Choose your poison

Tom:

I don’t operate diesels so you may have an advantage I’ve me here. With pickup on all wheels there may never be an issue with dead spots on the road or at a frog. Experience will tell you if the way you maintain your track, or not, will end up giving you grief. My guess is that you probably do a good job of this. Next are the engines and decoders themselves. If I remember you switched to all ESU and, maybe, have capacitors (keep-alive, stay-alive, etc) installed to deal with the occasional dead spot. If that is the case then insulfrog or electrofrog is probably a moot point. Add the insulated joiners after the frog on both rails like the old days. 
 

If, on the other hand, you don’t have any intention of wiring the engines to keep running over dead frogs (strange that we refer to them as dead before you run over the frog but I digress) then it may require that the frog be insulated or wired to change polarity with the switch. Of course a “frog juicer” is also an option if you prefer not to mess with the electrical components needed to change the polarity when turnouts are manually thrown.  Even though a Tortoise has built in contacts there is still the occasional “running the switch” that a juicer can address better. 
 

So choose your poison. I like the idea of a KA but I also dabble in dead rail and battery power with direct wireless control of my engines so as to never worry about an engine running off into the abyss - well almost never. 

Thanks for your input Neil.

Hi Neil!  Thanks for your input and it pretty much follows what I've heard.  I'm leaning toward the Peco insulfrog switches.  I'd use Micro Engineering but I worry about those extremely fine spike heads holding the rail down.  I've heard of some modelers having issues with the rail popping off of the ties but maybe it's because of rough handling?  Dead frogs are not an issue and you don't need keep alive if you do some simple things to your switches.  The first thing I do is hone my switches with one of those sanding blocks.  This levels the WHOLE switch (you know how some frogs stick up from the rest of the switch) and prevents the engine from wobbling and perhaps losing contact on both trucks that'll cause the sound to cut out or headlights to flicker.  I also add jumper wires to the stock rails between the heel of the point rails and the frog (Micro Engineering now adds these jumpers).  I also add feeders to the very end (near the joiners) of my points.  I have sure power everywhere in my switches except the frog.  I can put one whole truck on a cleaning pad to clean wheels and the other truck runs the engine, sound, and lights with no issues.  So, that lone frog shouldn't be a problem ever with DCC sound equipped engines if fine tune your switches and keep wheels and track clean.  Thanks again, Neil.  I read about Peco, ME, Walther's (Shinohara) switches and all of this sometimes confuses me.  I figured the electrofrog Peco switches were like the old Shinohara switches where you need insulated rail joiners to prevent shorts and that's it.  

Tom Johnson

As I understand it the basic

As I understand it the basic difference between the Peco electrofrog and insulafrogs is a metal conducting frog point. The insulfrogs have plastic frogs so can never be powered.The electrofrogs have the capability to have the frog area powered,...IF so desired. One could elect not to do so.

Most all I've read says insulafrog Pecos work just fine with DCC,...just provide insulating joints on those 2 inside rails that extend from the frog point,...less trouble, less expense.

one of the best

sources of information in this regard is the Wiring For DCC website, authored by Allan Gartner.  Here's a link directly to his comments about Peco.

http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches_peco.htm

Blair

Re: Tom

I'd suspect that's the issue.  I have numerous Micro Engineering turnouts and do not have this problem.  Their early product, the power-routing turnouts from say 20 years ago, did have some assembly issues.  Quality improved greatly with the DCC-friendly turnouts that replaced them, so I wouldn't worry about durability.

Some BS

Tom,

I have used a lot of ME track and switches -- you know that. I've used code-55, code-70, and code-83 ME track. I will tell you that only the code-55 has problems with the rails popping off the ties. It must be handled carefully.

However, this has NEVER happened with code-70 or code-83. Both are IMO the nicest HO track available and are flawless during shipping, installation, and operation. I speak from using ME track all the way back to the 1970s when ME was Rail Craft track.

Jim

ME Flex

My experiences with ME flex is the same as Jim's. Just this year I've laid some 200'-300' of their Code 70 non-weathered. Experimentation illustrated that If needed, it will bend down to 15" radius (possibly smaller) with zero issues. Excellent product.

