There are a couple of threads on here mentioning the new Unifrog points, but I don't generally read other railway modelling forums, or much of the press, so this has slipped under my radar. Given the lack of discussion about it on this forum, I wonder if it's the case here as well.
It seems that as moulds become worn, all Peco code 55 pointwork will be migrated to the new Unifrog format, and Electrofrog (& Insulfrog) points & crossings will be discontinued. This has just happened for the medium radius points.
Here's a picture from Osborn's website of the new look:
http://www.osbornsmodels.com/ekmps/shops/osbornsmodels/images/sl-u395f-peco-streamline-n-scale-code-55-medium-radius-turnout-r-h-unifrog- (http://www.osbornsmodels.com/ekmps/shops/osbornsmodels/images/sl-u395f-peco-streamline-n-scale-code-55-medium-radius-turnout-r-h-unifrog-)[2]-45412-p.jpg
Whilst operationally these are an improvement from a polarity point of view, visually they are pretty poor, in my opinion. The intrusive plastic insulation gaps in the rails are a retrograde step. This is much more obvious in N than in larger scales.
Additionally, (possibly not an issue in N) there is fairly strong evidence, IIRC, from the world of garden railways, that plastic is a dirt magnet, and deliberately putting it into a point is going to degrade its performance in the long run.
Fortunately I've been able to purchase all the electrofrog points I need.
There is discussion about this change (not specific to N) in other places; here's one such discussion:
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121872-unifrog/ (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121872-unifrog/)
I don't intend this to be a Peco-bashing session, or otherwise - I bring it up purely because I wasn't aware of it, and I suspect others aren't either, and it does impact layout design.
Well to me the isolation gap doesn't really look any worse than the typical gap you end up with when you use Peco IRJs just after the frog V on an Electrofrog point. OK so a careful cut through rail with an Xacto fine razor saw gives a narrower gap, but The Unifrog gap doesn't look too bad to me.
Everything else looks equivalent to current code 55 Electrofrog. It's a shame they haven't taken the opportunity to make the outside check rails metal rather than plastic.
In what way does it impact layout design? Seems pretty-much interchangeable to me, other than I presume it's not a "power routing" design any longer as the rails are bonded beyond the frog.
In the past I've rebuilt Peco G45 points with a live frog V, certainly an improvement over the plastic frog. If/when Peco upgrade the G45 pointwork to Unifrog I would expect it to look very similar to my conversions anyway.
Will this new line include switches with concrete sleepers? :hmmm: I hope so, but doubt it.
Definite retrograde step - plastic wears over time - I've seen this extensively on OO and N turnouts, which is another reason I went electrofrog. Track cleaning (particularly with rubbers) will mean these don't last anywhere near as long as a real electrofrog. Some of my e-frogs are close to 20 years old, and have no notable wear.
Also, looks like the frog is basically dead unless you wire it, which is actually worse than electrofrogs, which need no additional wiring, only careful placement of insulated fishplates.
The 'dead' area looks massive compared to a standard insulfrog - at least 50% longer.
What Peco should have done was drop insulfrog and make electrofrog the standard, or replace insulfrog with this but retain electrofrog. They should also drop code 80 streamline IMHO (I know that'll be controversial :) ) as it's no longer necessary with code 55 (which is equally universal).
Glad I've saved a significant number of electrofrogs, and will be stashing some more.....
Cheers,
Alan
Storm in a tea cup.
IMO they look better than having to use IRJs, I don't understand why people are uppety about them. If you want the diverging route isolated you can cut the wire underneath. If you want polarity switching on the frog you now have a nice wire to attach it to.
Reducing the number of toolings Peco need to carry and produce is advantageous to them and us.
That they've gone for Unifrog on the new OO gauge bullhead points suggests they don't see it as inferior, that was a new tooling so they could have done either just as easily. I'd happily swap all of mine and ditch IRJs, seems it'll simplify things like slips too, without the visual intrusion of insulfrog.
I can't see how wear would be an issue, the amount of plastic exposed to the surface is minuscule - the insulation gaps only, and they would inherently work as gaps, so worn plastic isn't going to be an issue. Plenty of old Insulfrog and set track points out there still going strong after 30+ years, why would these wear quicker?
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 10:15:54 AM
IMO they look better than having to use IRJs,
Functionally, no, as you have a large dead section; with electrofrog you have no dead section. I don't see why folk are so uppety about use of IRJs - their deployment is trivially simple.
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 10:15:54 AM
That they've gone for Unifrog on the new OO gauge bullhead points suggests they don't see it as inferior, that was a new tooling so they could have done either just as easily.
It suggests cost cutting to avoid tooling two ranges..... I don't see that as advantageous to us if we end up with a product that is functionally inferior to one that already exists and has been in the marketplace for 40+ years.
