Doughless If you're running anything larger than a small loco, and at speeds greater than 5 mph, I can't see where stalling over a Peco Insulfrog is going to happen.
If you're running anything larger than a small loco, and at speeds greater than 5 mph, I can't see where stalling over a Peco Insulfrog is going to happen.
Rich
Alton Junction
I've heard of paralysis by analysis when it comes to planning an entire layout but never when it comes to which turnout to buy. You guys are hilarious.
With electrofrog, you have to fiddle with the wiring of each and every turnout.
With Insulfrog, there is a rumor offered by one known modeler that a plastic frog might wear out after a period of undetermined use. If it really would wear out to the point of effecting performance, I would assume you could replace the plastic tip with a piece of styrene and that tip would last for yet another undetermined amount of time.
I wouldn't choose to fiddle with each and every turnout up front just to avoid the rare occasion I might have to fiddle with the one-off turnout in an undetermined amount of time.
As far as stalling, if you run short wheelbased locos at creeping speeds over an Insulfrog, you might get some hiccups. My experience says it has more to do with the loco and decoder than a turnout. But, the electrofrog would help dissipate that concern.
- Douglas
cuyama Friends and clients have built with PECO Code 75 or Code 100 (and the N scale equivalents) and the layouts run well. Ditto for PECO Code 83, an increasingly popular choice among my clients. Crossovers made with PECO Code 75 or Code 100 “Large” turnouts seem to work fine, even for long equipment. IMHO, it's not helpful when some denigrate good products just because they prefer a different one. Byron
Friends and clients have built with PECO Code 75 or Code 100 (and the N scale equivalents) and the layouts run well.
Ditto for PECO Code 83, an increasingly popular choice among my clients.
Crossovers made with PECO Code 75 or Code 100 “Large” turnouts seem to work fine, even for long equipment.
IMHO, it's not helpful when some denigrate good products just because they prefer a different one.
Byron
Sheldon offered a point of view regarding certain Peco turnouts, claiming that the frog is curved instead of straight. I don't see this as "denigrating" Peco turnouts. It would have been more helpful to challenge this claim if it is inaccurate rather than simply contending that Peco turnouts are being denigrated.
By the way, in that same reply, Sheldon did comment, "At the end of the day, in actual practice, both work fine", comparing curved frogs to straight frogs.
Perhaps he became confused with the posts that don't really address his question? Interesting how topics can drift off....
For the newby or electrically challenged there is nothing wrong with Insulfrogs. No special wiring needed, or gaps, or modification, or point motors, or ground throws. Just use straight out of the box. He won't be disappointed.
That said I would probably use Electrofrogs for my next layout but I am happy to go to the extra work needed to make them better.
Bill
No hint of the OP, Jeff1952. He probably ran off.
Mike.
My You Tube
riogrande5761 Byron. I appreciate your feedback. You do seem to have a broad based experience which IMO carry's a lot of weight. Sheldon. Preference is fine of course. That product is good for you. Thats great. I think Bryon has a good point - it does appear that you are dissing Peco turnouts - at least your responses have that "tone". I sense it also. Now back to Peco.
Byron. I appreciate your feedback. You do seem to have a broad based experience which IMO carry's a lot of weight.
Sheldon. Preference is fine of course. That product is good for you. Thats great.
I think Bryon has a good point - it does appear that you are dissing Peco turnouts - at least your responses have that "tone". I sense it also.
Now back to Peco.
My tone? My only tone was a simple "no thank you" to the idea of curved frogs........
Then when asked, I accepted your evidence, even agreed it had some valid points, and explained my reasons.
Had you not asked, I would have stayed out of this after my first post........
Sheldon
riogrande5761 Sheldon. Thanks. We know what is good for you and in much detail as to why. However, it isn't constructive to this topic when we want "objective" feedback on Peco turnouts, not biased feedback from someone who made up their mind a long time ago and prefers another product.
Sheldon. Thanks. We know what is good for you and in much detail as to why. However, it isn't constructive to this topic when we want "objective" feedback on Peco turnouts, not biased feedback from someone who made up their mind a long time ago and prefers another product.
The OP's question was about wiring, not about geometry......
You will notice that I stayed out of this discussion until the topic of the track geometry came up. Then I simply pointed out the curved frog issue. If people are good with that, good for them. All I said was I would not build a crossover with a pair of continiously curved turnouts - you seem to agree with that view......
