Peco Turnouts

[NP2626]

Mark.

If you do choose to try a Peco switch, they are easy to install and (from memory) a little smaller than the atlas.

Tony, You must have missed the jist of this conversation. It was entirely about removing an Atlas Snap Switch and replacing it with and trying out a Peco Switch (Turnout). This makes me wonder whether I was clear in what I had in mind. This is page #6 of this thread and I could summarize what all I did, if needed. However, I think most understood what I was up to. I think the possibility exists that you (Tony, wombat457) have just had a senior moment and that's O.K. as we've all had them and they continue to come more steadily as we age!

 

[GNMT76]

I want to replace an Atlas "Snap Switch" with a Peco #4 Turnout, However, when looking at Peco's inventory, I noticed that Peco's terminology does not give the frog angle, they use terms such as: Small Radius, Medium Radius and Large Radius. Also, I assume that because I prefer powered frogs, I should purchase their Electrofrog turnouts. I went directly to Peco's Website and found the website to further confuse me. I have mostly Atlas Custom Line Turnouts; but, thought it would be fun to try another manufacturers products.
Thanks for your input!

Mark,

I'm also considering switching from Atlas to Peco turnouts, though I'm also looking at Walthers. The Peco terminology is indeed confusing and not at all practical for us U.S. modelers. Five days ago, I e-mailed the company, requesting clarification and have yet to receive a reply. I concur that the website is pretty useless on this count. In addition, I sent a separate e-mail to Peco asking for the website addresses of a few U.K.-based Peco retailers. I received a reply the next day - asking me to call the company so it could sell me what I need straight from HQ (I still am not certain, as it relates directly to my other e-mail). I had to make my request twice more before I finally received the information.

So, a lack of response within a reasonable number of days - and resistance to providing basic information - makes me wonder if Peco even wants - or needs - our business.

 

[fcwilt]

Hi,

For folks wanting to follow American prototypes, using Code 83 rail, there is a small line of Peco Code 83 StreamLine products

This is a bit out of date but it covers the main items.

https://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=tempc83

There is also a double-slip switch that is not listed there. The part number is SL-U8363. The U before the part number indicates a "unifrog" as opposed to the older "insulfrog" or "electrofrog".

There are several American vendors of Peco products who would very much like your business.

I either use Peco or build my own using Fast Tracks products.

Frederick

 

[NP2626]

GNMT76,

What more do you want to know about Peco's turnouts, that you can't find at their website? Here is the technical information on their turnouts with Turnout plans for every turnout the make, I believe:
https://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=pointplans

Mark

Mark,

I'm also considering switching from Atlas to Peco turnouts, though I'm also looking at Walthers. The Peco terminology is indeed confusing and not at all practical for us U.S. modelers. Five days ago, I e-mailed the company, requesting clarification and have yet to receive a reply. I concur that the website is pretty useless on this count. In addition, I sent a separate e-mail to Peco asking for the website addresses of a few U.K.-based Peco retailers. I received a reply the next day - asking me to call the company so it could sell me what I need straight from HQ (I still am not certain, as it relates directly to my other e-mail). I had to make my request twice more before I finally received the information.

So, a lack of response within a reasonable number of days - and resistance to providing basic information - makes me wonder if Peco even wants - or needs - our business.

 

[Boris]

I'm kind of confused here, , Am I correct in assuming that y'all use code 100 track and switches on your respective layouts, and that's what you're discussing?

Reason why I ask, is that I use PECO #7 Curved switches and #5 switches in Code 83, on my layout and do not recognize some of the issues y'all are discussing. They work well both the insulated frog and powered frog versions, and generally don't cause problems like some Shinohara switches have caused. And they are very much North American in nomenclature and appearance.

Incidentally, PECO has announced that they are entering into the Code 70 market with North American styled product. These will be a perfect fit with Micro Engineering's Code 70 #6 switches and flex track.

Boris

 

[GNMT76]

I'm kind of confused here, , Am I correct in assuming that y'all use code 100 track and switches on your respective layouts, and that's what you're discussing?

Reason why I ask, is that I use PECO #7 Curved switches and #5 switches in Code 83, on my layout and do not recognize some of the issues y'all are discussing. They work well both the insulated frog and powered frog versions, and generally don't cause problems like some Shinohara switches have caused. And they are very much North American in nomenclature and appearance.

Incidentally, PECO has announced that they are entering into the Code 70 market with North American styled product. These will be a perfect fit with Micro Engineering's Code 70 #6 switches and flex track.

Boris

It's strictly code 83 for me. To what specific Shinohara turnout problems are you referring?

My turnouts are powered by Tortoise, and I've installed a heavier gauge wire in all of them, replacing the weaker ones that were provided. Given that - and Peco's inclusion of a point rail spring - is there any reason to remove that spring? Or is it just another benefit to using Peco?

Also, all my locos are relatively short, four-axle diesels (plus one 2-8-2 Mikado). Is there any real need to use - or benefit to using - electrofrog turnouts instead of insulfrog? I've experienced no electrical short problems with my current Atlas Snap Switch turnouts.

