Unifrog?

[Ron Solly]

November RM , I may have to purchase it when that issue gets to Australia.

[RFS]

I am just going back to John's post about the potential risk of a short created by a wheel bridging to the opposite polarity rail elements either side of the crossing. 

I do not have that issue with my electrofrog turnouts as the whole frog, crossing and wing rail sections are quite long, so a wheel passing through the crossing never gets close to an opposite polarity rail.

On the unifrog pictures I have seen, the opposite polarity rail elements seem to get very close to the correct polarity running rails and "area" traced by a passing wheel tread.

If anyone has seen a recent picture or near final prototype of the new Peco bullhead turnout do you think the current design may be immune to this issue or might it still be a risk ?

Tom

 

There are some pictures here which also show the wiring on the underside - https://thehobbyshop.wordpress.com/category/product-information/

 

Looks to me as though the gap at the frog may be OK but we'll only know that for certain once we can get our hands on one. 

[autocoach]

There are some pictures here which also show the wiring on the underside - https://thehobbyshop.wordpress.com/category/product-information/

 

Looks to me as though the gap at the frog may be OK but we'll only know that for certain once we can get our hands on one. 

I will guess there is a 50% chance my little Kernow BWT will mind the gap. It will be some time before I can use the Bull Head switches as I do not plan to relay my current Padstow plank but I may buy a pair so I can be the first boy on my block. The next mini layouts planned will be US locations, 

[Coryton]

There are some pictures here which also show the wiring on the underside - https://thehobbyshop.wordpress.com/category/product-information/

 

Looks to me as though the gap at the frog may be OK but we'll only know that for certain once we can get our hands on one. 

 

Interesting.

 

"UNIFROG – these new turnouts, like all other PECO turnouts, work straight out of the pack without modification. "

 

But if the recent Railway Modeller article is right that these points don't isolate the line they're not set to, then the way they work straight out of the pack is fundamentally different to all previous 00 gauge points they currently sell. Probably quite useful if you're on DCC, potentially very unhelpful if on DC.

[Nile]

I think PECO realised that the point blades on these could not be relied upon to provide switching, so they have wired them up as they are to give 100% reliable operation out of the packet. If you are going to wire up the frog to a switch, you can also use that to isolate a track diverging from the point.

PECO have tested these points with various models, they are finescale and not meant for old models with steamroller wheels. The only model that had a problem was the Hornby Peckett 0-4-0 that stalled on the 'dead' frog due to its short wheelbase, a problem solved by making the frog live.

[Richard Lee]

But if the recent Railway Modeller article is right that these points don't isolate the line they're not set to, then the way they work straight out of the pack is fundamentally different to all previous 00 gauge points they currently sell. Probably quite useful if you're on DCC, potentially very unhelpful if on DC.

My guess is that if you want to use them for power routing (such as isolating sidings), the best bet would be to use them as electro-frogs with insulating rail-joiners on the 2 rails that come from the frog, then connect power to the rails in the sidings beyond the insulated rail-joiners from the frog.  I do this with the ordinary Peco Code 75 electro-frogs and Marcway points, and been happy with the results.

 

Must admit that I will be extremely interested to hear how people get on with them.

[Ramblin Rich]

I would point out that some recent Bachmann setrack points aren't self isolating either (36-872 & 36-873), as I found when buying some for our lads train set. I was quite surprised when I couldn't isolate a train in a siding. They are described as non-isolating on the Hattons website with the comment that the Hornby & Peco products should be used if isolation needed. They have the electrical links between the stock rails & switch blades / closure rails underneath, obviously intended to keep tracks all live for DCC use.

[Coryton]

I would point out that some recent Bachmann setrack points aren't self isolating either (36-872 & 36-873), as I found when buying some for our lads train set. I was quite surprised when I couldn't isolate a train in a siding. They are described as non-isolating on the Hattons website with the comment that the Hornby & Peco products should be used if isolation needed. They have the electrical links between the stock rails & switch blades / closure rails underneath, obviously intended to keep tracks all live for DCC use.

 

Interesting.