Andre

Getting back to the original question

Hi Tom,

This isn't rocket science - 

If you choose to use Peco turnouts - ALL Peco turnouts are designed to be fed from the single track going into the turnout. That's where you attach your feeds to the turnout - DCC or plain DC, it doesn't matter.

For Insulfrog turnouts - isolate the 2 rails leading back to the frog from the outgoing tracks. Power routing to beyond the frog is done under the frog area. Feed both tracks leaving beyond the turnout from the the other side of the isolation. Whether you use Peco's isolating track joiners or or use a Dremel to make the isolating cuts, it doesn't matter. Just isolate the 2 rails going back to the frog to prevent back feeding from the non-selected route if something bridges the insulation near the frog. 

For Electrofrog turnouts - isolate all six rails going into the turnout, because the whole turnout is electrically live. These turnouts are not power-routing like the Insulfrog design. If all six rails are electrically isolated. Then your turnout is effectively an "electrical blob" matching the electrical "DCC polarity" of your selected route that won't short out as the train transits the turnout.

Yes, just isolating just the tracks going back to the frog should be sufficient, because the 2 outer rails through the turnout are electrically continuous. But for fault finding, if your turnout has its own feed and is electrically separate from all tracks, there is no chance an electrical fault elsewhere bleeding into the turnout, just as there is no chance of developing a track short caused by the track itself.  That means if a loco hiccups when transiting the turnout, the fault is almost certainly with the loco rather than the track.

Some ancient history - 

As I've said previously on here. (and been studiously ignored) The original Peco Insulfrog design from the 1970's or maybe even earlier had a massive solid plastic frog that had be "charged at speed" if you were to get over it without stalling. The Insulfrog design was later refined to minimise the amount of plastic frog and track insulation in the turnout some years back to get better slow-running performance.

Remember Peco is UK based. A lot of their UK prototypes are small 2 and 3 axle steam locomotives, with much shorter wheelbases than most US prototypes. This results in a smaller model that is a lot more electrically sensitive to non-powered track than  longer locomotives with bogies and tenders to assist with electrical pickup when crossing a stretch of non-powered track. So the amount of insulated track in the Insulfrog turnout design has been kept to an absolute minimum. 

Now if all wheels are properly tapered, it should be impossible to bridge across the frog area and cause a short..but.. Not all locomotives are set up that way. Once you go above 2 driving axles on a steam locomotive and certainly once you go more than 3 driving axles on a steam locomotive, then  at least one of the axles will be fitted with so called "blind driving wheels" that do not have flanges and these blind drivers may be wider than the leading and trailing axles. On the prototype this is done to help get the long rigid wheelbase around curves. Model manufacturers have been using this trick for years to help our models get around our much tighter model curves. Also some model locomotive wheels are wider than "standard" to assist with tracking on our tighter model curves. By gapping the rails leading back to the frog, you defeat all of these problems that can cause a short in the frog area.    

If you are running bogie diesels with all wheels picking up, the amount of plastic in the current Peco Insulfrog turnout design should not be an issue.  You have the wheels on at least another 3 axles electrically feeding your locomotive motor when any one of the axles hits that now very small stretch of plastic isolation. The other 3 axles should be able to carry that load if your locomotive is correctly adjusted and cleaned. If you stall out - fix the locomotive, because the problem will be between your wheels and the motor and not in the turnout design.

If you are running small 2-axle industrial locomotives as I am, then when wheels on one axle hits the isolation areas, the other axle HAS to feed the locomotive motor or you stall out. Here's what I'm running successfully at low speeds

across an all Insulfrog exchange yard like this

The steam locomotive is built around a Bachmann Percy chassis. This is not a "Rolls Royce" chassis by any description, but if I can get Peco turnouts to work well with this type of rolling stock, then you should be able to as well.

As I said up front, It's not rocket science,

Wow John!

Wow, John!  Thank You so much for your very thorough explanation of both styles of switches.  I do remember reading somewhere that adding the two insulating rail joiners on the two inside rails leading back to the frog will eliminate the issue with out of gauge wheels bridging the two rails near the frog and causing a short.  I've read the comments about adding tape, nail polish and so on and wondered if all of that was necessary.  I am considering the electrofrog switches and adding insulating rail joiners on all six rails and add the feeder wires in front of the points.  I just wasn't sure about this and needed someone with knowledge to drill this into my head.  You sir helped a lot!  Thanks!

