Jump to content
 

Unifrog?


autocoach
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

The Unifrog does not look like a real crossing V, the old electrofrog did. That is a backward step. The short circuit wheel issue is real, another backward step, that was not a problem with the Electrofrog. Today's RTR 00 wheels are more than wide enough to cause short circuits on  the Unifrog turnout, irrespective of track code.

 

So what you want is a direct competitor for scratchbuilding or C&L? Why would Peco want to make such a product?

They want something they can sell. A bullhead point which is ready to run seems to be a worthwhile market because they are planning to introduce crossings & slips. So from this point of view, the bullhead turnouts are a successful product.

 

Peco make ready-to-run track & their customers expect this. Being forced to install a switch means the product is not ready-to-run, which would cause returns & loss of sales because potential customers expect a rtr product.

Without installing a switch, Electrofrog relies on point blade contact for connectivity. Peco's Unifrog design implies they were looking for a solution to this.

 

Have you actually experienced an issue with a short near the crossing V or are you just concerned that you may? There has been quite a lot of chat on here about the product & I cannot recall anyone remarking that they actually have stock which causes shorts.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter

I have had shorts at on at least 1 long Peco code 100 insulfrog crossing bur not where you may think ( the drawing should help)

 

800352060_pecoshorts.png.72e22156613d0a05c22a7ca502d0f39d.png

 

My fix was to paint the surface of the rail with clear nail varnish

a majority of my wheels are RP25

& IIRC i have had to paint a few Peco Large radius points at the frog 

I have a recent extension that uses Code 70 bullhead rail, I've left the unifrogs unswitched & so for have had no problems with stalling  or shorts.(admittedly most of my locos  have pickups spread over 4 or more axels)  

The metal V on the code 83 slip is IMHO to short & looking at the image of the new unifrog point it suffers from the same problem 

Some times i think Peco tries to hard to get things 100% when 80% or 90% would please most people 

For example i bought some Peco code 70 HOn3 track & the track spikes were very close to scale size but this made them very weak & extra care was needed so that you didn't roll the rail out of the chairs

 

Over all I like the concept of the unifrog but some of the fail due to the length of the unifrog V being too short

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think the main problem with the unifrog is that it is a one-size-fits-all solution which seems great in principle but can fall down for some in execution. The issue is that the frog has been made too small/short to suit those using it in ‘dead frog’ mode without needing any switches - so this area is as small as possible - and this has the knock-on that the two diverging rails end up being too close together. One answer for those willing to take the trouble is to bond these both to the frog, switch the lot as one unit, and put isolation breaks at the rail ends. But then of course this defeats the whole point - ouch - of the unifrog. 
 

Probably better to switch - ouch again - to using the new British Finescale point kits for those wanting bullhead trackwork in OO/EM. Proper cast metal frogs for those wanting  track with such items. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, John ks said:

Peter

I have had shorts at on at least 1 long Peco code 100 insulfrog crossing bur not where you may think ( the drawing should help)

 

 

 

I think Pete is referring to shorts on Unifrog fitted points - not existing Insulfrogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, newbryford said:

 

I think Pete is referring to shorts on Unifrog fitted points - not existing Insulfrogs

 

I certainly was referring to shorts on Unifrog points & as frobisher pointed out 2 posts earlier, nobody seems to have actually had a shorting problem with Unifrog points.

 

It seems Unifrog is not to everyone's liking, but neither were Insulfrog or Electrofrog.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the Unifrog can be used in any way you like.

  • It can be used out of the box as dead frog.
  • It can be rewired to use the switch rails to power route as Insulfrog.
  • It can be rewired as Electrofrog.
  • Or it can be used as intended as live frog just by adding a frog switch.

If you have a problem, then one of the above solutions will cure it. There is nothing you can do with the old Insulfrog and Electrofrog that you can't do with a Unifrog, but there are some things you can do with Unifrog that would take a lot of surgery on an Insulfrog or Electrofrog.

 

I just don't see any unsurmountable problem.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

So out of the box - no?

