jjdamnit Hello all, riogrande5761 The Atlas turnouts have metal frogs right? That is the reason for the post. Hope this helps.
Hello all,
riogrande5761 The Atlas turnouts have metal frogs right?
That is the reason for the post.
Hope this helps.
It does help. I haven't actually looked at an Atlas snap switch closely for a good 30+ years. That would explain things! Doh!
This thread is a candidate for being merged with the Coulda Shoulda Woulda thread.
Yes!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
jjdamnitThey do not have metal frogs, they are all plastic
The snap switches are plastic, other versions are metal. This thread is a candidate for being merged with the Coulda Shoulda Woulda thread.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
riogrande5761The Atlas turnouts have metal frogs right?
They do not have metal frogs, they are all plastic.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
Nothing should stall oon a Peco Insulfrog, the frog plastic area is so tiny - in some cases TOO tiny, which is where you get shorts where the two rails come close together, but this really shoould only happen with out of spec wheels.
Now on an Atlas Snap Track turnout, the frog area is a much longer piece of plastic. However - I doubt these are any larger than the frogs on a #4 Atlas Custom Line turnout - and while I added wires to mine to power the frog, I found I didn;t have to. Even a relatively small 44 tonner could run over them without stalling. I don;t have any to test with, but I would be curious if a recently aquired Mantua 0-6-0 would make it, since that has a small pickup wheelbase than the 44 tonner. I suspect not, although the old early 60's metal one I had as a kid seemed to be ok over most sectional track plastic frog turnouts. Most of the split pickup Tyco diesels handled these with no problems as well.
I suspect stalling issues with Snap Track turnouts is not really because of the dead frog, but because of poor power to the points - the rivents wear out and get loose, dirt gets in the moving part which is also the electrical path, etc. This presents a potential dead section that's longer than the frog.Some small flexible wire jumpers can fix this - each closure rail should be jumpered to the adacent stock rail, and then a flexible wire jumper should link the closure rail to the point rail around the hing area. The closure rail tends to only get power from a bit of metal that is slipped under the stock rail around the point hinge area - this too can loosen up and lose contact over time. If that happens, then the entire closure rail can be dead - and that's a HUGE dead area. ANother way to bypass this is to make sure there are feeders on the diverging rails - this is perfectly OK with Atlas because under the frog, those diverging frog rails are one piece with the continuing closure rail. They are not power routing, so all legs have the same polarity at all times. So a couple of extra feeders - both diverging routes, plus if there aren't already feeders on the point side, goes a long way to making Atlas turnouts electrically reliable - regardless of frog power or lack thereof. These things can be done without removing the turnouts
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Thanks for the back ground. Sounds like you only have a few Peco plastic frog insulfrog, it might not be cost prohibitive to replace them, especially over time. The Atlas turnouts have metal frogs right?
riogrande5761It might be helpful if the OP came back and participated in the discussion and perhaps elaborate further the situation which might make one want to power a plastic frog vs a simple replacement with a turnout that has a metal frog.
I absolutely agree with riogrande5761!
My apologies for not chiming in sooner..."Some times, life get's in the way-of-life..."
I never expected all these great responses!!
What a great community, thank you all!!!
To answer the question of...
"But why not just replace (all of) the offending turnout(s)."
As has been mentioned- -by other responders to this thread- -the quantity and cost are my prime motivation for posing the question.
I have over 20 Atlas brand Snap Switch turnouts, along with a few unmodified PECO Insul-frog's.
I would have to replace all of these allong with the control devices- -currently Atlas Remote Dual-Soliniod units and PECO 110v Side Mounted Turnout Motors.
All are DC powered through CDU's and a separate power supply (wall-wart).
Yes, I realize that if I power the frogs I need a polarity switching device.
Adding the Atlas Snap-Relays would be more cost effective (#200) for me over trashing all the plastic frog turnouts.
I posed the question in the forums to tap into the vast knowledge of all the participants.