Tom Johnson

One more question John

If I use the electrofrog switches and insulate all 6 rails as per your instructions do I still cut those two jumper wires bridging the gap between the points and frog?

Tom Johnson

I defer to John, he has much

I defer to John, he has much more knowledge about Peco than I do but my own personal experience with electrofrogs, both in N-scale and HO, is that gapping the inside rails going to the frog has been sufficient. Without at least that much your short detection is going to trip when you throw the turnout. It's the bare minimum but so far it's worked for me.

Peco Unifrog is Coming

I understand that as molding dies wear out and production systems are upgraded and replaced, Peco is switching to a design called the unifrog so they do not have to make and stock both insulfrog and electrofrog turnouts. The Code 83 USA line is still both types. The new North American code 70 when it arrives will be unifrog. 

A unifrog turnout is like an insulfrog but with a very short distance to the powered rails from the frog.  It is a metal frog and has a lead for power routing attached to the frog like an electrofrog. I would expect over the next 3-5 years the code 83 will gradually change to unifrog. The UK/European code 75 flat bottom rail and UK bullhead rail lines of turnouts are already unifrog. I have some code 75 flat bottom rail turnouts and treat them as insulfrog with no problems. The code 75 flat bottom rail line is called "finescale" and was developed about 15 years ago to appease the UK and European markets who were demanding better scaled rail than the code 100 "Streamline" line.

Peco Bullhead is also code 75 rail and very recent. It was developed to satisfy UK modeler demands for track that looked like the rail system historically used throughout the UK where the head and bottom of the rail are the same shape and the track is mounted in cast iron chairs and often held in place with wooden wedges. Originally the idea is you could flip the rails over and continue to use them after one side wore down.  The chairs are high unlike the rail track plates used in North American and other flat bottom track systems. There is a very visible space above the ballast and ties (sleepers in UK speak). Since the 1950's most UK track has been gradually changed to flat bottom rail.

Because Unifrog is similar to

Because Unifrog is similar to the Insulfrog and has the same potential to short out with wide tread metal wheels, I am trying to make sure I get enough Electrofrog turnouts while they are still available.  I have read on British forums that some British modelers are unhappy about the change to Unifrog as well.

Peco as a Business and Response on Unifrog

The attached video is from a local English newspaper showing Peco turnouts being made along with the usual promo for their small amusement park.  Remember the 2022 NMRA Convention will be in the UK.

https://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/curious-devon-pecorama-tour-1-6353702?fbclid=IwAR03Mtn_56zoCay90bGLzGBQSraDTKFicDEBBYHhXZJf4Ze-BXSK5tSN2B4

Jim: I am aware of the issues reported related to Unifrog turnouts. A lot of consumer fixes have also been reported. The few code 75 Unifrogs I have, have not had issues and I think you are being overcautious. Hoping that by the time Unifrog hits the North American products any issues related to design will have been resolved in manufacturing.  Then again, most North American locomotives and powered units have been built to NMRA or finer standards rather than various more toylike wheel standards with narrower wheel treads common in Europe (including until next year the UK.) Until recently when production moved to China every UK manufacturer would come up with their own semi standard and varied it in different production runs even of the same engine. 

Peco Unifrogs

i have installed over 20 Peco Unifrog turnouts on my home N scale switching layout so far, as I switched from powered to finger-flicked turnouts. I can report that I have not had a single issue with them so far.

Yes, in principle they do a similar job to Insulfrogs (although there is a wire connection available to make them exactly the same as an Electrofrog), however the power "gap" is so small you can forget it. Even my smallest N scale switcher can cross the frogs at very low speed without losing power ( and no keep-alives in N scale!)

Just my 2 pence worth (from a US prototype modeler in the UK)

John

Getting back to the original question - Part 2

Hi Tom,

The short answer from me is that I don't know for sure. I haven't wired a full layout with Electrofrog turnouts for DCC and I don't have a DCC system to test stuff with or any DCC locos (yet??).

