Power Routing vs. Non-Power Routing

[Anonymous]

I know this topic has probably been discussed before but it continues to vex me.  I have these wonderful new Kato #6 turnouts that have the option of setting the jumpers for power routing or non-power routing.  Being the able minded modeler I am, I went straight to Allan Gartner's famous website on DCC wiring.  Quite frankly all that did was confuse me even more.  I looked at the Kato directions and here is what they said:

• "Power routing" feature switches power in the direction the turnout is thrown.
• "Non-power routing" feature allows for constant current supplied to both lines of track.

Is it really that simple?  Wouldn't I want non-power routing for a DCC layout?  Any and all input is appreciated.

[mlehman]

You want to set these up as power-routing turnouts for DCC. This prevents potential shorts that could shut down your DCC system by tripping the circuit protector. In addition to power-routing, you'll need to properly gap and isolate the turnouts.

Actually, I use DC and I have all my turnouts are also set up for power-routing. The benefits are the same, plus when a siding doesn't have the turnout thrown for it, it's dead without the need for an additional power switch to isolate it.

[GearDrivenSteam]

I'm not sure there's any one hard and fast rule for this question. I think it all boils down to what kind of layout you are building. I am running a small DCC point to point layout and I too am using electro frogs. They work fine for me.

[Anonymous]

I am running an HO scale 16'x12' shelf style layout with two large peninsulas.  I have over 40 turnouts.  Your replies so far are exactly what I am talking about.  It seems no one really has a concrete answer for the question of power routing vs. non-power routing for DCC.  There must be some basic advantage of one over the other for DCC.

I have read Allan Gartner's website and he recommends 'non-power routing' for DCC.  Boy, this is confusing.

[GearDrivenSteam]

From a physical standpoint alone, he's probably right. Using insulfrogs would certainly negate the need to hack up perfectly good turnouts. Even though I'm running electrofrogs, I'm not going to cut my turnouts. I probably will never run more than two trains at a time, so I really don't see the need. My layout only has 12 turnouts, by the way. Sounds like you might benefit from insulfrogs. I don't really know enough about it to tell you.

[mlehman]

No need to hack up any turnouts, unless it's a very special situation. You simply add insulated rail joiners to provide a gap on the ends with the diverging routes. If one of the routes is a dead end siding, then there's no need for gaps/insulated joiners on that route.

One reason they may be advising to use non-power routing is because you can stop any engine on a powered track by simply setting the decoder to a full stop.This does simplify wiring somewhat, but there are still reasons to gap rails with DCC. If you have a layout properly wired with 40 turnouts already, then you're probably aware of all the various rules to gap things properly for DC and there's no reason to change anything as long as it doesn't give you problems with DCC.

[jim22]

For DCC, I would have thought non-power-routing would be the way  to go.  Otherwise you'll need gaps and feeders beyond the gaps, and the short will occur when the locomotive crosses the gap instead of when it hits the points.  I have heard it said that attempting to enter a turnout with the points thrown against you is bad news.  There is some info on wiring automotive lamps in series with feeders to limit the current if a short does occurr.

Jim

[Don Gibson]

Power Routing turnouts were always considered superior - until the advent of DCC. Atlas' 'Snap Switches' with plastic frogs were cheap and simple - ideal for the beginner. Now fast forward to the DCC era:

Power Routing turnouts changed the frog polarity to to selected track (desirable) and the frogs were either + or - , wheras 

DCC 'friendly' turnouts have to have a DEAD frog to prevent short circuits (undesirable). The plastic frog is back - along with beginner simplicity (desirable) but also gone is power routing. Substituting an insulated metal one doesn't change anything.

Command Control - Digital or otherwise - has been with us for a number of years (Onboard, CTC-16, Dynatrol, Astrack)  with high prices, decoder modules, etc. - pretty much limited to the 'linatic fringe' - high-end - experimental - or advanced modeler (your choice). I was intoduced to Carrier Control near El Segundo CA. in 1963.

