I visited a fairly large club layout today in Palatka, FL. I noticed they were using lots of Pecos which had plastic frogs....insulfrog turnouts. I noticed they DID NOT use insulated jointers on their track. They run DCC, and all seemed to work fine. It did appear that they had coated the frog area with something,...I believe someone may have mentioned nail polish.
I've heard of a solution utilizing the very thin vinyl sign shop tape on the frogs. This is very appealing to me. Then perhaps as a back up, also utilize some insulated rail joiners on some of them, But where does one find some decent joiners that aren't those big bulky soft plastic ones?
I also intend to add shims to the flangeway guides on a number of mine, particularly were I will run steam engines and where I will use smaller radi turnouts. I've experimented with both metal shim material and plastic by K&S. I'm leaning towards the plastic material. If one were shimming a fair number of these turnouts, can they suggest a good procedure for getting the shim bonded thoroughly to the guide plastic??...perhaps some sort of teflon shim that could hold the plastic shim tight against the stock guide while gluing it,...without have the whole mess glued together??
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
Brian, you may want to describe the problem more clearly. I'm not a person to provide a technical answer, but others may not understand the problem that you are trying to solve.
The nail polish on the frog solution you mentioned is due to PECO's somewhat short insulated frog. Compared to other brands, the two rails come together to form the frog is very narrow on the PECO, and some locomotives, mainly steam locos with play in the drivers, can have those drivers touch a small portion of the other rail causing a short.
The solution is tp put nail polish at that spot to essentially lengthen the insulation of the frog by just a bit. Its a pretty simple and effective solution that lasts a long time.
Insulated joiners, vinyl tape, shims, sounds like you might be trying to solve a different problem, but I'm not a turnout expert.
- Douglas
We should also make it clear that these problems, and their fixes, only apply to older PECO streamlined code 100 and code 70 track, not the newer north american style code 83 track.
Additionally, it in my understanding that PECO has redesigned the older track and future production has a different frog and guard rail design.
Sheldon
Yes for the most part I am discussing older style code 100 Pecos.
Shorting Problems:As you mentioned its the closeness of the tracks as they come together at the frog,...wide wheels can bridge that narrow gap between the rails. Nail polish has been mentioned in a number of cases, but not so much conversation about applying other 'insulators'. I saw this one about the very thin vinyl material being utilized, and according to several users much longer lasting than the nail polish solution.An alternate solution is to make one of those converging frog rails non powered as the train passes over the turnout. One can do that by installing insulated rail joiners on each of those frog point rails. Then these two rails DO NOT get any of there power from the tracks that connect to the output of the switch. only one of those point rails gets its power via the original wiring on the stock 'selective designed' Peco turnout. So the ONLY modification needed is to install those insulated joiners on those 2 frog point rails,...and its DCC ready.
Flangeways of Guard RailsMost all of these older Pecos were desined to handle the 'cookie cutter' wheels of most European trains. Therefore they are rather wide flangeways, that allow for smaller, modern flanged wheel/axles to possible shift over towards the frog point,...with the resulting 'picking the point' results. Shimming the extra wide flangeways of those guide/safety rails can make an improvement in avoiding derailments. Longer wheel base steam engines with more rigid frames and bigger diameter drivers are particularly prone to problems here.
The two materials I've experimented with to shim these flangeways are plastic and brass glued to the existing molded guide rails. At first I was attracked more to the metal shim material, but now think think the plastic one is just find. But in both cases I experienced some problems with trying to thoroughly glue the shim to the molded guide without concurrently gluing in the 'spacing tool' itself. ...looking for suggestion to accomplish this task repeatable & quickly without waiting for hours for each one??
railandsailBut where does one find some decent joiners that aren't those big bulky soft plastic ones?
The gaps don't have to be at the end of the turnout. You can use a standard joiner and then cut a gap in the track that connects to the frog rails. You can also fill that gap wiith a piece of styrene so it's less noticeable.
As for your glue situation, maybe thinned contact cement would be a better choice. I think Doc Wayne uses laquer thinner. My other thought would be to lubricate your spacer that presses on the shim with your favorite water soluble personal lubricant, i.e. not vaseline.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Ok, so the problem you're trying to fix is the standard problem with the PECO frog rails being set a bit too narrow beyond the gap. (the gap's too close to the frog)
And you're asking how best to bond a shim, which would keep the locos wheels on the correct side.
One thing I would want to know too is if the shimming method would allow all of your locos to perform consistently all the way throught the turnout. Could it help some locos at the frog but hurt others in other ways?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL We should also make it clear that these problems, and their fixes, only apply to older PECO streamlined code 100 and code 70 track, not the newer north american style code 83 track. Additionally, it in my understanding that PECO has redesigned the older track and future production has a different frog and guard rail design. Sheldon
This isn't accurate, I had 5 Peco code 83 turnouts and the all had the same problem as the OP. Nailpolish on the frog was the solution that worked for me.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
I had 5 Peco code 83 turnouts and the all had the same problem as the OP. Nailpolish on the frog was the solution that worked for me.
