Walthers vs Peco switches

[1arfarf3]

New Walthers code 100  available later this month

Peco SLE 88 & 89 electro frog code 100

Advantages/disadvantages?

Ease of wiring frog, etc?

Thanks.

 

[MisterBeasley]

I used to run Code 100 on the old part of my layout.  I now have Code 83 and the old section is gone.  I now use mostly Walthers/Shinohara turnouts and like them a lot.  In my previous years I used Atlas and Peco.

I liked both the Peco Insulfrogs and Electrofrogs.  These were both plastic frogs, and the difference was whether they were power routing or not.  You could not power the frogs.

My Walthers/Shinohara turnouts are not power routing and have metal frogs.  I found it simple (and advisable) to wire these frogs by just soldering on a green wire and controlling the frog polarity with the Tortoise machines I use to drive the turnouts.

My old Peco machines were driven by Peco twin-coil machines.  These machines took more power than, for example, Atlas machines, so a capacitive discharge circuit is a good idea.  It's always a good idea for twin coils, anyway.

[riogrande5761]

Peco code 100 are UK style turnouts.  Walthers are North American style.  If that matters.

[cuyama]

PECO Code 100 are substantially more space-efficient than the upcoming Walthers Code 100 due to smaller size overall and the curved diverging leg. Some find the appearance objectionable, others are OK with it to fit more in a given space.

Byron

[richhotrain]

Looks like the OP is asking about Code 100, not Code 83.

[richhotrain]

cuyama

PECO Code 100 are substantially more space-efficient than the upcoming Walthers Code 100 due to smaller size overall and the curved diverging leg. Some find the appearance objectionable, others are OK with it to fit more in a given space.

Byron 

Isn't Byron's analysis correct?

[cuyama]

Lastspikemike

Peco Code 100 are similar to their Code 83 in terms of footprint.

Semantics aside, footprint is not the same as space-efficiency overall. The smallest PECO Code 83 is about 8¼” long, the PECO Code 100 “Small” is about 7 5/16” long. That difference, plus the curved diverging leg, make PECO Code 100 more space-efficient in the tightest situations – and elsewhere.

Even if one trims the Walthers #6, the PECO Code 100 will still be more space-efficient. And the Walthers #4 is tighter through the frog than the PECO Code 100 “Small”. 

The facts are well-known and should not be controversial.

[cuyama]

richhotrain

Isn't Byron's analysis correct?

Pro tip: Yes.

[SeeYou190]

cuyama

 

 

richhotrain

Isn't Byron's analysis correct?

 

 

Pro tip: Yes.

 

 

-Kevin

[Water Level Route]

SeeYou190

 

 

cuyama

 

 

richhotrain

Isn't Byron's analysis correct?

 

 

Pro tip: Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

-Kevin

 

+1

I'll take Byron's advice over the other's anyday.  The OP was asking about code 100 specifically, not 83, so why even go there? 

[trainguy98]

There seem to be two different conversations happening in this thread. One is comparing the new Walthers code 83 turnouts (not the old Walthers by Shinohara) with Peco code 83. Both are high quality code 83 North American prototype turnouts built to NMRA standards, so they have many similarities. The biggest difference is that Walthers turnouts include a little more track past the frog. The other conversation (and the OP's question) is about the new Walthers code 100 turnouts and Peco code 100 turnouts. Walthers says their new code 100 turnouts will have the same North American geometry and features (including solid points) as their code 83 turnouts and are engineered to NMRA standards. Peco code 100 turnouts are European prototype turnouts with European geometry, use hinged points, and are built to accommodate a variety of wheel types, including NEM wheels. I have installed many of them in locations where their geometry was useful. In my experience, shimming the guardrails helps when operating North American equipment on them. They are a quality product but are quite different from a North American prototype turnout.

[riogrande5761]

MisterBeasley

I liked both the Peco Insulfrogs and Electrofrogs.  These were both plastic frogs, and the difference was whether they were power routing or not.  You could not power the frogs.

They were not both plastic frogs.  The electrofrog has metal rail to the tip of the frog and can be powered.

[riogrande5761]

MisterBeasley

I liked both the Peco Insulfrogs and Electrofrogs.  These were both plastic frogs, and the difference was whether they were power routing or not.  You could not power the frogs.

They were not both plastic frogs.  The electrofrog has metal rail to the tip of the frog and can be powered.

cuyama

PECO Code 100 are substantially more space-efficient than the upcoming Walthers Code 100 ...  Some find the appearance objectionable, others are OK with it to fit more in a given space. Byron

Probably because Peco code 100 are not of north American style.  I am using them in my staging yard where appearence isn't really important as it is under the main yard.

[Water Level Route]

Lastspikemike

Insulfrog use an electrically dead frog instead and the frog wire there can be used to control polarity with no other modification needed. 

There is no frog wire on Insulfrog and no way to control it's polarity.  It's non-conductive.