Unifrog?

[peach james]

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.

S

 

Screwing the customer? You can get dpdt switches for literally pennies...look on fleebay, for dpdt slide or toggle switches from Hong Kong. Takes a little pre ordering, but they are by far cheaper than you seem to imply. This is a commercial decision of PECO, in that they want to simplify the ranges of OO track they will have to make into the future. If you want to continue to use legacy products, it behooves you to source them when they are available. This is nothing new, you cannot run down to your local shop and buy NOS Triang TT either...

[Portpatrick]

James,

Peco like any other business must make commercial decisions.  And since they have an effective near monopoly of at least the popular UK market in OO and my own N, they can do what they like.   But I would hope they would result in a renewed product which is easier to use and perhaps looks better.  AS in the superiority in appearance and running of modern N gauge stock, setting aside its greater fragility.  The Unifrog point is simply not as easy to use.  The electrofrog  points I have used on my last 3 N  gauge layouts just dropped into place and only needed rail breaks etc when there was a need for loco isolation (in a loco depot or end of a platform), or in typical loop and headshunt scenarios..  No extra wiring at all for simple dead end sidings.  These new ones do need extra wiring and/or alteration to the wiring underneath.  Sorry, for me that negates any benefits - are there any?.

 

I take your point that a toggle switch may be a lot  cheaper than Peco's own product which clips to their motor.  But I suspect the resulting wiring will be more complex not least as you have to take it back to the control panel, rather than being contained.  Perhaps you would care to post a wiring diagram showing how you link relevant parts of the point to the toggle - not sure where my Cyril Freezer guides are.   And as I have indicated on an earlier post Essential Tremor  makes wiring, especially in delicate places like under a point, a risky matter.  Hence I have to minimise it.

 

As for appearance, with the bits of plastic in places where they do not appear on electrofrog I have picked up some less than complementary views from my N Gauge fraternity at least.

 

Some have suggested that these new ones make life easier for DCC users.   Others say it makes no real difference.  I have not got into DCC so cannot comment on that.  You may be better informed.

[peach james]

There certainly are other choices out there- and I would suggest that if you find soldering to be an impossiblity, you might want to look at solutions like KATO Unitrack, as that would reduce the amount of soldering fine wire to fine track.  (& while I so far don't have a tremor, my mum certainly does...).   By going to something that allows replacing 4 lines with 2, that means they reduce by 1 the number of types of turnouts they make, but still increases the appearance options for modelers.  The commercial sensiblities of maintaining 6 seperate lines (100 Insulfrog & Electrofrog, 75 Insulfrog & Electrofrog & 75 BH Insulfrog & Electrofrog) must be limited. I'd see that as a positive move, at  least outside the Settrack range.  I would expect the Settrack range to remain with Insulfrog as it is the simplest way for someone who is playing with trains (rather than making a model).  

 

There are several options to Peco, with Tillig (HO/TT) , Micro Engineering (G/HO/N) , shinoharan (HO&N) & Walters (HO), Atlas (O, HO, N)  & (as well as Bachmann & KATO set-track) all being other options.  They suffer from being HO, or 1:160 N, not 1:148 N.  There are going to be problems with every choice that a commercial manufacturer makes with track- because no matter what, there will be some sort of problem.  I have found that if I need a product, and it is available, then NOW is the time to buy it, because otherwise it won't be around when you want it.  Of course, with Ebay being widely available, it is likely that used track will be sourceable from that for as long as the plastic is stable for.  (so about 20 years post last production, probably).  The price of the secondary market will be set by demand- for example, Hornby Dublo is now available at fairly cheap prices ! ($15 Canadian for a motorized turnout).

 

James

[grahame]

The new Peco N gauge 'unifrog' I have actually has a flying lead pre-soldered (welded) to the underside of the frog. That should save the need for fiddly soldering under the point of a wire to the fine rail. You can choose to power the frog through that lead (and switch) or leave it un-powered to act like an 'insulfrog' point - the downside being the dead frog area is larger than the old insulfrog meaning stalling could be more of a problem.

