Hello all,
With all these discussions of powering frogs I got to thinking...
Has anyone tried to use a conductive silver pen to create a circuit on a plastic frog?
The plastic frog could conceivably be coated with the conductive material and a wire then attached between the coated frog and polarity switch.
A down-side to this might be the durability of the conductive material as the wheels pass over it.
But then, re-application would be a matter of touch-up on the frog, being careful to not apply excess material and cause derailments.
Yes, gapping would also be necessary- -obviously.
Thoughts???
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
I think I would cut out a piece of sheet metal to lay over the frog, and solder a flat head brass screw on the bottom. I'd drill a hole through the frog, and use the screw for attaching the wire. I would remove enough of the top of the plastic frog so that the top of the sheet metal was even with the rail tops. I would epoxy the sheet metal to the top of the plastic frog, while drawing it down with a nut on the screw.
I don't see why gapping would also be necessary. But the sheet metal would have to not touch the adjoining rails. And, of course, it's "polarity" would have to be switched.
Ed
Silver Conductive paint is $$$$ about $50 for a 1 oz jar. It also is only made to handle low current (maybe 50mA). Our hobby's locomotives are the in .5 Amp to 1 amp range for HO scale. Maybe less for N and certainly more the larger scales.
Colorado Front Range Railroad: http://www.coloradofrontrangerr.com/
Try about $50 for a .1 ounce jar. However, it works great for resistor wheelsets and I did dozens of axles and didn;t use it all up. So despite the very high cost, a little bit does go a long way.
I doubt the silver stuff, or even the cheaper carbon type would work for a loco. If you still have plastic frog turnouts, your best bet is DCC and keep alives. I don't think there are any palstic frog turnouts still made outside of Snap-track and the like. All of the actual angled frog types are either metal frogs or, like Peco Insulfrogs, have only an extremely tiny piece of plastic (some may say too small - since wheels can short across the two pieces of rail right where the plastic insulates them from one another) so the problem there isn't too big of a dead section.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Does anyone like Fasttracks make frogs you can swap for plastic ones?
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
That would be a rather difficult undertaking since the plastic frog in the Snap Track turnouts is part of the overall plastic molding, it's not like it can just pop off and be replaced. An easier job would be replacing the whole turnout and adjusting the rest of the track to match.
A rather interesting possibility that I would think MIGHT be cured with modern materials/coatings?
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
Or better still, cured by replacing the entire turnout
Is it that the OP only needs to mitigate the effects of a plastic frog in a few instances? If so, that $50 jar of silver stuff or another exotic material might pay for several good metal frog turnouts that can replace the problematic plastic frog turnouts. Then you wouldn't have a jury rigged situation that might still be an exercise in frustration.
While I am planning a layout, I have been debating insulfrog vs. electro frog Peco turnouts for staging to replace Atlas code 100 turnouts that I sold. Two things have convinced me to choose Electrofrogs, 1) powered frogs are less likely to have stalls on them and two, the design of the Insulfrog sometimes leads to shorts where two rails of opposite polarity are very close together and a wide tread can sometimes bridge the gap and cause a short (reported by some hobbyists). That can be fixed by painting with nail polish but I'd prefer not to have to do that.
Interestingly, there are some touting Peco's new Unifrog design which is essentially a Peco Insulfrog with a metal frog in place of the plastic frog which can be powered. The rub is the rail nearby appears to be configured just like the Insulfrog and may be prone to the same shorting problem.
Reportedly Peco is planning on phasing out both the Electrofrog and the Insulfrog lines and replace both with a single Unifrog line as the tooling wears out for the various turnout types.
Moral of the story, if you like the Electrofrog turnouts, get them now while they are still being made.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Hard to tell from pictures and there aren't many options to compare, but it appears that the Unifrog ones have a slightly wider gap - the short metal frog point is longer than the plastic piece from the Insulafrog it replaces. so the part where the two rails have a bit of plastic between then is further towards the diverging end and wider. So the cross-rail wheel tread shorting shouldn't be a problem. Like it or not, they will ALL be this way. The new COde 70 stuff is only Unifrog, and the Code 83 #6 double slip is already out of stock as Insulfrog or Electrofrog, and only available as Unifrog. However at $80 each I will be limiting the number of those on my layout.
rrinker Hard to tell from pictures and there aren't many options to compare, but it appears that the Unifrog ones have a slightly wider gap.
Hard to tell from pictures and there aren't many options to compare, but it appears that the Unifrog ones have a slightly wider gap.
I found a few photo's for comparison but the Unifrog photo isn't as big but they look awfully similar:
The first two photo's are Insulfrog, the third is Unifrog.