Everyone wants to simplify, or dumb down, turnout geometry - then they complain when the train comes off the track or their track plan won't work.
I'm not suggesting my views are the only thing that work, but my views are based on prototype and NMRA standards.
The idea that the curved leg of a turnout is "equal" to a fixed radius curve is fundamentally flawed.
Can it work for "toy" trains? Yes.
Is it a choice I would choose for my model trains? No.
Again, I have no interest in code 88 wheels, if I did I would hand lay finer scale track, which I have the skills, but the interest, to do.
And again, I have no interest in using code 100 track.
I was just pointing out the incomplete information regarding the PECO code 75/100 turnout geometry.
I did not go "off topic", I simply responded to the off topic direction the thread took.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
cuyama riogrande5761 If there are any other modelers who have feedback regarding Peco code 100 large turnouts, I'd be interested in reading it. Friends and clients have built with PECO Code 75 or Code 100 (and the N scale equivalents) and the layouts run well. Ditto for PECO Code 83, an increasingly popular choice among my clients. Crossovers made with PECO Code 75 or Code 100 “Large” turnouts seem to work fine, even for long equipment. IMHO, it's not helpful when some denigrate good products just because they prefer a different one. Byron
riogrande5761 If there are any other modelers who have feedback regarding Peco code 100 large turnouts, I'd be interested in reading it.
Byron,
I'm not "denigrating" PECO and more than others denigrate ATLAS, I'm stating a preference based on facts.
Those facts may or may not be a factor to other modelers, and I have clearly agreed PECO turnouts work fine, and the quality of PECO turnouts is very good.
But the price of PECO turnouts, in conjuction with features I don't prefer, makes them not a good choice for me.
Honestly, if the PECO 83 line had a "foot print" like ATLAS, to build 2" center ladders without short fillers, and had the switch stand ties on the other side, and had a different throw bar, I might be tempted - but they don't.
I'm not paying nearly twice as much to then have to do a bunch of modifications to make it fit my needs.
riogrande5761If there are any other modelers who have feedback regarding Peco code 100 large turnouts, I'd be interested in reading it.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I do plan on using what works for me.
If there are any other modelers who have feedback regarding Peco code 100 large turnouts, I'd be interested in reading it.
riogrande5761 ATLANTIC CENTRAL But I will stay with straight frog turnouts for prototype appearance and theory of operation. So lets assume these are used in hidden staging yards so appearance is not an issue. Theory is all good, but quite a few modelers have reported long term reliable operation with Peco code 100 large turnouts. Thats the "practical" end of it for them. They are happy - and theory is well, theory. I have already explained many times the number of other features about PECO that I dislike, both the original line and the their code 83 line. Forgetting code 83 Peco for now, quickly summarize what you don't like about the Code 100 Peco. The spring holding the points is a feature of both Peco and ME turnouts, but can be removed. What else? A number of people don't like Atlas code 100 turnouts - they report code 88 wheels don't like them. This reported from multiple users. So if thats true, is there a good code 100 turnout that is an alternative?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But I will stay with straight frog turnouts for prototype appearance and theory of operation.
So lets assume these are used in hidden staging yards so appearance is not an issue. Theory is all good, but quite a few modelers have reported long term reliable operation with Peco code 100 large turnouts. Thats the "practical" end of it for them. They are happy - and theory is well, theory.
I have already explained many times the number of other features about PECO that I dislike, both the original line and the their code 83 line.
Forgetting code 83 Peco for now, quickly summarize what you don't like about the Code 100 Peco. The spring holding the points is a feature of both Peco and ME turnouts, but can be removed. What else?
A number of people don't like Atlas code 100 turnouts - they report code 88 wheels don't like them. This reported from multiple users. So if thats true, is there a good code 100 turnout that is an alternative?
Jim,
I don't have much of an opinion, or a dog in this fight because:
I don't see the point in switching from code 83 to code 100 for hidden track.
The extra work and extra track inventory does not justify some small cost savings to me. I don't have any code 100 track left from "back in the day" because I never salvaged track from previous layouts.
I use Atlas code 83 everywhere on my layout. I have used it since it was introduced.