 

Doesn't seem to be any mention of this on the packet though Hattons certainly make it clear.

 

I didn't think that DC had become such a niche product (especially for users of "set-track" geometry) that it wasn't worth catering for any more with trackwork.

 

It's starting to look as if I was wrong.

[Suzie]

You can always cut the links on set track. Much easier than adding them in when they are missing.

[Butler Henderson]

You can always cut the links on set track. Much easier than adding them in when they are missing.

]

Agreed and I wish Peco would sell all their points with links between the stock rails and the switch rails - it would mean all purchasers of live frog points would need to cut something whether using dcc or dc but than is a lot simpler than having to solder a wire on (albeit with the latest design there is relatively ample space for that link to be added) with the consequential risk of damage.

[Junctionmad]

]

Agreed and I wish Peco would sell all their points with links between the stock rails and the switch rails - it would mean all purchasers of live frog points would need to cut something whether using dcc or dc but than is a lot simpler than having to solder a wire on (albeit with the latest design there is relatively ample space for that link to be added) with the consequential risk of damage.

 

there is a definite argument for that with the new Uni-frogs , especially since they dont power switch , I wonder why they dont do that , you can understand in insulfrogs cause thats the basis of the power switching 

 

edit: doh,  of course the Uni frogs are wired like that 

 

The wiring of these new turnouts is a development of both the Insulfrog and Electrfrog designs. The stock-rails are wired to the centre-rails at the factory, which in turn are connected to the corresponding frog-rail. This means the turnout is completely live(except for the tip of the frog) with no extra wiring required. If the turnout is being used as a switch to isolate a section of track then it is simple job to remove the wire that joins the centre-rail and stock-rail and it will work like a current Insulfrog.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Junctionmad

[Coryton]

 

The wiring of these new turnouts is a development of both the Insulfrog and Electrfrog designs. The stock-rails are wired to the centre-rails at the factory, which in turn are connected to the corresponding frog-rail. This means the turnout is completely live(except for the tip of the frog) with no extra wiring required. If the turnout is being used as a switch to isolate a section of track then it is simple job to remove the wire that joins the centre-rail and stock-rail and it will work like a current Insulfrog.

 

BUT: The Railway Modeller review of the new bullhead points said something rather different, that Peco didn't recommend attempting to modify the points to provide isolation, and suggested that DC users just install lots of extra sections.

[Junctionmad]

BUT: The Railway Modeller review of the new bullhead points said something rather different, that Peco didn't recommend attempting to modify the points to provide isolation, and suggested that DC users just install lots of extra sections.

 

perhaps the contact between the switch blade and the stock rail isnt great . personally Ive seen more failures over time relying on switch rail contact , so I personally would never recommend it except for beginner layouts 

[Coryton]

perhaps the contact between the switch blade and the stock rail isnt great . personally Ive seen more failures over time relying on switch rail contact , so I personally would never recommend it except for beginner layouts 

 

You expect you're right....but at the rate it's taking me to get anything working, I'll take my chances for now.

[AGR Model Store]

Coming Soon....

[Portpatrick]

perhaps the contact between the switch blade and the stock rail isnt great . personally Ive seen more failures over time relying on switch rail contact , so I personally would never recommend it except for beginner layouts 

I have been relying on blade to stock rail contact on exhibition layouts for 35 years.  Occaisional 600 grade emery between them but no problem at all.

[Portpatrick]

There have been some good discussions on the FB pages of the N Gauge forum on Unifrog.  I have been using Electro frog for 20 years and found its sheer simplicity, continuity over the frog plus self isolating of non set route without the wiring hassle and expense of adding isolators, wiring and switches in simple dead end sidings and bay platforms (loco isolator excepted for platforms,  ideal,  Now with unifrog my understanding is that to get this functionality I have the expense of a polarity change over switch and the need to cut and resolder the wiring under the point.  With the probability of melting the base in the process. And this is called progress.  OK maybe it is for DCC users in which case sell them on that basis, but it looks like a massive backwards step for those of us in DC.  It puts me off planning another layout, unless there are reasonable alternative systems on the market.  Thank you for nothing Peco.

