Jump to content
 

Unifrog?


autocoach
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 09/04/2021 at 03:07, Pete the Elaner said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Its clear the Peco bull head 00 Unifrog design is different to the geometry of the newer Peco code 83 Unifrog. The Newer peco code 83 Unifrog  is exactly the same geometry as the Peco code 100 and code 75 flat bottom H0/00 Insulfrog design. If Peco had stuck with the 00 Bullhead Unifrog design there would be no problem though the insulated section at the knuckle of the frog would look better and be electrically safer if moved away the frog area.

Terry Flynn.

Edited by nswgr1855
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/04/2021 at 15:32, 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. 

  

 You said they are identical...

 

3 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

 

Its clear the Peco bull head 00 Unifrog design is different to the geometry of the newer Peco code 83 Unifrog. The Newer peco code 83 Unifrog  is exactly the same geometry as the Peco code 100 and code 75 flat bottom H0/00 Insulfrog design. If Peco had stuck with the 00 Bullhead Unifrog design there would be no problem though the insulated section at the knuckle of the frog would look and be electrically safer if moved away the frog area.

Terry Flynn.

 

And now they are different?

Some consistency would be useful.

 

You have also brought code 83 into the equation. Since this is a largely UK-based forum (it does end in .co.uk after all) it is fair to assume conversations are about UK products unless specifically mentioned.

 

How can geometry for code 100, code 83 & 75 possibly be the same if the rails are different sizes? It is not radius we are interested in here, it is tolerances/clearances & the size of the rail must affect these. If you keep the gauge the same but use a slimmer rail (which 75 & 83 is compared to 100), the dimension from outer to outer will reduce, hence different geometry.

 

I have measured some clearances of a code 75 bullhead turnout & compared them with a concrete bearer code 75 FB turnout. Bullhead is currently only available in long radius & concrete bearer turnouts are only available in medium (which I think was a strange decision).

Radius aside, almost all the dimensions were different:

Blade to stock rail clearance is 2.1mm on the FB, 1.7mm for the BH.

Nominal gauge is 16.4-16.5mm for the FB, 16.2-16.4 for the BH.

Check & wing rail clearance is 1.3mm for the FB, 1.0mm for the BH.

For the BH point, the clearance between the 2 rails of opposing polarity were 1.1mm at the heel end & 1.3mm at the toe end. I felt it irrelevant to measure these for the FB point because it was Electrofrog.

 

I really did go over them with a feeler gauge because I was writing a review & someone suggested that detailed dimensions would be useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the OP who models both UK and US prototypes let me make one comment about the Code 83 track geometry.  It is not the same geometry as the Peco Streamline range geometry as it was developed for the North American market to NMRA standards. I have both as on hand as I used the code 100 Streamline range for many years on my now defunct UK layout.  The frog geometry of the US Code 83 and 70 is based on an angle not a radius as in the UK as an angle number is the standard for North American prototype. The higher the number, the lower degree of the angle.

 

Peco markets the Code 83 in North America using only the frog number such as #5, #6 and #8. They do not have a standardized geometry frog.  The curved turnouts maybe a fudge but the straight turnouts appear to reflect the appropriate frog angles.  The extremely sharp angle turnouts used on model railroads are rarely seem on modern real North American railroads these days.  Longer and heavier freight cars, containerized and multi care specialize mineral and tank car traffic not needing sharp angled local industrial switching have changed the infrastructure needs.  It really destroys any illusion of reality to see an 86 foot trailer or container flat car backed through a #4 turnout. 

 

I have not yet acquired any of the new #6 Code 83 or brand new Code 70 turnouts with machined blades as I do not need any new turnouts at the moment. However,   I have two Peco Finescale Code 75 short radius Unifrog turnouts that I acquired when they first came out with stamped blades.

 

Despite of the panic of some in the North American model railroad forums and press over the supposed shortcomings of the Unifrog, I have seen no catastrophic shorting across the frog problems with NMRA standard flange wheelsets on locomotives. But then I use Keep Alive capacitors in most of my locomotives rather than bother to wire the turnout frogs. All the locomotive chassis of steam or diesel outline I have Code 110 tread width wheelsets as the finer scale Code 88 wheels are just too much of a bother and are generally not available on any North American prototypes that I might want to acquire. I only have used a few Code 88 metal wheels on a few highly detailed freight car models and have had no problems with Peco Code 83 turnouts.  Unifrog would be fine through the flangeways  for Code 88 wheels.  

 

All of this will be resolved in the next 4-5 years when practical dead rail operation becomes available even for smaller tank engines.

 

 

Edited by autocoach
clarity
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

How can geometry for code 100, code 83 & 75 possibly be the same if the rails are different sizes? It is not radius we are interested in here, it is tolerances/clearances & the size of the rail must affect these. If you keep the gauge the same but use a slimmer rail (which 75 & 83 is compared to 100), the dimension from outer to outer will reduce, hence different geometry.

 

I have always understood identical geometry (in relation to Peco points) to mean that the length, radius and crossing angle are the same; Which, as I have just compared a Code 75 FB large radius to a Code 75 BH large radius, is indeed the case ! Meaning that one type of point could simply replace another type in the same track layout. Wheel standards/rail height/electrical arrangements are another thing altogether of course. 