From the photo's above, it sure looks like the Unifrog has the same spot as the Insulfrog where the two opposite polarity rails come near each other.
Like it or not, they will ALL be this way.
So if you don't want to pays your money and takes your chances, choose now while you can.
The new COde 70 stuff is only Unifrog, and the Code 83 #6 double slip is already out of stock as Insulfrog or Electrofrog, and only available as Unifrog. However at $80 each I will be limiting the number of those on my layout. --Randy
Yeah, that and the cross over are the only Unifrogs I've seen in code 83 so far. It doesn't look like the standard code 83 turnouts have made the change yet. At $80 a pop and it would suck if that double slip shorts out like the other insulfrog. As it is I have a Walthers/Shinohara #6 double slip and hopefully won't need anymore of them from Peco either.
The first Insulfrog seems to have a much thinner gap than the second Insulfrog. I found an absolutely HUGE picture (when you click on it) of the frog on the #6 double crossover which is a better angle than the small pic of the Unifrog - and on that one it appears that the plastic is thicker, or the rails just don't extend as far towards the frog points. On that picture it looks like you would need soem pretty out of spec wheels to bridge over to the other rail.
I think richhotrain bought one, have to see if he is having any issues.
As far as I know, the Peco Unifrog is only available right now in Code 83 as a double slip or a diamond crossing.
I have four Peco Code 83 #6 Unifrog Double Slips on my new layout, and I have no shorting problems so far where the rails of opposite polarity converge.
Rich
Alton Junction
The nail polish solution works, and to date I have not had to redo any of them.
In any case it's a trivial fix.
MisterBeasley The nail polish solution works, and to date I have not had to redo any of them. In any case it's a trivial fix.
It is trivial but it can be elimitated altogether if you go with electrofrog turnouts. Some report having to redo the fix as well. Again, not a big deal but whats the old saying, prevention is better than cure.
As it stands, I have six insulfrog Peco turnouts from my last layout and assuming I use them on the next, I will incorporate the trivial fix. However, all furture purchases of Peco turnouts I am planning to buy electrofrog.
When laying track, I get a higher sense of satisfaction the more precise I am. Eventhough a fix may be easy and last for years, its still filed in my mind that the solution is not the most optimal.
There is always a trade off when money is involved.
Other things don't have to be as precise, but for me, trackwork is one of those things. Others may be different.
- Douglas
...from another forum...Dear Rails, Having attempted to model wooden-railed logging tramways long before the current "dead rail" was a gleam in anyone's eye, (Think late 1980s), using conductive paint on balsawood "rails", I can confirm that: - No, it does not work very well - No, it does not last all that long as a conductive film/covering under the wear of continuous operation - Being evolved from the car-repair industry, where it's used to patch broken window-demister elements, "conductive paint" tends to have quite a high-resistance-over-distance. Indeed, 900mm (3' approx) of conductive paint had soo-much-loss that it stopped a HO SG can-motor'ed loco cold. (12VDC connected at one end of the 900mm long run, and by the time the loco made it to the other-end of the 900mm distance, there was not enough power to successfully reverse the loco back again...) Sure, the ammount of area/distance being covered on an insulfrog turnout is comparatively tiny, but given the deformation I've seen of Insulfrogs when excessive-heat-thru-current is applied, (massively over-kill levels of globby graphite+metholated-spirits paste caked up on an insulfrog, + medium/high analog throttle voltage, = visibly glowing and rapidly-deformed plastic frog), I'd not be keen to coat a plastic-frog with known high-resistance/heat-generating conductive paint... Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr PS Yes, I have used conductive paint to put lit LEDs in the hands of HO scale figures, and to "repair" some PCB traces, but IMHO it's a tool for specific-tasks only,...
Having attempted to model wooden-railed logging tramways long before the current "dead rail" was a gleam in anyone's eye, (Think late 1980s), using conductive paint on balsawood "rails", I can confirm that:
- No, it does not work very well
- No, it does not last all that long as a conductive film/covering under the wear of continuous operation
- Being evolved from the car-repair industry, where it's used to patch broken window-demister elements, "conductive paint" tends to have quite a high-resistance-over-distance.
Indeed, 900mm (3' approx) of conductive paint had soo-much-loss that it stopped a HO SG can-motor'ed loco cold. (12VDC connected at one end of the 900mm long run, and by the time the loco made it to the other-end of the 900mm distance, there was not enough power to successfully reverse the loco back again...)
Sure, the ammount of area/distance being covered on an insulfrog turnout is comparatively tiny, but given the deformation I've seen of Insulfrogs when excessive-heat-thru-current is applied, (massively over-kill levels of globby graphite+metholated-spirits paste caked up on an insulfrog, + medium/high analog throttle voltage, = visibly glowing and rapidly-deformed plastic frog),
I'd not be keen to coat a plastic-frog with known high-resistance/heat-generating conductive paint...
Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr
PS Yes, I have used conductive paint to put lit LEDs in the hands of HO scale figures, and to "repair" some PCB traces, but IMHO it's a tool for specific-tasks only,...
So it would appear that conductive paints are not a viable solution.
Replacing the Frog with a Proto87stores Metal Unit
One possible "why" may be replacing the frog with a Proto87stores metal unit for better appearance, along with smoother mechanical operation and the obvious improved wheel/rail pickup-surface Config? Just laid a set of PECO #5 and #6 turnouts, and added the relevant P87stores frogs, holding off the visual improvement assessment until all details and basic track painting is done... Happy modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr
Just laid a set of PECO #5 and #6 turnouts, and added the relevant P87stores frogs, holding off the visual improvement assessment until all details and basic track painting is done...
Happy modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr
How about conductive tape? https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/the-great-big-guide-to-paper-circuits/conductive-tape-traces tgall
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/the-great-big-guide-to-paper-circuits/conductive-tape-traces
tgall
I'd like to address the elephant in the room, which is: what conditions would drive someone to want to do something as exotic as to power a plastic frog? Seriously.
Seems to me, one should go for the easiest, most straight forward solution to a problem if it is well within reach. Wouldn't it be so much easier to simply replace the turnout? Individually they aren't that expensive.
Now for sake of argument, if more than one turnout is at issue, logic would dictate if money is lacking to replace multiple turnouts, start by replacing the turnout which is the most problematic with a proper metal frog turnout. IThen as time goes by and you can swing the funds, pick up another, and another until you've mitigated those turnouts which are causing issues. I would think over the period of a few months, one could replace at least a few turnouts if it were prioritized, maybe more
Now if there was absolutely no way to replace the turnout (due to an "apocalyptic" reason), then I can imagine something like this may be a solution worth pursuing.
Gotta agree with you there, Jim.
Blame it all on Peco with their Insulfrog, where the frog is plastic instead of what could have been metal.
Of course, in time, the Peco Unifrog turnout will solve that problem since the turnout is wired completely live except for the frog tip and wing rails.
Yes, blame it on Peco. And the Peco insulfrog turnouts seem to be quite popular too so the future option to power the frog may be a conundrum for some layout users, perhaps.
As for the Unifrog, that will solve the issue of not being able to power the from for Insulfrog users going foward after available to purchase, which is good.
There, unfortunately, "may" also remain an unresolved shorting problem as reported by some due to the two rails with opposing polarity being bridged by a wide tire metal wheel.
From my visual observations, the Unifrog looks similar if not same s the Insulfrog. At the very least, it appears to have the potential to cause the same issues.
If one is risk averse, they may decide to avoid the Unifrog - raises hand since I'm somewhat risk averse. As always YMMV.
When doing some searching and reading on the planned change-over by Peco to Unifrog, I came across disussion by British Peco users who are already complaining loudly and bitterly about the Unitfrog design replacing the Electrofrog turnout. (Unifrog will reportedly replace both Insulfrog and Electrofrogs.) Some Brits strongly prefer the Electrofrog for the solid rail appearance vs. having plastic gaps which they abhore. So it isn't only electrical considerations some are unhappy about the change over to a single line of Unifrog turnouts.
There may be some possibly who would choose to abandon the Peco line altogether after Eltrofrogs cease to be available. My plans are to try to buy as many Electrofrog turnous as I will need before they are discontinued.
My most immediate need for Peco are for staging where I am using code 100 track and I am not concerned about appearance, both size of rail and European style turnouts. My priority there is reliable and durable staging operation and track. For visible parts of the layout I have not decided partly for cost reasons but probably will purchase at least some Peco code 83.
I have not followed the Peco turnout issue closely, so let me ask this. Has Peco announced that it intends to eliminate the Insulfrog and Electrofrog in favor of the Unifrog? Or, is the Peco Unifrog merely an addition to its product line?
richhotrain I have not followed the Peco turnout issue closely, so let me ask this. Has Peco announced that it intends to eliminate the Insulfrog and Electrofrog in favor of the Unifrog? Or, is the Peco Unifrog merely an addition to its product line? Rich
I have not read anything official from Peco but by all reports Peco intends to replace both insul and electro frog turnouts with unifrog. There may be info on the website, will have to look. I'm going to work on the assumption that it's true.
riogrande5761There may be info on the website, will have to look.
I looked and there is very little in the way of "news or support" My impression is the roll out started in O gauge. It doesn't make any sense to have 3 different types of turnouts so I suspect the Unifrog was planned to be the one and only turnout.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
BigDaddy riogrande5761 There may be info on the website, will have to look.
riogrande5761
There may be info on the website, will have to look.