 

[Iron Horseman]

Reason why I ask, is that I use ... Code 83, on my layout and do not recognize some of the issues y'all are discussing.

Yes, Peco code 83 follows North American track practice.

Code-100 and Code-75 European
Code-83 and Code-70 North American

 

[Iron Horseman]

To what specific Shinohara turnout problems are you referring?

I can't speak to the new ones because the old ones were so bad I am afraid to try them. One could write a book (in fact, many have written articles) of all the issues of the old ones.

My turnouts are powered by Tortoise, and I've installed a heavier gauge wire in all of them, replacing the weaker ones that are provided. Given that - and Peco's inclusion of a point rail spring - is there any reason to remove that spring? Or is it just another benefit to using Peco?

Not, the only reason to remove the spring is if the turnout motor cannot overcome it. Springs are a good thing. Reading through threads on Peco through the years it can be noted that when the springs are removed is when there start being issues with poor power to the frog.

Is there a real need to use - or benefit to using - electrofrog turnouts instead of insulfrog? I've experienced no electrical short problems with my current Atlas Snap Switch turnouts.

The advantage of a powered frog is that there is less "dead track" where the locomotive could stall. And Yes, Atlas Snap Switches and also the Custom Line Switches are designed so they will not have electrical short problems. If someone has an electrical short with an Atlas, it has to be a specific defect not a cronic design issue.

 

[GNMT76]

I can't speak to the new ones because the old ones were so bad I am afraid to try them. One could write a book (in fact, many have written articles) of all the issues of the old ones.

Not, the only reason to remove the spring is if the turnout motor cannot overcome it. Springs are a good thing. Reading through threads on Peco through the years it can be noted that when the springs are removed is when there start being issues with poor power to the frog.
The advantage of a powered frog is that there is less "dead track" where the locomotive could stall. And Yes, Atlas Snap Switches and also the Custom Line Switches are designed so they will not have electrical short problems. If someone has an electrical short with an Atlas, it has to be a specific defect not a cronic design issue.

Iron Horseman,

Thank you for the clarity of your responses. I look forward to reading your book!

That's interesting - and good to know - about the old Shinohara. How long ago were those problematic turnouts around? I just e-mailed a friend who used Walthers/Shinohara flextrack and turnouts throughout two large layouts he had over the past twenty years, asking if he had experienced any problems or dissatisfaction with them. Still awaiting a reply.

Springs are good then! May the force be with the Tortoise!

Aren't six-axle locos more apt to stall than four-axle ones? Or vice versa? My layout is small, so I'm not likely to have locos longer than four-axles. They all have metal wheels. It looks as if I'd be better off with electrofrog turnouts. Correct? And, aren't polarity problems and "dead track" two separate issues? The former, the collision of + and - charges; the latter the absence of electricity. Electroforg turnouts address both then?

 

[trailrider]

Personally, I don't like Peco switch machines. They don't seem as positive with the position spring in place! I leave the springs in for manual activation (where I can readily reach the turnout. For remote locations, I prefer some of the older twin-coil switch machines such as Kemtron, and some others I've bought over the years. As for Shinohara, I've used a number, especially curved ones, actuated by a twin-coil. Seem to work fine for me (HO-Code 100).

 

[NP2626]

I started my layout when Code 100 was still very popular and Code 100 Atlas track was considerably less expensive than any Code 83 track that was available back in the late 1980s. Perhaps, had I started at a later time and could justify the extra cost of Code 83 I might have gone that way.

I'm kind of confused here, , Am I correct in assuming that y'all use code 100 track and switches on your respective layouts, and that's what you're discussing?

Reason why I ask, is that I use PECO #7 Curved switches and #5 switches in Code 83, on my layout and do not recognize some of the issues y'all are discussing. They work well both the insulated frog and powered frog versions, and generally don't cause problems like some Shinohara switches have caused. And they are very much North American in nomenclature and appearance.

Incidentally, PECO has announced that they are entering into the Code 70 market with North American styled product. These will be a perfect fit with Micro Engineering's Code 70 #6 switches and flex track.

Boris

 

[Iron Horseman]

Aren't six-axle locos more apt to stall than four-axle ones? Or vice versa?

General wisdom says that six-axle are less apt to stall because there are more contact points with the rail. However, general things always have exceptions - for example take the old Atlas Roco drives for the SD35 and SD24. Power pickup was only on 8 of the 12 wheels so it may as well have been a 4 axle. Then there can also be other factors like if a point should bump up slightly a six axle truck can play teeter-totter on the center axle essentially lifting the two outside axles off rail and power. So I guess I am saying it totally depends on the exact model and the exact turnout.

It looks as if I'd be better off with electrofrog turnouts. Correct? And, aren't polarity problems and "dead track" two separate issues? The former, the collision of + and - charges; the latter the absence of electricity. Electroforg turnouts address both then?

