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.
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
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.
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......
I just cited it in my most recent reply.
Alton Junction
betamax I guess no one bothers to read...
I guess no one bothers to read...
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.
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.
richhotrainThe dead frog is a feature of the Unifrog.
And as far as I know, you cannot get a short on a dead frog!
-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.
betamaxYou can see the Unifrog wiring here.
I think that should pretty well answer any unifrog questions.
Thank you for that link.
betamax The entire frog is dead, just like the Insulfrog. You can see the Unifrog wiring here. The difference is you can power the frog, or not. Plus you don't have to do it immediately, and you can decide how to control it.
The entire frog is dead, just like the Insulfrog. You can see the Unifrog wiring here. The difference is you can power the frog, or not. Plus you don't have to do it immediately, and you can decide how to control it.
As Peco points out, "The wiring of these new turnouts is a development of both the Insulfrog and Electrofrog designs. For current users of the Electrofrog or Insulfrog versions of our turnouts the new Unifrog gives modellers the best of both worlds. As supplied, the turnout is wired completely “live”, except for the frog tip and wing rails, and can be used straight out of the packet without any further modification (and so behaves like an Insulfrog)".
Rich
Isn't a dead frog a feature of the Unifrog?
DoughlessNo joints looks nice.
Yes they do.
Looks like the Unifrog turnouts have the single blade point rails, not joints. Like the new Walthers turnouts. No joints looks nice.
- Douglas
Lastspikemike richhotrain SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Understand, again I use a few track nails, no problems. But, again, no foam or cork here, when I nail down a turnout, its not moving. I only use nails to hold track in place until the ballast is applied. Once ballast is glued down, no track is moving. -Kevin Amen. Rich Doesn't work on foam.
richhotrain SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Understand, again I use a few track nails, no problems. But, again, no foam or cork here, when I nail down a turnout, its not moving. I only use nails to hold track in place until the ballast is applied. Once ballast is glued down, no track is moving. -Kevin Amen. Rich
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Understand, again I use a few track nails, no problems. But, again, no foam or cork here, when I nail down a turnout, its not moving. I only use nails to hold track in place until the ballast is applied. Once ballast is glued down, no track is moving. -Kevin
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Understand, again I use a few track nails, no problems. But, again, no foam or cork here, when I nail down a turnout, its not moving.
I only use nails to hold track in place until the ballast is applied.
Once ballast is glued down, no track is moving.
Amen.
Doesn't work on foam.
DoughlessThe issue I was reporting was that the liquid glue from ballasting got into the tabs and tension contacts.
That sounds like a real problem.
Keeping glue out of moving parts is always a challenge, at least for me.
The issue I was reporting was that the liquid glue from ballasting got into the tabs and tension contacts. I don't normally caulk turnouts in the middle or glue down ballasted turnouts, but the warped nature of several prompted me to do it.
ATLANTIC CENTRALUnderstand, again I use a few track nails, no problems. But, again, no foam or cork here, when I nail down a turnout, its not moving.
Doughless The turnouts were warped. Caulked down at each extreme end, but the middle still rose up and down a bit. These were in yard/industrial areas with no roadbed. Then ballasted them in the middle to hold them down and glue likely got under them. It was during the time when a lot of the Atlas turnouts I bought also had the tangent track not exactly tangent, seemed to bow out.
The turnouts were warped. Caulked down at each extreme end, but the middle still rose up and down a bit. These were in yard/industrial areas with no roadbed. Then ballasted them in the middle to hold them down and glue likely got under them. It was during the time when a lot of the Atlas turnouts I bought also had the tangent track not exactly tangent, seemed to bow out.
Understand, again I use a few track nails, no problems. But, again, no foam or cork here, when I nail down a turnout, its not moving.
Doughless basementdweller I too use Peco insulfrogs code 100 on my DCC layout. I will only add one additional comment, the point rails pick up their power by using a tab that contacts the stock rail when the turnout is thrown. I have found that those tabs can loose contact creating a dead turnout. All my Peco’s now get a feeder wire installed underneath connecting each stock rail to the point rail before installation. I just use decoder wire. I know this does not need to be done but over the years I have had one or two turnouts go dead due to the tab loosing contact. To the OP I would snag them up and play around building some test track and see what you think, you won’t have any trouble moving them on if you don’t like them. I have had similar undercarriage issues with both Atlas and Walthers turnouts that lost power months to years after installation. Either slight warping and ensuing up and down flexing, or stray ballast glue schmutz flowing its way into the understrips/rivets. While it does not help to power the closure rails on the Peco, I default to powering all three legs of a turnout when building the layout, sometimes several feet away down the spur, to help thwart any future problems caused by the turnout or my slopiness.
basementdweller I too use Peco insulfrogs code 100 on my DCC layout. I will only add one additional comment, the point rails pick up their power by using a tab that contacts the stock rail when the turnout is thrown. I have found that those tabs can loose contact creating a dead turnout. All my Peco’s now get a feeder wire installed underneath connecting each stock rail to the point rail before installation. I just use decoder wire. I know this does not need to be done but over the years I have had one or two turnouts go dead due to the tab loosing contact. To the OP I would snag them up and play around building some test track and see what you think, you won’t have any trouble moving them on if you don’t like them.
