betamaxYou can see the Unifrog wiring here.
I think that should pretty well answer any unifrog questions.
Thank you for that link.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
richhotrainExactly, so there is no issue to solve. The dead frog is a feature of the Unifrog. As Peco points out, "The wiring of these new turnouts is a development of both the Insulfrog and Electrofrog designs.
+1.
I do not see an issue here either.
richhotrainThe dead frog is a feature of the Unifrog.
And as far as I know, you cannot get a short on a dead frog!
I guess no one bothers to read...
The shorting on the frog is an issue Peco knows about, it isn't their fault as it does not show up on NEM standard wheels. It is an issue with RP-25 wheels.
Peco has indicated that they are aware, and are investigating making changes to the tooling to reduce the chance of an NMRA spec wheel bridging across the two rails. So when the existing tooling wears out, the replacements may be modified to correct this issue.
Lastspikemike I've seen the issue. It really happens. Peco made the Unifrog frog too short, or, more accurately they drew the frog rails just a tiny bit further than they oughta and the insulating gap is just that bit narrower than on the insulfrog. As I suggest. If you like the Insulfrog features buy what you can, they are no longer made.
I've seen the issue. It really happens. Peco made the Unifrog frog too short, or, more accurately they drew the frog rails just a tiny bit further than they oughta and the insulating gap is just that bit narrower than on the insulfrog. As I suggest. If you like the Insulfrog features buy what you can, they are no longer made.
Lastspikemike The Unifrog is also all live except for that tiny frog point. Restoring power routing and treating the turnout like an electrofrog could solve that issue.
The Unifrog is also all live except for that tiny frog point. Restoring power routing and treating the turnout like an electrofrog could solve that issue.
I don't see the dead frog as an issue if a user wants the Unifrog to act like an Insulfrog.
Alton Junction
betamax I guess no one bothers to read...
I just cited it in my most recent reply.
Lastspikemike With the Unifrog Peco tried to duplicate the performance of the Electrofrog turnout with an insulated frog and went too far in making the insulated frog too short. This is obvious if you compare the Unifrog frog to the Insulfrog frog. Clearly Peco modified the Insulfrog to create Unifrog. The Unifrog frog rails are a fraction longer than on the Insulfrog. The insulating gap between the frog rails is accordingly narrower. The actual frog in the Unifrog is not relevant to the problem. Powering the frog on a Unifrog would not solve the shorting issue. Treating the Insulfrog as if it were an Electrofrog would work to solve this shorting problem only if power routing were also to be restored. Powering the frog without restoring power routing would make the problem worse not better. In fact the new frog is so short you would never need to power it. Peco included the frog power wire so the Electrofrog fans wouldn't go nuts on them. Had Peco just used the Insulfrog frog but made the same length of the frog tip in metal as in the new Unifrog then all would be well but they went a half mm too far in shortening the insulation gap created by the new frog design. Why they decided to do that is a mystery. The Insulfrog tooling already gave them the frog rail lengths they needed. The Electrofrog tooling was presumably discarded entirely.
With the Unifrog Peco tried to duplicate the performance of the Electrofrog turnout with an insulated frog and went too far in making the insulated frog too short. This is obvious if you compare the Unifrog frog to the Insulfrog frog. Clearly Peco modified the Insulfrog to create Unifrog.
The Unifrog frog rails are a fraction longer than on the Insulfrog. The insulating gap between the frog rails is accordingly narrower. The actual frog in the Unifrog is not relevant to the problem. Powering the frog on a Unifrog would not solve the shorting issue.
Treating the Insulfrog as if it were an Electrofrog would work to solve this shorting problem only if power routing were also to be restored. Powering the frog without restoring power routing would make the problem worse not better. In fact the new frog is so short you would never need to power it. Peco included the frog power wire so the Electrofrog fans wouldn't go nuts on them.
Had Peco just used the Insulfrog frog but made the same length of the frog tip in metal as in the new Unifrog then all would be well but they went a half mm too far in shortening the insulation gap created by the new frog design. Why they decided to do that is a mystery. The Insulfrog tooling already gave them the frog rail lengths they needed. The Electrofrog tooling was presumably discarded entirely.
They tried to copy Atlas from an electrical standpoint, and screwed it up.
