n9

Lucky, lucky, you!! I think that was almost a very brilliant idea! I think if you lower the insulating plastic it's going to increase the chance of wheels bridging the gap and causing a short. I'm beginning to really regret the existence of Unifrog, and yet more the fact that it's actually replacing and not complementing a design that is arguably much better perfoming.

Some excellent points. And you're right, we haven't talked about locos at all. I've had mine packed for 2 or 3 months, (all were new) and now suddenly 8 out of 10 of them have some problem or other. (Some look like gear problems, which is particularly unexpected since they've barely been run in.) Personally I'm not ruling out the use of stay-alives. I always assumed I'd need them on at least on some locos. But the post I referenced caught my eye and made me wonder exactly how much can be achieved only with "good trackwork." From discussions so far, there do seem to be proponents of stay-alives not being necessary at all. Whatever the case, it still seems like a good idea to work towards getting the track to work as reliably as possible from day one. For my particular problem with the 03 and Unifrog, it could be solved "track only" by removing the Unifrog and replacing it with an Electrofrog. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a like for like (medium size) direct replacement being manufactured any more. I could change it for a small Electrofrog, but that has other implications for running, as well as requiring a design rethink and track lifting. But it's an option. Shimming the far-too-deep gaps around the frog might make a difference too. Not holding my breath, but if it reduces vertical drop at the frog sufficiently, it might improve the chances of the centre wheels not going dead too. Do stay-alives adversely affect current sensing? (iTrain.)

Thanks, but I think that's been answered a couple of times. The frogs on my Unifrogs are wired and live. (Unifrogs also already come with the stock rails bonded.) The 03 has trouble on the Unifrogs because the insulating gaps surrounding the frog line up exactly with its wheels at the front and back. The centre pair of wheels is then left at the mercy of the Mariana Trench-sized gaps surrounding those frogs, a feature which Peco has deemed worthy of maintaining in their designs for 2023, apparently so that locos manufactured some time in the stone age are still able to run on them. That's my approximate take on it anyway.

Love that scene!

No no. My Unifrogs have live and switched frogs. I was referring to removing the insulated gaps on the Unifrogs - replace them with rail or conductive paint or something. And undo the extra wiring they come with. In other words, make the Unifrogs work exactly like the Electrofrogs do.

Ha! Your honesty gave me a good chuckle. But there's always a way... I have half a mind to revert the Unifrogs to work like Electrofrogs. Not a simple endeavour, so I'll keep that as a Plan C for now. I think we must have watched many of the same YouTube videos! So I'm sure I've ticked many of the same boxes. Peco don't seem to make the medium points as Electrofrogs any more, otherwise I would gladly change them without batting an eyelid. I stand corrected on the power thing. Thanks! That said, my 03 doesn't seem to struggle on the Unifrogs when it's on DC like it does when it's on DCC. But thinking about it more, it may be that minimum speed on my DC controller is faster than the minimum speed I can get out of my DCC setup.

Do you by any chance have a suggestion on how, through "good trackwork," I can achieve good running for my 03 on those Unifrog points that have insulated sections that coincide exactly with its wheels? (The pic in my first post shows this.) Very interesting you should mention this just now, since in my recent testing I've been switching a lot between DC and DCC, and the performance (power wise) of the 03 on DC blows away its prerformace on DCC. It's not as smooth running of course, but DC seems to provide it with a lot more grunt or torque. (Makes sense I suppose, since more current will be going to the motor rather than into DCC processing.) The 03 is still not as good as other larger locos (obviously), but the stall rate is actually quite minimal even on the Unifrogs - to the point that I'd actually be quite happy with its performance if I were sticking with DC. That said, I'm also getting somewhere with shimming the big pot holes in Peco's frogs (talked about in this thread) and I think this is also going to help my 03 on the Unifrogs on DCC. I'll be testing that more over the coming days.

Sounds like something I'd switch off immediately, and be nothing but grateful that you can never get it back. So I think it's the right move. I ended up buying AnyRail btw, I think it's a great product, so once you have it up and running, it should be a win-win for you.

