Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[gordon s]

Why have they bonded the wing rails, on had built track they do not?.

 

 

I can only speak for myself, Darren, but I always bond the wing rails to the frog. OK, mine are copper clad, but I'd still do the same on chaired track.

 

Edit:  I didn't say it the first time, but will now add more detail following Martin's post.  Yes, I also bond the check and switch rails to the adjacent running rail.  In essence the whole turnout is live and the frog switched to the correct polarity.

 

Nothing to do with the Peco product, just a comment on the earlier post from Darren.

Edited December 30, 2017 by gordon s

[gr.king]

 

If people do not use the Unifrog then I can see Peco not bothering with it in future.

 

 

In which case I, and various other currently satisfied analogue DC users will not be the least bit bothered, but I can't see Peco dropping the unifrog idea (clearly aimed only at making life easier for DCC users who cannot wire or who don't want to wire) unless the overwhelming majority of the "people" to whom you refer complain bitterly. Is there any point in arguing about it here though? If those of us who want live frog, self-switching points choose to alter the bonds and possibly the gaps to suit, what gives others the right to complain?

[martin_wynne]

I can only speak for myself, Darren, but I always bond the wing rails to the frog. OK, mine are copper clad, but I'd still do the same on chaired track.

 

And also ideally the check rails to the adjacent running rail.

 

If wheels rub against check or wing rails, the rolling action can fractionally lift them off the running rail, losing contact. All the most reliable handbuilt-track layouts have live wing rails and check rails.

 

You don't have to think about it with copper-clad, but you do if using functional plastic chairs.

 

Martin.

Edited December 30, 2017 by martin_wynne

[Not Jeremy]

I would gently suggest that the biggest benefit of the Unifrog is nothing to do with any of the above, but rather that it significantly reduces the number of different items that need to be produced, i.e. no need for "insulfrog" and "electrofrog" versions of point work.

 

From a business point of view this has major benefits for both Peco (less product lines need to be developed and produced) and retailers (less stock required to be held).

 

I think you can expect to see Unifrog rolled out across all the Peco track ranges in the future.

 

Simon

[Chamby]

I would gently suggest that the biggest benefit of the Unifrog is nothing to do with any of the above, but rather that it significantly reduces the number of different items that need to be produced, i.e. no need for "insulfrog" and "electrofrog" versions of point work.

 

From a business point of view this has major benefits for both Peco (less product lines need to be developed and produced) and retailers (less stock required to be held).

 

I think you can expect to see Unifrog rolled out across all the Peco track ranges in the future.

 

Simon

Agreed but it wil not happen until the unifrog concept becomes universally accepted and it is early days yet. Peco moves at a rather slow pace, and the retooling costs will be a deterrent. Also the unifrog will halve their product range... one unifrog replacing both electrofrog and insulfrog ranges. That’s great for retailers who have to stock fewer items, but no real benefits for Peco.

 

Peco will also want to see whether the new bullhead range impacts on their flat bottomed streamline sales, before doing the sums and committing themselves.

[gordon s]

I beg to differ, Chamby. Reducing the frog options will have huge financial benefits for Peco. It halves the stock holding of those parts, reduces inventory, simplifies drawings, possibly reduces assembly fixtures and mould tool options, simplifies batch production, improves working capital and so on...

Anything you can do to reduce stock holding and inventory will always help to improve your average capital employed.

Edited December 31, 2017 by gordon s

[PMP]

In one of the earlier closed threads I mentioned that I’ve been informed, (by a senior manager at PECO) that Unifrog will be rolled out across the ranges, this will occur, as I understand it with new products, and as and when existing tooling requires refurbishment or replacement.

 

The reasons being it’s simple and works, and reduces cost of manufacturing and stockholding, the second benefitting retailers too, as they won’t need to carry ‘duplicate’ ranges with insul/electro frog ranges on their shelves.

[gr.king]

I don't disagree that the commercial simplification and economy issues will be the motivation for Peco, but the consequences are certainly only to the advantage of those wanting DCC and / or dead frogs. Peco seem to suggest that a live-frog analogue DC user should now be happy to have three switches (one for the frog and one for each exit track) when only one was previously needed. That is unrealistic to those who can see how much simpler it is to connect the frog and those exit rails as a single unit, just as has always been done with live-frog points.