Sheldon
Lastspikemike ATLANTIC CENTRAL Lastspikemike With the Unifrog Peco tried to duplicate the performance of the Electrofrog turnout with an insulated frog and went too far in making the insulated frog too short. This is obvious if you compare the Unifrog frog to the Insulfrog frog. Clearly Peco modified the Insulfrog to create Unifrog. The Unifrog frog rails are a fraction longer than on the Insulfrog. The insulating gap between the frog rails is accordingly narrower. The actual frog in the Unifrog is not relevant to the problem. Powering the frog on a Unifrog would not solve the shorting issue. Treating the Insulfrog as if it were an Electrofrog would work to solve this shorting problem only if power routing were also to be restored. Powering the frog without restoring power routing would make the problem worse not better. In fact the new frog is so short you would never need to power it. Peco included the frog power wire so the Electrofrog fans wouldn't go nuts on them. Had Peco just used the Insulfrog frog but made the same length of the frog tip in metal as in the new Unifrog then all would be well but they went a half mm too far in shortening the insulation gap created by the new frog design. Why they decided to do that is a mystery. The Insulfrog tooling already gave them the frog rail lengths they needed. The Electrofrog tooling was presumably discarded entirely. They tried to copy Atlas from an electrical standpoint, and screwed it up. Sheldon I believe they did. But only for the North American market. The fix would be as easy as changing the size of the metal dead frog by a mm. But how much that would cost to retool is another matter. Peco is still much better made than Atlas, the new updated versions of Atlas may respond to that challenge. Peco also can be more easily converted back to power routing by clipping two jumper wires. Plus the new continuous combined closure/points rails are a very nice improvement. Peco and Walthers now make the best turnouts in my opinion.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Lastspikemike With the Unifrog Peco tried to duplicate the performance of the Electrofrog turnout with an insulated frog and went too far in making the insulated frog too short. This is obvious if you compare the Unifrog frog to the Insulfrog frog. Clearly Peco modified the Insulfrog to create Unifrog. The Unifrog frog rails are a fraction longer than on the Insulfrog. The insulating gap between the frog rails is accordingly narrower. The actual frog in the Unifrog is not relevant to the problem. Powering the frog on a Unifrog would not solve the shorting issue. Treating the Insulfrog as if it were an Electrofrog would work to solve this shorting problem only if power routing were also to be restored. Powering the frog without restoring power routing would make the problem worse not better. In fact the new frog is so short you would never need to power it. Peco included the frog power wire so the Electrofrog fans wouldn't go nuts on them. Had Peco just used the Insulfrog frog but made the same length of the frog tip in metal as in the new Unifrog then all would be well but they went a half mm too far in shortening the insulation gap created by the new frog design. Why they decided to do that is a mystery. The Insulfrog tooling already gave them the frog rail lengths they needed. The Electrofrog tooling was presumably discarded entirely. They tried to copy Atlas from an electrical standpoint, and screwed it up. Sheldon
I believe they did.
But only for the North American market.
The fix would be as easy as changing the size of the metal dead frog by a mm. But how much that would cost to retool is another matter.
Peco is still much better made than Atlas, the new updated versions of Atlas may respond to that challenge. Peco also can be more easily converted back to power routing by clipping two jumper wires. Plus the new continuous combined closure/points rails are a very nice improvement.
Peco and Walthers now make the best turnouts in my opinion.
I will explain this one more time, the only thing Atlas is updating is their code 100 product, the design of which predates their code 83 line. They have not announced any plans to update the code 83 product in any way.
I undersatand what you and others see as the "quality" differences between Atlas and PECO. For me they are not quality differences at all. All my Atlas turnouts work fine.
And I have purchased some recent production Atlas turnouts in preperation for the new layout, and I can find no difference in quality control, production tolerances, or design and tooling that are of any concern or consequence.
Since I don't want little throwbar springs, I do want feed thru wiring with frogs that don't short out wheels, I want the reversable throw bar, and have a wiring system already designed to power frogs, I will spend that extra money elsewhere.
And, I also like the longer, better geometry, no matter how slight the difference......
Mike, the PECO throw bar is a problem for me on every level even after the little spring is gone. It is not long enough for my manual ground throw system using slide switches.
You can say the points are flimsy all you want, but considering all the people I know who have had trouble free operation with them for two or three decades, they must be ok.
You can stop explaining to me how they are wired, I knew how they were wired before you were aware of their existance.