Thanks Andrue! That's very useful in the sense that I was beginning to imagine that "good trackwork" that doesn't require any stay-alives was the result of rocket science or some arcane formula, but from what you say, just reasonably laid trackwork should be largely good enough. Maybe there are always edge cases, like with your 08, and my 03 on the Unifrogs. Btw, I have adequately powered droppers on every piece of track too, no springs in points, but I have powered all of the frogs and insulated the Electrofrogs where needed. Also, the Peco Electrofrog N points are not like their HO/OO equivalents, which I assume are the ones you are taliking about, in that they don't come with wires to cut underneath and asociated gaps (at least mine don't) so you have to put those in yourself if you want to go that route. It's a shame @WIMorrison hasn't contributed so far. I'd love to know if he has edge cases too, of if he's solved these sorts of issues in some other way.

Hmm. I'm going to have to differ with this opinion. Electrofrog points have been manufactured for years. While they may have other issues, they certainly don't have this particular problem, and my 03 handles them with ease. And, assuming you'd want to isolate the frog on an Electrofrog point in a similar manner to Unifrog, you are free, within reason, to choose where exactly you make those insulating cuts to the rails, and I think that for a particular set of locos, you could find a happy medium where too many wheels don't lose current. This is why I mentioned earlier that I'd happily swap out my Unifrogs if their Electrofrog equivalents were still being manufactured.

Thanks both of you for the tips and fleshing out some of the detail. There is certainly a lot to think about, and I'll be doing just that while I finish up testing and evaluating what I have. But yes, there is the added complication of being overseas, with scant British outline stuff available. There is some Peco stuff around, but just about everything else I end up getting shipped from the UK or from Germany.

No worries! You're actually quite right - reading my post again it could certainly have been interpreted how you read it. I've edited it to make it clearer. This is a good idea, and an option. But it leaves me wondering if it could be solved just with "good trackwork", as was suggested in the post I referenced. And thanks for the tip on the straight edge. I have tried that, and maybe it's me, but with the small scale of N I still find hard to see if something is truly level or not.

Gah! Forgot to follow this post... Wondered why no one had replied - sorry! But exactly what @Wheatley says. The frogs are powered and switched, but it's the fact that 4 of the 6 (actually 2, but it stops the current on 4) wheels come to rest exactly on the insulators for the frogs. Not good for performance.

That really is the question isn't it! Certainly I've already bought 95% of the track, and spent just over a year getting to where I am. I don't have a clear answer yet. I think mainly it's because I'm so green. So I'm addressing that in part through extensive testing so I can get a much clearer picture of what I'm really letting myself in for. I'm currently thrashing all 10 of my locos across every combination of the track so far laid. It's a long and convoluted process because I don't have the point motors in yet, and springs are removed from the points, so that requires manual propping of tie bars as well as manual switching of wires. And some locos aren't chipped yet so there's alternating between control methods too. As a prerequisite, I also had to finish temporarily connecting up all of the wiring, for which I'm already eternally grateful to Wago - those connectors are nothing short of brilliant! (I had a massive scare too! Having spent all day testing on DC, flicking my locos back and forth along stretches of track, I switched gear to test my brand new 42 on DCC in the same way... Completely forgetting it had momentum...! It was already half way over the edge of the board before I managed to somehow grab it!) I haven't at all looked at what the implications are with 2FS yet either, nor if Finetrax comes with its own set of problems. All things being equal, and if I had a lot more experience, I'd probably jump ship. But the fact that this is my first layout, in which I'm probably going to make a lot more mistakes yet, is a strong argument to stay the course and live and learn from an entire start-to-finish process. In short, the jury is still out.