[Richard Lee]

The issue of power routing has made me think about it because I am hoping to do a new layout using Peco Bullhead track within the next couple of years.  I use DC, and like to use points for power routing, for instance, to isolate sidings.  It is easier, and avoids unexpected train movements that can cause derailments by going over points set the wrong way if you don't have to remember to operate a separate switch as well as change the points.

 

To use uni-frog points for routing power, I believe that I would need to power the frog from the switch that I use to set the points (as I do now), and put insulating rail joiners on the rails coming from the frog.  The rails on the sidings beyond the insulated rail joiners would get fed from the switched power to the frog (as I do now for isolating sidings).  Effectively, the only change would be that it would be necessary (rather than optional) to use insulated joiners in those circumstances.

 

If anyone has any different ideas (or better still, experience) I would love to hear from them.

[Chamby]

The issue of power routing has made me think about it because I am hoping to do a new layout using Peco Bullhead track within the next couple of years.  I use DC, and like to use points for power routing, for instance, to isolate sidings.  It is easier, and avoids unexpected train movements that can cause derailments by going over points set the wrong way if you don't have to remember to operate a separate switch as well as change the points.

 

To use uni-frog points for routing power, I believe that I would need to power the frog from the switch that I use to set the points (as I do now), and put insulating rail joiners on the rails coming from the frog.  The rails on the sidings beyond the insulated rail joiners would get fed from the switched power to the frog (as I do now for isolating sidings).  Effectively, the only change would be that it would be necessary (rather than optional) to use insulated joiners in those circumstances.

 

If anyone has any different ideas (or better still, experience) I would love to hear from them.

You would only need to use insulated rail joiners or isolating sections at locations where you want to ‘park’ powered stock for a while. So maybe just two or three locations on a branch line station?

 

Also I prefer to use isolating sections with DC. It’s just like putting the handbrake on when you park up. Using a point to route power and isolate a siding or loop is fine, until you throw the point for another purpose, or in error. Isolating a section is a more deliberate action.

 

Phil

[gr.king]

The issue of power routing has made me think about it because I am hoping to do a new layout using Peco Bullhead track within the next couple of years.  I use DC, and like to use points for power routing, for instance, to isolate sidings.  It is easier, and avoids unexpected train movements that can cause derailments by going over points set the wrong way if you don't have to remember to operate a separate switch as well as change the points.

 

To use uni-frog points for routing power, I believe that I would need to power the frog from the switch that I use to set the points (as I do now), and put insulating rail joiners on the rails coming from the frog.  The rails on the sidings beyond the insulated rail joiners would get fed from the switched power to the frog (as I do now for isolating sidings).  Effectively, the only change would be that it would be necessary (rather than optional) to use insulated joiners in those circumstances.

 

If anyone has any different ideas (or better still, experience) I would love to hear from them.

It appears to me that you could do it that way, but I cannot help thinking that sooner or later, those short lengths of rail on the point itself, between the frog unit and the insulated rail joiners, are going to be susceptible to causing unexpected or definitely unwanted effects by virtue of their "unconventional" polarity. Since I have no desire whatsoever to switch to DCC at a future date I'd rather make two new bonds and break two existing ones under the point. Whether to go even further by moving the effective electrical breaks away from the knuckles and into the switch rails I have not yet decided.

Edited December 31, 2017 by gr.king

[The Stationmaster]

The issue of power routing has made me think about it because I am hoping to do a new layout using Peco Bullhead track within the next couple of years.  I use DC, and like to use points for power routing, for instance, to isolate sidings.  It is easier, and avoids unexpected train movements that can cause derailments by going over points set the wrong way if you don't have to remember to operate a separate switch as well as change the points.

 

To use uni-frog points for routing power, I believe that I would need to power the frog from the switch that I use to set the points (as I do now), and put insulating rail joiners on the rails coming from the frog.  The rails on the sidings beyond the insulated rail joiners would get fed from the switched power to the frog (as I do now for isolating sidings).  Effectively, the only change would be that it would be necessary (rather than optional) to use insulated joiners in those circumstances.

 

If anyone has any different ideas (or better still, experience) I would love to hear from them.

 

You can very easily convert the bullhead points into an arrangement which wires the running rails coming out of the crossing (frog) into the wire which will feed the crossing so they become llve 'frog' points.  Then you just switch current for the crossing by the setting of the points, as you do now, and you will have self isolating dead end sidings (as you do now).