 

Correct. Power routing is one of those things that was used in the olden days when analogue control was used on layouts with more than one loco. It is a niche requirement nowadays.

Edited by Suzie
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

It is a train set requirement really. Something easy to wire up. Dead frogs were the price to pay for simple electrics.

Dead frogs & self-isolation are irrelevant in this debate.

Peco do not make code 75 insulfrog points & Bullhead/Unifrog is not available in code 100.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
27 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

Indeed. I was wondering why anyone would want to ue a unifrog dead anyway.

Surely, Unifrog is not really intended to be for the convenience of the end user? The main objective is to reduce the range of products that Peco needs to manufacture and retailers need to stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
33 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Dead frogs & self-isolation are irrelevant in this debate.

Peco do not make code 75 insulfrog points & Bullhead/Unifrog is not available in code 100.

Avoiding the use of the word "point", they have made dead frog items in Code 75FB (crossing, slips).

 

It can only be a matter of time before they integrate the two Code 100 ranges by making them in Unifrog. The commercial case is just too strong. Or perhaps even abandon Code 100 completely in favour of a Code 82/83 range of FB with Unifrog.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Avoiding the use of the word "point", they have made dead frog items in Code 75FB (crossing, slips).

 

It can only be a matter of time before they integrate the two Code 100 ranges by making them in Unifrog. The commercial case is just too strong. Or perhaps even abandon Code 100 completely in favour of a Code 82/83 range of FB with Unifrog.

 

I knew somebody would mention slips & crossings but I wanted to avoid typing out an essay. You seem to acknowledge that Insulfrog right, left & Y turnouts are not available in code 75. ;)

I don't know why I typed 'point' earlier; I meant turnout & usually differentiate between the 2.

 

Lots of modellers still use code 100, some because old stuff runs on it, others because they feel it is more robust & others because it is their 'tried & tested go-to'. Our individual views on these aspects is irrelevant. While it continues to sell, Peco may feel there is a place for code 100 & 75 to co-exist.

Code 82/83 may be closer to true rail height but this may have deliberately been to offset the gauge being too narrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, Suzie said:

 

 

Correct. Power routing is one of those things that was used in the olden days when analogue control was used on layouts with more than one loco. It is a niche requirement nowadays.


I would disagree. Yes, DCC might be popular at present, but many still use ‘simple’ DC and power routing is an easy and logical way of working such a layout without masses of section switches.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I knew somebody would mention slips & crossings but I wanted to avoid typing out an essay. You seem to acknowledge that Insulfrog right, left & Y turnouts are not available in code 75. ;)

I don't know why I typed 'point' earlier; I meant turnout & usually differentiate between the 2.

 

Lots of modellers still use code 100, some because old stuff runs on it, others because they feel it is more robust & others because it is their 'tried & tested go-to'. Our individual views on these aspects is irrelevant. While it continues to sell, Peco may feel there is a place for code 100 & 75 to co-exist.

Code 82/83 may be closer to true rail height but this may have deliberately been to offset the gauge being too narrow.

 

I tend to agree. As a retailer, I was an early adopter of Code 75 and built a client's layout with it in the early 90's. But there are still many retailers who only stock Code 100.

I think that compatibility with the Setrack range is also a consideration for both Peco and its retailers.

I am rather taken with Roundhouse' idea of having a test track around my model railway room at a higher level than the main layout. I am still seriously considering Code 100 for this as I have quite a few items of collectible worth dating from the 60s/70s which will probably refuse to run on Code 83.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Lots of modellers still use code 100, some because old stuff runs on it, others because they feel it is more robust & others because it is their 'tried & tested go-to'.

 

I still use Code 100 for another reason; Many of my curves are Setrack (3rd and 4th radius) which are (at present - hint to Peco !) available only as Code 100. I do have Code 75 track too, including bullhead points, all I need to do now is build a layout to use it......

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Suzie said:

I think that the Unifrog can be used in any way you like.

  • It can be used out of the box as dead frog.
  • It can be rewired to use the switch rails to power route as Insulfrog.
  • It can be rewired as Electrofrog.
  • Or it can be used as intended as live frog just by adding a frog switch.