[The Stationmaster]

There have been some good discussions on the FB pages of the N Gauge forum on Unifrog.  I have been using Electro frog for 20 years and found its sheer simplicity, continuity over the frog plus self isolating of non set route without the wiring hassle and expense of adding isolators, wiring and switches in simple dead end sidings and bay platforms (loco isolator excepted for platforms,  ideal,  Now with unifrog my understanding is that to get this functionality I have the expense of a polarity change over switch and the need to cut and resolder the wiring under the point.  With the probability of melting the base in the process. And this is called progress.  OK maybe it is for DCC users in which case sell them on that basis, but it looks like a massive backwards step for those of us in DC.  It puts me off planning another layout, unless there are reasonable alternative systems on the market.  Thank you for nothing Peco.

 

Having looked at them very carefully - but not actually doing the deed until just before they are laid - altering the inbuilt wiring to achieve a 'live frog' in the normal way you (and I) use it is a simple task - two wires to cut and then join to the third.  What is not the same as past Peco Electrofrog points is the need, you clearly identify, to provide 'something' to switch the polarity of the 'frog' because the way the links are arranged and past Electrofrog parts are missing the point itself will not do this for you.

 

But, and it's a not unimportant detail, what results is exactly the same as you would have to do with a handbuilt point or even an Electrofrog point where you wanted 'belt & braces' reliability of current switching so in that respect it doesn't really strike me as an imposition.  And it's something the more advanced types of point motor will do for you anyway.

[Dunsignalling]

BUT: The Railway Modeller review of the new bullhead points said something rather different, that Peco didn't recommend attempting to modify the points to provide isolation, and suggested that DC users just install lots of extra sections.

Haven't actually tried it (yet - I'm waiting for the medium turnouts) but if one is switching the frog polarity, there should be a simple answer. 

 

Insulated joiner on the siding frog rail and a feed to the corresponding rail beyond it taken off the reverse output of the polarity switch.

 

(Reverse as in the physical position of the point normal/main, siding/reverse).

 

John

Edited July 10, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Portpatrick]

Thank you for your clarifications Stationmaster..  Cutting and soldering wires underneath is not, for me, a simple task.  Soldering is an activity I avoid as much as I can , not because of its inherent complication, but because as one with worsening Essential Tremor I simply struggle controlling the iron.  Adding a polarity changing switch is further complication not to mention expense.  All of which could have been avoided by not fixing a non existent problem, but rather adding the new range for the benefit of the growing DCC market..  And as a commented earlier in 35 years of taking my layouts to exhibitions I have never had a problem relying on contact between blade and stock rail.  Sop yes I see all this is a massive and unacceptable imposition.

[The Stationmaster]

Thank you for your clarifications Stationmaster..  Cutting and soldering wires underneath is not, for me, a simple task.  Soldering is an activity I avoid as much as I can , not because of its inherent complication, but because as one with worsening Essential Tremor I simply struggle controlling the iron.  Adding a polarity changing switch is further complication not to mention expense.  All of which could have been avoided by not fixing a non existent problem, but rather adding the new range for the benefit of the growing DCC market..  And as a commented earlier in 35 years of taking my layouts to exhibitions I have never had a problem relying on contact between blade and stock rail.  Sop yes I see all this is a massive and unacceptable imposition.

 

Ah,  Essential Tremors is alas a problem some of us have to live with and I suffered an attack on one occasion when I had a soldering iron in my hand while wiring some points - I never did find out where some of the solder went but never had any problems subsequently with the points so some of it must have gone in the right place.