 

Overall it simply depends on whether or not you trust Peco's method of bonding the links to the bottom of the rails - if you do trust then the job is simple but if you don't trust simply cut the links to the running rails and use metal rail joiners on the rails coming out of the frog and connect the power feed from the point operating switch to the next piece of rail as well as to Peco's link to the crossing (frog).

[Pint of Adnams]

The issue of power routing has made me think about it because I am hoping to do a new layout using Peco Bullhead track within the next couple of years.  I use DC, and like to use points for power routing, for instance, to isolate sidings.  It is easier, and avoids unexpected train movements that can cause derailments by going over points set the wrong way if you don't have to remember to operate a separate switch as well as change the points.

 

To use uni-frog points for routing power, I believe that I would need to power the frog from the switch that I use to set the points (as I do now), and put insulating rail joiners on the rails coming from the frog.  The rails on the sidings beyond the insulated rail joiners would get fed from the switched power to the frog (as I do now for isolating sidings).  Effectively, the only change would be that it would be necessary (rather than optional) to use insulated joiners in those circumstances.

 

If anyone has any different ideas (or better still, experience) I would love to hear from them.

In an earlier post, possibly probably in the last locked thread, there was a mention of an explanation of the Unifrog concept in a recent issue of Railway Modeller. Unfortunately it is not available on the Peco website as a download but an e-mail to the Technical Bureau might elicit a copy: https://www.peco-uk.com/contact.asp - it being copyright it's not possible to reproduce it here.

[martin_wynne]

On the prototype, if you want a locomotive to stay put you set the signal (often a ground disc) against it, not the points. To be railway-like on the model, you need a separate switch or lever to operate the signal, and to simultaneously isolate the track section (if not DCC). Even if you have not yet got round to building the actual signal.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[The Stationmaster]

On the prototype, if you want a locomotive to stay put you set the signal (often a ground disc) against it, not the points. To be railway-like on the model, you need a separate switch or lever to operate the signal, and to simultaneously isolate the track section (if not DCC). Even if you have not yet got round to building the actual signal.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Which is of course exactly what can be done with the wiring I describe - you simply put your insulated rail joiner at the site of the signal, which makes it impossible to pass the signal at danger.  We are however getting some way from the simple matter of wiring the point to operate in a live 'frog' manner and that is included with the instructions accompanying the Peco bullhead points.  Extending the live frog area to the running rail beyond the crossing for the purposes of isolation is a matter of personal choice dictated by one's own track layout but it can readily be done without any switches additional to the one needed to change the polarity of the crossing (frog). 

[Richard Lee]

Thank you to everyone who replied to me.

 

@Chamby - On my smaller layout (inspired by Hayling Island) only the bay and the 2 goods sidings are isolating.  That means that I can have 2 locomotives on scene at once.  I can put the passenger train into the bay platform after running the engine around it, then bring the goods train in and do a bit of shunting, then send the passenger train out.  On the larger layout, I used to have the sidings where I stored trains use separate switches to isolate them, but when I re-did the smaller layout I found that power routing was a lot more convenient, and altered the larger layout's track feeds to use power routing.  So far I have found it far better, as I don't need to remember to operate the switches as well as the points.

 

@gr.king - Thanks for you comment.  If I understand you correctly, I imagine that would be more of a problem on points that were not used for power routing (where the track beyond them was powered).  I will give that some thought, and also look out for people reporting that potential problem when operating.

 

@The Stationmaster - Thanks.  I will decide whether or not to trust Peco's wiring when I get hold of the new points,and see them in the flesh, bearing any reports of problems that I come across in mind.  One thing that I don't trust is the use of rail joiners to transmit power in the long term, so every bit of track gets droppers, even if they are just from another piece of track rather than the 'bus'.

 

@ Pint of Adnams - Thank you.  I may have come across something like that on either RMWeb or another forum.

 

@ martin_wynne - The last time that I tried installing (non-functioning) ground signals the cat ate them.

