Insulfrog Question

[PMW]

I'm using Peco Insulfrog turnouts on the layout I'm building.

Am I correct in assuming that if I attach feeders to all six rails I am not relying on the contact of the point rail and the stock rail for continuity? It certainly seem like it to me but electricity is not my thing and I want to know if there's something I'm missing.

Thanks!

 

[Guilford Railman]

I have a few Peco insulfrog turnouts on my layout and all I’ve done on those and other Peco insulfrogs in the past is wire a couple jumper wires between the stock rails and the closure rails of each turnout. I’m not sure if this is the best way to do it but this is what I did on my shelf layout Rocky Valley and it’s worked out great!

Edit:

Decided to add a photo in so you can get a better look at what I did.

 

[Iron Horseman]

not relying on the contact of the point rail and the stock rail for continuity?

I think the short answer is, yes. This is not dependent on the points touching the stock rails.

But longer question, continuity from where to where? Certainly not from the point side of the turnout to either of the frog sides, you have over kill on that. The point rails themselves will be powered from both the pressure against the stock rail and from a hing on the closure rail through the corresponding departing frog rail.

 

[PMW]

Ah... I think I'm getting it

 

[kgstakes]

I’m using the peco insulfrog on my switching layout and I’ve done nothing to them as far as wiring. Just contacted them to the rest of the track and have had no problems with stalling locomotives. Even short wheel base locos.

Even years back when I was using atlas track with insulfrogs I had no problems with stalling locos.

So s as far as wiring a switch or turnout with an insulted frog, I don’t see the reason for doing it. I guess you could but for what reason? Keeping track clean and point rails clean you don’t have any problems.

Let me ask everyone this, why do companies still make them if they thought the switch was or has an electrical problem? They don’t if you keep track clean. This push to electrify everything is just too much. My layout and layout in the passed I would run a bus wire and then connect the track wires to that but no all track wires, I would use the switches sometimes as my power routing. That way I could park a loco beyond the switch and it wouldn’t be powered unless switch was thrown.

Heck my current switching layout only has power to one end on the layout and the switches power all other tracks. Been going on 10 years now and I don’t have any problems with power to any of my tracks.

Just keep track clean and there are no electrical problems and solder all trail jointers but leave a couple not soldered for expansion if you track makes a circle if not (switching layout) solder all joints and power will not be a problem.

Back to the question, no need to wire every rail in a switch, sounds like you’re setting yourself up for a shirt that will take forever to figure out what went wrong.

Just keep it simple.

 

[Guilford Railman]

So s as far as wiring a switch or turnout with an insulted frog, I don’t see the reason for doing it. I guess you could but for what reason? Keeping track clean and point rails clean you don’t have any problems.

Let me ask everyone this, why do companies still make them if they thought the switch was or has an electrical problem?

The reason I’ve started adding jumper wires between the stock rails and closure rails for insulfrog turnouts is redundancy. I’m a firm believer in having a 2nd option for certain things in case of failure.

Keeping the rails clean and maintained would probably work for many years but on the off chance it didn’t, having a backup way to have power routed to the rails is always good in my opinion.

 

[Marlin39]

I’m using the peco insulfrog on my switching layout and I’ve done nothing to them as far as wiring. Just contacted them to the rest of the track and have had no problems with stalling locomotives. Even short wheel base locos.

Even years back when I was using atlas track with insulfrogs I had no problems with stalling locos.

So s as far as wiring a switch or turnout with an insulted frog, I don’t see the reason for doing it. I guess you could but for what reason? Keeping track clean and point rails clean you don’t have any problems.

Let me ask everyone this, why do companies still make them if they thought the switch was or has an electrical problem? They don’t if you keep track clean. This push to electrify everything is just too much. My layout and layout in the passed I would run a bus wire and then connect the track wires to that but no all track wires, I would use the switches sometimes as my power routing. That way I could park a loco beyond the switch and it wouldn’t be powered unless switch was thrown.

Heck my current switching layout only has power to one end on the layout and the switches power all other tracks. Been going on 10 years now and I don’t have any problems with power to any of my tracks.

Just keep track clean and there are no electrical problems and solder all trail jointers but leave a couple not soldered for expansion if you track makes a circle if not (switching layout) solder all joints and power will not be a problem.

Back to the question, no need to wire every rail in a switch, sounds like you’re setting yourself up for a shirt that will take forever to figure out what went wrong.

Just keep it simple.

I always had issues with PECO turnouts. It didn't matter if they were Insul or Electro. They all required some extra electrical work.

This is why I switched several years ago to the new Walthers DCC ready switches. ZERO problems of any kind.

 

[Guilford Railman]

I always had issues with PECO turnouts. It didn't matter if they were Insul or Electro. They all required some extra electrical work.

This is why I switched several years ago to the new Walthers DCC ready switches. ZERO problems of any kind.

I’ve heard of several people here and there over the years having issues with Peco turnouts but I’ve never had any issues. Many have stated that the points have been flimsy and fallen apart or other issues such as electrical issues. I guess I’ve just been lucky. I’ve always used their Streamline turnouts so maybe those are better quality?

Regardless, I have also heard great things about the Walthers turnouts. I may try those on a future build just to see what they’re all about

 

[kgstakes]

I like the peco switches because of the “spring” that’s made in them. Then I also use caboose industries switch stands to control the turnout. No power to it at all and still going.