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 10:15:54 AM
seems it'll simplify things like slips too
I don't think the wiring here would be any different - the slip requires frog/route switching due to its very nature. Unifrog would just add more rail intersections on an already complex piece of trackwork - and given the length of dead section (assuming the same as those pictured) I'd have thought this will be a dire piece of trackwork for running. Pure electrofrog slips are a challenge enough for most locos!
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 10:15:54 AM
I can't see how wear would be an issue, the amount of plastic exposed to the surface is minuscule - the insulation gaps only, and they would inherently work as gaps, so worn plastic isn't going to be an issue. Plenty of old Insulfrog and set track points out there still going strong after 30+ years, why would these wear quicker?
I've seen extensive wear on plastic components on trackwork in the past, so can only base my opinion on that experience - both frog vees, and insulating sections like those on these turnouts - some with only 5 years use.
Given the longevity, functionality, ultra-simplicity of pure electrofrogs, this can only be seen as a backward step IMHO.
Cheers,
Alan
I'm not going to dissect your dissection of my post, as we'll be here all day, but I said they look better than having IRJs, in response to people saying the isolation gaps are massive, I don't think they are. I didn't comment on functionality of the isolated area if you lay them as they are. It's possibly slightly bigger than with insulfrog, but given Peco's market share and their keenness to protect that I'll wager in use you won't notice a marked degradation in performance, as that would be commercial suicide. This will not stop .a lot of people on forums moaning about a theoretical problem
You miss the point about the bullhead range of points - they're totally new, significantly more expensive than existing pointwork and I'll wager the demand for insulfrog would have been absolutely zero, there was never going to be a requirement for two tools. They've still plumped for unifrog, and I've not seen complaints.
Would be nice to see the underside of the point, the two isolated sections suggest the closure rails are linked to the stock rails, can anybody confirm that?
Seems a reasonable compromise as a mass produced item for me. Concrete sleepers are well overdue though, would have been nice to see that done at the same time, fingers crossed.
Yes, the stock rails are linked to the closure rails. There was a photo on the NGF Facebook page last week.
Agree on concrete sleeper - I know the geometry is more wrong for modern points than it is for older, wooden sleeper prototypes, but would still be good.
Quote from: Vonzack on June 12, 2018, 11:56:49 AM
Would be nice to see the underside of the point, the two isolated sections suggest the closure rails are linked to the stock rails, can anybody confirm that?
Yes they are bonded as if "DCC friendly" - there was a photo of the underside on Facebook as @njee20 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=1147) mentions.
Whilst not yet having one in my hands to play with, I reckon they're a step forward. I hardly think the small isolating gap (which I assume is plastic filled) is going to wear down in the same way that the frog tip of an Insulfrog point does.
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 11:13:01 AM
I'll wager in use you won't notice a marked degradation in performance, as that would be commercial suicide. This will not stop .a lot of people on forums moaning about a theoretical problem
With the double foot on code 55 rail, IRJs are invisible once ballasted, so I don't see a strong argument against them - my impression is that many folk simply don't understand their use, and assume more complexity that is actually the case - once actually explained it's pretty simple.
To me, functionality of the isolating area of a turnout is totally crucial to the entire functioning of said turnout, everything else (with the possible exception of the fidelity of the blade pivots) is less significant. Wagering is irrelevant - in reality the dead section on these is quite clearly at least 50% larger - that's a fact given the current knowledge from the photos exhibited of the N gauge trackwork. Therefore it seems highly likely to have the potential to give stalling problems, given how many folks already complain of short 0-6-0's stalling on much shorter dead sections on setrack or current insulfrogs. I'll be surprised if we don't see the same complaints coming from these once they get into wider circulation (and that will take time as folks generally don't upgrade their track with the frequency of locos, stock etc). To get round that, you are forced to use switching of the frog, which means more wiring and additional hardware; something I do not need and do not have on the current range of electrofrogs straight from the box.
Bullhead rail is irrelevant also, as that's OO - what is relevant is a direct comparison of unifrog code 55 N gauge streamline with the original electrofrog. In that case I can see no improvement with these; but disadvantages - if that's a moan, then fine - I'd rather folk called this out.
I'm with the OP - Expect the price of new or even good used electrofrogs to start climbing!
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: ntpntpntp on June 12, 2018, 01:00:24 PM
I hardly think the small isolating gap (which I assume is plastic filled) is going to wear down in the same way that the frog tip of an Insulfrog point does.
I would agree to a point (excuse the pun) - it won't be as severe as a frog tip; though I've seen wearing of similar parts on the electrofrog double slips (they are an enforced necessity on that particular piece of pointwork), so I think it will happen. By comparison, the frog tips and check rails on the same turnouts remain unworn.
Cheers,
Alan
Awesome, I've got about 50 pairs of electrofrogs, mainly large, once the Unifrog ones are available shall we start the bidding at £15 a pair?
