Wiring Peco's Electrofrog turnouts...just an idea...

[Jacktal]

I'm actually planning the construction of my future layout and have settled on using Peco's code 55 Electrofrog turnouts wich I already have on hand.I have some experience with Peco's code 80 turnouts of both types (Insulfrog and Electrofrog) on the club's layout and neither have caused  any problem so far other than occasional dirty rail contacts.

In fact,the only real annoying situation I've found with these turnouts (an most likely with any brand I guess) is when a loco is accidentally driven into a wrongly thrown TO...an immediate short and loco derailment occur.I have given this problem some thoughts and have come up with an idea that I believe is worthed experimenting,or may be has been investigated in the past by someone on this forum in wich case I'd like to hear their conclusions.

Instead of installing insulated joiners at the frog legs,as per Peco's instructions,couldn't someone install regular conductive joiners and have insulators installed let's say four to six inches away from the frog within the adjoining rails,making them "sort of" extended frogs?I can see a couple of advantages to this such as:

-a loco driven into a wrongly thrown TO would still create a short indeed but would also stop a few inches from the TO so it wouldn't derail anymore.

-installing feeders to power the live frog would be much easier as they could easily be soldered to the "extension" rails with their other ends being joined together to a Tortoise,Snap-relay,DPDT swtich,etc.

-eventual replacement of a defective TO would also be much simpler as only sliding the joiners would be needed to remove and reinstall,no rewiring necessary to reactivate the live frog.

The only drawback I see to this idea is that there couldn't be another loco stopped over the gap of the other leg of the frog without causing an inevitable short but other than that,I can't figure out why it wouldn't be practical.There may be some other obvious problem I don't see making it a crazy idea so I'd like to know your thoughts about it?Thanks.

[fwright]

What you are suggesting is what was called "power routing" in the days of DC.  If either of the diverging tracks is a dead end spur, there is no need for any gap at all.  The track remains unpowered (both rails same polarity) until the turnout is set for that track.

Power routing has fallen out of failure with DCC because setting the turnout against the locomotive shuts down communications between the decoder and command station as well as the power.  That means you can't play with the sound or lights if the turnout is thrown against the spur.

I agree with your idea of moving the gap a little.  My personal preference is to put the gap at the clearance point.  That way the loco stops due to a short circuit or same polarity rails before it can foul the turnout for another train.  As you point out, that is preferable to having the short right next to the frog.  At the same time, by putting the gap at the clearance point, I have gained the maximum possible siding capacity.

However, if you are not powering the frog, then you want to keep the non-powered area as short as possible so the gaps need to be located as close the frog as practical.

You present a reasonable argument for your choice - go for it.  The only drawback that you haven't mentioned is the possible loss of some siding capacity if the gap is beyond the clearance point.

my thoughts, your choices
Fred W

[Texas Zepher]

Instead of installing insulated joiners at the frog legs,as per Peco's instructions,couldn't someone install regular conductive joiners and have insulators installed let's say four to six inches away from the frog within the adjoining rails,making them "sort of" extended frogs?

Definitely not a crazy idea.  Model Railroaders have been using it for at least the three decades I've been in the hobby.  This is how our club layout was designed.  On that layout we put this gap just a bit further back than the foul point of converging rails.   This is for all the reasons you mention, plus a few more since we were using hand built turnouts.  The only problem we have had is new operators wanting to croud the turnout.  They short the entire block and don't realize it since they were stopping anyway.  So everyone else is scratching their heads trying to figure out where the sort is and the person causing it, is the only one not suspicious that it is their locomotive.

[Jacktal]

Thanks guys for your responses.Just like many if not most model railroaders,I have what I believe to be the most common problem to overcome,meaning the lack of available space for an interesting layout.I'm actually moving stuff out of the way for the purpose and yet,the free space will not be that great,so the layout will fill most of it.Since going around it will be hardly possible at least on two sides,powered turnouts are a must as long as making stalling and derailing nearly inexistant.

I will be using Tortoise's to actuate all my primary (main lines) turnouts and Peco's PL-10 twin coils will handle the secondary ones (yards and sidings).All the frogs will be powered with either Tortoise terminals and Snap Relays for the other and all sidings will have their own feeders.This way,operating locos on the sidings will not be affected by the way the TO's are thrown as long as they don't reach the gap.I understand that pushing the gap further from the frog will indeed shorten the siding's span but this is a price I'll gladly pay for reliability.

I also plan to install some signalling system,probably a red lamp,that would indicate when the TO isn't properly thrown,at least for the hard to see TO's in the beginning.Tortoise's terminals do make this easy as well as the Snap Relays.I also will need two different TO throwing power systems,meaning a decent CDU that I still have to make/purchase for the PL-10's while I think the Tortoise's can be fed constant voltage.I've set my hands on an older but still brand new Digitrax Chief system (only tested but runs great) that I will upgrade with a DT-300 or 400 in the future as I hate the DT-100 that came with it.And,if the Chief allows it,wireless operation would be neat too when the budget permits it.