I read this post with a lot of interest last night, in which @WIMorrison mentioned a couple of times that stay-alives aren't needed for locos to run reliably without stalling, because good trackwork obviates the need. Somewhat surprisingly, my efforts so far on my first "proper" layout (in Code 55) seemed to agree with him, with every loco running smoothly (electrically) on every piece of flex track and Electrofrog point at extremely slow crawls, including my 0-6-0 03. Until this: Unifrog. Donning my cynical hat, it looks like someone at Peco took a micrometer out, measured the exact wheelbase of the 03 and said "Ha! This'll keep 03 owners on their toes!" EDIT: To be clear, the frogs are powered and switched, and what I mean is the front and rear wheels line up exactly with the insulators surrounding the frog. In fairness, the same thing happens on long crossings and double slips, which also come from the factory with almost the exact same distances in the isolated portions of their their frogs. But on every other Peco Electrofrog point, including short, curved, and wye, the problem isn't there. Now, the 03 has pickups on all 6 wheels, so it should in theory be able to handle that "Unifrog" gapping situation. But it doesn't. At least not around 60% of the time after correcting back-to-backs. It's incredibly frustrating because I can see that 40% of the time, on any given Unifrog, it absolutely can. I'm guessing the discrepancy is on account of legacy clearances on the points that are too wide, and perhaps tolerances in wheel wobble still not being absolutely perfect. Or maybe the track isn't perfectly perfectly flat. (How do you measure that? Are there tiny spirit levels around?) So my question is, how do I get perfect running here without stay-alives? Is it the track? The loco? Me? Or is it just not possible with my chosen components? What's the recipe? I'd gladly swap out my Unifrogs for their Electrofrog equivalents if that solved it, but they no longer appear to be manufactured. And that would still leave me with the similarly gapped long crossings and double slips. Thanks! [In the pic, the keen-eyed may spot IRJs between the Unifrogs - for better or worse, and quite "make mistakes and learn as I go", I decided those lines will be on different power districts. Block detection is the reason for the other visible IRJ.]

If that's not an argument to call time on backward compatibility, especially on newer ranges of track, I don't know what is. Can you really class the Finetrax stuff as "kits"? In looks like you mostly push a handful of rails through chairs on pre-moulded webbing and pretty much job done - barely a step up from the basic modelling skills needed to tweak and lay flex track, no? In retrospect, knowing now what I've learnt about Peco Code 55 track, I'd almost certainly have gone with British Finescale stuff. And afterwards, knowing then what I'd learnt about Finetrax, I'd be able to comment on whether it had been a good decision! Returning to the gaping gaps and bouncy locos, while I have a lot more testing to do, I can add that my 55 hides the problem very well (on points and long crossings - double slip testing is next) because of the extra balance provided by the three axles per bogie, so I suspect Co-Cos generally will give the impression of running smoothly.

Good stuff! My Britannia will be getting the sound treatment and Tantalums - athough it's running extremely well even on DC. But I guess I might as well put them in anyway. Got all the gear from YouChoos a while ago. Now I'm just waiting to have enough layout down to make it worthwhile fitting!

Yeah, I can see that there are reasons for it. I don't think it makes it less daft though that after all this time it isn't solved. A bit like the Rapido couplers that should have gone the way of the Dodo, as I believe they have done in other markets. [Completely OT - did the Tantalums work out OK after you wired them to the right terminals?]

That's probably a much fairer and more balanced assessment than mine. But it still leaves me with N gauge locos bouncing unrealistically across pointwork. If the design isn't flawed, then perhaps that says something about the principle driving it, and I'd absolutely call the results I'm seeing with Peco's double slips and long crossings cr*p.

From here, it's very hard not to be cynical, because it very much looks like the result of no progress in 50 years. If I buy something marketed as "Finescale", I expect it to be fine and to scale, as well as to be fit for purpose, but what I'm actually getting is Crapscale. And none of this stuff is cheap. It should work. And much more than satisfactorily as a bare minimum. I don't expect to pay close to 100 quid on a double slip (yes, that's what it costs to buy them around here) and then spend weeks or months modifying it so that it actually does what it's supposed to. I will absolutely be looking at 2FS and alternatives, but sadly it's probably too late for this first board. Yes, I've seen now for myself that it applies to every single Peco point to varying degrees - the longer the frog, the worse it is. Are there any posts showing exactly what to pack and where, as well as where to line the check-rails? I'd prefer not start from zero with trial and error if people have already been there. Thanks!

