Electrofrog Point Problem

[holywell junction]

I decided to add a head shunt to my model railway and decided to use a spare electrofrog point as the turnout. I have wired it up as per instructions, adding suitable insulated joiners to the frog 'V' rails and adding power feeds to ensure continuity of current across the frog. All good so far. I then tested the point using a large Standard Class 5 loco and the engine passed across the point without problem in both directions. However, when a run any small 0-6-0 loco e.g. Jinty or Midland 1F, the engine stalls at the frog. Puzzled, I tested across the point for electrical continuity and have found that the frog area seems to be dead (between the red lines on the image below). The wing rails and closure rails beyond the red line appear to be the problem. The closure rails are dead from the gap where small wires run on the underside of the point. Note these wires have not been cut. All other rails are live and seem to be ok. Does anyone have any ideas what the problem might be? I've never tried to use electrofrog before! Note - my layout is DC.

 

Many Thanks for any help!

 

 

 

[gordon s]

I’m not familiar with Peco points, but it would appear there is no switched connection to the frog.

 

There needs to be a switch attached to the point motor to switch the polarity of the dead section you have indicated. Depending on which way the turnout is set will govern the polarity of the frog so that it is the correct polarity all the way through the crossing.

Edited January 8, 2020 by gordon s

[holywell junction]

Thanks Gordon. Unfortunately, the point is manually operated at the moment. I should have made that clear at the outset! I am a newbie to electrofrog so I don't even know if you can even use electrofrog manually?

[Dungrange]

Unfortunately, I understand that not all Peco points are the same and the wiring has changed over time, but there needs to be some way of switching the frog.  I'm assuming that you don't have any separate switching of the frog, which is probably what you need.

 

I have an Peco Electrofrog point in front of me from around 20 years ago.  The power for the frog is switched by the blades with the polarity of everything between the tip of the switch blades and the insulated rail joiners passed the frog being the same polarity, switched by the setting of the point blades.

 

However, I believe that Peco may have subsequently gone with splitting the closure rails between the switch and the frog (around where your left red line is) and bonding the switch blades to the adjacent stock rails.  That would explain why you indicate you have power over the point blades.  However, this means that the frog would have to be switched independently either using a micro-switch or switch terminals on a point motor, unless you were to split the bonding of stock rail to switch blades and adding links to join the switch to the frog.  Is there a plastic section in the rail underneath the left red line on your image?  

Edited January 8, 2020 by Dungrange

[ejstubbs]

You certainly can use Electrofrog points manually, so long as they haven't had the external frog switching modification - which it sounds like your one hasn't.

 

54 minutes ago, holywell junction said:

The closure rails are dead from the gap where small wires run on the underside of the point. Note these wires have not been cut.

 

When you say "dead from the gap.." do you mean from the left-hand red line, rightwards?  If so, and assuming that the closure rails to the left of that red line are live then AFAICS the only way that the frog and wings rails to the right of that line can be dead is if those wires have been cut - or come adrift from the rails they are supposed to be soldered to.

 

On an unmodifed electrofrog point, the frog and wing rails are powered through the closure rail coming in to contact with the stock rail.  It's not uncommon for the closure rail not to make good electrical contact with the stock rail, but if that were the case then the closure rail to the left of the red line would also be dead.

Edited January 8, 2020 by ejstubbs

[gordon s]

Just done a little research on Peco points and it appears the polarity is switched via the point blades. Do you have access to a meter?

 

From what I have read, I suspect the blade polarity switching may have become tarnished and is not supplying power.

 

Your larger loco’s are bridging the dead section either by their longer wheelbase or gender pick ups. The tank loco’s do not have that luxury, hence they are stalling on the dead section.

 

https://www.buffersmodelrailways.com/image/data/electrofrog-points.pdf

 

[ejstubbs]

35 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

I believe that Peco may have subsequently gone with splitting the closure rails between the switch and the frog (around where your left red line is) and bonding the switch blades to the adjacent stock rails.

 

Not on any of the electrofrog points that I've bought in the last 12 months they don't.  You still have to do that yourself if you want to eliminate reliance on the electrical conductivity of the closure rail to stock rail contact (and you have to do the frog switching externally if you're going to do it, too).  Some of the electrofrog points do have insulating rail gaps at the point you mention, but as supplied that gap is jumpered underneath by the small soldered wire that the OP mentioned.  Some electrofrog point (e.g. the short and long Ys) don't have the gap as supplied, so you have to cut a gap yourself if you want to bond the stock and closure rails together (and good luck trying that with the short Y!)