You're still missing my point about the bullhead turnouts, and just repeating yourself. The scale is irrelevant, the point is that Peco have entered a "high-fidelity" market with a unifrog product. If they genuinely considered this a regression in any way that would jeopardise what some would suggest was a risky market to enter they'd have gone with electrofrog.
I shall reserve judgement until I've actually used them, rather than speculating on some photos, but for me, like ntpntpntp I see these as a step forward.
I just don't see the wear being an issue. What would the mechanism be for that wear? The wheels rolling over a gap enclosed by the rail? Once it wears to a few thou and the wheels/track rubber/whatever no longer touch it then you have no further issues. That's the same as saying IRJs will wear.
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 01:07:38 PM
If they genuinely considered this a regression in any way that would jeopardise what some would suggest was a risky market to enter they'd have gone with electrofrog.
Unfortunately not - there's no competing track systems at all, so there is no real credible alternative - thus they can change things and there's relatively little risk as there is little option for most to switch to (not to mention the legacy issues which see systems like code 80 also still exist).
"High fidelity" is a completely subjective term - your "High fidelity" could be completely different to mine. I'm simply looking at the factual evidence of the apparent new construction of the code 55 turnout.
Ultimately, whilst this is not the end of the world by any means, I find it disappointing that we have not instead transitioned to electrofrog being the standard and insulfrog being a historical standard of the past. That's a shame.
What it does highlight, is that now more than ever, we could do with a new state of the art track RTR system in N, with better rail heights (compatable only with the newer RP25 standards), finer frogs, better rail spacing, etc - after all Peco's code 55 flexi first came out in the mid 1980s, and the turnouts in the early 1990s, so it's been around a fair length of time. There is Finetrax, but for me this is too big an investment in time to be realistic - I know that's very much a personal thing though.
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 01:07:38 PM
I just don't see the wear being an issue. What would the mechanism be for that wear? The wheels rolling over a gap enclosed by the rail? Once it wears to a few thou and the wheels/track rubber/whatever no longer touch it then you have no further issues. That's the same as saying IRJs will wear.
Respectfully, whilst you don't; I do as I've seen it on turnouts that will ultimately have to be retired because of it (despite being completely otherwise ok). The mechanism is primarily track cleaning.
Sadly, nobody's going to buy your turnouts at 15 quid a shot, yet, as they can still be bought new for less than that ;) Hold them for a few years though and that may be a different story....
Cheers,
Alan
When I first saw the heading for this topic I thought Peco were bringing out a KATO
type track sustem (Uni prefix ), however not the case!
Quote from: Dr Al on June 12, 2018, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 01:07:38 PM
If they genuinely considered this a regression in any way that would jeopardise what some would suggest was a risky market to enter they'd have gone with electrofrog.
Unfortunately not - there's no competing track systems at all, so there is no real credible alternative - thus they can change things and there's relatively little risk as there is little option for most to switch to (not to mention the legacy issues which see systems like code 80 also still exist).
"High fidelity" is a completely subjective term - your "High fidelity" could be completely different to mine. I'm simply looking at the factual evidence of the apparent new construction of the code 55 turnout.
Ultimately, whilst this is not the end of the world by any means, I find it disappointing that we have not instead transitioned to electrofrog being the standard and insulfrog being a historical standard of the past. That's a shame.
Pretty sure you're intentionally missing the point now. I put "high fidelity" in air quotes for that exact reason. What would you call the bullhead OO entry, at more than double the price of the Streamline range? Quite whether you think it's "good enough" is irrelevant - my point (for the last time now) is that they've still chosen unifrog for their high ticket product. This is unrelated to multiple toolings or anything else. New item, no toolings exist, no need to offer insulfrog for the target market, but they've backed unifrog over electrofrog. I agree this is better.
Quote from: Dr Al on June 12, 2018, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 01:07:38 PM
I just don't see the wear being an issue. What would the mechanism be for that wear? The wheels rolling over a gap enclosed by the rail? Once it wears to a few thou and the wheels/track rubber/whatever no longer touch it then you have no further issues. That's the same as saying IRJs will wear.
Respectfully, whilst you don't; I do as I've seen it on turnouts that will ultimately have to be retired because of it (despite being completely otherwise ok). The mechanism is primarily track cleaning.
No, they won't. Categorically. Becuase of where the plastic bits are. Even if you choose to clean your track with 100 grit sandpaper what will happen is that the plastic bits may wear quicker than the metal bits. The plastic bits serve to keep the metal bits from touching. They would accomplish this just as well if they were thin air. Ergo, wear to the rail surface of the plastic insulation gaps will have precisely zero impact on the function of the turnout, rather at worst you'll have a very small gap, just like with electrofrog currently. Unifrog should perform better in this respect because there is no physical gap by design. They've filled it with plastic. It's ironic that if they've left it as a gap you'd be happier, and it would be a worse solution.