 

The little bits of insulating plastic in the rails do somewhat spoil the look.

 

As far as I can determine there are pros and cons of the new 'unifrog' points.

 

G

[Portpatrick]

In N gauge, apart from Setrack we have 3 options .. code 80 Insul and Electro, and the superb Code 55 Electro.  I have adopted the last named on my newest layout Allanbrae and the improvement in appearance is stunning.  As far a I am able to follow, and it is only in the last week this had hit the N Gauge forum, we will have Code 80 and 55 in Uni.  And those who are already trying it are having stalling difficulties with 060 tanks, diesels etc.  Maybe even worse than insulfrog.  The flying lead requiring a switch is one of the complication not there before which I object to, whether a more expensive clip on Peco, or taking wiring back to a toggle on the panel.  And for portable exhibition layouts that means more plugs and sockets as well.  It would make far more sense to me to concentrate on Electrofrog rather than try and have all things in one point and do it badly.  I understand there will be Unifrog in code 80 and 55, so only one range less! 

 

Apart from having to lay in some existing points so I have back ups in the event of needing to replace any, I will be considering Kato unitrack for future use, though its set curves and lack of flexibility will inevitably result in a loss of the sweeping curves I achieved on Portpatrick Town.  I am no where near ready to plan this one though so cannot lay in electrofrogs for it at this stage,

 

By the way James Essential tremor is often hereditary and I do hope it misses you out.  My own mother had it but mine is far worse now at 65 than was hers when she died at 88.  I recently wrecked a small toggle I was trying to replace on Portpatrick because I could not control the iron well enough.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm not sure why you would need to wire back to the control panel although this obviously to some extent depends on how you work your points.  If you work them locally by hand simply pushing them over then it makes sense to have the power switching for the 'frog' local to the points (there are methods of using a DPDT to work the points and switch the current but I suspect those might present difficulties and they would in any case require interference with any scenery to connect to the point stretcher bar (tiebar)).

 

If you work your points electrically the wiring is no more difficult to incorporate than wiring the point motor - the decision is what method of switching to use.  Either you use a motor with built in switches - basically, depending on the design, no more difficult to connect than any other wiring to that motor - or you add a supplementary switch if you are using a Peco point motor.  The latter is obviously an expensive way of doing it hence many people use commercial microswitches, especially on hidden track work, but again actually connecting the wiring is no more onerous than any other sort of connection to the point motor or connection to the track.  And the 'unifrog' comes with a 'flying lead' meaning there is no soldering directly near the point itself.

 

I can understand the health problem you have but don't forget that if you are able to wire a layout and make connections to track this is, in part, no different from that - while the connection to the point itself is much easier.   I too have long preferred the much greater wiring simplicity, and better running properties of the Peco Electrofrog points compared with the Insulfrog version but if 'unifrog' simplifies the range for both the manufacturer and retail stockists I can''t see it being anything other than the way Peco will go as new ranges are introduced and the tooling for existing items wears out, and it can be relatively easily converted to 'live frog' albeit at the expense of a switch.

[Portpatrick]

James comment about using slide or toggle switche's implied to me wiring them into the control panel.

Your comments on making them work with manual operation was useful. I had wondered. Another complication.

I note you say that no rewiring directly in contact with the point based is needed. But taking this thread alongside others on the N gauged forum and facebook are giving very mixed advice covering frog polarity and delivering self isolating. I hope your version covers it all . Have Peco actually issued anything? I could find nothing on their website.

 

Yes of course I wire to track and switches. Very clumsily not neatly and pretty. So I do not take kindly when more wiring is made necessary where there was none before. So if a manufacturer adds such a new requirement I am not going to lie down and let it to pass. To my mind Peco's efforts to simplify their range have let us down by adding complicat ions where none existed before .