There were some pretty valid reasons why Insulfrogs and their built-in power-routing were chosen over Electrofrogs when we built that exchange yard, even allowing for the insulated spots in the turnouts and operating 4-wheeled locomotives through the yard.

I think those jumpers are what powers the frog and beyond in the Electrofrog design. If you cut them, then I suspect that you will have to go to some other way of powering the frog and your selected route. You've already expressed needing to go to additional wiring and frog-powering as "not a viable option" in you first post.

I know this answer isn't much help. But if you add that to Michael's experience in the previous post, where no modifications were done under the turnout apart from gapping the rails heading back to the frog, then I think I would be leaving everything under the turnout "as supplied".

You might like to try this so that you can get your head around how this works: 

Buy your Electrofrog turnout, a packet each of Peco metal and insulating joiners, a length of flextrack and set up a tabletop test rig with the rail joiner just pushed onto each track. You don't even need a baseboard to try this. Cut a length of flex into thirds, for, about 1.5x your loco length and attach to each of the 3 tracks at the turnout. This makes a very short temporary test track. Do not modify the undertrack jumpers. Solder feeds to:

• the single rail leading to the turnout
• the toe of the turn out turnout 
• both of the tracks leading away from the turnout 

Set your DCC power system up so that you can attach it to any of these feed wires 

Test for the following conditions at various speeds

1. Condition 1 - all metal rail joiners on all six rails - powered from the single track going into the turnout. This should trip out as soon as power is applied.
2. Condition 2 - isolating joiners on the single track leading to the turnout powered from the single rail going into the turnout. This should trip out as soon as you move off your approach track and onto the turnout 
3. Condition 3 -  isolating joiners only on the 2 frog rails, powered from the single track going into the turnout. You should be able to move across the turnout set for each route without tripping out as per Michael's experience. 
4. Condition 4 -  All tracks connecting to the turnout fitted with isolating joiners, connect all track feeders to your DCC system. Make your connections one rail at a time - all left rails/all right rails.This is the "electrical blob" approach. You should be able move across the turnout and all tracks without a problem. The multiple axles of your diesel loco should supply electrical power as you jump each set of isolating track joiners.into the adjacent section of matching "DCC polarity". The non-selected route is isolated by insulated track joiners on both rails and cannot short out. 

Perhaps some of the best non-Peco information I have seen is at  https://dccwiki.com/PECO_Electrofrog Note that the recommended approach requires additional wiring and devices. This is not the way you want to go as specified in your original post. 

Note the track bonds that have to be cut in these instructions. These are what keeps the whole Electrofrog turnout electrically "hot" and mean that the "electrical blob" approach should work. 

The "blob approach" is perhaps counter intuitive to my understanding of DCC when it comes to DCC track where all rails are soldered together or use metal non-insulating track joiners, and all separate pieces of track have their own feeder to the DCC bus. But with the turnout having its own set of track feeds and being fed from the toe or single track end of the turnout as specified by Peco, then the "turnout blob" effectively becomes its own DCC block connected to adjacent DCC blocks.

Good Luck and let us know how you go,

Whew!

Allow me to give what I know to be my solution. About 1.5 yrs ago I wanted to build a shelf layout. The first in over 30 yrs. I chose it to have all turnouts within reach. Decided on PECO code 83. Read everything I could on Insulfrog and electrofrog. Chose Insulfrog. Some basic decisions/beside having them within reach. No solder on turnouts. No wiring of turnouts if at all necessary. So - I did that. Installed insulfrogs joined to the adjoining flex track by metal joiners only. Obviously, using finger flick. Also, no machines. Have had no problems whatsoever. Where I had a siding that when the turnout was thrown against it and that siding was dead, I simply wired a short jumper from one rail to an adjoining rail of same polarity and the siding became powered. All other sidings are dead when thrown against. Just the way they are supposed to be. Run your engine in the siding, throw turnout, and engine is dead/no power. Since original installation, I did install simple slide switches to the throw rods to allow finger throw without touching rails. I simply push or pull the slide switch to throw the turnout. That keeps hands away from the cars, etc. And I like that. Very simple. Now, if you need a machine, I see no reason why you couldn't just add one to the throwbar. So, why the fuss about having to wire a turnout? Electrofrog for sure. As for cutting rails, again, I see no reason. I didn't and don't have any problem. The electrical feed is through metal joiners and I keep them clean as well as tightly installed. That is critical since I don't wire the turnout. All feeders to the turnouts are at the point end. /soldered to the adjoining flex track. I know there's a lot of discussion about cutting rails, but in my situation, have had no reason to do so. Of course, there's no wye or other turnaround that creates electrical problems. Hope this helps some. And I mean no offense to anyone.