 

[GGNInNScale]

I remove the snap spring, rewire the switch rails to the hard rails, insulate the inner two rails beyond the frog, and drive them with servos and Arduinos. I went through a lot of Peco switches (electrofrog, insulfrog, unifrog) trying to make the rail contacts reliable. Gave up, and did the rewiring as noted. I have a clean train room but the usual dust and fuzz in the air (no pets) was enough to make the flakey contacts. Since I do not use KeepAlives, and have all DCC engines, going over the PECO switches would break the continuity and cause the engines to stop. It was frustrating until I used the "fix". Now everything works fine. The other 22 switches are Atlas- trouble-free from the start.

 

[GGNInNScale]

I think the short answer is, yes. This is not dependent on the points touching the stock rails.

But longer question, continuity from where to where? Certainly not from the point side of the turnout to either of the frog sides, you have over kill on that. The point rails themselves will be powered from both the pressure against the stock rail and from a hing on the closure rail through the corresponding departing frog rail.

Hi You have identified the weak spot in the PECO switches (in my opinion). The pass-thru electrical contact relies on the closure rail touching the outer powered rail. In my experience (I tossed 5 different PECO switches in the bin before I figured out the problem) the point rail to main rail contact is the weakness. I tried it first with the snap spring in place. It would work for a while, then become flakey. I cleaned the point rail contact areas, and the outer rail contact spots, and it would work for a short time. Then, engines would begin to stall on the switches. I got mad, and tore down one switch to sort out the issues- a bit of magnifying glasses, a microscope and a good DVM. Then, I tried removing the snap spring from a unit, and drove the switch with a servo with a spring drive to maintain pressure. It would last for a while, then become flakey again. The clue was it tended to be (not a perfect correlation) when the engine entered from the single track end, less so when entering from the two track end. I added some wires and monitored the power, and found that the point rails were the source of the problem. Developed a fix, which I applied to the other PECO turnouts on my layout. Of course, I later found that a number of guys had developed the same fix with variations (smoething about searching the internet...). I only had to use 3 PECO turnouts on the layout because Atlas does not make a curved switch. I know that a lot of guys really like PECO products. My experience (expensive, too!) is otherwise.

 

[Marlin39]

Hi You have identified the weak spot in the PECO switches (in my opinion). The pass-thru electrical contact relies on the closure rail touching the outer powered rail. In my experience (I tossed 5 different PECO switches in the bin before I figured out the problem) the point rail to main rail contact is the weakness. I tried it first with the snap spring in place. It would work for a while, then become flakey. I cleaned the point rail contact areas, and the outer rail contact spots, and it would work for a short time. Then, engines would begin to stall on the switches. I got mad, and tore down one switch to sort out the issues- a bit of magnifying glasses, a microscope and a good DVM. Then, I tried removing the snap spring from a unit, and drove the switch with a servo with a spring drive to maintain pressure. It would last for a while, then become flakey again. The clue was it tended to be (not a perfect correlation) when the engine entered from the single track end, less so when entering from the two track end. I added some wires and monitored the power, and found that the point rails were the source of the problem. Developed a fix, which I applied to the other PECO turnouts on my layout. Of course, I later found that a number of guys had developed the same fix with variations (smoething about searching the internet...). I only had to use 3 PECO turnouts on the layout because Atlas does not make a curved switch. I know that a lot of guys really like PECO products. My experience (expensive, too!) is otherwise.

I remove the snap spring, rewire the switch rails to the hard rails, insulate the inner two rails beyond the frog, and drive them with servos and Arduinos. I went through a lot of Peco switches (electrofrog, insulfrog, unifrog) trying to make the rail contacts reliable. Gave up, and did the rewiring as noted. I have a clean train room but the usual dust and fuzz in the air (no pets) was enough to make the flakey contacts. Since I do not use KeepAlives, and have all DCC engines, going over the PECO switches would break the continuity and cause the engines to stop. It was frustrating until I used the "fix". Now everything works fine. The other 22 switches are Atlas- trouble-free from the start.


You shouldn't have to do any of that for what a PECO switch costs. Maybe you have to do that in N scale. I don't know since I only model HO, but I had nothing but problems with PECO HO switches. Once I started using the Walthers DCC ready switches it was just plug and play.

 

[GGNInNScale]

I remove the snap spring, rewire the switch rails to the hard rails, insulate the inner two rails beyond the frog, and drive them with servos and Arduinos. I went through a lot of Peco switches (electrofrog, insulfrog, unifrog) trying to make the rail contacts reliable. Gave up, and did the rewiring as noted. I have a clean train room but the usual dust and fuzz in the air (no pets) was enough to make the flakey contacts. Since I do not use KeepAlives, and have all DCC engines, going over the PECO switches would break the continuity and cause the engines to stop. It was frustrating until I used the "fix". Now everything works fine. The other 22 switches are Atlas- trouble-free from the start.


You shouldn't have to do any of that for what a PECO switch costs. Maybe you have to do that in N scale. I don't know since I only model HO, but I had nothing but problems with PECO HO switches. Once I started using the Walthers DCC ready switches it was just plug and play.

Yep, you are right. I think I wasted upwards of $150 trying to make the PECOs work correctly. I was raised on HO since my dad introduced it to me about 1960. I went to N scale for space issues about 4 years ago. I used Atlas on 5 HO layouts (up to about 12x16 feet with lots of switches) without issues. Went with Atlas trackage for N scale also. But, I needed three curved switches- hence PECO and the issues. I checked on the Walthers DCC switches- only in HO now. I like the design. Maybe I will try converting a spare Atlas to "bent rail" design. It looks like you could solder one end of the joiner to make a solid electrical contact, and rely on the movement of the "short" end of the joiner to rub and always have good contact. The actual displacement is mils, so it should not be an issue. The Walthers DCC HO switches add the jumpers that we have to put into the n scale switches. Another thing I would like to see is a "less expensive" double cross-over in N scale~~