At present if I do plan a replacement for Portpatrick Town soon I will be looking at other than peco. Shame when they served me well for over 50 years.

[Pete the Elaner]

I do not take kindly when more wiring is made necessary where there was none before. So if a manufacturer adds such a new requirement I am not going to lie down and let it to pass. To my mind Peco's efforts to simplify their range have let us down by adding complicat ions where none existed before .

 

You seem to be missing the 'point'. No extra wiring is needed, just as insulfrog or electrofrog work straight from the packet. In the case of Unifrog, this leaves you with a dead Unifrog which may be perfectly fine if all locos have multiple pickups.

If you want slightly more contact area, then you can choose to add switched power to the frog just like you can power an electrofrog. Unlike the latter though, you don't have to snip anything before doing this.

[Portpatrick]

You seem to be missing the 'point'. No extra wiring is needed, just as insulfrog or electrofrog work straight from the packet. In the case of Unifrog, this leaves you with a dead Unifrog which may be perfectly fine if all locos have multiple pickups.

If you want slightly more contact area, then you can choose to add switched power to the frog just like you can power an electrofrog. Unlike the latter though, you don't have to snip anything before doing this.

Sorry Pete I am not missing the point.  In fact you have further proved it for me.  I have used electrofrogs on 3 maybe 4  N Gauge layouts now and have never had to snip anything  to have a live frog point which self isolates on simple dead end sidings.  In that respect they have behaved like insulfrogs, but with consistent running rather than stalling.   Yes you have to be more careful to insert breaks with headshunt/kick back scenarios and run round loops as compared to insulfrogs and I imagine that will be the same with unifrog, .  I am now unclear, having seen such mixed comment here and on N gauge forum as to whether I need to snip anything on a unifrog to deliver the self isolating property, but my impression is that I would - more adjustments!.  As I have said earlier on this page in 35 years of exhibiting my layouts I have never had a problem with contact between blade and stock rail which occaisionnal cleaning with 600 grade emery could not solve.  You are of course correct that I can chose to add switched power to the frog to recover that property.  But that is just the point I have been making, and which grates, hardly one I have missed.    No longer will I have a point which I take out of its packaging , lay and get on with it .  I would have to wire up bits and I suspect snip other bits.  And I am supposed to be happy about it! 

 

Yes I realise Peco have decided that is what we will have and we are lumbered with it.  But that does not mean that their decision is sensible or even if it is for some (DCC modellers perhaps that is not my field)), no reason why the shortcomings of their choice should not receive a thorough airing .  In future it might be worth their while engaging in customer research with ordinary modellers who use their products.

[grahame]

I am now unclear, having seen such mixed comment here and on N gauge forum as to whether I need to snip anything on a unifrog to deliver the self isolating property, but my impression is that I would - more adjustments!. 

Nope. Nothing to snip or adjust. You just need an insulated gap (or insulated rail joiner) on the end of the short rail from the frog to the siding - just like you would if that track was part of a loop - and then wire power (via a switch if required) to the continuation rail of that siding.

 

G

[ejstubbs]

Nope. Nothing to snip or adjust. You just need an insulated gap (or insulated rail joiner) on the end of the short rail from the frog to the siding - just like you would if that track was part of a loop - and then wire power (via a switch if required) to the continuation rail of that siding.

 

G

 

That's not self isolating, though ie the point itself isolating the route the point is set against.

 

I believe that it is possible to make a unifrog point self-isolating by cutting the connections between the stock rails and the switch rails.  This then means that you are relying on the contact between the switch rail and the stock rail to provide electrical continuity for the route the point is set to (which some people regard as unreliable).  What you have then is effectively an insulfrog point but with the unpowered part of the crossing actually being larger than it is in an insulfrog point.  The only way around the potential running problems that might be introduced by that is to introduce polarity switching for the isolated part of the crossing.

