Atlas custom line turnout frogs are isolated,even their metal frogs on their code 83's. I've used these turnouts with no problems with DCC.
I'm puzzled. since there is no difference, electrically, between PECO's insul-frog and electro-frog turnouts, what is it about an electro-frog turnout that makes it unfreindly to dcc??
There is no difference at all, installing the Peco insul-frog is just like installing an Atlas, only the Peco is a better switch. My yard is full of them.
What I'd like to know IS; since the insul-frog turnouts are "exactly" the same as the electro-frog turnouts "electrically", what is it that makes the eletro-frog design unfriendly to dcc?
Can't help with the DCC part of the query, but there are somemajor differences between electrofrog and insulfrog switches from Peco. I'll try and describe them both in turn and how they work on DC, if you could try and visualise a right hand switch in front of you that would help... **Insulfrog** - as the name suggests has an insulated frog, made of plastic, and wires for the rails that cross are embedded in it and do not connect. When our R/H turnout is set straight ahead the L/H rail has (+) power and the R/H has (-) Power. With it set straight, the L/H rail does not connect at all with any other rail. The R/H rail connects to the R/H diverging rail (-), the L/H diverging rail connects to nothing and is electrically dead (the diverging route is now electrically isolated) When you switch the points, the ahead route becomes electrically dead as the R/H ahead rail is no longer connected to the R/H diverging rail. If you want these connected to become live in all directions, it's a simple matter of linking the two rails on the same (electrical) side permenantly. **Electrofrog** - These switches have a metal live frog, which connects electrically with both rails that run through it. If you go back to thinking of that R/H switch, again set for straight ahead. Again the L/H rail (+) does not connect with anything and the power goes straight ahead. The R/H rail (-) however behaves differently, it connects with BOTH rails of the diverging route, one at the blade and one at the frog, so both rails of the diverging route are (-). Now on DC if it just serves a spur then that effectively isolates it just as well as the insulfrog, if it isn't a spur then you need to electrically switch the power to the frog . So the features of both are (DC): Insulfrog: - Simple "plug-n-play" switch, self isolating so no need to wire spurs as separate electrical blocks to store loco's in them. Plastic frog will wear under heavy use and gives you a short "dead spot" on one rail. Electrofrog: - Has electrical contact to the wheels through virtually the entire length of turnout, so less chance of stalling, the metal frog is much stronger. BUT you will have to add a switch to route power to the frog for may applications (peco switch machines have an add-on switch you can get to do this.) My *guess* as to the difference in DCC terms is this... Insulfrog will be "plug-n-play", just like for DC, but if you need to have trains working "behind" a closed switch then you will need to feed power there separately (either jumper it between the diverging routes or a separate feed). You will keep the dead section over the frog though. Electrofrog I think you will still need to do the electrical switching when you switch the points. Hope that has helped, I have a feeling that some of the US brands are very different in some respects to Peco's products, so hopefully that has reduced some of the confusion!
Thanks Marty, Very helpful information! My switching districts have #4 Peco turnouts and I was wondering how to wire them for future DCC applications. Now I know!
What you describe is a modefied Atlas switch, I have both types of peco and they are "electrically" the same. The insulfrogs will short out just as an electrofrog will, to get the effect that is described I would have to cut the jumper wires and make seperate jumpers on the insulfrog. On the Atlas meanwhile the power is routed down both legs at all times and cuts would need to be made at the hinge points to get the power routing effect described. So I guess the plastic frog itself is what makes the difference? [ 03. October 2002, 22:42: Message edited by: squirrelkinns ]
I'd like to clear up a few points: </font> 1) There is a difference electrically between Peco Insulfrog, and Electrofrog turnouts. They are NOT the same. Insulfrog turnouts have an isolated frog which will NOT cause a short when running DCC like the Electrofrogs will.</font> 2) Atlas Custom Line turnouts have isolated frogs like their Peco INSULFROG counterparts. (do not call them "electrofrog"). You can provide power to the Atlas Custom Line frogs if you care to do so, but please don't call them "electrofrog" .</font>
Nope, I have never handled an Atlas switch in my life, whereas the vast majority of layouts I have been involved with have used Peco, not least because they are made just up the road from me! Pete is correct when he says that they are *not* electrically the same, the difference between the two ranges is in how electricity flows through them and they will therefore produce different results when you use them. I tried to describe that earlier but obviously failed , I've done a little sketch that may help which i'll post this evening for you. You shouldn't get a short with an Insulfrog, (unless you have a return loop.) The + and - rails do not connect anywhere. What you *will* have is a dead section on the route that the point is not set for. The plastic (insul)frog is only part of the difference, the main one is in which rails are connected to each other at the frog.