If you have a problem, then one of the above solutions will cure it. There is nothing you can do with the old Insulfrog and Electrofrog that you can't do with a Unifrog, but there are some things you can do with Unifrog that would take a lot of surgery on an Insulfrog or Electrofrog.

 

I just don't see any unsurmountable problem.

Yes I do have a problem, the look of the Unifrog is less prototypical compared to the look of the Electrofrog. Also you need to know what you are doing to wire it the different ways. The Peco instructions are far from clear. The way forward was to build an Electrofrog turnout with the continuous point blades, and have a frog switch built into the turnout or clip on version supplied with the turnout that is operated by the throw bar.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 07/04/2021 at 01:44, Pete the Elaner said:

 

So what you want is a direct competitor for scratchbuilding or C&L? Why would Peco want to make such a product?

They want something they can sell. A bullhead point which is ready to run seems to be a worthwhile market because they are planning to introduce crossings & slips. So from this point of view, the bullhead turnouts are a successful product.

 

Peco make ready-to-run track & their customers expect this. Being forced to install a switch means the product is not ready-to-run, which would cause returns & loss of sales because potential customers expect a rtr product.

Without installing a switch, Electrofrog relies on point blade contact for connectivity. Peco's Unifrog design implies they were looking for a solution to this.

 

Have you actually experienced an issue with a short near the crossing V or are you just concerned that you may? There has been quite a lot of chat on here about the product & I cannot recall anyone remarking that they actually have stock which causes shorts.

I have experience with Insulfrog short circuits. The Unifrog has identical geometry and will suffer the same problem, except in this case, the problem is wired out of the box to happen. Often It's a momentary short, not always noticed. In the worst case I have seen on Insulfrogs the plastic holding the rails melted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

I have experience with Insulfrog short circuits. The Unifrog has identical geometry and will suffer the same problem, except in this case, the problem is wired out of the box to happen. Often It's a momentary short, not always noticed. In the worst case I have seen on Insulfrogs the plastic holding the rails melted. 

 

No, the geometry is different.

Insulfrog turnouts are only available in code 100. (Bullhead) Unifrog is only available in code 75. How can they be identical?

Having measured a Unifrog point for an article I wrote recently (using a feeler gauge), some clearances appear to be tighter than for code 75 streamline FB, so erring towards, but not quite, OO-SF.

Code 75 track & pointwork will not accept some of the coarser wheels which run happily on code 100.

 

The also 2 differ in the design of their frog. The first image shows a (rather dirty) Insulfrog. The closest area opposing rails can come into contact is just to the right of the frog where the rails taper towards each other.

 

The second shows the Unifrog. The Unifrog itself is slightly bigger than the Insulfrog. This should keep the opposing rails a little further apart.

Whether Unifrog can cause an issue with some stock is something I would not discount (but I have not heard of it). The differences are significant enough that any issue with one will not automatically apply to the other.

 

The other issue with Insulfrog is that the frog is soft plastic, so will wear down. When this happens, the wheels will land on the metal sections. Being metal, the Unifrog is less prone to wear.

Insulfrog_basic.jpg

Unifrog.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Izzy said:


I would disagree. Yes, DCC might be popular at present, but many still use ‘simple’ DC and power routing is an easy and logical way of working such a layout without masses of section switches.

 

I am just going by experience. Most modellers who use analogue DC tend to consider a layout longer than 3' excessive, and having any motive power more than one steam tank loco on a layout beyond the pail. There are of course exceptions...

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Izzy said:


I would disagree. Yes, DCC might be popular at present, but many still use ‘simple’ DC and power routing is an easy and logical way of working such a layout without masses of section switches.

 

Not all DC users prefer this anyway.

I prefer section switches on DC layouts to using the points to decide which siding is live because I like to see it on the panel. You may not always want the point changed to shunt a loco a few inches along a siding. Maybe you want it to pull forward to allow the next wagon to be unloaded at the dock?

 

What we each prefer is a little irrelevant at this stage. Peco have taken away this method of providing siding power when using Unifrog points unless we are prepared to do further work on them.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...