 

I can kind of see Portpatrick's point about the out-of-the-box simplicity of electrofrog being lost.  I do think some of his rhetoric about it is more than a little overblown, though.

Edited July 12, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Dunsignalling]

Nope. Nothing to snip or adjust. You just need an insulated gap (or insulated rail joiner) on the end of the short rail from the frog to the siding - just like you would if that track was part of a loop - and then wire power (via a switch if required) to the continuation rail of that siding.

 

G

As I suggested in Post #69, but with the frog polarity switch doubling up to feed the siding beyond the insulated joiner.

 

Given that the Unifrog already has a flying lead attached to the frog as standard, I don't see there would be any additional work involved, beyond attaching a wire to the siding rail itself. The only snipping required is to break the connection between the switch rails and the frog, so   (Corrected - the frog is dead as standard). The frog will  be fed separately, with onward transmission to the siding only when the point is reversed, i.e. self isolating in all but name. Taking the siding feed off the polarity switch also conveniently avoids any need to run one all the way from the control panel, fed through a manual switch.

 

Portpatrick repeatedly states he is quite happy using Electrofrogs relying on blade contact and clearly objects to the additional expense of an accessory switch. I consider the latter prudent with Electrofrogs anyway. Blade contact is fine when everything is new and shiny but I reckon switching is worthwhile insurance against the possible need to dig out and replace a point that's been firmly ballasted in place a few years down the road if it does start to break down. 

 

However, having apparently taken against Unifrogs on principle, the only suggestion I can make is for him to stock up on whatever Electrofrogs he thinks may need while he can.

 

John

Edited July 14, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[grahame]

 

I believe that it is possible to make a unifrog point self-isolating by cutting the connections between the stock rails and the switch rails. 

 

Nope, not quite. Not only are the stock/running rails connected to the closure rail/blades, but the stock/running rail is also linked separately (for one of the routes) directly to the rail beyond the frog and for the other route by a link from the closure rail/blade to the rail beyond the frog (at least on the N gauge unipoint). That would mean lots of snipping connections which is what he doesn't want to do. An isolated gap/insulated rail joiner on the rail after the frog for the siding route would be easy and - while not self isolating by the route selected by the point - would provide an isolated siding. Although a switched power feed to it would be required that is no different to a isolated section on a DC wired layout where a loco/train is to be parked and another run along the same track up to the section.  

 

But, yep, there does seem to be a little too much complaint and rhetoric. My recommendation is either stock up and continue to use the old electrofrog points (as suggested) or work out the simplest way to use the new unifrog point that keeps soldering and fiddling underneath the point to a minimum. They are different and can't be easily treated the same but do offer both pros and cons. 

 

G

[south_tyne]

Sorry Pete I am not missing the point. In fact you have further proved it for me. I have used electrofrogs on 3 maybe 4 N Gauge layouts now and have never had to snip anything to have a live frog point which self isolates on simple dead end sidings. In that respect they have behaved like insulfrogs, but with consistent running rather than stalling. Yes you have to be more careful to insert breaks with headshunt/kick back scenarios and run round loops as compared to insulfrogs and I imagine that will be the same with unifrog, . I am now unclear, having seen such mixed comment here and on N gauge forum as to whether I need to snip anything on a unifrog to deliver the self isolating property, but my impression is that I would - more adjustments!. As I have said earlier on this page in 35 years of exhibiting my layouts I have never had a problem with contact between blade and stock rail which occaisionnal cleaning with 600 grade emery could not solve. You are of course correct that I can chose to add switched power to the frog to recover that property. But that is just the point I have been making, and which grates, hardly one I have missed. No longer will I have a point which I take out of its packaging , lay and get on with it . I would have to wire up bits and I suspect snip other bits. And I am supposed to be happy about it!

 

Yes I realise Peco have decided that is what we will have and we are lumbered with it. But that does not mean that their decision is sensible or even if it is for some (DCC modellers perhaps that is not my field)), no reason why the shortcomings of their choice should not receive a thorough airing . In future it might be worth their while engaging in customer research with ordinary modellers who use their products.

