Peco Turnouts

[NP2626]

Beiland, I've never heard of there being a Frog POINT! I have only heard the parts of the frog refereed to as the toe and the heel.

I find the Schematics; or, drawings you've provided of the frog area as far more complicated than I feel they need to be. Maybe this is how Peco, Micro Engineering; or, Shinohara turnouts are made, I don't know. In reality, I like how the frogs are made in Atlas turnouts. They are very simple and the entire frog is electrically isolated and dead as they are produced. They are meant to be electrified through the use of a relay; or, to be dead if electrification is not needed.

 

[Boris]

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

For now, the problem was solved by mounting the switches on Gatorboard instead of cork roadbed, and securely mounting the ground throw. The loss of contact was due to a vertical pumping motion. The Shinoharas need a stable surface after they have been in use for a while. I use DC, so "keep alives" are not helpful.

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 thought so, however the problem was the point rails between the contact point and the frog. the short soldered wire didn't have any effect.

Boris

 

[Iron Horseman]

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?

I think yes, I should have restated that all my comments on Shinohara are what I consider real Shinohara, pre-Walthers. I believe the Walther's/Shinohara are a different animal than what I am talking about.

If it matters at all here, my layout is DC, not DCC.

Nope - electricity is electricity, a short is a short.

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

Isn't that the truth.

 

[Boris]

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?
I think yes, I should have restated that all my comments on Shinohara are what I consider real Shinohara, pre-Walthers. I believe the Walther's/Shinohara are a different animal than what I am talking about.

Walthers markets Shinohara Code 83 under it's own brand. These are "DCC Friendly" Insulated frog Switches. Shinohara Code 70 switches, are still powered frog switches. Not sure about code 100.

Boris

 

[NP2626]

Why is an insulated frog considered to be DCC friendly?

 

[Boris]

Why is an insulated frog considered to be DCC friendly?

If one is using an uninsulated frog, on both sides of a siding or runaround, and both switches are not lined for the route, there is a high likelihood of a short, that may fry one or more decoders before the breaker kicks in...Insulated frogs prevent this, (as do insulated joints). However, in DC applications the breaker opens, you find and fix the cause and go about your business. Nothing gets fried.

 

[GNMT76]

I think yes, I should have restated that all my comments on Shinohara are what I consider real Shinohara, pre-Walthers. I believe the Walther's/Shinohara are a different animal than what I am talking about.

Nope - electricity is electricity, a short is a short.

Isn't that the truth.

Iron Horseman,

That do clarify things a bit! And juice is juice no matter the era!

 

[NP2626]

If one is using an uninsulated frog, on both sides of a siding or runaround, and both switches are not lined for the route, there is a high likelihood of a short, that may fry one or more decoders before the breaker kicks in...Insulated frogs prevent this, (as do insulated joints). However, in DC applications the breaker opens, you find and fix the cause and go about your business. Nothing gets fried.

Thanks WJLI26 for the definition! I have always wondered what was meant by DCC Safe in reference to turnout frogs being insulated. I have to admit that at times I understood what it meant; but, over time the meaning was lost to me! That's my age showing, I guess. I've never asked for a definition; before, even though I have twenty years of DCC operation under my belt. All of my sidings are activated by a single toggle switch, which lines both turnouts on a siding; or, run around where the frog has been powered. So, the two turnouts are always aligned with each other.

However, occasionally I have had shorts occur that might have caused problems; excepting, I must have a very good breaker as I have never fried a decoder.

 

[GNMT76]

Tony,

I have already posed that very same question to Peco. I should hear back tomorrow and will let you know what they say. But, if OO and HO are indeed the same gauge, that would seem to make sense. The only other track factors, then, would be code and type of metal used to make the tracks. However, my local hobby shop guru told me recently that there can be a manufacturer's difference in the width of a rail's base, the part that slips between the plastic molded-on spikes on Atlas tracks and turnouts, for example. I learned that after buying a Central Valley Model turnout kit I may build.

By the way, that eBay seller with the code 83 Peco turnouts at $24.75 each also offers free shipping, $17 less than jumping the puddle from Mother England. And, for me, that's only one state away!

Peco took its time in responding, telling me that OO 1:76 scale, the British version of HO's 1:87, if you will, in availability and popularity. 00-9 is narrow gauge.

 

[GNMT76]

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.

I opted for Walthers #4s over Peco #5s turnouts largely because of a little better fit in my existing layout. The Walthers also have the option of powering the frog by the addition of wiring, another bonus should I decide to do so. And I don't have to mess with the Peco spring, which Circuitron (Tortoise) says can be problematical with Peco turnouts, even causing shorts (Re: AN-6000-3).

 

[GNMT76]

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?

My friend reported no problems with his Shinohara back in the 1990s-early 2000s.

 

[Greg@mnrr]

Iron Horseman: I used Code 70 Shinohara turnouts on a former layout and wasn't very pleased with the turnouts. I didn't like the point rails and they just didn't do their job of closing properly with NJ switch machines on RIX racks. Lots of adjustments and the throw rod(s) needed to be in an exact horizontal position in the center of the turnout's bar for the turnout to work 100%. I know of others who used the Shinohara turnouts in all codes and they were problem free...perhaps the brand of turnout (switch) machines was a good choice in their case.

While this was 20 years ago, the turnouts may have been improved.

If using today, I would use ground throws.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Greg

PS: My future yard addition with utilize either PECO and Micro-Engineering turnouts or a combination or both. Ground throws will be the choice for most turnouts since I went broke buying Tortoise machines for the main layout. (The Tortoise work great!!!).

 

[NP2626]

As far as the confusion caused by Peco using a different way of describing their turnouts is concerned, I found everything I needed to know about Peco at the Peco website:
https://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=tempc100 Everything I needed to know was available at this location. I think I had said this previously that I found the one [FONT=&amp]HO Peco Streamline Model SLE-96, Electrofrog, Nickel Silver, Code 100, Medium Radius, Right Hand Turnout to be as good as any of my Atlas Custom Line Turnouts. I like the positive spring action points and were I to start over would probably use Peco's turnouts! [/FONT]

 

[Greg@mnrr]

I second Mark in his comment to use PECO turnout should he start over. My Atlas Custom Line turnouts are working fine with one exception that was caused by human error. I like the positive closure of the PECOs with their use of springs to keep the points closed.

Greg