Help with ME #6 Code 55 Turnouts

[DKS]

For the record, Atlas C55 turnouts have electrically isolated frogs that need to be wired to a switching machine to power them correctly for each leg. So that means adding more wires than you would with an ME turnout. Or you leave the Atlas frog unwired and unpowered.

For the record, this is incorrect. Because the rails beyond the frog on an ME turnout are not electrically connected to anything, they must be wired (or otherwise powered), whereas the Atlas turnouts have internal jumpers to power these rails. This has already been established. So using Atlas does not increase the wiring demands, and indeed it's simpler, especially if the frog is left dead.

The Atlas code 55 turnouts have a hidden jumper from each closure rail, jumping around the frog, and connecting to the corresponding "frog rail" on the other side of the frog.  Thus if the "frog rail" is connected to a piece of flex track, the flex track will be powered through the turnout.  To get the equivalent operation with ME, you could either add your own jumpers, or run feeders to the track beyond the switch, as advised by previous posters.

New ME turnouts have an isolated frog, that can be either powered or left dead. However, the two "frog rails" coming off the other side of the frog gaps (opposite the closure rail/point/switch side) have to be powered by the rails they're connected to...or by feeders...depending on your wiring and block placement, they they are entirely isolated from each other.

[nickelplate759]

For the record, Atlas C55 turnouts have electrically isolated frogs that need to be wired to a switching machine to power them correctly for each leg. So that means adding more wires than you would with an ME turnout. Or you leave the Atlas frog unwired and unpowered.

current production ME turnouts have the same feature.  The frog is only powered if you run a feeder to it and switch polarity accordingly.

[mmagliaro]

For the record, this is incorrect. Because the rails beyond the frog on an ME turnout are not electrically connected to anything, they must be wired (or otherwise powered), whereas the Atlas turnouts have internal jumpers to power these rails. This has already been established. So using Atlas does not increase the wiring demands, and indeed it's simpler, especially if the frog is left dead.

I'd like to point out that while Atlas turnouts do have those internal jumpers built in, if you depend on them, you are asking for trouble.   Those jumpers are the same bronze strips used for the frog connection and they are prone to failure (meaning a dead rail or a dead frog).   They are either just pressure-mounted in there by the plastic ties or shoddily spot-welded, but either way, they don't always make contact with the rails.  After having a couple of dead rails in the first 5-odd turnouts I installed, putting in my own jumpers became one of the standard "fix-all" things I did to every Atlas turnout before installing it - meaning I cut those jumpers out of there, and soldered my own wires in their place under the turnout.

[jdcolombo]

I'd like to point out that while Atlas turnouts do have those internal jumpers built in, if you depend on them, you are asking for trouble.   

Amen.

I also believe that in N scale, the time, effort and extra cost it takes to properly power a frog is worth every moment/penny.  I've operated on absolutely marvelous HO-scale layouts that ran dead frogs, and even with the weight of HO scale, switchers (notably the Atlas RS3 and Kato RSD) stall at the frogs at least 50% of the time. In N scale, if you are doing slow-speed switching across a dead frog, you are asking for operational disaster.  For mainline track where an engine will be traveling at track speed (and will likely be a larger engine with more weight and a longer wheelbase to boot), you might get away with dead frogs.  In switching areas, it's just asking for trouble.

John C.

[DKS]

I'd like to point out that while Atlas turnouts do have those internal jumpers built in, if you depend on them, you are asking for trouble.

Interesting. I've never seen one fail yet, but I suppose it's proof YMMV.

I also believe that in N scale, the time, effort and extra cost it takes to properly power a frog is worth every moment/penny.

This I agree with completely.

[robert3985]

Amen.

I also believe that in N scale, the time, effort and extra cost it takes to properly power a frog is worth every moment/penny.  I've operated on absolutely marvelous HO-scale layouts that ran dead frogs, and even with the weight of HO scale, switchers (notably the Atlas RS3 and Kato RSD) stall at the frogs at least 50% of the time. In N scale, if you are doing slow-speed switching across a dead frog, you are asking for operational disaster.  For mainline track where an engine will be traveling at track speed (and will likely be a larger engine with more weight and a longer wheelbase to boot), you might get away with dead frogs.  In switching areas, it's just asking for trouble.

John C.

I agree with both John and DKS (and many others) that dead frogs can be problematic and all frogs should be powered.

However, I am not as fanatical about it as I once was, after I installed two ME #6's on my Echo Yard and Engine Servicing section temporarily to see if dead frogs were as bad as everybody said they were.

Of course, my big engines ran through them flawlessly, but the spur they led to...the sand house spur, was prototypically serviced by 2-8-0's, Geeps or Alco SW's, depending on what was pulling either the Park City Local or the Evanston Local that day.  Interestingly, I found that the ME's short and correct frog, if left unpowered didn't cause ANY of my BB engines or my brass 2-8-0's to stall or run roughly over them at very slow speeds, so I left them in place since they ran the engines I would use on them perfectly.

If I was running tiny little diesel engines like DKS regularly does on his micro layouts, then dead frogs on ME #6's wouldn't work at all, but...they work just fine with Atlas, LL, and Kato BB engines...as well as my various brass BB and 2-8-0 power.

The secret is the short ME frog casting and where it's gapped.  Maybe the Atlas #5 turnout would function okay too if its frog isn't any longer between gaps than ME's, but I haven't ever used them to test the idea. 

The whole idea of not powering the ME #6 frog is to make its installation as simple as possible, and to retain reliability.  The over-center switch mechanism is great for those not wanting to install any complicated switching mechanism underneath, and the short #6 frog will allow almost any engine to go through without stalling unless it's smaller than a BB engine, or is collecting power from only one truck.

I also tested some of my larger turnouts, with frogs gapped at what would be their prototype attachment points, and #7's caused stalling on creeping BB diesels, because of the longer frog...or the longer dead section of track (being the frog).

For OP Chuck, who is having a lot of difficulty just wiring up his mainline and a few spurs, it would be nearly impossible for him to install a Tortoise (or equivalent) or manually operated switch throws that changed the polarity of his turnout frogs...so, even though ALL of my turnouts have powered frogs (except the two test ME #6's) and Tortoises underneath, I'm not going to suggest to Chuck to do that, which would be much too complicated for him right now.

So, I have to disagree with the statement that "the time, effort and extra cost it takes to properly power a frog is worth every moment/penny." because for some modelers, making it as simple as possible is the ideal solution, and sometime it is the only solution.

Of course, for myself, it's not a big deal to run that one green feeder from the Tortoise underneath to the turnout's frog...but Chuck just wants to flick the switch on his turnouts with his finger, keep all of his spurs powered, and run one train reliably through it. 

Dead frogs on ME #6's is the answer for Chuck.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[jdcolombo]

Hi Bob.

Interesting about the "short frog" on the ME #6.  My short history with dead frogs came when I first entered N scale in 1992.  I bought some Peco Code 80 medium-radius turnouts with plastic frogs and regretted it.  When doing switching moves with short-wheelbase engines, I encountered stalls about half the time.  When I built my first "real" layout starting in 1994, I ditched the plastic frogs for Electrofrog switches, and after that I never installed a dead-frog switch.  My current layout is about 95% Atlas Code 55 with the other 5% hand-built, and the frogs on all of them are powered via a Tortoise.

But I completely agree with you that we need to keep things as simple as possible for Chuck at this stage.  I don't think he's going to be using the track on these modules for slow-speed switching work anyway.

So, Chuck, if you've been reading all this stuff, ignore my comments about powering frogs.  Let's get your trackwork working the way it should without the complication of powering the frogs.

John C.