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 p
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.
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.
Not sure what they started with, but they have switched over the Code 83 #6 double slip, and I doubt the tooling was worn out on that yet. And they announced the new code 70 line will be Unifrog right from the start. I don’t follow the code 100 or code 75 product line so maybe some of that has been switched over - I saw on another forum somethign about having a true bullhead rail line now as well, and the turnouts for that are Unifrog.
As for the OP’s story - well, we all started somewhere. Prior to high school, every layout I built, HO or N, used Atlas Snap Track turnouts. Sometime between the last HO layout I made and the last N scale, I did switch to using flex track for everything else, the last N scale layout I had before sort of dropping out of the hobby for a while was Snap Track turnouts and all flex track. For the HO layouts, it was because I already had them - some were the original type from the 60’s even, so I just reused them on each layout instead of buying new. I had a couple from previous N scale layouts, but I did have to get some extras for the last layout which was the largest I had built to date in any scale (3x6, but N scale, so ‘bigger’ than the HO 4x8’s I made). It was only after college when I got back into the hobby that I started using Custom-Line turnouts with metal frogs.
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.
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
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.
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.
Brian, based on the analysis and discussion so far, powering a plastic frog does sound like it could be an exercise in frustration over the long term.
And I respectfully disagree that anyone is suggesting the OP is being “foolish” by wanting to power a frog. That is a leap in logic that IMO escalates the discussion to a personal level that was never meant by anyone.
There is a natural question that comes to mind in this discussion: “What situation would there be that would justify a rather exotic solution?”
It 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.
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.
My curiosity got the best of me yesterday, so 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 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.
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, 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.
That being the case, anyone waiting on unifrog turnouts not made yet could be waiting an undetermined amount of time.
I agree, 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.
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.
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?
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