Quote from: Dr Al on June 12, 2018, 01:25:22 PM
What it does highlight, is that now more than ever, we could do with a new state of the art track RTR system in N, with better rail heights (compatable only with the newer RP25 standards), finer frogs, better rail spacing, etc - after all Peco's code 55 flexi first came out in the mid 1980s, and the turnouts in the early 1990s, so it's been around a fair length of time. There is Finetrax, but for me this is too big an investment in time to be realistic - I know that's very much a personal thing though.
I'm not sure it does highlight that. But you could pay someone to build Finetrax for you? Or do you mean you want something better than Peco, with the same level of effort involved, and no extra expense?
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 01:51:50 PM
Pretty sure you're intentionally missing the point now.
No - my points are based on the facts so far, together with 21 years experience of the existing code 55 range, and a decade prior to that in OO, so I'm not sure why you need to say this....
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 01:51:50 PM
What would you call the bullhead OO entry, at more than double the price of the Streamline range? Quite whether you think it's "good enough" is irrelevant - my point (for the last time now) is that they've still chosen unifrog for their high ticket product.
Just because they've backed unifrog for this system, doesn't actually make it a functionally superior turnout than if they'd done it using the electrofrog technique....what they call it is irrelevant, as I already said.
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 01:07:38 PM
No, they won't.
Sorry, but you assert that; while I've seen otherwise. In science and engineering it only takes one counterexample to disprove a theory ;) .
Cheers,
Alan
But you don't have an example... :hmmm: Let's expand this - through overly aggressive track cleaning how would the plastic insulation gaps wearing affect use? The clue really is in the name; "gaps".
Wear you've seen on existing turnouts is irrelevant, because the plastic components are different.
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 02:17:09 PM
But you don't have an example...
I do - my double slip! Track cleaning has been completely normal, not excessive, and wear on it as well as crossing and check rails on other turnouts is notable when compared with the adjacent nickel silver.
Wear creates drops and therefore bumps - the first thing I look to eliminate if I want superior running - I guess many don't actually care about this.
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 02:17:09 PM
Wear you've seen on existing turnouts is irrelevant, because the plastic components are different.
No, they are conceptually identical, unless you have evidence showing the plastics in use will be different, which I suspect you do not.
Cheers,
Alan
But you have a physical gap on electrofrog turnouts, which you're declaring to be better...?
So, when your unifrog points are heavily worn you'll have something akin to the electrofrog point...
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 01:07:38 PM
I just don't see the wear being an issue. What would the mechanism be for that wear? The wheels rolling over a gap enclosed by the rail? Once it wears to a few thou and the wheels/track rubber/whatever no longer touch it then you have no further issues. That's the same as saying IRJs will wear.
Agree. :thumbsup:
If the size of the gap is a worry then it looks like a quick zip with an appropriate razor saw on the plastic bit to reduce the size, insert a piece of metal shim for a tight fit, file and there you have a smaller gap (paper thin if you wish).
PECO IRJ gaps aren't exactly micro either and don't fill the gap completely.
PECO have gone DCC friendly to suit their major market. Looks like they could have made the plastic bits at least half the size without worry.
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 02:35:47 PM
But you have a physical gap on electrofrog turnouts, which you're declaring to be better...?
No they don't - your understanding of electrofrogs seems wayward - out of the box electrofrogs have
no such gaps!
Overall, none of this debate changes the facts, which concisely seem to be (unless more information surfaces):
a. Unifrogs will be dead unless wired, forcing use of switching to power them (unnecessary on electrofrogs), meaning more expense, and in some situations more difficulty
b. the dead section is notably longer than a standard insulfrog
c. plastic parts in turnouts do wear
For me the combination of the above makes it likely that this won't be an improvement. Fortunately I already have a substantial stash of electrofrogs, but the news means I'll be looking to add to it.
Cheers,
Alan
Anyone thought of asking PECO for a comment on the whys and wherefores?
And what do you put on the rails at the toe of the frog on electrofrog points? IRJs. What do they create (in order to work)? All together now... Gaps.
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 04:20:07 PM
And what do you put on the rails at the toe of the frog on electrofrog points?
Nothing. Your understanding of IRJs is completely wrong.
They are only necessary at the
heel of the point; not the toe and then only needed where that is in
a loop; crossing where two heels are connected. If it's a siding, no IRJs are needed at all. Where they are needed they can be carefully employed to concur with cab control sections, and staggered and narrowed to minimise bumps.
Most of my e-frogs have no IRJs in play - only those in loops as described, and I can choose more fluidly where they go, and actively minimise any gap. With unifrog I can't do any of that.
Cheers,
Alan
Sorry, that's just me being a muppet, heel not toe, always think that's the wrong way around. Rails coming from the frog.
I'll wager more people have points set up in crossovers than on sidings with no further feeds, you can't ignore a very common use case to suit your point. If you feed power downstream of the frog you still need IRJs even with a siding, that's best practice.