Again, thank you for all your responses.
richhotrain and since it seems likely that the Unifrog will replace the Insulfrog and the Electrofrog, there is the issue of stockpiling these current variations for future projects, if so desired. Rich
and since it seems likely that the Unifrog will replace the Insulfrog and the Electrofrog, there is the issue of stockpiling these current variations for future projects, if so desired.
Rich
Here is my read on stock piling.
- Yes for Electrofrog:
Some prefer Electrofrog terms of appearance (realistic appearance of solid rail and no plastic gaps) and electrofrog does not have the potential shorting issue that insulfrog have with their opposite polarity rail so close to each other.
- Maybe for Insulfrog:
Insulfrog and Unifrog have the same charactaristics if you never power the frog. They also "may" share in common the issue of shorting across the two rails of opposite polartity if a wide metal tread wheel bridges the two rails. Both can be mitiaged with nail polish. My guess is Insulfrog users won't need to stock pile since Unifrog will, be essentially the same but with the option to power the frog if ever needed.
YMMV but if it matters, both Electro and Insul frog turnouts are being manufactured and available presently, so get'em while you can if it matters.
I've already started to stock-pile Electrofrog Peco code 100 large turnouts and plan on adding more in the coming months sufficient to supply future needs.
I will probably, as funds allow, stock pile, at least a few code 83 Peco Electrofrog turnouts. Code 83 is less of an issue because MicroEngineering makes turnouts with metal frogs and finger flick motion as well, so there seem to be some good alternatives in code 83, while not so much in code 100.
riogrande5761 That being the case, anyone waiting on unifrog turnouts not made yet could be waiting an undetermined amount of time.
That being the case, anyone waiting on unifrog turnouts not made yet could be waiting an undetermined amount of time.
Alton Junction
richhotrain ... I emailed Peco to inquire about the future of the Unifrog, specifically whether they plan to convert the Code 83 #6 regular turnout. Their response was, "At present very few of our turnouts are Unifrog, but others will be as the tooling is replaced over time". So, it sounds as if the Insulfrog and Electrofrog versions will eventually be eliminated as the Unifrog becomes more widely available.
... I emailed Peco to inquire about the future of the Unifrog, specifically whether they plan to convert the Code 83 #6 regular turnout. Their response was, "At present very few of our turnouts are Unifrog, but others will be as the tooling is replaced over time".
So, it sounds as if the Insulfrog and Electrofrog versions will eventually be eliminated as the Unifrog becomes more widely available.
The response you got from Peco is consistent with what all the other feedback I hve been reading; I'd say it's official.
I agree with Randy that it seems hard to believe that the tooling was worn out on the Code 83 double slip and diamond crossing, since these two pieces of track work are far less popular than the regular turnout. I can't help but think that the tooling was changed to address the shorting issue on the converging rails, a common problem with the double slip and the diamond crossing. Rich
I agree, the double slip seems relatively recent enough that the tooling wouldn't be worn out. There may be more to it that what we are hearing from Peco. Never-the-less, that's their story and it sounds like they aren't committing to any kind of order or timeline for replacing other versions of turnouts or track with unifrogs.
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.
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.
I agree with Randy that it seems hard to believe that the tooling was worn out on the Code 83 double slip and diamond crossing, since these two pieces of track work are far less popular than the regular turnout. I can't help but think that the tooling was changed to address the shorting issue on the converging rails, a common problem with the double slip and the diamond crossing.
railandsail .... and the like seems like an exercise in frustration. 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. Sounds like they are suggesting foolish to me.
.... and the like seems like an exercise in frustration.
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.
Sounds like they are suggesting foolish to me.
There is nothing wrong or foolish about asking about powering a plastic frog and nobody is dissing the OP. Whether it makes sense or not depends on a range of factors, some of which we have discussed.
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
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
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.
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.
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???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
...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.
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
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.
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.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.