 

Are you sure you're not getting confused with the new unifrog ponts?

Edited January 8, 2020 by ejstubbs

[Dungrange]

4 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Not on any of the electrofrog points that I've bought in the last 12 months they don't.  You still have to do that yourself if you want to eliminate reliance on the electrical conductivity of the closure rail to stock rail contact (and you have to do the frog switching externally if you're going to do it, too).

 

Are you sure you're not getting confused with the new unifrog points?

 

No, I'm not getting confused with Unifrogs - I know they are different.  Unfortunately, I haven't bought any new Electrofrog points in recent years, but I was aware that Peco have definitely changed the design from the spare ones that I have in front of me.  Looking at the images in the link that Gordon has provided and the point that I have in front of me, I can see that there are two differences that Peco have made in the last 20 years.

 

Firstly, the point that I have has a solid unbroken closure rail from the switch joint through to the end of the wing rail in the common crossing.  By comparison, there appears to now be a break in the closure rail approximately where the original poster has marked their left red line.  However, the link above indicates that the bonding wire on the bottom of a new point is across that break (so it's electrically the same as the point I have) and not to the stock rails as I had assumed.  Obviously this change in the design was simply to make that modification easier to do rather than actually do it (as I had assumed).

 

The other difference lies in the provision of a short wire from the frog to the edge of the track in a recessed sleeper.  My point doesn't have that separate frog switching wire and I'd have to solder a frog wire directly under the knuckle of the crossing.  Again, the change in design looks to have been made to make that modification easier to undertake.  The connection points of the wire bonding each part of the frog together also seems to have changed: I seem to have a straight link that connects both wing rails to the crossing nose, whereas it looks as though there is now a bonding wire from the closure rails through to the crossing nose.

 

Moving back to the original posters problem, I suspect that either the point has been modified as per the article that Gordon has linked to above and the switches are now bonded to their adjacent stock rails or the bonding between the two halves of the closure rails have broken, even if they look intact.  I guess the question is, is this a problem irrespective of which route is set, or just one route is problematic.  If the points haven't been modified and both routes are problematic, then that would imply that both links joining the two halves of the closure rails were broken.

 

What I don't understand is the position of the right most red line.  I'd expect any dead section to extend all the way through to the Insulated Rail Joiners at the end of the turnout, as I thought that the rail was solid at the point where the rightmost red line is drawn.  Whilst the bonding wire under the frog could also be broken, that wouldn't explain why the section of the point between the crossing nose and the end of the turnout was powered - so I don't see how this part isn't dead. 

[RFS]

6 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

What I don't understand is the position of the right most red line. 

 

I agree. If the part to the left is dead, then the part to right of the red line up to the IRJs would be dead too. 

 

Perhaps the OP needs to lift the point and have a look underneath, and perhaps post a picture of it.

 

As regards changes to the design over the years, the change to better enable the frog to be isolated for dedicated frog switching was first made to code 75 turnouts. So the next question is what turnout is this - code 75 or 100?

[holywell junction]

Dear All

 

Thank you for the many helpful replies, really appreciate it. I was pretty sure that the small wires beneath the point have not been cut but now I am getting concerned! I'll unsolder the lot and pull the point clear just to check that everything is still intact. It should be and the points are literally a year or so old (SL-E95). Basically, via a meter I have ascertained that the area between the two red lines is dead, everything else is live. Hope this helps? Anyway, hold for now on any further comments until I undo everything and check the underside of the point. I'll get back once I know.......

 

Cheers

 

M

[RFS]

SL-E95 is code 100 medium radius and this does not have the cuts in the rail - see picture at Rails - SL-E95

 

Notice the difference with the code 75 SL-E195 where the plastic inserts are clearly visible - SL-E195

 

So now I'm more confused as to why the red lines are where they are. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by RFS

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, RFS said:

As regards changes to the design over the years, the change to better enable the frog to be isolated for dedicated frog switching was first made to code 75 turnouts. So the next question is what turnout is this - code 75 or 100?

 

4 minutes ago, RFS said:

SL-E95 is code 100 medium radius and this does not have the cuts in the rail - see picture at Rails - SL-E95

 

Notice the difference with the code 75 SL-E195 where the plastic inserts are clearly visible - SL-E195

 

So now I'm confused as to why the red lines are where they are. 