Also, I don't, and won't use code 88 wheels or semi scale couplers. I find the "side frame gap" just as offensive as the over sized tread. The oversized tread means smoother operation thru ALL turnouts and crossings. So I will just stay with that original standard.
Everyone should use what works for them, I like the Atlas "system". I use Walthers for slips when needed, and I build my own curved or other specials when needed.
BUT, I have learned the Atlas Custom Line turnouts can be modified into very large radius curved turnouts quite easily.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut I will stay with straight frog turnouts for prototype appearance and theory of operation.
riogrande5761 ATLANTIC CENTRAL You are assuming the curve through the turnout is a constant radius - that fact is not in evidence. The points are not a radius at all, they are two straight rails diverging from the tangent path at a fixed angle when set to the diverging route. Then a radius starts. In the case of code 100 PECO's that radius continues through the frog. The size of that radius is the "real" question that effects turnout performance. Also info PECO is not telling us....... Here is some feedback I got over at [another website]: When we talk about the radius of a turnout, there are really two different radii to consider. The first is the substitution radius - if you used the curved leg to replace part of a curve, what radius would be the closest match? This affects how well two cars coupled together would run through the turnout, and how much overhang there would be. It would also affect the sharpness of the S-curve where two turnouts are connected, such as at a crossover or the first track in a yard. With a 60" substitution radius, the Peco turnout is far larger than what nearly anyone would be using for a regular curve, so this should not be a problem in your staging yard. It looks to me like the Peco Large and the Atlas #6 should have roughly similar substitution radii. The second relevant curve is the radius of the closure rail. This is the curve between the switch point and the frog. In a standard U.S. turnout - like the Atlas model - this is much sharper than the substitution radius, because there are straight sections in the frog and the points. A tight closure rail radius can cause problems for equipment with long rigid wheelbases, like cars and locomotives with six-wheel-trucks and larger steam locomotives. For the Peco, because the turnout has a continuous curve, the closure rail radius should be close to the substitution radius, and much bigger than in an Atlas #6. So the Peco Code 100 large turnouts should handle your equipment at least as well, and perhaps better, than a standard #6 like Atlas. Do you agree or disagree with the above assessment? So two PECO code 100 turnouts arranged as a crossover is an absolute radius to radius S curve - no thank you. Sheldon For what it's worth, I don't use standard #6 turnouts to build crossovers either, I use #8 - I was good and read John Armstongs Track Planning book on S-curves. Honest! [Edited by admin to remove reference to forbidden website]
ATLANTIC CENTRAL You are assuming the curve through the turnout is a constant radius - that fact is not in evidence. The points are not a radius at all, they are two straight rails diverging from the tangent path at a fixed angle when set to the diverging route. Then a radius starts. In the case of code 100 PECO's that radius continues through the frog. The size of that radius is the "real" question that effects turnout performance. Also info PECO is not telling us.......
The points are not a radius at all, they are two straight rails diverging from the tangent path at a fixed angle when set to the diverging route. Then a radius starts. In the case of code 100 PECO's that radius continues through the frog. The size of that radius is the "real" question that effects turnout performance. Also info PECO is not telling us.......
Here is some feedback I got over at [another website]:
When we talk about the radius of a turnout, there are really two different radii to consider. The first is the substitution radius - if you used the curved leg to replace part of a curve, what radius would be the closest match? This affects how well two cars coupled together would run through the turnout, and how much overhang there would be. It would also affect the sharpness of the S-curve where two turnouts are connected, such as at a crossover or the first track in a yard. With a 60" substitution radius, the Peco turnout is far larger than what nearly anyone would be using for a regular curve, so this should not be a problem in your staging yard. It looks to me like the Peco Large and the Atlas #6 should have roughly similar substitution radii. The second relevant curve is the radius of the closure rail. This is the curve between the switch point and the frog. In a standard U.S. turnout - like the Atlas model - this is much sharper than the substitution radius, because there are straight sections in the frog and the points. A tight closure rail radius can cause problems for equipment with long rigid wheelbases, like cars and locomotives with six-wheel-trucks and larger steam locomotives. For the Peco, because the turnout has a continuous curve, the closure rail radius should be close to the substitution radius, and much bigger than in an Atlas #6. So the Peco Code 100 large turnouts should handle your equipment at least as well, and perhaps better, than a standard #6 like Atlas.