But yes, if you have a single track loop with short spur sidings with no further feeds then you do not need IRJs.
I know I've installed them on every single pair I've got, because I want to have feeds beyond the point, and I don't have many short sidings anyway, far more crossovers and loops.
Quote from: Fardap on June 12, 2018, 04:17:44 PM
Anyone thought of asking PECO for a comment on the whys and wherefores?
I bet the motivation is value engineering, i.e. these cost less to manufacture. They (like many companies,) are unlikely to admit to that though.
I looked at a oo one
I think it looks worse
irj gaps at the v are not as noticeable as the plastic insulation pieces before the frog and the cuts filled with plastic after it.
anyway I'm not that bothered about it as I should imagine there are plenty of electrofrogs still knocking around for sale. also once weathered the plastic insulators are probably not quite as noticeable. it does seem a shame that peco changed it though.
Tim
Quote from: njee20 on June 12, 2018, 04:37:00 PM
I'll wager more people have points set up in crossovers than on sidings with no further feeds, you can't ignore a very common use case to suit your point.
That's an invalid accusation. I'm thinking of my own system. Electrofrog is superior, quite simply - if I was forced to change my system to unifrog, the wiring would be more complex, all turnouts would have to be switched (unnecessary with my current e-frogs), and the IRJs would all need to remain (cab control), so reflecting in that manner, it's plainly inferior and would be more costly in terms of implementing reliable switching.
Of course different situations will be different - but my trackplan is nothing out of the ordinary, station, fiddle yard, sidings and loco shed all on a double track loop. I've found little need for additional feeds unless a dedicated isolating section is in play, but did go over each turnout during installation to improve conductivity etc.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Dr Al on June 12, 2018, 04:26:45 PM
[IRJs] are only necessary at the heel of the point; not the toe and then only needed where that is in a loop; crossing where two heels are connected. If it's a siding, no IRJs are needed at all. Where they are needed they can be carefully employed to concur with cab control sections, and staggered and narrowed to minimise bumps.
Ah "cab control" - so you're thinking DC. Do remember that under DCC even stub sidings really need to have their own feed to maintain live power, and therefore need an IRJ on the frog V. Peco are probably considering DCC as the future so IRJs or the equivalent isolation gap of the Unifrog become pretty much mandatory at each frog.
Earlier today I played around with matching photos of the size of the frog/dead spots of unpowered Unifrog and Insulfrog, I don't think there's much in it. For one thing the wing rails of Unifrog are metal rather than plastic, I reckon this reduces the dead area given the width of typical wheels.
I think I do kind of understand your concern if you're using Electrofrog with purely blade contact and no polarity feed: with Unifrog you're losing the continuity all the way through the frog and you are forced into polarity switching the frog if you want the best possible continuity. Also I may be wrong but from the look of the underside wiring I don't think the Unifrog points are "power routing" so both routes are live unless you cut some wires and reconfigure power through the point blades Insulfrog style.
[edit]
I'm running DC in N with 3-controller cab-control so I'm well versed with IRJs etc. I've always fitted frog polarity changeover to my electrofrogs, code 55 since the mid 90s (layout still going strong) and code 80 before that on my previous layout. So for me personally Unifrog is a welcome step forward.
Quote from: ntpntpntp on June 12, 2018, 05:53:28 PM
Earlier today I played around with matching photos of the size of the frog/dead spots of unpowered Unifrog and Insulfrog, I don't think there's much in it.
Going by the pics, it's ~4.5 sleepers on the Unifrog, precisely 3 on an insulfrog, so about 30-50% larger (and of course that's infinitely larger than an e-frog... ;) ), as I guesstimated before. But sleeper spacings are different, so:
Rough picture analysis via pixel counting, gives a minimum of 37% larger:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1728/27889040947_a31302c3b0_b.jpg)
(and that's favourable to the u-frog as the i-frog is slightly oversize, so it'll be at least 40% in reality)
Quote from: ntpntpntp on June 12, 2018, 05:53:28 PM
I think I do kind of understand your concern if you're using Electrofrog with purely blade contact and no polarity feed: with Unifrog you're losing the continuity all the way through the frog and you are forced into polarity switching the frog if you want the best possible continuity.
Indeed, for me this is a negative - I'm very much from the Tony Wright school of trackwork - namely it needs to be as clean, flowing, reliable and simple as possible, and using this to facilitate impeccable running is everything. I don't mind unifrog if it replaced insulfrog only as it's better than i-frog, but losing e-frogs is disappointing.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Dr Al on June 12, 2018, 06:29:12 PM
[(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1728/27889040947_a31302c3b0_b.jpg)
Now that's interesting, in your photo of an actual point there appear to be isolating gaps in the wing rails? The images I looked at today don't have those gaps
(image from Rails Of Sheffield)
(https://images.railsofsheffield.com/product-images.axd/unnamed%20(4).jpg?preset=large)
Quote from: ntpntpntp on June 12, 2018, 06:55:07 PM
Now that's interesting, in your photo of an actual point there appear to be isolating gaps in the wing rails? The images I looked at today don't have those gaps
(image from Rails Of Sheffield)
(https://images.railsofsheffield.com/product-images.axd/unnamed%20(4).jpg?preset=large)
Looks like CAD - the photo is from the OP's original post, and I presume that to be real production items.