What's changed? Hardware? SURE. NMRA standards?YES, Higher prices and Decoders ? YES & NO (We have both). But DCC still costs more overall, than straight DC. - Decoders per each engine + Power Boosters + Control units.

DCC offers more 'whistles and bells' but those come at extra cost. Does less wiring, or the lack of  learning basic electicity enter the equation?? For 'Newbies' spending the money - the answer is apparently YES!

The non-acquisition of  working knowlege may be the easier path to 'playing with trains', but is it beneficial to the hobby? How about the hobbyist?

A more expensive Compass does not a Navigator make.

ONE of the major advantages of DCC is ability to run multiple cabs at the same time on the same track (the practical limit of 'block control' is two). With the added expense of extra control units, I have to wonder how many DO?

[claycts]

Long live the FROG!

The Frogs, 101!

1. Must you have power to the frogs for DCC NO! if you are running a bunch of 0-4-0 then yes in DC or DCC.

2. Powering the frogs is a good idea in basic theroy.  That is a $$$ question as opposed to operational. To power a frog in DCC you must have a relay ($$) that must be attached to the turnout motor ($$$) that makes sure you have a proper phase at the frog. The CHEAPEST way to do that is with a Tortoise it controls the Turnout, phasing (frog) AND signals AND panel lights. About $29.95 per turnout (on sale about $16.95)

3. Mallets defeat the purpose of powering the frogs, better belive it they like them DEAD as door nail. Diesels like live frogs, NO they like them DEAD also. Critters and 0-4-0 like live frogs YES they must be for them to operate.

I have 160 plus turnouts with over 60 engines running over them Half are live and half are dead. There is NO DIFFERENCE on any operation other than the 0-4-0 and the 0-6-0 with no tender pick-up and that is on a #8 frog. I have been making frog soup for 3 months and this is what I have found.

The rules are:

#4 can be dead to short to matter

#5 can be dead with MOST engines

#6 SHOULD be powered

#8 and up MUST be powered due to their length.

Double cross overs, should be powered

3 way No required short frogs

Double slips NO to hard to get power to them.

That is my

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

I'll jump on this little sidetrack....

A DCC friendly turnout does not have to have a dead frog, it just has to do it in such a way that you avoid shorts, which was always a good idea anyway.

I'm an EE, so not wanting to do blocks and cabs is not in the least related to difficulty in understanding for me.

The only disadvantage to DCC that I can see is cost, and I think it is overstated, though real.  But that isn't where I'm going here.

Advantages:

Considerably easier wiring.  If it is done right it should also be much easier to debug when problems pop up.  The is very true in a dense operational area like a yard.  Easier wiring, increased operational possibilities with fewer limitations.

Easier and more flexible consisting.

Realistic helper operation if one desires.

Auto-reverse modules and not just for balloon loops that you can use turnout contacts to control.

And the one I'm building up to.  You can give a controller with a loco selected to a kid old enough to understand faster and slower and they can drive a train.  No extra switches to throw, no forgetting to put them back, or getting distracted by them.

Oh, I have to add that although you have to pay attention you don't have to have a seperate controller for each unit you are running.

I think you are shortchanging the hobbyist if you think you don't learn a good bit of electricity in DCC.  If you control turnouts remotely, either with DCC or by the 'old fashioned' way you have to distribute and switch power.  Short protecting and wiring are not totally trivial.  So I don't think the learning is totally lost.  Just different.

 

[Anonymous]

This brings up a good point.  My new Kato #6 turnouts appear to have plastic frogs yet still have the option of "power routing" or "non-power routing".  So what this tells me is that power routing may have nothing to do with powering the frogs. Is this true?

My Kato #4 turnouts have 'metal' frogs and are power routing by default.  I only have a few of these and best I can tell I will have to use them as is for modification to "non-power routing" requires taking them apart.