I have had similar undercarriage issues with both Atlas and Walthers turnouts that lost power months to years after installation. Either slight warping and ensuing up and down flexing, or stray ballast glue schmutz flowing its way into the understrips/rivets.
While it does not help to power the closure rails on the Peco, I default to powering all three legs of a turnout when building the layout, sometimes several feet away down the spur, to help thwart any future problems caused by the turnout or my slopiness.
I have never had these types of failures, but my track laying approach is likely different.
I glue my track down with adhesive caulk, but I do not glue turnouts down. Turnouts are nailed down with a minimum number of track nails, 3-4 typically.
And since my roadbed is always wood or homasote, also mounted on a base that will not flex, they hold well and prevent any movement, especally combined with the connected track being glued down.
Because of the nature of my control system, most turnouts are only fed from one direction because turnouts part of interlockings and interlockings are the boundries between the primary control and signal blocks.
Doughless While it does not help to power the closure rails on the Peco, I default to powering all three legs of a turnout when building the layout, sometimes several feet away down the spur, to help thwart any future problems caused by the turnout or my slopiness.
basementdwellerI too use Peco insulfrogs code 100 on my DCC layout. I will only add one additional comment, the point rails pick up their power by using a tab that contacts the stock rail when the turnout is thrown. I have found that those tabs can loose contact creating a dead turnout. All my Peco’s now get a feeder wire installed underneath connecting each stock rail to the point rail before installation. I just use decoder wire. I know this does not need to be done but over the years I have had one or two turnouts go dead due to the tab loosing contact. To the OP I would snag them up and play around building some test track and see what you think, you won’t have any trouble moving them on if you don’t like them.
Also, Peco is no longer making the insulfrog as they are committed to their newer design, the unifrog.
The only rub is the unifrog have the same flaw as the insulfrog. Shorts can occur. Peco has even admitted this to be true and have stated they plan to revise the Unifrogs to mitigate this issue. Here is the email I received from Peco:
Thank you for your email raising concerns about short circuits on the Unifrog #6 turnouts. It is standard railway engineering practice to put a 3° taper on wheels, which normally means they only contact the rail they are sat upon and the overhanging outer edge of the wheel should pass over the top of the opposing frog rail without contact. This is what we are used to, and it works that was on our OO and N scale products. However, NMRA RP-25 only recommends a taper, and having spoken to a former colleague who is deeply into American HO scale we now realise there are ready to run models being produced without the taper on the wheels, which would of course cause the short circuiting problems as you describe and what you saw in the YouTube video. We are now looking at how we can modify the tooling to provide a longer Unifrog tip and greater gap between the frog rails. This will also be implemented on the code 70 #6 turnouts and all future HO scale Unifrog products. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
BigDaddy Thanks everyone, they turned out to be Code 100 and I use 83. I did pick up a couple Atlas turnouts for the same price. They are at Shenandoah Heritage Market, for anyone in the area.
Thanks everyone, they turned out to be Code 100 and I use 83. I did pick up a couple Atlas turnouts for the same price.
They are at Shenandoah Heritage Market, for anyone in the area.
That looks like a good 2 hours from where I live. I do use code 100 Peco in staging but it is all built.
Peco Insulfrog do have the potential to short out but if that happens you can paint the rails near the frog with finger nail polish.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
I had several Peco insulfrogs on the Code 100 part of my layout, including a few double-curved ones. I also had one electrofog. I used Peco machines so I could keep the springs. I found that nothing ever picked the points on Peco turnouts. For that reason, I used them in situations where the main line followed the divergent curved path. Whereas Atlas turnouts sometimes allowed picked-point derailments, I could rely on the Pecos for flawless performance.
I have had shorting issues. This comes from the closeness of the frog rails, which are metal over a plastic frog. However, when a wide wheel tread would cross the frog, particularly on the curved path, it would short as it momentarily bridged the narrow gap. The solution was simple - paint the rails right at the gap with nail polish. The polish never wore off, and I never had shorts afterwards either.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.