When we talk about the radius of a turnout, there are really two different radii to consider. The first is the substitution radius - if you used the curved leg to replace part of a curve, what radius would be the closest match? This affects how well two cars coupled together would run through the turnout, and how much overhang there would be. It would also affect the sharpness of the S-curve where two turnouts are connected, such as at a crossover or the first track in a yard. With a 60" substitution radius, the Peco turnout is far larger than what nearly anyone would be using for a regular curve, so this should not be a problem in your staging yard. It looks to me like the Peco Large and the Atlas #6 should have roughly similar substitution radii.
The second relevant curve is the radius of the closure rail. This is the curve between the switch point and the frog. In a standard U.S. turnout - like the Atlas model - this is much sharper than the substitution radius, because there are straight sections in the frog and the points. A tight closure rail radius can cause problems for equipment with long rigid wheelbases, like cars and locomotives with six-wheel-trucks and larger steam locomotives. For the Peco, because the turnout has a continuous curve, the closure rail radius should be close to the substitution radius, and much bigger than in an Atlas #6.
So the Peco Code 100 large turnouts should handle your equipment at least as well, and perhaps better, than a standard #6 like Atlas.
Do you agree or disagree with the above assessment?
So two PECO code 100 turnouts arranged as a crossover is an absolute radius to radius S curve - no thank you. Sheldon
For what it's worth, I don't use standard #6 turnouts to build crossovers either, I use #8 - I was good and read John Armstongs Track Planning book on S-curves. Honest!
I agree with that, BUT, there are other factors related to the curved frog that make them a non starter for me.
In theory (and in practice for the most part, other factors aside for a moment), when a railroad wheelset is traveling on straight track, the tapper of the wheels and the crown of the rail leave the flanges NOT in contact with the side of the railhead.
So a turnout with a straight path through the frog is less likely to have the flange loaded against the rail (or the back of the opposite wheel loaded on the guard rail) as it crosses the gap in the rail.
Yes, it is the job of the guard rail to pull it over to the other side, BUT, that too introduces more friction, more contact, and chances for conflict between the wheel and the rail if the route is curved.
Hence the number of modelers who have been known to modifiy PECO turnouts with styrene strips, etc, to improve performance.
With straight frogs, a crossover, of any size, has several inches of straight track to allow the truck to "settle" or straighten, before flanges and gravity (against the wheel taper) ask it to change direction.
At the end of the day, in actual practice, both work fine.
But I will stay with straight frog turnouts for prototype appearance and theory of operation.
I have both #6 and #8 crossovers with Atlas Custom Line turnouts - no issues in 40 years of using them.
The modular nature of the Atlas product for crossovers and yard ladders, no throw bar springs, reversable throw bars, simpler wiring, and lower cost all make Atlas a better choice for me.
[Edited by admin to remove reference to forbidden website]
I am using both code 100 and code 83 Peco insulfrog turnouts on my layout and am very happy with them. Occasionally I have a code 83 that a loco shorts across the frog. I either file a larger gap or apply some nail polish to coreect this. One advantage with the insulfrog is that you can power all legs on both sides of the turnout meaning you do not need to rely on point rail contact with the stock rail to power the point rails.
Water Level Route riogrande5761 Apparently the truth is a bit fuzzy on the Peco code 75 and 100 turnouts. According to a PDF document, small, medium and large Peco turnouts in the above code rail types are 12 degree's. Fuzzy indeed! Looking at the documentation on Peco's website, and judging by the plans/photos there and what I know, I believe the 12° is only describing how far away from tangent the diverging route becomes at the end of the turnout and not the angle of the frog itself. This way it becomes easier to determine what crossings are needed in given situations and having all the turnouts end up 12° off tangent simplifies the number of crossings you need to offer to match potential geometries. Consider this, it is widely known that Peco turnout in code 100 continue their curve through the frog, unlike North American prototypes. Combine that with the different curve radii apparent in the different turnouts, and you cannot help but have different frog angles. Continue the curve long enough through the frog to hit 12° from tangent and call it finished. I’m sure that’s what the designers did. Also, just eyeballing the templates on Peco’s website, it appears the medium turnouts have a roughly 6” lead which would put them right between #5 and #6 on the chart you provided. The larges appear to have a roughly 7-1/8” lead, putting them between a #6 and #7. If you look too at the templates, the rails continue past the frog further on the large, than on the medium, curving all the way I’m sure, yet still diverge the same 12°. Tells me the frogs are indeed different, but Peco is not sharing what the true frog angle actually is. Again, this is my personal speculation, but I find it impossible to have three turnouts with obviously different curve radii, yet the same frog angle. I think geometry agrees with me.
riogrande5761 Apparently the truth is a bit fuzzy on the Peco code 75 and 100 turnouts. According to a PDF document, small, medium and large Peco turnouts in the above code rail types are 12 degree's.