Very helpful! Is there a thread or some other info on that Plasticard solution? I can probably work it out otherwise. Also all my stock is new (at least new in the sense of often decades old tooling still getting banged out as new.) I've had my eye on British Finescale, to the point I already decided I'd go with it instead of Peco on my next board, provided ofc I can get them to play nicely with each other. I'm too green to understand the 1-6 and 1-8 terminology other than it must be related to size and/or radius. But if it works, swapping out this shoddy stuff could be the better answer. I tweaked some of back-to-backs (all on the 17, only the easily accessible ones on the Britannia) and things have improved. The Britannia derailed on the long crossing once in about 20 tests. (I can now see that many many more tests need to follow.) But the rally cross effect on the double slip and long crossing remains, and I can clearly see now that every single Peco point suffers from this - even the new Unifrogs - and it's only on account of shorter or longer frogs that the result is either pot hole or Paris-Dakar. I find it staggering. It's become abundantly clear that absolutely nothing can be taken for granted, and I need to do an awful lot more testing than I'd though. In fact I've stopped laying track, and it's now Test City; I'm wiring everything, testing every single route, and doing it with a lot more locos and stock.

Well that's horrifying. Over a year planning my layout, and I've used them precisely because they saved space. I take it that's only the double slips you are talking about, and not the long crossings?

I started buying these at my local even though I don't like the stuff that much. But the boxes are just too good!! Really good quality tubs! That aside, I have some cheapo Stanley drawers for things that don't cause a mess. And lastly... I found that organising takes up a lot of space as well as a lot of time, so for bits, bobs, offcuts - things I'm not entirely sure I'm going to need - I found it's just better to put it all in a see-through polythene bag and be done with it.

Or is it my back-to-backs? These are brand new Peco SL-E390F and SL-E394F, and I've just finished laying sections of track long enough to be able to test them with a couple of locos. But boy am I disappointed. My test locos (also brand new) may or may not be the best to test newly laid track, but they are a Dapol Britannia and an EFE Rail Class 17. (Both running on DC for these initial tests.) They run pretty well everywhere, including on some other quite complex pointwork, but when they get to the frogs on the double slip (set to go straight across) or the long crossing, there's so much vertical bounce in the bogies (including the front 4-wheel whatsit on the Britannia) that it looks like the locos are off doing rally cross. They both make it through the double slip, but the Britannia has a 2 out of 10 chance of treating the long crossing as a double slip and randomly veering off into the wrong exit. If they ran that badly on every point I'd suspect the back-to-backs a lot more. Also, the new long crossings - two of them - both arrived with the same dead guide rail, which I had to fix, also adding to my sense that these aren't the most reliable of products. I've also tried the long crossing with a finger powered cheapo Peco wagon, and it really takes extremely little pressure to coax it into veering off into the wrong exit too. It's my first real go at a "proper" layout, and I think I've done a pretty good job laying the track, so I'd love to hear from long term users of Code 55 double slips and long crossings to know how reliable you've found them. Conversely, if it does sound like a back to back issue, that would also be reassuring to know. Thanks!

Thank you. That clears things up for "short" blocks (as in the sort of length shown in my example diagram) and for "long" blocks (as in long enough to hold a longest train.) Not trying to be awkward, still a genuine question: how do you do approach sizes in between? If say your maximum train length is 8 coaches, but you have a block that could take at most 5 coaches (including a smooth stopping distance), does that limit you to running trains with a maximum length of 5 coaches in that block if you want it to be able to stop smoothly? Or are there other tricks that can be brought into play? Lastly, I realise this is likely tied to speed profiling of locos, but after a loco has decelerated gracefully, is there a minimum safe stopping length of track to guarantee the train stops? 10cm? 20cm? I'm modelling in N.