My understanding is that I will have to use insulated joiners at some point on the #4 turnouts but can use the #6 on the "non-power routing" option with no insulated joiners anywhere for DCC.  Is this correct or do I have it backwards as far as insulators go?

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

This brings up a good point.  My new Kato #6 turnouts appear to have plastic frogs yet still have the option of "power routing" or "non-power routing".  So what this tells me is that power routing may have nothing to do with powering the frogs. Is this true?

I can't answer all of this but this part is true.  Power routing means the turnout is basically a switch for the track and the power.  Powering the frog is independent of that, with the frog being powered to match the 'active' point rail.

My Kato #4 turnouts have 'metal' frogs and are power routing by default.  I only have a few of these and best I can tell I will have to use them as is for modification to "non-power routing" requires taking them apart.

As long as you have power on the legs past the frog it doesn't matter if they are power routing or not.

My understanding is that I will have to use insulated joiners at some point on the #4 turnouts but can use the #6 on the "non-power routing" option with no insulated joiners anywhere for DCC.  Is this correct or do I have it backwards as far as insulators go?

I think you need an insulated joiner if the switch is non-power routing with a live frog, since the frog would be connected to both an inside and an outside rail.  Now that you have some more info, and have thought about it some more, I'd go back to the wiring for DCC site and see if it makes more sense.

[GearDrivenSteam]

No need to hack up any turnouts, unless it's a very special situation. You simply add insulated rail joiners to provide a gap on the ends with the diverging routes. If one of the routes is a dead end siding, then there's no need for gaps/insulated joiners on that route. One reason they may be advising to use non-power routing is because you can stop any engine on a powered track by simply setting the decoder to a full stop.This does simplify wiring somewhat, but there are still reasons to gap rails with DCC. If you have a layout properly wired with 40 turnouts already, then you're probably aware of all the various rules to gap things properly for DC and there's no reason to change anything as long as it doesn't give you problems with DCC.

I agree 100%. There are those who advocate hacking up perfectly good turnouts to make them work with DCC. I ain't goin for it.

[GearDrivenSteam]

For DCC, I would have thought non-power-routing would be the way  to go.  Otherwise you'll need gaps and feeders beyond the gaps, and the short will occur when the locomotive crosses the gap instead of when it hits the points.  I have heard it said that attempting to enter a turnout with the points thrown against you is bad news.  There is some info on wiring automotive lamps in series with feeders to limit the current if a short does occurr.
Jim

Then don't enter a turnout with the points thrown against you. Simple.

[selector]

Friends, I have several insulfrog (gapped by jewelers's saw) Fast Tracks #8 turnouts, and none of them is wired in any way except via the joiners.  I have a 0-6-0 that has no difficulty whatsoever with any of them.  The points get their power from the adjacent stock rails via the copper surfaces to which they are both soldered on circuit board ties.  Each tie, of which only about 8 per turnout are actually pcb board, has a gap filed into the copper plating to prevent shorting between the different polarities.

[Anonymous]

Thanks everyone, I think I actually got it now. I went back and read the DCC wiring page and it does make sense now. Here's what I have figured out:

1. "Power Routing" and powering the frog are 2 completely different things.
2. "Power routing" makes the turnout act as an electrical switch.
3. A non-DCC friendly turnout doesn't mean it won't work with DCC.
4. "Non-power routing" plus track feeders is probably best for DCC.
5. Gaps and insulators seem to be more for electrical problem diagnosis than operation.
6. You can use "power routing" turnouts if the point-to-stock rail gap is large (as Katos are).
7. Ultimately, there is no right or wrong answer - you can do what you want if it works.

I had gotten about halfway done installing my #6 Kato switches set for "non-power routing" option enabled when I realized I might be doing it incorrectly.  Now I can finish and then start wiring, Thanks for all the help everyone!

[mlehman]

Surfstud,
That's a fine job of summarizing things. It's complicated and sometimes makes my brain hurt to think about wiring. Sometimes you just have to do it, make a few mistakes, and then analyze and correct to really figure out what's going on. If you combine that inquisitive spirit with your summary, then you'll have no trouble.