[Portpatrick]

Ah,  Essential Tremors is alas a problem some of us have to live with and I suffered an attack on one occasion when I had a soldering iron in my hand while wiring some points - I never did find out where some of the solder went but never had any problems subsequently with the points so some of it must have gone in the right place.

alas for me it is not a matter of occaisional attacks.  It is a fully progressively condition which I have lived with for decades and continues to worsen, more than ever in recent years,  in spite of varied medication regimes.  Indeed I am now at the stage that I would seriously consider the surgical options, including the highly invasive but effective DBS. 

https://tremor.org.uk/

Even without the disabling nature of the condition I would still question Peco's judgement in making life more complicated.  My own view is to keep it all as simple as possible.   Given there does seem to be benefit to DCC users from the Unifrog as issued, maybe we must accept it.  But who oh why remove the choice and make life a pain for the rest of us?  Apart from setrack they already have 3 ranges of points.  Is one more so bad?   While my new layout uses code 55 which I chose because of its superior appearance, I could tolerate going back to code 80 if electrofrogs in their traditional simple design remained available.  Otherwise it looks as if my next layout may resort to Kato Unitrack.

[RFS]

Given there does seem to be benefit to DCC users from the Unifrog as issued, maybe we must accept it.  

 

The development of Unifrog has nothing to do with making things better for DCC users. It is a myth that you need to wire your points differently depending on whether you run DC or DCC. The issue with both types of points - Insulfrog and Electrofrog - is that you can experience momentary shorts as metal wheels pass through, either by touching the open blade (Electrofrog) or touching both rails on the crossing vee (Insulfrog). On DC you may see a spark as this happens, but on DCC you can encounter a DCC cut-out. The short on DC may not stop the train, but frequent shorting like this can cause problems.

 

It's your choice with Unifrog whether to use a polarity switch or not. From Peco's perspective they only now have one range of turnouts. No doubt code 75 and 100 will continue in production for some time for those who prefer it. 

[Dunsignalling]

The development of Unifrog has nothing to do with making things better for DCC users. It is a myth that you need to wire your points differently depending on whether you run DC or DCC. The issue with both types of points - Insulfrog and Electrofrog - is that you can experience momentary shorts as metal wheels pass through, either by touching the open blade (Electrofrog) or touching both rails on the crossing vee (Insulfrog). On DC you may see a spark as this happens, but on DCC you can encounter a DCC cut-out. The short on DC may not stop the train, but frequent shorting like this can cause problems.

 

It's your choice with Unifrog whether to use a polarity switch or not. From Peco's perspective they only now have one range of turnouts. No doubt code 75 and 100 will continue in production for some time for those who prefer it. 

AIUI from various bits of disparate information, the intention was that the code 75 and code 100 FB ranges would go over to Unifrog as and when the tooling required refurbishment or replacement.

 

John

[Portpatrick]

The development of Unifrog has nothing to do with making things better for DCC users. It is a myth that you need to wire your points differently depending on whether you run DC or DCC. The issue with both types of points - Insulfrog and Electrofrog - is that you can experience momentary shorts as metal wheels pass through, either by touching the open blade (Electrofrog) or touching both rails on the crossing vee (Insulfrog). On DC you may see a spark as this happens, but on DCC you can encounter a DCC cut-out. The short on DC may not stop the train, but frequent shorting like this can cause problems.

 

It's your choice with Unifrog whether to use a polarity switch or not. From Peco's perspective they only now have one range of turnouts. No doubt code 75 and 100 will continue in production for some time for those who prefer it. 

I don't see that last sentence as giving the same guidance as those above and that appearing on the N gauge forum, both main and Facebook pages.  From these it seems something has to be done, I am unsure now whether it is a polarity switch or alteration to the wiring underneath to change the frogs polarity so the new point is able to deliver what my current electrofrogs deliver.  Or if both options work.  The polarity switch of course is expense where none was needed before (screwing the customer for more hard earned cash and of course nicely line the shareholders pockets) .  If the wiring alteration does the same job this is a risky operation, for me impossible, and a complication which is not going to make life easier for any of us, especially new comers.  I clearly either have to spend more and wire in an extra switch or place the health of an expensive point at risk by playing with its wiring - will it even lie flat after that?  And I am supposed to welcome these impositions as an improvement?

 

It looks as if I need to acquire a few reserve electrofrogs (Code 80 for Portpatrick Town and code 55 for Allanbrae) before they all vanish so if I do have to change a point I am able to do so like for like and am not left stranded - and I am expected to be happy  about that too?

 

When it comes to planning a replacement for Portpatrick Town it looks as if I will be looking at other options.