I am installing a combination of Peco Insulfrog and Electrofro turnouts, some will be dcc controlled with stationary decoders and Tortise machines, some with solenoid motors and toggle switches. If I observe the obvious polarity matters, gaps at the frogs, etc., is there any need to modify the turnouts themselves? I have read about problems with short circuits but I'm not sure if this has to do with particular locos crossing over them. Thanks.
I have installed quite a few Peco turnouts of both types (N scale though) on a DCC powered layout and never had to modify any of them.There's nothing special to do other than a careful installation and the usual tuning (filing the points) that is sometimes required.DCC is more sensitive to shorts but this is most times caused by locos that have wheelsets slightly out of gauge.Don't forget to insulate both ends of the frogs on the Electrofrog types though.
You will need a modification using Tortoise switch motors. Use a stiffer wire on the tortoise to overcome the spring on the Peco turnout or remove the spring from the turnout and use the supplied wire on the tortoise. I've done it both ways but prefer to remove the Peco spring because a stiffer wire seems to place extra strain on the points.
None of the above is needed for solenoid machines.
Martin Myers
Take a look at the frog on a Peco turnout. Where the two diverging rails come together, there is a narrow strip of plastic which separates them and prevents a short. This is right at the sharp point of the frog.
Some modellers have noted a momentary short when a metal-wheeled engine or car crosses this section. The gap between the metal rails is small enough that a wheel can sometimes bridge the gap, creating a short. The solution is to take a bit of clear nail polish and coat the rails, just for an eighth of an inch or so, so that no short can occur.
I had to do this to one Peco turnout, a 3-way. Others I've got work without this issue.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I've used well over 50 Peco turnouts, both Insulfrog and Electrofrog, on a large club layout and on my home layout (both HO scale) and have had no issues at all with the need for any special wiring other than insulating both rails that diverge from the frog on the older turnouts. The newer code 83 products don't require that except on sidings that you want to put onto a toggle switch so they can be turned off.
Will add in that I have just over 250 turnouts on my Santa Fe, and 80 percent are Peco, the remainder are Shinohara. I have no problems at all using DCC on the layout, I use some Tortise machines and do add a stiffer wire for the throw, I also use Peco machines in areas where I can surface mount them on extension throws and hide the machine itself.
I do use the electrofrogs on stub sidings and yard tracks, insulfrog on the other tracks.
Bob
Rdrr, you don't say what code Peco you are asking about; it makes a difference. Code 100 HO electrofrog turnouts can be made more reliable by adding a wire to to the frog and switching its polarity with tortoise or other external contacts. This backs up the point shoes which can get dirty.
Code 75 or 83 can also benefit from this, but there is a better treatment which is pretty quick and easy if you will supply external frog switching:
1. turn the turnout over and cut the two jumpers from frog to closure rails. Add a frog wire if none.
2. observe the four gaps in the plastic tie/understructure. Add two jumpers underneath in these spaces between stock rails and closure rails.
These modifications make Peco electrofrog 75 and 83 turnouts into bombproof devices that CANNOT cause metal wheel shorts under any conditions including out-of-gauge and will likely never exhibit loss of power due to dirty points or of course at the frog.
It takes longer to describe than to do. Peco intended that it be possible to do these mods if you are willing to do external frog switching. The code 100, however, is an older design, and can only benefit from frog switching; jumpers should be left alone.
Hal
Thank you all for your input. My Pecos are code 100, bought many of them years ago and decided to stick with them now that am I finally getting around to building the layout; otherwise would have gone over to code 83.
Will look into the modification that Hal suggested, I certainly want to minimize any operational problems up front. Do the folks that reported no problems with unmodified Pecos agree that code 100's warrant the extra effort?