Cheers,
Alan
I have to say that when I first discovered that N Gauge live frog points were to be replaced by "Unifrog" ones, I saw it as a hugely regressive step and I still do. It is surely driven by nothing more that cost - being able to produce a cheaper and less effective product (out of the box) in knowledge that there is currently no comparable alternative track system.
It is hardly progress to be forced to wire the frog yourself to make it "live" but will surely do wonders for the sale of their microswitches!
Some would go as far as to call the decision cynical and complacent, I am hugely disappointed with Peco's decision to go down this route.
Roy
Quote from: Roy L S on June 12, 2018, 07:27:04 PM
I have to say that when I first discovered that N Gauge live frog points were to be replaced by "Unifrog" ones, I saw it as a hugely regressive step and I still do.
I find this a very interesting comment from (IIRC) a DCC user, who these seem most aimed at.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Dr Al on June 12, 2018, 07:56:55 PM
Quote from: Roy L S on June 12, 2018, 07:27:04 PM
I have to say that when I first discovered that N Gauge live frog points were to be replaced by "Unifrog" ones, I saw it as a hugely regressive step and I still do.
I find this a very interesting comment from (IIRC) a DCC user, who these seem most aimed at.
Cheers,
Alan
Hi Alan
Well as I see it whether one favours DCC or Analogue the same basic issue arises with these Unifrog points and that is reliable pickup.
A Unifrog point as bought seems to have a worse dead section across the frog than even an old insulfrog Code 80 point, so my tank locos and 08 shunter would be at far more risk of stalling or even just losing power momentarily, and if that happens with a sound fitted loco like my 4MT Tank (which only picks up off the 6 driving wheels) it kills the sound until I can press F1 twice to reset it - a real pain.
Regards
Roy
Well at least this design will end the 'should you / shouldn't you' modify the point for DCC/DC running as it's all done for you.
I've chosen to modify my points in the past, but this design would be straight out of the box and onto the layout for me now.
I saw a picture of the underside, they can easily be modified to work as an e-frog picking up power from the closing rails if that's what your happy with. There is a certain irony to that though :-)
Cheers, Mark.
Quote from: Vonzack on June 12, 2018, 08:49:51 PM
I saw a picture of the underside, they can easily be modified to work as an e-frog picking up power from the closing rails if that's what your happy with. There is a certain irony to that though :-)
The only way to make this e-frog is through active switching of the power to the frog wire, latched to the blade switching, as previously discussed.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Dr Al on June 14, 2018, 09:41:48 AM
Quote from: Vonzack on June 12, 2018, 08:49:51 PM
I saw a picture of the underside, they can easily be modified to work as an e-frog picking up power from the closing rails if that's what your happy with. There is a certain irony to that though :-)
The only way to make this e-frog is through active switching of the power to the frog wire, latched to the blade switching, as previously discussed.
Cheers,
Alan
Hi Alan,
Not sure that's the case, follow my thinking here.
You can cut the links between the stock rails and closing rails, making it pickup a track feed from the closing rails, then link the frog to the closing rails and it should work exactly like an e-frog without any need for switching. You could even cut the links from the stock rails at the heel of the point as well and wire them to the frog and closing rails, but I would personally leave those as they are.
Unless I've missed something?
Cheers, Mark.
I don't think you can blame Peco for wanting to simplify production so that only one type of point is made. This not only helps them with production and stock level costs but means retailers only need to hold stocks of one type as well. And it is obvious that those using DCC sound have been seen as the way the hobby might go for the majority of new track users in the future.
But the big downside in all of this to me is the loss of easily laid points that need no extra switches or wiring to work ' out of the box' for those both new to the hobby or wanting to keep things as simple/cheap as possible. Simple DC use with more than one loco now means extra switches and wiring, the self-isolating nature of the designs up to now, whether insulfrog or electrofrog, meant easy use for those with sidings or using DC.
Izzy
I use Electrofrog points on a DC-powered layout, and have always powered the frog polarity from the accessory switch on Seep PM-1 motors (with IRJs on every V-rail), to avoid worrying about dicky connection from relying on blade to stock rail contact. I see no difference to the way I work using the new Unifrog points, from the pictures and discussions up to now.
But from an appearance point of view, that plastic insert bit is a retrograde step... :uneasy:
Does this mean that the value of second hand electrofrog points is likely to go up ?
