Having decided a few years back to use HO Peco 75 track for my layout, I studied the Electrofrog turnouts to see how to optimise reliable thru continuity and minimize the liklihood of shorts from out-of-gauge RP-25's or during derailments. I decided to cut the jumpers underneath from the frog to the fixed point rails and run jumpers from them to the stock rails (there is a space provided to run these jumpers, tho it isn't mentioned in the paperwork). This worked great and my turnouts give zero problems with a wide variety of engines.
Well and good. So our club recently decided to use Peco based on my experience with them. Not 75, because some members have old European rolling stock, but rather code 100. So since the turnouts looked to be made to the same specs except for rail size, we modified them the same way. We laid (ahem) many down temporarily (not soldered, minimum glue, thank Zeus) and started testing with different engines. At first no problems with a diesel and a cab forward. Then, you guessed it, a Bachman decapod produced a short at more than one turnout where the fixed point rails come close and change angle. Upon closer examination, I found that if the fixed point rail jumpers are changed on the 100's, the whole rail is affected, including close to the other rail and next to the frog. On the improved code 75 design, there are gaps built into the fixed point rails about 2 inches from the frog. Thus wheels cannot cause shorts since the areas near the angles and frog are still connected to the frog when the jumpers are cut.
Kinda late, we find out one reason why some people are using nail polish near the frogs. We will either need to do that or restore the jumpers to the original positions. A third possibility is to place gaps in the fixed point rails at the same places the 75's have them. A Dremel with cutoff wheel would do the job, but seems risky; how else could we cut these interior rails with better control and leaving a narrow, neat gap?
We are still looking at this, so any experiences and opinions would be welcome. Thanks.
Hal
We have nearly 50 Peco code 100 HO turnouts on our club layout, both Insulfrog and Electrofrog, and have never had a short with a single one of them. We also have Shinohara and Atlas turnouts in some locations.
As they were installed, I insulated both rails that diverge from the frog and then installed separate feeder wires beyond the frog, regardless of brand name. Some of the Peco turnouts are 3-way and some are double-slip. On the double-slips, I insulated only one end; otherwise, the turnouts would be electrically dead.
We run every locomotive brand imaginable and have never had a problem with having to use nail polish on a frog to cure an electrical shorting problem. I keep reading here about people having to do that, but perhaps it's the insulated rail joiners I use that prevent this from happening. I can't think of any other reason why we have never had a problem.