Fuzzy indeed! Looking at the documentation on Peco's website, and judging by the plans/photos there and what I know, I believe the 12° is only describing how far away from tangent the diverging route becomes at the end of the turnout and not the angle of the frog itself. This way it becomes easier to determine what crossings are needed in given situations and having all the turnouts end up 12° off tangent simplifies the number of crossings you need to offer to match potential geometries. Consider this, it is widely known that Peco turnout in code 100 continue their curve through the frog, unlike North American prototypes. Combine that with the different curve radii apparent in the different turnouts, and you cannot help but have different frog angles. Continue the curve long enough through the frog to hit 12° from tangent and call it finished. I’m sure that’s what the designers did. Also, just eyeballing the templates on Peco’s website, it appears the medium turnouts have a roughly 6” lead which would put them right between #5 and #6 on the chart you provided. The larges appear to have a roughly 7-1/8” lead, putting them between a #6 and #7. If you look too at the templates, the rails continue past the frog further on the large, than on the medium, curving all the way I’m sure, yet still diverge the same 12°. Tells me the frogs are indeed different, but Peco is not sharing what the true frog angle actually is. Again, this is my personal speculation, but I find it impossible to have three turnouts with obviously different curve radii, yet the same frog angle. I think geometry agrees with me.
You are assuming the curve through the turnout is a constant radius - that fact is not in evidence.
In North American practice that curve stops before the frog and is tangent though the frog. What happens after that is up to the track engineering department.
So two PECO code 100 turnouts arranged as a crossover is an absolute radius to radius S curve - no thank you.
Personally I use insulfrog turnouts because they're cheaper and more readily available at my LHS, but then I rely on "keepalive" type capacitors on all my locos so the issue is moot (to me).
For an unmodified Peco Electrofrog, the color code is not quite correct. If the turnout is lines as shown in the photo, then both point rails, the frog, and the diverging rails between the frog and the insulating gaps will all be the same polarity as the diverging stock rail.
If modified as recommended, with the jumpers visible in the closure rails cut, then the color code would be correct.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Here are Peco turnouts in both versions Electrofrog and Insulfrog
I attached also a picture with my draw - how rails are powered.
Yellow - the frog and rails have to be powered by a switch machine or a frog juicer and isolated from out going rails.
Green - insulated rail joiners and a dead spot on the Insulfrog Peco turnout.
The frog is plastic in both versions. The only difference is that in Elctrofrog version rails are metal on the whole length. In Insulfrog version tips of rails (where they meet each other) are plastic. It is about 0.5" on each rail. The whole unpowered gap has about 1".
I use Peco Insulfrog on my layout (about 30 Peco turnouts). It is just easier.
I don't have to remember about gaps between rails or insulated rail joiners. I have no problem with any of my engines running through these turnouts. Even small switchers run smoothly. The unpowered gap is mostly smaller than a spacing between wheels on the same locomotive's truck. There is still the second truck which is powered by all wheels.
In my opinion, the only model which may stop on the Peco Insulfrog is a Trackmobile which has only two axles. But this only because of the dirty wheels or something. The spacing between axles is bigger than a gap on a turnout so it shouldn't be a problem if wheels, contacts and rails are clean.
riogrande5761Apparently the truth is a bit fuzzy on the Peco code 75 and 100 turnouts. According to a PDF document, small, medium and large Peco turnouts in the above code rail types are 12 degree's.
Mike
Water Level Route I would say this is true for the mediums, or maybe mediums are closer to a #5 and large are #6?