Best regards,
Joe
Interesting further discussion on the NGF Facebook page today, to the effect that Unifrog takes away the simple ability to use points as "power routing" - ie. only the selected route through the point is live.
With Insulfrog you get an isolated rail on the other route, and on Electrofrog you get both rails at the same polarity on the other route. In both cases this means a loco can be isolated on a stub / dead-end siding. This simple ability to turn off a siding by switching the point against it is used by many people.
With Unifrog you can't achieve "power routing" without cutting the provided bonding wiring at the heel of the point and then adding further wiring/switching to the siding. That's going to upset a lot of DC users who just want the simple approach. Whilst it doesn't bother me as I'm happy with frog switching and cab control switching etc, I'm beginning to change my opinion as to whether Unifrog is a step forward for the general user, it just seems too biased in favour of DCC layouts.
As a DC dinosaur that does sound a bit of a bummer and not something I'd want to tackle for a simple dead end siding :hmmm:
Quote from: ntpntpntp on June 30, 2018, 08:27:37 PM
Interesting further discussion on the NGF Facebook page today, to the effect that Unifrog takes away the simple ability to use points as "power routing" - ie. only the selected route through the point is live.
With Insulfrog you get an isolated rail on the other route, and on Electrofrog you get both rails at the same polarity on the other route. In both cases this means a loco can be isolated on a stub / dead-end siding. This simple ability to turn off a siding by switching the point against it is used by many people.
With Unifrog you can't achieve "power routing" without cutting the provided bonding wiring at the heel of the point and then adding further wiring/switching to the siding. That's going to upset a lot of DC users who just want the simple approach. Whilst it doesn't bother me as I'm happy with frog switching and cab control switching etc, I'm beginning to change my opinion as to whether Unifrog is a step forward for the general user, it just seems too biased in favour of DCC layouts.
KAto Unitrack points can be converted from power / non power switching by moving 2 small screws in the base of the point. Simples??
Quote from: Railwaygun on July 01, 2018, 07:58:26 AM
KAto Unitrack points can be converted from power / non power switching by moving 2 small screws in the base of the point. Simples??
Yes, but they also have frog switching built-in which Peco points have never had, and thus don't rely on blade contact as Peco do to implement power routing. With Unifrog, Peco are clearly moving away from reliance on blade contact as they've bonded the blades "DCC friendly" style, but as I've mentioned this then requires an alternative switching mechanism for both frog switching and power routing. To build this into the point would require rather more drastic re-design of the pointwork.
Quote from: Lindi on July 01, 2018, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: ntpntpntp on June 30, 2018, 08:27:37 PM
With Unifrog you can't achieve "power routing" without cutting the provided bonding wiring at the heel of the point and then adding further wiring/switching to the siding.
Just add an insulated rail joiner after the frog and a switch to power/isolate the siding
Yes, exactly, that is just what is being said. Extra wiring/extra switches/more cost/less simple. I stated it in my previous post #39 and there is now more appreciation about it - that the points are no longer 'self-isolating' as they were before. Power routing/isolating sidings was easy this way.
Now it's extra faffing around with switches and remembering to switch them on/off. Quite okay for many of us who always used live frogs and switches/micro-switches to change polarity because power routing is still easy this way, but added complication for those seeking simple and easy out-of-the-packet DC use.
Izzy
So... with all this recent discussion about Peco Unifrog points I thought I'd better buy one just to see what they're about.
The first thing is to look at the wiring underneath: as previously discussed it has wire links C & D to bond the closure rails and blades to the stock rails (ie. "DCC friendly"), and it has wiring links A & B to power the rails beyond the isolated frog. The frog dropper wire F is pretty self-explanatory - note that it connects the wing rails as well as the frog tip. (My labelling by the way, not Peco's)
Now... the thing that I was concerned about is Peco's own statement on their website: "If the turnout is being used as a switch to isolate a section of track then it is simple job to remove the wire that joins the centre-rail and stock-rail and it will work like a current Insulfrog."
Not entirely true!
If you cut link D then link B makes the straight route "power routing" because it connects to a switched closure rail.
However if you cut link C then it won't make the diverging route "power routing" because link A is bonded to a stock rail not the closure rail. You would also need to cut link A and reconnect the frog rail end to the closure rail end of link C as shown by the red dotted line.
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/67/5885-090718235443.jpeg) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=67317)
Yes there has been a lot about these new points on the Facebook pages. What we have above is the clearest description I have seen of how they work and what needs to be done, especially if like me you want all the functionality which is on an Electro frog straight-out of its box. While I appreciate this new one may be good got DCC users, for the rest of us Peco have given us, sorry sold us, a pup.. Below is what I said earlier today on Facebook.