[gr.king]

I'm sure that others will already have done something similar, but since I've done some scans with a view to producing some bullhead-specific paper templates and simply helping me to think and plan, these image files with scales might be of use to others too. The underside views help to clarify the matter of the bonding. I've added the solid red lines to one version as I believe they indicate how the structure might have to be trimmed back in order to form a crossover for approximately 45mm track centres. I cannot yet see any practical way to avoid disturbance of the bonding if such centres are required. In extremis, I think a 9mm length trim at the toe end might just be possible too, as shown by the broken red lines, if you need to shoe-horn the points into a tight location, but that leaves only one timber bracing the rails beyond the tips of the switch blades. Somebody may come up with other or better ideas than mine regarding any trimming to fit. If so, please share them!

 

 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

Bernard, you seem to be saying that its pointless wiring the frog on unifrog points, using the dropper helpfully provided by Peco?  The beauty of the uni-frog is that it can either be wired (equivalent to electrofrog) using the dropper provided, or else left unwired so equivalent to insulfrog.  Your comment goes against the generally accepted view that having electrified frogs improves running through pointwork.

 

Just asking!

 

Phil

 

Would you buy a luxury car and take out or cover the leather seats?

Live frogs were the generally accepted way, but Peco have changed all that with the introduction of Unifrog.

Doing away with insulated joiners and switching the frog belongs in the past. Wiring frogs belongs in the past along with the Monty Python bird..

You can wire them up, but as they work so well then why bother?

We have here a revolution here that is on  a par with the change from 3 rail to 2 rail. 

No connection with Peco other than as an interested customer. 

Two threads were closed due to ramblings. I am just trying to point out just how much of a step forward this track actually is. 

Everything live is the way to go. I am sure that some of the negative comments have been from people who have not actually tried these points.

Bernard 

[drgj]

Really glad to see these points. I only noticed they had arrived a couple of days ago. A reliable turnout that matches the excellent Peco bullhead track. Peco have always made robust and really good quality track and we now have off the shelf proper 00 track! I never thought it would happen.

 

Dave

[bertiedog]

After an enforced couple of weeks in hospital, I am intrigued to find there are still ongoing comments about the Unifrog. It is only a small change, but to maintain live frog operation frog switching must be done, thats all.

It is dead frog out of the box and fitted without switching, and suits DCC with or without switching.

As usual Peco have been very accurate but sparse with instructions, especially online, where their website is comprehensive, but disorganised, as they still live in the era where suppliers charged for catalogues, and depend to a great extent on the RM for publicity,

This is not good enough, and full dedicated notes should be online now, they must pull their socks up on this.

Stephen

[gr.king]

Dead frogs may be fine on new, clean track, newly laid dead-flat on an ideal surface, as tested by running suitable locos with clean wheels through the points a few times, but introduce the effects of age, dirt on the track, rough handling of track and baseboards, undesirable warping of boards and dirt on loco wheels, and sooner or later there will be annoying stalling of locos on any dead frogs. Powered, switched frogs are an essential component of reliable running. If some users prefer not to believe this because they don't want to take the trouble to fit some sort of switch and a few inches of wire, then that's up to them....

[Mike Storey]

 

@ martin_wynne - The last time that I tried installing (non-functioning) ground signals the cat ate them.

 

I thought that was just a garden railway problem!! My dog managed to rip up all my carefully built signals on my last one. This time, I am building a fence..... in 1/1 scale.

[Chamby]

I thought that was just a garden railway problem!! My dog managed to rip up all my carefully built signals on my last one. This time, I am building a fence..... in 1/1 scale.

I thought you were going to say something about dead frogs being a garden railway problem!

[Junctionmad]

Here we go again.

Peco have introduced Unifrog.

Forget all that you have done in the past and all the old theoretical methods and embrace the new technology.

There is no longer a need to wire up and switch a frog. Peco have introduced a system that really does work.

The only wiring required is when there is a need to isolate a locomotive.

This is probably best achieved by using C&L plastic fishplates as they are a good match for the new Peco joiners.

If people do not use the Unifrog then I can see Peco not bothering with it in future.

If a Luddite like me can be impressed it must be very good indeed.

Bernard

 

err, Unifrog is essentially electro frog with the wires added for you .  ?? " what new technology ", its a model railway point FGS 

[tender]

err, Unifrog is essentially electro frog with the wires added for you .  ?? " what new technology ", its a model railway point FGS 

 

 

Unifrog is more like electro frog with IRJ's and switch rail bonding all done for you.