Apparently the truth is a bit fuzzy on the Peco code 75 and 100 turnouts. According to a PDF document, small, medium and large Peco turnouts in the above code rail types are 12 degree's.
http://www.pcrnmra.org/pcr/clinics/Kolm-TurnoutsWhatYouNeedtoKnow-PCR2008-handout.pdf
Yet it appears the small have a sharper curve radius, medium less sharp and large, the broadest of the three. So OTOH, the frog angle is actually sharper than a #5 according to the chart provided. But a Peco 100 large must have rough equivelent to one of the standard turnouts even when taking the sharper frog angle into account? Of so, what is the Peco large code 100 nearest too. Many have said #6 but that isn't strictly true based on the data, but it must be "operationally" close to something.
The dimensions in the following table are for HO scale from NMRA RP 12.3. The lead length and closure radius were specifically determined for model railroad purposes and may not be directly scaled from prototype standard dimensions.
Turnout #, Lead, Frog Angle, Closure Radius
#4 5.06” 14° 15’ 15”#5 5.69” 11° 25’ 26”
#6 6.25” 9° 32’ 43”
#7 8.44” 8° 10’ 49”
#8 9.00” 7° 09’ 67”
#10 10.06” 5° 43’ 117”
riogrande5761will all long wheel base trains, (89' auto racks, 89' flat cars, passenger cars and long engines) operate reliably and gracefully through the Peco code 100 large turnout?
riogrande5761Sounds like the Peco large may be somewhere between a standard #5 and standard #6?
jalajoieDave, your club is making a mistake here. What you are describing apply only to Peco code 100. Peco code 83 follow the North American way of designing turnouts.
Jack, I had a brain fart. You are correct. It is only the Peco Code 100 turnouts which have the 12 degree frog angles. Thanks for correcting that.
We started looking at Code 100 only and that is where the frog angle issue came up. Once we realized that we would rather have the smaller frog angles that opened the discussion up to include Code 83. We compared the Peco Code 83 turnouts with the Atlas Code 83 Customline turnouts. We decided to go with the Atlas Customlines simply because of price. Despite the fact that we had been offered some pretty decent discounts for both products, the Atlas turnouts worked out to be about $1000.00 Cdn. less expensive than the Pecos. That was more than 10% of the budget for the whole layout. The Pecos didn't offer enough advantages to justify spending the extra money.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
selectorThe points, stock rails, closure rails (including frog guards), and points rails are metal. The frog, itself, is black plastic, including its bed to help support flanges passing from closure rail deviation to the frog point. There are metal strip jumpers under the turnout to link the closure rails, or the stock rails, to the points rails, thus making them truly power routing, but based on where the switch-points lie...against which rail. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=g1IFqHqo&id=353C0B60ABC922A2A75B48F12C8BD15B7826A4E2&thid=OIP.g1IFqHqoy88QzDW8ZqkFAwHaHV&q=image%2c+peco+code+83+insulfrog+%235&simid=608006142359765760&selectedIndex=87&ajaxhist=0 -Crandell
Thanks Crandell.
I was looking at the rails and not the tip of the frog.
SouthPenn I have Peco ElectroFrog on my DCC layout. All I do is isolate the diverging rails from the track that they are going to. No wire cutting, no frog wiring, no juicers, The switches are used as they came out of the box. My Shinohara code 100 switches from 20+ years ago are installed the same way. I didn't change a thing when I went from DC to DCC. I have 4 Shinohara code 100 double crossovers on my layout too. To use them with DCC, all I had to do is throw all 4 switches at the same time. Simple. Why make it more complicated than it has to be.
I have Peco ElectroFrog on my DCC layout. All I do is isolate the diverging rails from the track that they are going to. No wire cutting, no frog wiring, no juicers, The switches are used as they came out of the box. My Shinohara code 100 switches from 20+ years ago are installed the same way. I didn't change a thing when I went from DC to DCC.
I have 4 Shinohara code 100 double crossovers on my layout too. To use them with DCC, all I had to do is throw all 4 switches at the same time. Simple.
Why make it more complicated than it has to be.
Have you painted your track? If you installed the Electrofrog as you described, the ONLY source of power for the point rails on through the frog and the diverging rails up to the insulator is the point rail being pushed against the stock rail. It doesn't take much dirt or dist gathering in that space to cause power pickup problems.
hon30critter selector and riogrande5761: Are you sure the Peco Insulfrog turnouts have plastic frogs? Based on what the Peco website shows, the frog rails appear to be metal on the Insulfrog turnouts. In some cases they are showing an Electrofrog turnout when describing an Insulfrog, but they mention that in the picture. ... Dave
selector and riogrande5761:
Are you sure the Peco Insulfrog turnouts have plastic frogs? Based on what the Peco website shows, the frog rails appear to be metal on the Insulfrog turnouts. In some cases they are showing an Electrofrog turnout when describing an Insulfrog, but they mention that in the picture.