"My goodness what horrendous complication just to get something which does what the electrofrog does so simply. This is far worse than what I had hoped from previous posts. As one who has increasing difficulty with soldering this is the worst of all worlds - I can see myself wrecking a proportion of points in the process of this needless extra work. And there is further expense in adding a changeover switch. Puts me off building more layouts or at least using Peco pointwork whose simplicity has served me so well for decades. What are the alternatives?"
How do Kato points work? MY current 2 layouts have electro frogs which straight out of the box have continuity through the frog and are self isolating - easy for sidings and terminal platforms where only an isolating section has to be added. And yes I do rely on continuity between blade and stockrail. In 35 years of exhibiting I only occasionally have to use a little 600 grade emery to clean them out.
Me too! Well, almost. ;)
I have relied on blade contact with live frogs and have had the odd issue, but nothing that ain't fixable.
However, reading this thread is making more and more attracted to Kato stuff.
Main problem is that it's code 80, and if I was to change, it should be to something finer. :beers:
Quote from: Portpatrick on July 10, 2018, 11:10:30 AM
How do Kato points work?
Based on NewportNobby's experiments I think 'badly' is the best way to put it in the case of the number 4 points.
Whilst I can see the appeal in Unitrack the points look awful to my eye, and they're not a viable alternative to Peco whatsoever IMO. Not least you've got very limited geometry, no curved points etc, leaving aside the poor performance of a lot of stock on the smaller radius points.
We need Tillig or someone to do N gauge - their OO gauge stuff looks nice as an alternative to Peco.
Or even better Peco to see sense and continue a basice range of electro frog in code 80 and 55. I too am less thanow happy with the looks of Kato. But if Peco carry on with Unifrog only it may be the only way.
Yes, the Kato points look rubbish. But they work, apparently, without all the modifications and fiddle faderling on, which in my advancing years, I'm getting fed up with. ;)
Quote from: Portpatrick on July 10, 2018, 11:10:30 AM
How do Kato points work? MY current 2 layouts have electro frogs which straight out of the box have continuity through the frog and are self isolating
They have a polarity changeover switch built-in with the point motor gubbins.
In defence of Kato points, (and Unitrack in general), I agree that straight out of the packet, they do not look as good as Peco, but with a bit of imagination, (and ballast, washes etc.), they can look good in my opinion. As has been said many times on the forum, no. 4 points can be troublesome, but in my experience, most of the problems involve UK rolling stock. And as for adding/cutting wires on Peco points, Unitrack points need nothing doing to them, in either DC or DCC operation.
Quote from: Bealman on July 10, 2018, 11:49:21 AM
Yes, the Kato points look rubbish. But they work, apparently, without all the modifications and fiddle faderling on, which in my advancing years, I'm getting fed up with. ;)
I have no immediate plans to start another layout. Allanbrae hits the circuit in 3 months and has 2 firm and a 3rd probable booking in 2019. Although my 50s/60s Portpatrick Town is now 12 years old , it is still being asked for and I still enjoy showing it. But I am trying to get my mind around an eventual replacement for my extensive steam/green diesel interests. Simplicity in electrics has always been my watchword. Cyril Freezer very basics being as much as I can get my head around. Advancing years and worsening Essential Tremor mean that soldering is at best a challenge to be minimnised (I have managed this well on Allanbrae using peco pre wired droppers where possible , their point motor wiring looms with slide on plugs and those screw terminal chocolate strip style plugs and sockets for connecting the panel to the layout.) Fine work on an expensive point a very definite no no. Especially galling when the current product is "not broken" and did not need fixing.
By all means offer unifrog for DCC users if it is better for them. AS to maintaining another range. Apart from Setrack they offer Insulfrog and Electrofrog in Code 80 and Electrofrog in Code 55. That is 3 ranges. If they need to drop one, while I love the better appearance of Code 55, I would sacrifice this for reverting to the code 80 Electrofrog if necessary for another layout.
Hornby mag's project layout a couple of years ago used Peco code 80.
Can easi shunt magnets be fitted to Kato track. If I do replace Portpatrick Town I need them for handling terminating locals and shunting freight.
These are available? I can't find them listed on the PECO website... ???
I searched for 'Unifrog' and got two hits on SL-1551 and SL-1552 HOn3 LH and RH turnouts...
They seem to be replacing the range piecemeal. So far we've got code 55 medium radius points, plus a few in 009, the OO gauge bullhead ones and some O gauge offerings.
Quote from: talisman56 on July 10, 2018, 01:15:17 PM
These are available? I can't find them listed on the PECO website... ???
Seems like the website is out of date, but yes they are widely available. Some places not offering the old Electrofrog version of these code 55 medium points any more (presume out of stock)
My example came from Hattons.
Quote from: talisman56 on July 10, 2018, 01:15:17 PM
These are available? I can't find them listed on the PECO website... ???
Rails of Sheffield are showing the code 55 med radius Unifrogs as being in stock
Right hand SL-U395F
Left hand SL-U396F