Peco code 75 track

[Halsted]

Hello everyone,
all my apologies if si question has been asked too many times before.
Can I run my "standard" Hornby stock on the Peco code 75 track without any issues ? Many thanks in advance for your time and for all your replies.

[Halsted]

A wise gentleman gave me this very helpful advice that I'll follow: "I cant see any reason to use code 75 which is more difficult to work with due to the thinner rail, when code 100 laid correctly and painted looks okay."

[GeraldH]

Code 75 track is more fragile and older Hornby stock will not run on it.

[Dad-1]

Gerald is right ....... Older stock, but what does that cover ?

If you're running stock, locos and wagons from around the year 2000
code 75 should be fine. Anything earlier could cause problems.
True it's not quite as robust as code 100, but tough enough for most uses.

I've kept to code 100 and don't regret it at all. Well ballasted and painted
it looks good. The one regret is that Peco slips are insulated frog only in
code 100, and live frog only in code 75. Wherever possible I'd always use
live frog points.

Geoff T.

[flying scotsman123]

Code 75 flexitrack is more flexi due to the smaller rail cross section, makes it easier to manipulate, but you do need to be a little more careful in making sure everything is smooth with no wiggles or kinks as these more more easily introduced.
As Geoff says the main advantage of using code 75 is electrofrog points which are more reliable.
Probably anything newly tooled from 1990 would be ok too, but I think Hornby were still churning out some considerably older stuff back then that might not fit as well.

[Halsted]

Many thanks for all your replies Gentlemen. Decision made: code 100 and nothing else !

[Halsted]

Very impressive ! Very good explanations. Thanks.

[RFS]

Code 100 versus code 75 - What's it all about ?

Peco do not seem to have made it clear that in Code 75 Electrofrog points can NOW be made Insulfrog by removing two tiny connections underneath each point before it is laid !
The Duke 71000

Don't understand what you mean here. If you remove the two bonding wires underneath then you end up with a dead frog. The only reason that you would remove these wires is so as to power the frog separately from a polarity switch connected to the point motor, something many people do especially when using DCC. This then makes the point fully Electrofrog.

[RFS]

Well I'm still completely lost as to what you are trying to say! You cannot convert a code 75 Electrofrog point into Insulfrog just by cutting the two link wires, since otherwise you end up with a dead frog of up to 4 inches in length which very few OO gauge locos will cross without stalling. If you connect up a polarity switch to power the frog, it's still Electrofrog!

[Bufferstop]

A lot of people jumped on board with the mods to suit an electrofrog to dcc, without fully understanding why it should be essential rather than an option. On DC insulating joiners were only necessary where there was a feed (or backfeed going all around a loop) beyond the point. Done like that DCC would work BUT if a short circuit occurs somewhere fed through the point, the blade to rail contact will have to carry anything up to around 5amps before the DCC power supply trips. 5amps passing through the thin tapered end of a piece of rail soon gets hot, hot enough to burn fingers and melt plastic. Like all good ideas Peco's new wiring for an independently powered frog is so obvious you wonder why it took so long to occur to them. Or like "electrofrog" in the first instance did someone else think of it first, and was it just another case of waiting for news from the outside world to trickle down to East Devon. (ignore that comment it's an old joke that should have been put down years ago).

[RFS]

Hope that helps

Well no it doesn't! Quite simply I think if you are going to dispense expert technical advice in this way you really ought to know your subject which it seems you don't. As a long standing DCC-user with a large layout containing 70+ Electrofrog code 75 points and slips perhaps I can explain things here and leave it at that.

Both code 75 and 100 Electrofrog points (not slips) cause problems for both DC and DCC users. It's a misconception to assume points should be wired differently depending on whether you use DC or DCC. There are two issues:

1) The open blade is opposite polarity to the adjacent stock rail. Any vehicle with metal wheels that are not precisely true to gauge can cause a momentary short circuit when the back of the wheel touches the open blade as it passes through. This can result in a visible spark on DC (not good) but in DCC can cause the command station to trip.

2) The method of using power routing to the whole of the point via a touching contact between blade and stock rail is inherently unreliable. All very well when the point is new, the rails are shiny and the spring is strong. But over time problems are inevitable especially if the track has been ballasted and weathered.

For these reasons experienced modellers make simple changes:

1) The frog is isolated by removing the linking wires and providing a polarity switch. I use Tortoise slow-action motors anyway and these have two switches for this purpose.

2) The fixed closure rail is bonded to the stock rail, and I make this bonding wire a DCC feed as well

3) Some users also bond a thin wire (eg 3A fuse wire) between the moving blade and the closure rail, to overcome the problem of the pivoted joint failing, eg due to the ingress of ballasting glue, paint etc.

With these changes you end up with a turnout where every piece of rail has a soldered track feed, and the short circuit problem has been eliminated.

With the latest code 75 bullhead turnouts Peco have addressed these issues with their Unifrog solution. The frog is now very small, but made of metal and isolated. It also has a wire attached so modellers can use a polarity switch if they wish.

That's my definitive advice on the subject: it works for me on my large layout.

[gppsoftware]

I second RFS' advice.

There is no such thing as a turnout wired for DC or a turnout wired for DCC.

There is ONLY such thing as a turnout wired correctly and a turnout wired incorrectly. A correctly wired turnout will work properly with DC and DCC. An incorrectly wired turnout will not work properly with DC or DCC, although the slowness of short-circuit protection on DC controllers may well give the impression that all is working, but sparks will indicate otherwise!

Those who have been hand building track since the last century are well aware that hand built track has always been wired in one way because it is the only way to make it work. Unfortunately, someone coined that method as 'DCC friendly', but the wiring is the same, irrespective of DC or DCC.

Here is the correct way to wire Peco code 75 live frog turnouts: http://www.mrol.com.au/Pages/Vu/LiveFrogWiring