 

Ah, so maybe they haven't changed it after all.  The point I've been looking at is an SL-E89 which is the large radius version of the Code 100 point that you've linked to above and it doesn't look different from the top (unless of course Rails of Sheffield are still using an old image).  However, if the original posters turnout is Code 100 and it doesn't have the plastic inserts that you highlight in the Code 75 range, then I'm also confused.

[melmerby]

Quote

"The closure rails are dead from the gap where small wires run on the underside of the point. Note these wires have not been cut."

 

That suggests a code 75 electrofrog

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, RFS said:

SL-E95 is code 100 medium radius and this does not have the cuts in the rail - see picture at Rails

 

The current SL-E95 most definitely does have the cuts in the rail - I have one in front of me right now with cuts in the rail straight out of the box (well, the plastic sleeve with cardboard insert).  I can post a photo if it would help.

 

What it doesn't have is plastic inserts in the gap.

 

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

unless of course Rails of Sheffield are still using an old image

 

I suspect that that is exactly what is causing the confusion in this instance.

 

UPDATE: Actually, the more I look at it the more I think I can see a plastic fillet at the tip of the frog vee, which would make the photo an insulfrog point.  Either way, I don't think it's a photo of an SL-E95 as Peco currently make them.

Edited January 9, 2020 by ejstubbs

[ejstubbs]

OK, here's a photo of my SL-E95 from the top, in fresh-out-of-the-box condition with the rail gaps clearly visible:

 

 

And here's a shot of the underside showing the jumper wires that have to be snipped if you want to bond the stock rails to the closure rails, and the feed wire to the frog for external polarity switching:

 

[RFS]

8 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

The current SL-E95 most definitely does have the cuts in the rail - I have one in front of me right now with cuts in the rail straight out of the box (well, the plastic sleeve with cardboard insert).  I can post a photo if it would help.

 

What it doesn't have is plastic inserts in the gap.

 

 

I suspect that that is exactly what is causing the confusion in this instance.

 

UPDATE: Actually, the more I look at it the more I think I can see a plastic fillet at the tip of the frog vee, which would make the photo an insulfrog point.  Either way, I don't think it's a photo of an SL-E95 as Peco currently make them.

 

I've looked at Hatton's and Rails and they both have the same picture. So it seems their pictures are either a) old stock photos or b) Insulfrog versions. I looked at Peco's EL-95 to see if they matched only to find that their picture is of the Electrofrog version, for which there is an apology on the page! However this does show the cuts. Having cuts without the plastic inserts, as provided on the code 75, looks better to my eye. 

 

Therefore I think we need to see the underside of the OP's point, since not only could the wires be cut but also there are wires under the frog connecting the 4 rail pieces together.

[holywell junction]

Dear All ....I owe all an apology! I removed the point and checked underneath and at some point in the past year or so, I have not only cut the wires but tried to re-solder new wires on the underside and completely botched it!! See photo below! The points were bought new and I don't even remember doing this! Rookie error - lesson learned, moral is ALWAYS check the underside!!   What on earth was I doing!!

 

Photo of my botched point and another brand new one on the left (a Right Hand Point as opposed to my botched left hand point!!:

 

 

[ejstubbs]

Just for clarity, it looks like you managed to cut the wires that connect the frog vee and wing rails - which should never need to be touched - rather than the jumper wires that are provided specifically to make it easy to isolate the closure rails from the frog.  I doubt there's many of us who haven't made unfortunate mistakes of that nature at some time or another.  At least you can get the problem solved now.

Edited January 10, 2020 by ejstubbs

[holywell junction]

Thank you! You are very kind!! I feel quite silly!! Heyho! Live and learn!

[Crewlisle]

lywell Junction,

 

The suggestions below do not directly answer your specific problem but might help others with similar questions about point blade/frog polarity.

 

My DCC 00 gauge layout 'Crewlisle' is over 40 years old & has 32 Peco Code 100 points which were originally all Insul Frog.  About 25 years ago I started to convert them to Electro Frogs to improve their reliability by replacing the plastic frog with a hand crafted brass one soldered to adjoining rails with the points still in situ.  See photo.  They all performed flawlessly, but eventually wore out so about 10 years ago I started replacing them with new Electro Frogs.  They are fitted as they came out of the box using Peco solenoid motors via a 16V CDU, no polarity switches & operated by Peco's stud contact operation on mini track diagrams.