Not sure what they started with, but they have switched over the Code 83 #6 double slip, and I doubt the tooling was worn out on that yet. And they announced the new code 70 line will be Unifrog right from the start. I don't follow the code 100 or code 75 product line so maybe some of that has been switched over - I saw on another forum somethign about having a true bullhead rail line now as well, and the turnouts for that are Unifrog.
As for the OP's story - well, we all started somewhere. Prior to high school, every layout I built, HO or N, used Atlas Snap Track turnouts. Sometime between the last HO layout I made and the last N scale, I did switch to using flex track for everything else, the last N scale layout I had before sort of dropping out of the hobby for a while was Snap Track turnouts and all flex track. For the HO layouts, it was because I already had them - some were the original type from the 60's even, so I just reused them on each layout instead of buying new. I had a couple from previous N scale layouts, but I did have to get some extras for the last layout which was the largest I had built to date in any scale (3x6, but N scale, so 'bigger' than the HO 4x8's I made). It was only after college when I got back into the hobby that I started using Custom-Line turnouts with metal frogs.
rrinker Not sure what they started with, but they have switched over the Code 83 #6 double slip, and I doubt the tooling was worn out on that yet. And they announced the new code 70 line will be Unifrog right from the start. I don't follow the code 100 or code 75 product line so maybe some of that has been switched over - I saw on another forum somethign about having a true bullhead rail line now as well, and the turnouts for that are Unifrog.
Dunno about the tooling wearing out or what the rational is for Peco changing various turnouts over from Electro/Insul to Uni. The code 83 line is a newish line so yeah, they are doing the double slip switches now in Uni and crossovers as well. I've heard a few others also converted, but my focus is on the code 100 large turnouts and code 83 #6 and code 83 #7 curved, which haven't yet converted to Uni AFAIK and not sure about timing.
As for the OP's story - well, we all started somewhere. Prior to high school, every layout I built, HO or N, used Atlas Snap Track turnouts. ... It was only after college when I got back into the hobby that I started using Custom-Line turnouts with metal frogs. --Randy
As for the OP's story - well, we all started somewhere. Prior to high school, every layout I built, HO or N, used Atlas Snap Track turnouts. ... It was only after college when I got back into the hobby that I started using Custom-Line turnouts with metal frogs.
Yes, you have to learn to crawl, then walk, then run etc. I tried a few snap track turnouts as a teen and I think they were Atlas #4 and I remember my six axle SD45 didn't like them for some reason but I was a total noob. I switched to N around my freshman year in college and messed around with it for about 6 or 7 years and then switched back to HO.
Due to my frustration with #4 turnouts as a teen, I decided to use #6 as a minimum going forward and have stuck with that since. Of course I used Atlas #6 code 100 for my first large (garage) layout.
The next (2nd) layout I decided on code 83 for visible layout and continued to use code 100 in staging and added a few Shinohara code 100 to maximize length of storage such as 3-way and #8 curved. In code 83 I went with Atlas #6 and added Walthers/Shinohara specialty turnouts where needed - 3-way, #8 curved and #6 double slip.
Layout #3 did the same thing, as above and re-used same track as above; added a few Peco code 100 in staging - insulfrog.
Layout #4, in planning stages, I have sold off all Atlas code 100 #6 and am replacing with Peco large electrofrog. Code 83 above planning on adding MicroEngineering #6 and/or Peco #6.
jjdamnit Hello all, With all these discussions of powering frogs I got to thinking... Has anyone tried to use a conductive silver pen to create a circuit on a plastic frog? The plastic frog could conceivably be coated with the conductive material and a wire then attached between the coated frog and polarity switch. A down-side to this might be the durability of the conductive material as the wheels pass over it. But then, re-application would be a matter of touch-up on the frog, being careful to not apply excess material and cause derailments. Yes, gapping would also be necessary- -obviously. Thoughts??? Hope this helps.
I realize some folks think the idea is foolish, but here is how the OP started this subject thread,...and discussions have drifted away from the OP's original question.
railandsail I realize some folks think the idea is foolish
I realize some folks think the idea is foolish
I don't think that any of the replies have ridiculed the idea. It's just that there are easier ways to solve the "problem" of a plastic frog. Converting a plastic frog to a powered frog through the use of conductive materials, metal jumpers, and the like seems like an exercise in frustration.
Foolish? ..... and the like seems like an exercise in frustration. Rich
I'd like to address the elephant in the room, which is: what conditions would drive someone to want to do something as exotic as to power a plastic frog? Seriously. Riogrand
Riogrand
Sounds like they are suggesting foolish to me.