Good thread. The answer really depends on thinking out what you're trying to accomplish and why. In my case, I need DC-powered hot frogs that won't short for my narrowgauge locos to perform best, including through some rather extensive dual gauge trackage. So I use hot frogs with power routing.

BTW, a big reason why DCC users like non-power-routing turnouts is so that locos don't short when they get too close to the frog, which can happen when a loco hits the gaps at a power routing turnout that is gapped at the end of the diverging rails. But the reality is if you're that close to the frog, you're really not giving a prototypically safe clearance spacing anyway. But some people want to use the extra inch or so gained and prevent shorting by not using power routing. To each their own.

[Anonymous]

Once again, thats a big reason I started handlaying TOs.  I reworked a couple of TOs with insulated frogs and found I could just handlay the entire TO quicker than I could rework one.  I make my points and closure rails as onr piece and put my gaps after the frog and have no problems.  As far as shorting when you run into a TO with the points thrown the wrong way, your going to derail anyway so be prototypical and do it right in the first place.  Tweet.

[Anonymous]

tweet - sounds great but I'm afraid hand laying TOs and track is just beyond my scope of modeling.  I must agree that hitting a switch the wrong way is a no-no and should be regular practice on any RR not to.  Better have the 250 ton crane ready anyway - just in case!

[Texas Zepher]

a big reason why DCC users like non-power-routing turnouts is so that locos don't short when they get too close to the frog, which can happen when a loco hits the gaps at a power routing turnout that is gapped at the end of the diverging rails. But the reality is if you're that close to the frog, you're really not giving a prototypically safe clearance spacing anyway. But some people want to use the extra inch or so gained and prevent shorting by not using power routing.

  This is exactly the reason our club uses power routing turnouts.  It teaches engineers not to crowd the turnouts.  When someone gets too close to the foul point, the system shorts and EVERYONE knows it.  Nothing like 15 other operators staring at a person to get them to learn really quick where the proper place to stop is.  I over state this for effect, since there are 12 power districts everyone really doesn't know, just those in that power block.

Oh yeah, another thing I don't recall anyone else mentioning.  With power routing turnouts the track power can be used for signalling its position on panels or CTC boards.  For years we had been wiring a separate circuit to do this and then realized how redundant that was.

 

[WSOR 3801]

Just one thing:  The contacts on power routing switches are kinda small to power a track.  At the club we had a bunch of Peco Electrofrogs used in the yard as on/off switches for the tracks.  They wore out, pretty quickly.  Use a toggle switch to cut the power on a track.  To help engines, esp. little ones, to get thru the switch without stalling, that is fine.  Ideally, put insulated joiners on the frog end or the switch, or a little ways up by the clearance point. If you have signals, put the insulated joints right next to the signal.  Make sure the next section of track has feeders attached.  That should take care of most problems.

[Don Gibson]

Jeff - Vail & Southwestern RR:

"A DCC friendly turnout does not have to have a dead frog,"

Would  the term "insulated frog" be more suitable?  Most so called "DCC friendly" turnouts have either 'dead' or 'insulated' frogs to prevent short circuits. Yours?

'FROG'. - The junction where two wheel bearing rails in a turnout cross.

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

Insulated and dead are not the same thing, though.  If it is live, it has to be insulated at the frog end of it would be a short.  But there is no reason you can't power a frog in DCC.  Of course, if you run through the turnout when it is against you, a short you get.

[Anonymous]

The frogs on my Kato #6 turnouts are plastic and therefore must be dead.  Boy, I sure am becoming a pro at this power routing stuff real quick.  I'm going non-power routing on all my turnouts except the #4's which I can't change. Luckily, all the #4 switches I have are in one industrial area which I will make it's own power district.  Hopefully, this will work.

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

Plastic is clearly dead!