 

The only polarity switch on the layout is for the live diamond crossing at the double junction which is converted from a Peco Insulfrog Short Crossing.  The two points are powered by Peco PL-10 solenoid motors via the 16V CDU.  One of the motors is fitted with a PL-13 switch to operate a colour light signal & the other point is fitted with a PL-10 motor + three PL-13 switches to operate the live diamond polarity & a feather on a colour light signal.  All points work perfectly with just the blade contact.  My secret is that when cleaning the track I also use some fine wet & dry to clean the contact surfaces of the blades, applying Servisol 10 switch cleaning lubricant in both the solenoid motors & the switches & Deluxe Materials 'Track Magic' between the switched blades & fixed rail.  My motors & switches have been on the layout for about 35 years.  No motors have required to be replaced; the PL-13 switches twice.

 

By many on these forums who advocate polarity changing point  motors or switches are mandatory I am considered to be a heretic & should be burnt at the stake!  The point springs are strong enough for positive electrical contact providing the inner faces of the movable blades are kept clean.  The number of polarity failures I have had over the last 30 years can be counted on one hand & then only to sidings.  However, with Code 75 points you may require a polarity switch due to the smaller contact area between the switch blade & fixed rail.  I have noticed on some Code 100 points, the electrical surface contact between the fixed & moveable rail is not always 100% so I have had to 'squeeze' them together with pliers to increase the electrical contact area.  I have a total of 32 Code 100 points ranging from small radius Y points up to large radius curved points on my layout.   I only started having to renew them with new Code 100 Electro Frogs about 10 years ago as they had ‘worn out!  All had been renewed before the 'Uni' frog had been incorporated into Peco points.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Crewlisle
Wrong photo

[melmerby]

30 year old insulfrogs don't rely on blade contact. They have a small wiping contact under the blade which contacts the underside of the stock rail when they move.

How do I know?

I have a box full of them from an earlier layout!

Edited January 23, 2020 by melmerby

[NINJA]

That wiping contact under the blade always seemed a good idea, why drop it?

[Crewlisle]

32 minutes ago, melmerby said:

30 year old insulfrogs don't rely on blade contact. They have a small wiping contact under the blade which contacts the underside of the stock rail when they move.

How do I know?

I have a box full of them from an earlier layout!

 

Keith,

 

Correct.  It is so long since I had to do anything to them & they are so small & are easy to miss on ballasted/painted track.  I have not had any problems probably because some Servisol or Track Magic dripped down & kept their contact surfaces clean.  Also with concentrating on the contact between the blade & stock rail as detailed in my comment, it is obviously a case of 'belt & braces'!

 

Peter 

 

 

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

2 hours ago, Crewlisle said:

 

By many on these forums who advocate polarity changing point  motors or switches are mandatory I am considered to be a heretic & should be burnt at the stake!

 

 

Heretic? Not at all.

There has been one thing I have asked from many who claim switching is unnecessary which has been unanswered until recently, which is:

 

What would you consider routine maintenance?

 

Quote

 

My secret is that when cleaning the track I also use some fine wet & dry to clean the contact surfaces of the blades, applying Servisol 10 switch cleaning lubricant in both the solenoid motors & the switches & Deluxe Materials 'Track Magic' between the switched blades & fixed rail.  My motors & switches have been on the layout for about 35 years.  No motors have required to be replaced; the PL-13 switches twice.

 

 

So there is the answer:

I find cleaning blades unacceptable & accept a little extra wiring is required to prevent it.

You find extra wiring undesirable & accept cleaning blades as a normal procedure.

 

Quote

 

No motors have required to be replaced; the PL-13 switches twice.

 

 

I am relieved to hear I am not the only one to experience issues with PL-13s.

I found Peco motors reliable too, but 2/8 PL-13s failed, so I now use microswitches. They are little more work to install, but have yet to have an issue with any of the 40+ I have installed across 2 layouts.

 

 

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

On 08/01/2020 at 20:32, ejstubbs said:

You certainly can use Electrofrog points manually, so long as they haven't had the external frog switching modification - which it sounds like your one hasn't.

 

You can use it manually if you have modified it...sort of.

You would either need to throw the polarity switch separately or connect one to the tie bars somehow.

 

If that sounds like too much hassle, then I would be inclined to agree.