I think the advantages of Unifrog for some has been explained by a number of folk. You don't like them, that is plain to read - they obviously don't suit your needs. The simple solution is to go for something else

[Pete the Elaner]

 in 35 years of exhibiting my layouts I have never had a problem with contact between blade and stock rail which occaisionnal cleaning with 600 grade emery could not solve.

You do what?? 

 

Those of us who do a little extra wiring consider this a complete bodge. A little extra wiring reduces routine maintenance to cleaning the rail tops with a block or track cleaning vehicle.

[hayfield]

I think the advantages of Unifrog for some has been explained by a number of folk. You don't like them, that is plain to read - they obviously don't suit your needs. The simple solution is to go for something else

 

After a chat with my local shop it seems Peco overtime will migrate all gauges to unifrog, which in some cases cut their selection in half making stock levels lower for both themselves and their stockists, This will mean not only will there be no alternative on 00 scale but also their 00/H0 ranges.

 

To be frank its very easy to solder both bonding wires between the stock and switch rails as will as making the tip of the vee live and well within the abilities of the most hamfisted of modellers

[ejstubbs]

To be frank its very easy to solder both bonding wires between the stock and switch rails as will as making the tip of the vee live and well within the abilities of the most hamfisted of modellers

 

Steady on: Portpatrick has already explained that he suffers from an ailment which means that it is very difficult, nigh on impossible for him to carry out delicate soldering.

Edited July 12, 2018 by ejstubbs

[The Stationmaster]

1.  The packaging for a bullhead point shows how to provide a switchable feed to the 'unifrog' using an SPDT switch of some sort.  that will involve connection to the rails, ideally at the rail joints, at the toe end of the point.

 

2.  To convert the point to 100% live frog operation giving the same effect as an electrofrog point it is also necessary to cut the links to the through rails at the heel end of the 'frog' as these come pre-linked to the relevant running rail to maintain normal polarity beyond the unifrog.  But in order to provide full live 'frog' operation they need to be linked to the wire attached to the frog to ensure that they will be switched with it and thus make their polarity change with the setting of the point.

 

The alternative to this is to revert to using insulated joints beyond the through rail but that then of course means providing yet another switch for the isolated section that would create.  No switch is needed for dead end sidings etc with the points converted to 100% live 'frog' and through rail wiring although obviously insulated gaps will be needed in through lines.

 

3. There is no need to cut the links to the switch/closure rails BUT there is a possible risk of a short as a wheel back touches a closure rail due to the insulated gap being very close to the nose of the 'frog' - you will find upthread various methods of dealing with this but basically it involves a dab of a good insulating paint or whatever which won't wear through wheel contact.  the closeness of this gap to the wing rails and nose of the 'frog' is probably the biggest shortcoming of the design of the bullhead points but I don't think Peco had any alternative when the points are used in a 'dead frog' mode.

[njee20]

Steady on: Portpatrick has already explained that he suffers from an ailment which means that it is very difficult, nigh on impossible for him to carry out delicate soldering.

And he models N gauge, making things somewhat more fiddly.

[RFS]

 

3. There is no need to cut the links to the switch/closure rails BUT there is a possible risk of a short as a wheel back touches a closure rail due to the insulated gap being very close to the nose of the 'frog' - you will find upthread various methods of dealing with this but basically it involves a dab of a good insulating paint or whatever which won't wear through wheel contact.  the closeness of this gap to the wing rails and nose of the 'frog' is probably the biggest shortcoming of the design of the bullhead points but I don't think Peco had any alternative when the points are used in a 'dead frog' mode.

 

These turnouts are designed for finescale operation, so if any vehicles manage to cause a short in this way then the first thing to do is make sure that they do indeed have finescale wheels and that their back-to-back measurement is accurate. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by RFS

[Portpatrick]

And he models N gauge, making things somewhat more fiddly.