Thank You!

Using the great information shared above, I'm going with Peco code 83 for the main track and Peco code 70 for sidings and spurs.  I've decided on Peco Insulfrog turnouts.  I do like Micro Engineering but the bottom line is I have boxes of 25 Peco code 70 and 83 flex track.  I also had three Insulfrog turnouts laying around.  I really like the looks of Peco flex track.  The spike heads are small but not too delicate and the ties are square and not flat.  The rails are elevated nicely because of the ties and no roadbed is needed, especially for a run down branch or short line.  I know some have issues with the stamped points on Peco turnouts but they don't bother me.  After adding ballast and weathering the ties and rail, the stamped points aren't that noticeable. I know lots of folks liked my INRAIL layout back in Indiana and I often got nice compliments about the look of my track.  Well, most of my track in Indiana was a mix of Atlas and Walther's.  I used a few of the high end Atlas turnouts along with Walther's.  I hear lots of good things about Peco so Peco it is!

Tom Johnson

For Tom

HI Tom, 

now that the decision has been made for Insulfrog, make sure that you either use insulated track joiners or isolating cuts on the rails leading to the frog from the sidings on all turnouts.

Ideally this shouldn't be necessary (see Morgan's experience above) but having those isolation gaps in those 2 rails will save you from a whole lot of grief if anything you roll over that turnout is "not ideal" (see Michael's experience).  

If you feed each siding from the other side of those isolation gaps back to the frog, then this will allow you to have a sound-equipped DCC loco burble away in that siding when it is a non-selected route through the Insulfrog turnout, rather than the whole siding being totally electrically dead and silent. With this approach there should be no chance of shorts while rolling through the turnout or any drop-outs when the route is changed.    

Peco insulfrog

Power to closure rails

I use a mix of Insulfrog (staging and yards) and Electrofrog (mainline).  The one customization I do on Insulfrog that you might consider is soldering a wire between each side rail and the adjacent closure rail under the turnout. I do that on all of mine to ensure that I am not relying on the closure rails closing perfectly to be powered.  In my case, I also solder all of my jumpers to the bottom of my track prior to putting it in place, so I kill two birds with one stone with the turnouts and the jumper simply is soldered across the bottom of the closure and adjacent side rail and continues down through the benchwork to the bus wiring.

For the Electrofrogs, I do the same, but that also requires cutting gaps before the frog and powering the frog separately.

-Ed

I hope you enjoy your new

I hope you enjoy your new very expensive Peco switches and track Tom. I will stick with my ME switches and track. Enjoy,

Jim

All Peco

Tom,

Good choice!  When I moved and started a new layout a few years ago, I made the decision to stay with one brand of track/turnouts.  No more mish-mash of various manufacturers, as I had done previously.  So I did a lot of reading, and selected Peco.  Nothing but Peco, track and turnouts, both Electrofrog and Insulfrog.  Code 70 hadn't been announced then, so all my track/turnouts are code 83.  When the track is appropriately weathered, the size of the rail isn't an issue (to me).

And I use the "finger flick" (or use a bamboo skewer) method to flip turnouts, except for one remote turnout that is out of arm's reach.  And for that I used Peco's turnout motor and associated products.

Al Carter, Mount Vernon, WA 

Jim, I will enjoy!

Jim, Peco is NOT very expensive as you claim.  In some cases I've found Peco cheaper than ME depending on where you shop.  I've done my homework and did a lot of searching, reading, and asking questions like right here.  Peco is excellent track and is very reliable.  I have a bunch on hand and I'm not throwing it all away to go with someone else.  You have lots of ME on hand and you like it.  I say good for you.  I'd gladly pay more dollars for good quality.  You should never go cheap with track as that is the most important part of a model railroad.  

Tom Johnson