Yes, Yes, and No. Electrofog turnouts (or any other hot frog turnouts like Shinohara) do not have a short circuit problem in themselves, but if there is a power feed down rail on the frog side of the turnout, then one has to gap the frog rail before that feed or there will be a short circuit. Since many turnouts are in a loop of track at least one side of the turnout will have this problem

 

[GNMT76]

General wisdom says that six-axle are less apt to stall because there are more contact points with the rail. However, general things always have exceptions - for example take the old Atlas Roco drives for the SD35 and SD24. Power pickup was only on 8 of the 12 wheels so it may as well have been a 4 axle. Then there can also be other factors like if a point should bump up slightly a six axle truck can play teeter-totter on the center axle essentially lifting the two outside axles off rail and power. So I guess I am saying it totally depends on the exact model and the exact turnout.

Yes, Yes, and No. Electrofog turnouts (or any other hot frog turnouts like Shinohara) do not have a short circuit problem in themselves, but if there is a power feed down rail on the frog side of the turnout, then one has to gap the frog rail before that feed or there will be a short circuit. Since many turnouts are in a loop of track at least one side of the turnout will have this problem

Iron Horseman,

OK. Looking promising then!

Still a bit confused though. The description of Shinohara turnouts says that the frogs and points are electrically isolated - that is, not powered or "hot" - "...to eliminate polarity problems when decoder-equipped locos or cars with metal wheels enter the turnout." From what I've seen, Walthers offers only its version of insulfrog turnouts, not electrofrog. Yes?

And, are you also saying that if there's a simple feeder wire on either rail of the turnout - mainline or diverging - after the frog, then a gap must be cut into that frog rail before it reaches the feeder wire location? If it matters at all here, my layout is DC, not DCC.

As for six- or four-axle locos, it seems then that "stuff" happens!

Quite the education, this!

 

[NP2626]

Whether all the wheels touch while traversing a frog, seems less important to me than the frog being powered. Other than the difficulty of adding a circuit which switches the polarity of the frog when the points are thrown and the added cost of doing so, I think the benefits of powering the frog far out weigh the final price of a turnout with it's frog powering circuit! Like I've said, almost all of my turnouts are Atlas Custom Line Turnouts. It's amazing to me how after a time, turnouts with non-powered frogs become traps for your locomotives, both steam and diesel! Eventually, the points seem to loose continuity with the closure rails, thereby becoming dead. Because of the short wheel base of some switchers, they seem to straddle both the dead points and dead frog, perfectly. All of the turnout on my main line have powered frogs and the are holding their own as far as being loco traps.

Something I've wondered about, is why can't we use a single Frog Juicer to power many frogs on our layouts? Is this a possibility?

 

[Boris]

My major problem with Shinohara switches is the loss of power that occurs if the tension of the ground throws changes. I was able to correct most of the issues by changing the way I mount the ground throw. The other issue is with curved switches, the inside (sharper) spiral is normally sharper than advertised. PECO's curved switch doesn't have the same problem.

I use power frog switches on single end industrial tracks. Double ended tracks get insulated frog switches, for obvious reasons. I'm not using a reverse loop on this layout, but I anticipate a wye at some point. I really don't have a problem losing power on switches, (so far), My smallest switcher is a Proto S-1. I had frequent stall issues on the old layout, which is why it's the "old" layout.

 

[beiland]

Perhaps it time to go back to a video i referenced under the 'flangeways in out turnouts'

This is a very good visual presentation of how our wheels roll thru a frog point. It was done up by Fast-Track

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbSmoUH1Cqk[/URL]

I believe there were a few others, but I can't find them at the moment.

Now take a close look at the frog point in that video presentation, its solid rail in the sharp V, with no gaping insulator. Obviously that would be an electrical problem in DC or DCC.

So manufactures have resorted to various methods/materials to insulate those rails from one another at the frog point. And not only is a 'insulation strip' required, but we have to think about what happens when our 'relatively wide wheels' can touch both the mainline route rail and the diverging route rail at the same time....SHORT.

Here is a webpage that defines some of the problems very well,..
https://dccwiki.com/Peco_Insulfrog

BTW I have some crossovers (both single and double) from Shinohara and their 'isolation strip' in the frog area can definitly present problems if not properly addressed.

 

[beiland]

My major problem with Shinohara switches is the loss of power that occurs if the tension of the ground throws changes. I was able to correct most of the issues by changing the way I mount the ground throw.

Couldn't that be corrected by soldering on a few light wire loops between the point rails and their mainrail counterparts. I've seen this suggestion to improve reliability of Atlas turnouts

I really don't have a problem losing power on switches, (so far), My smallest switcher is a Proto S-1. I had frequent stall issues on the old layout, which is why it's the "old" layout.

Would't 'keep alives' help solve this problem without resorting to fancy powering/juicing of the frog?

 

[fcwilt]

Something I've wondered about, is why can't we use a single Frog Juicer to power many frogs on our layouts? Is this a possibility?

A problem would occur when two or more frogs needed different polarity being applied at the same time. There might be specific places on a layout where it could be done.

Frederick

 

[fcwilt]

Would't 'keep alives' help solve this problem without resorting to fancy powering/juicing of the frog?

Yes if you don't mind modifying numerous locos. Powering frogs solves the problem for all current and future engines.

Frederick

 

[GNMT76]

Beiland,

Thanks for the good video and schematics. Very educational!