A most astute observation.  Thank you

Some may say I am making life difficult for myself though to be honest I would find OO  and O troublesome in some way or another.

In the past I guess I have kit built some 30+ wagon kits  from all available sources, approx 8 coach kits from Ultima and 20+ loco kits (whitemetal not brass).  I have also had a reputation as a hacker, converting a few coaches following articles in the N Soc journal and hacking and converting a dozen or so RTR and kit locos to produce what I want.  Even now my K1 K4 and Glen are adapted kits.  When I had a Welsh based layout I renumbers half my fleet so it represented local locos from shed allocation books.  In all of these I have to be very restricted in what I tackle.  Those who have seen Portpatrick Town, or see it at Royston this coming November and compare it with Allanbrae (first outing in October then Marlow in January 19 and Royston in Nov 19, will note a much simpler conception and presentation.  And while its simplicity accounts in part, I have reduced the level of soldering needed probably by 50%.  But I have worked in N since 1976 and I'll be ******* if I am going to give up.  It will always be a good therapy but I have to accept greater limitations.

 

since code 55 medium is now available I will probably buy one, and create a small board for a one into two set up.  I can then piece together the growing number of versions of guidance which have appeared on this thread not to mention Paul Churchill and others on the Forum and try and work out what may or may not be doable .  I found I had a spare code 80 electrofrog y point.  I was going to use it on Portpatrick but when I came to look at the plan again it looked all wrong and the Y became superfluous.  The only wiring I see on it is linkage from each blade to the frog (complete all metal as electrofrog).  THat is the electrical basis of its simplicity and is my gold standard.  Though I cannot see me being able to adjust a unifrog to look the same.  My gut feeling is that Unitrak beckons for any future layout, which given its set track nature would be a great shame - no lovely sweeping curves.  But happy if someone does prove me wrong.

 

And in spite of Pete's evident horror, ("you do what") after many years of exhibiting my own and club layouts I have no problem not having a permanent link from stock rail to blade.  We only have to clean them out occaisionally and that is a lot less hassle than adding to the wiring.

[hayfield]

Steady on: Portpatrick has already explained that he suffers from an ailment which means that it is very difficult, nigh on impossible for him to carry out delicate soldering.

 

Apologies if my comment was taken the wrong way and certainly not aimed at anyone who has a disability, I thought using the words " most " and "hamfisted" would exclude those with afflictions, who I would have hoped would benefit from a friend assisting with this matter. 

[Coryton]

I think the advantages of Unifrog for some has been explained by a number of folk. You don't like them, that is plain to read - they obviously don't suit your needs. The simple solution is to go for something else

 

They don't suit my needs either.

 

Can someone suggest what alternatives would be suitable?

 

I've never really looked beyond Peco nor had the need to before.

[Izzy]

Strikes me there is developing a need for a Peco point re-wiring service............. roll-up, roll-up, get your re-worked Peco self-isolating points here.........Ahem.

[Portpatrick]

Apologies if my comment was taken the wrong way and certainly not aimed at anyone who has a disability, I thought using the words " most " and "hamfisted" would exclude those with afflictions, who I would have hoped would benefit from a friend assisting with this matter.

 

"Hayfield"

Please don't worry on my account.  No offence taken at all.  I guess there is one I could possibly ask for assistance though he is not one I would want to take advantage of, not least as I rely on him a lot for transport to and from shows, both as a visitor and exhibitor so my  wife still has the use of our own car..  And I guess I stilll expect to be able to build my own layouts myself, even if at times I am frustrated at how difficult some things have become over the years.  As I stated earlier I don't do as much kit building and stock "bashing" as I once did.  I am in two minds whether to attempt convert a Langley B1 body I obtained into a Scottish K2.  I have a spare poole based Black 5 chassis for adapting.   I like the idea of the challenge but am not sure I can make it meet even my "good enough representation" standards. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Portpatrick