...
Dave, I have been installing the various issues of Peco Insulfrog Streamline Code 83 turnouts for several years, three removed from packaging just within the past three months. I use the #6 frog.
The points, stock rails, closure rails (including frog guards), and points rails are metal. The frog, itself, is black plastic, including its bed to help support flanges passing from closure rail deviation to the frog point. There are metal strip jumpers under the turnout to link the closure rails, or the stock rails, to the points rails, thus making them truly power routing, but based on where the switch-points lie...against which rail.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=g1IFqHqo&id=353C0B60ABC922A2A75B48F12C8BD15B7826A4E2&thid=OIP.g1IFqHqoy88QzDW8ZqkFAwHaHV&q=image%2c+peco+code+83+insulfrog+%235&simid=608006142359765760&selectedIndex=87&ajaxhist=0
-Crandell
I think we all get the difference between Peco code 100 and Peco code 83 (which are north American style and designed different than the old code 100)
hon30critter the Peco switches (both Electrofrog and Insulfrog) use frogs that have sharper angles than the Atlas turnouts. The Pecos all use frogs with a 12 degree angle regardless of the frog number. An Atlas #8 uses a frog angle of 7.5 degrees, and IIRC a #6 Atlas has a frog angle of about 9.5 degrees. The larger the angle, the quicker the train changes direction and the less realistic it looks. Dave
the Peco switches (both Electrofrog and Insulfrog) use frogs that have sharper angles than the Atlas turnouts. The Pecos all use frogs with a 12 degree angle regardless of the frog number. An Atlas #8 uses a frog angle of 7.5 degrees, and IIRC a #6 Atlas has a frog angle of about 9.5 degrees. The larger the angle, the quicker the train changes direction and the less realistic it looks.
hon30critter selector and riogrande5761: Are you sure the Peco Insulfrog turnouts have plastic frogs? Based on what the Peco website shows, the frog rails appear to be metal on the Insulfrog turnouts. In some cases they are showing an Electrofrog turnout when describing an Insulfrog, but they mention that in the picture. https://www.peco-uk.com/prodtype.asp?strParents=3309,3322&CAT_ID=3327&numRecordPosition=1 To the OP: My club was all set to go with Peco Code 83 Electrofrog turnouts on the new layout we are building but we ultimately decided to use Atlas Code 83 Customline switches instead. The reason was that the Peco switches (both Electrofrog and Insulfrog) use frogs that have sharper angles than the Atlas turnouts. The Pecos all use frogs with a 12 degree angle regardless of the frog number. An Atlas #8 uses a frog angle of 7.5 degrees, and IIRC a #6 Atlas has a frog angle of about 9.5 degrees. The larger the angle, the quicker the train changes direction and the less realistic it looks. Note that the Atlas turnouts are longer than the Pecos so they take up more space (although the Atlas turnouts can be trimmed). The Atlas frogs can be powered if desired. Dave
https://www.peco-uk.com/prodtype.asp?strParents=3309,3322&CAT_ID=3327&numRecordPosition=1
To the OP:
My club was all set to go with Peco Code 83 Electrofrog turnouts on the new layout we are building but we ultimately decided to use Atlas Code 83 Customline switches instead. The reason was that the Peco switches (both Electrofrog and Insulfrog) use frogs that have sharper angles than the Atlas turnouts. The Pecos all use frogs with a 12 degree angle regardless of the frog number. An Atlas #8 uses a frog angle of 7.5 degrees, and IIRC a #6 Atlas has a frog angle of about 9.5 degrees. The larger the angle, the quicker the train changes direction and the less realistic it looks.
Note that the Atlas turnouts are longer than the Pecos so they take up more space (although the Atlas turnouts can be trimmed). The Atlas frogs can be powered if desired.
Dave, your club is making a mistake here. What you are describing apply only to Peco code 100. Peco code 83 follow the North American way of designing turnouts.
Jack W.