 

17 hours ago, autocoach said:

I have two Peco Finescale Code 75 short radius Unifrog turnouts

 

I was not aware that Peco have actually released these yet ? The only Code 75 Unifrog points available are still, AFAIK, the Bullhead large radius ones.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

I have always understood identical geometry (in relation to Peco points) to mean that the length, radius and crossing angle are the same; Which, as I have just compared a Code 75 FB large radius to a Code 75 BH large radius, is indeed the case ! Meaning that one type of point could simply replace another type in the same track layout. Wheel standards/rail height/electrical arrangements are another thing altogether of course. 

 

 

Normally I would agree.

The point being made was that Insulfrogs cause some stock to create short circuits & because Unifrogs have 'identical geometry', these will also cause problems. Understanding the way a wheel/axle runs through a turnout involves more than just considering its length & radius.

 

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

I was not aware that Peco have actually released these yet ? The only Code 75 Unifrog points available are still, AFAIK, the Bullhead large radius ones.  

 

 

I can't find them on Peco's website. The American HO range contains some Unifrog turnouts, but I do not believe these are available in code 75.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I can't find them on Peco's website. The American HO range contains some Unifrog turnouts, but I do not believe these are available in code 75.

To the best of my knowledge the Peco American HO range started with code 83 in both live frog & insulfrog 

Code 70 in HOn3 came later & IIRC these may have the first unifrog's from Peco

Recently Code 70 was announced in HO standard gauge to complement the HOn3

I suspect that  all Peco turnouts will become Unifrog, will set track be an exception?

 

In American HO scale track is either Code 100, code 83, code 70 & the occasionally code 55 & are described by numbers whereas Peco OO points are described by radius

 

& as Pete says " I do not believe these are available in code 75" & i am sure he is correct

 

John

 

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 08/04/2021 at 15:21, nswgr1855 said:

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.

 

 

Looking at my two layouts, one with code 75 electrofrog and the other code 75 unifrog, I know which looks more realistic when installed and it is not the electrofrog - can't get away from seeing the hinge in the point blade.


Roy

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
22 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Looking at my two layouts, one with code 75 electrofrog and the other code 75 unifrog, I know which looks more realistic when installed and it is not the electrofrog - can't get away from seeing the hinge in the point blade.


Roy

While I overwhelmingly prefer the electrical simplicity of the Electrofrog design getting rid of those hinged point blades is - in my opinion - more than added compensatrion for the adoption of Unifrog and the wiring changes needed to convert therm to the equivalent of a 'live frog' arangement.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just edited my previous post to correct an miss understanding.  To my knowledge there is no US Code 100 line with US geometry.  The "universal" streamline code 100 has been sold widely in the US. Anything is better than the Atlas track whatever code rail it has. Does not look anything other than a plastic version of a tinplate toy train turnout.

 

I will have to dig down into my old track bin to find the Finescale Code 75 Unifrog. Will post pic when I find it.

Edited by autocoach
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/04/2021 at 22:38, Pete the Elaner said:

  

 You said they are identical...

 

 

And now they are different?

Some consistency would be useful.

 

You have also brought code 83 into the equation. Since this is a largely UK-based forum (it does end in .co.uk after all) it is fair to assume conversations are about UK products unless specifically mentioned.

 

How can geometry for code 100, code 83 & 75 possibly be the same if the rails are different sizes? It is not radius we are interested in here, it is tolerances/clearances & the size of the rail must affect these. If you keep the gauge the same but use a slimmer rail (which 75 & 83 is compared to 100), the dimension from outer to outer will reduce, hence different geometry.

 

I have measured some clearances of a code 75 bullhead turnout & compared them with a concrete bearer code 75 FB turnout. Bullhead is currently only available in long radius & concrete bearer turnouts are only available in medium (which I think was a strange decision).

Radius aside, almost all the dimensions were different:

Blade to stock rail clearance is 2.1mm on the FB, 1.7mm for the BH.

Nominal gauge is 16.4-16.5mm for the FB, 16.2-16.4 for the BH.

Check & wing rail clearance is 1.3mm for the FB, 1.0mm for the BH.

For the BH point, the clearance between the 2 rails of opposing polarity were 1.1mm at the heel end & 1.3mm at the toe end. I felt it irrelevant to measure these for the FB point because it was Electrofrog.

 

I really did go over them with a feeler gauge because I was writing a review & someone suggested that detailed dimensions would be useful.

Good to see the Peco bull head unifrog is made to finescale standards (00-SF =AMRA fine tolerance standard). The geometry I am talking about is the FROG and where the insulation gaps into it are, and how they are electrically wired as delivered. There is no problem with the Peco Bullhead turnouts, it is correctly done. There is a short circuit problem with the new Peco code 83 Unifrog turnouts from wheels bridging the insulation gaps, and my guess any new Unifrog turnouts in their code 100 and 75 ranges will be the same dodgy design.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

Good to see the Peco bull head unifrog is made to finescale standards (00-SF =AMRA fine tolerance standard). The geometry I am talking about is the FROG and where the insulation gaps into it are, and how they are electrically wired as delivered. There is no problem with the Peco Bullhead turnouts, it is correctly done. There is a short circuit problem with the new Peco code 83 Unifrog turnouts from wheels bridging the insulation gaps, and my guess any new Unifrog turnouts in their code 100 and 75 ranges will be the same dodgy design.

 

And others might not.  If Peco recognise that the gap in the switch rails is so close to the crossing ('frog' in American) that it causes shorts with some wheelsets then they will no doubt alter their approach.  But at the same time with one piece switch rails they also have to take into account the flexibility those rails need for reliable operation without damage to the way they are fastened in the plastic moulding and that might well be what led to them keepinfg those rails as long as possible apart from any other production considerations such as the need for extra components?

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 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...