Doughless Ok, so the problem you're trying to fix is the standard problem with the PECO frog rails being set a bit too narrow beyond the gap. (the gap's too close to the frog) And you're asking how best to bond a shim, which would keep the locos wheels on the correct side. One thing I would want to know too is if the shimming method would allow all of your locos to perform consistently all the way throught the turnout. Could it help some locos at the frog but hurt others in other ways?
No, I am talking about the guard rail across the track from the frog,...the track opposite the frog rail. If that flangeway is too large of a gap it allows an axel set (two wheels on one axel) to shift just a little to bit far away from that outside rail in towards the frog point. This is particularly the case with modern very small flanged wheels. This creates the possiblity that the inner wheel will climb up over the frog point.
If its the old cookie cutter wheels, they sometimes need that larger gap in the guard rail.
If the shim is too thick, thus making this flangeway too narrow, then bigger flange wheels (cookie cutter) will experience extra problems (increased drag, etc) going thru this gap.
Geared Steam ATLANTIC CENTRAL We should also make it clear that these problems, and their fixes, only apply to older PECO streamlined code 100 and code 70 track, not the newer north american style code 83 track. Additionally, it in my understanding that PECO has redesigned the older track and future production has a different frog and guard rail design. Sheldon This isn't accurate, I had 5 Peco code 83 turnouts and the all had the same problem as the OP. Nailpolish on the frog was the solution that worked for me.
This is the first report of this problem I have heard about the code 83 line. Although I don't doubt you, the insulfrog design is very similar on all. But the 83 line does have revised guard rails, that may be why less problems are reported.
Was it a particular brand/type of equipment?
I'm sure some modelers on here who are now going with or considering PECO 83 for new layouts would be interested in more details.
Personally, I will stick with Atlas, Walthers, and what I build myself when needed.
Can't get my head around the idea of paying more and then having to modify it to work......
railandsail Doughless Ok, so the problem you're trying to fix is the standard problem with the PECO frog rails being set a bit too narrow beyond the gap. (the gap's too close to the frog) And you're asking how best to bond a shim, which would keep the locos wheels on the correct side. One thing I would want to know too is if the shimming method would allow all of your locos to perform consistently all the way throught the turnout. Could it help some locos at the frog but hurt others in other ways? No, I am talking about the guard rail across the track from the frog,...the track opposite the frog rail. If that flangeway is too large of a gap it allows an axel set (two wheels one one axel) to shift just a little to bit far away from that outside rail in towards the frog point. This is particularly the case with modern very small flanged wheels. If its the old cookie cutter wheels, they sometimes need that larger gap in the guard rail.
No, I am talking about the guard rail across the track from the frog,...the track opposite the frog rail. If that flangeway is too large of a gap it allows an axel set (two wheels one one axel) to shift just a little to bit far away from that outside rail in towards the frog point. This is particularly the case with modern very small flanged wheels.
Right, shim the guard rail to keep the wheels on the correct side of the frog so it won't migrate over to the other frog rail and cause a short. I was wondering if the new narrowed gap at the guard rail would cause problems with the wheels of other locos. Didn't know if you were using some older locos with wider flanges to mix with newer locos.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Geared Steam ATLANTIC CENTRAL We should also make it clear that these problems, and their fixes, only apply to older PECO streamlined code 100 and code 70 track, not the newer north american style code 83 track. Additionally, it in my understanding that PECO has redesigned the older track and future production has a different frog and guard rail design. Sheldon This isn't accurate, I had 5 Peco code 83 turnouts and the all had the same problem as the OP. Nailpolish on the frog was the solution that worked for me. This is the first report of this problem I have heard about the code 83 line. Although I don't doubt you, the insulfrog design is very similar on all. But the 83 line does have revised guard rails, that may be why less problems are reported. Was it a particular brand/type of equipment? I'm sure some modelers on here who are now going with or considering PECO 83 for new layouts would be interested in more details. Personally, I will stick with Atlas, Walthers, and what I build myself when needed. Can't get my head around the idea of paying more and then having to modify it to work...... Sheldon
I have never experienced this problem with Peco 83's, but I only run diesels, mainly 4 axles, so I wouldn't expect to have many issues.
I think the problems stem mainly from steam locos and maybe even older steam locos with larger/wider wheels.
This is the part of the turnout in question on the Insulfrog:
IIRC, the Peco streamline code 83 has the same design. Reportedly Peco is planning to discontinue the Insulfrog and Electrofrog lines of both code 100 and code 83 and replace them with the Unifrog, which appears to have a similar desgine except a metal frog instead of the plastic frog. The Unifrog design appears to have the same area that has potential to cause shorts like the insulfrog. In practice it may not be a problem. Only use will confirm or deny.
Unifrog
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Shimming the flangeways on the guard rails is clearly illustrated here.https://youtu.be/REOKi62aLl0?t=466