lee (understanding better)
The difference is going to come down to the length of track that is unpowered, nothing to do with the code. Different manufacturers do things a little differently, so there could be differences. But you've got the main point there.
I don't remember if there is a joiner made to do this, but you can hack Atlas joiners (or probably any others) to do the trick. I've connected Atlass 80 and 55 by mashing half a joiner down, sliding it onto the 80 and then soldering the 55 on top of the mashed part. Takes a little care, but not really that hard.
I would guess that there is a demand for Peco turnouts.
The Humpyard controls include a switch for power routing.
Wherever you want. With DCC you'd just grab it off the bus. (By the way, I'd argue that you'll save yourself time, and enjoy things a lot more if you went with an entry level DCC system rather than DC, but that's an argument/discussion that can wait, I think).
THANKS again
Lee (understanding better)
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Whether you have powered frogs or not has nothing to do with rail height. Code 55 and code 80 (or code 70, 40, whatever) is only about the actual height of the metal rails.
The real determining factors are:
1. What kind of equipment do you want to run? (i.e. Is electrical pickup spread over a short area on the loco's in question, or a long area?)
2. How big of a frog are you talking about? (i.e. I would power a #10 frog no matter what I was running because it's a long frog lengthwise, but a #4 might not be a big deal.)
Basically, it's always better to power them, but there are instances where it's not absolutely necessary.
Atlas track (code 80 and code 55) does not need to have a powered frog. The code 55 track does have a small loop to solder to on the side of the track where you can solder a wire on to power it if you want, but you don't have to. You could just bend the loop under if you didn't want to use it. As far as DCC friendliness, Atlas is set up to be DCC friendly right out of the package. One word of caution though with the Atlas code 55; you can only run low flanged equipment on it! If you try to run larger flanges on it, the flanges will hit the ties and you will be rumbling along the track. Just make sure your equipment is NMRA RP25 compliant on the flanges and you'll be fine. Lo profile wheelsets will do the trick for the rolling stock.
As for Peco, they have Insulfrog (plasic frog) and Electrofrog (live), but I'm not sure about the DCC friendliness of the Electrofrogs (Insulfrogs will be fine). I've heard conflicting reports. Some say it's fine, others say that they need to be modified.
If you're concerned about looks, Micro Engineering makes awesome looking track, but they only make #6 turnouts, and they must be modified to make them DCC friendly. They make code 80, code 70, code 55, and code 40. They make bridge track as well with the correct length and spacing of ties (I'll be using their code 55 bridge track on all of my bridges).
Probably the second best looking regularly available track is the Atlas code 55. It's also the line that has the largest regularly available frog number (a #10.......they look SWEET!).
Pricewise, the Atlas is much cheaper then the Peco or the Micro Engineering track.
As far as the wiring itself goes, it doesn't have to be hard at all. Check this out! The top one shown on the page is one that flips the polarity of the rails automatically whenever you throw the points. Wiring is a snap, the hard part is done for you.
For my own layout I went with Atlas code 80 in all of the hidden areas because it's virtually bulletproof, and Atlas code 55 in all other areas except for bridges where I'm using Micro Engineering code 55 bridge track. I'm powering all of my frogs, but I run some small steam and I wanted to be able to crawl over a turnout without stalling.
Here is more than you probably want to know:
http://wiringfordcc.com/switches.htm
But I think that makes it look more complicated than it really is. Atlas code 55 turnouts are useable right out of the box, as long as you don't need to power the frog, and for most equipment you don't. Peco may require a bit more work, but still, if you are not powering the frog, it shouldn't be so bad. The rules the electrons have to follow are the same in code 55 and code 80, and the geometry is the same, so I don't think this should be a deciding factor, once you understand it.
I am a new n scale modeler, smart on most things, I have been building & flying rc helis with great success for 4 years now.
But somehow, turnout politics, frogs, etc., still evade me! I'm very visual, so maybe I just need some hands on experience.
I guess overall the question for my situation is: can I get away with a reliable layout using code 55 track WITHOUT using power routing turnouts (all -live) thus avoiding the complicated wiring?
As of now, I have some beautiful benchwork made, elevations complete using the WS system, roadbed laid, and plenty of code 80 track ready to lay, including 15 Peco insulfrogs.
But after all the blood sweat & tears, somehow I cant bear to put all the effort forward without having a beautiful scale look that the code 55 provides. I'm under the impression that ANY code 55 arrangement REQUIRES complicated wiring, & use of tortoises to power turnouts (I'm using all manual throws & some humpyard purveyances)
Can someone walk me through it as SIMPLE as possible? like if I go code 55, what do I wire, where, & how. Any chance of straight turnout install, hookup a ground throw, and VOILA! I'm up & running? Instead of GAP, WIRE, GROUND, POINTS etc?
For simplicity sake, am I better off just accepting my gripes with code 80 & get to operating?
Man, I'm so good on scenery, planning, & aesthetics, but I am a WIRING DUMMARD!
Any help most appreciated guys, thank you