Just re-thinking this a little, the electrical switching of the frog on the electrofrogs may not even be applicable in N. The reason we do it in HO (code 75) is that the blades on those do not reliably conduct electricity, hence wiring it to the frog as well...it might be that the N scale turnouts are better in this regard? Given that i'm not sure why the electrofrog would operate any worse under DCC? (I did say i'm not up on the DCC side of things!!! ) You would still have to add the extra feeds and a couple of insulated joiners... [ 04. October 2002, 15:32: Message edited by: Martyn Read ]
Making Peco Electrofrog turnouts work with DCC is not that big a deal. It's just that the Peco Insulfrogs and Atlas Custom Line turnouts are no-brainers; just drop them in and they work fine. Part of the joy of DCC is easy wiring - no gap cutting, no insulated rail joiners. With DCC and todays excellent locos and their excellent electrical pick-up, stalling on turnouts is becoming a thing of the past. </font> P.S. Yes, you still have to cut gaps if you have a large layout with separate districts and also for reverse loops. </font>
Any switch that will operate on DC will operate on DCC. There are no exceptions. The DCC 'friendly' v 'non-friendly' arguments come out of the following: Some types of turnouts power BOTH point rails from the stock rail that ONE point rail is touching. This is not DCC "friendly" (or DC friendly for that matter) as it is possible for the back of a wheel to touch the open point rail causing a momentary short. If you have every wheel set and point in perfect gauge you will never have this problem (DC or DCC.) In DC this type of short causes every single locomotive in that block to stall momentarily. Usually there is only ONE locomotive and because the short is momentary, the momentum of the train pushes it over the short and you move on. You might not even notice the short happened. In the case of DCC - every locomotive in the block (on the booster) also will stall while the booster resets itself - this is more noticeable than what happens on DC and if the short didn't clear right way then the whole block comes to a stop. If you only have one booster, then this has happened to the whole layout. The reason the booster shuts down when there is a short is to protect the electronics in the system and in the decoders. An other DC or DCC unfriendly aspect of power routing turnouts is that the contact between the point rail and the stock rail is not a reliable conductor to power a length of track, or even a frog for that matter. As for the frog - power it or don't power it - either is as friendly as the other. Two layouts I operate on regularly deal with the frogs differently. On one each and every frog is powered and is electrically switched when the point is thrown. The other has every single frog dead. The dead section is as short as possible. Both layouts are reliable. Here’s a point about dead frogs: If you drive your train over a point that is aligned against you, you will not stall – depending on the equipment and the points you may push the point rails to the correct position or cause a derailment, or both. This is quite prototypical (the derailment that is) With powered frogs – as soon as the locomotive hits the frog, there is short that shuts down the booster.
Nothing. Keep your wheels in guage and you should have no problems. This issue is overblown in my opinion. The electro frogs were hailed at one time because the frog was powered and engines with a small wheel base or poor electrical pick up were less likely to stall on them as they would on a switch with an insulated unpowered frog. Either way there is a point in the switch where the + and -rails come in close proximity and can cause a short. In the Electrofrog ]powered frog] it is at the points area and in the insulfrog [nonpowered frog] it is at the frog area. When using electrofrogs turnouts a gap must be cut in both rails behind the frog to avoid a dead short if neither of these tracks are a stub siding. So if you got 'em, use 'em.
