So PECO doesn't make Electrfrogs C55 anymore?

[randgust]

I've always been a fan of electrofrogs, that started when I began building tiny four-wheel critters with sketchy electrical pickup.  The C55 medium pretty much turned out to be my switch of choice as it was a pretty good geometry match for an Atlas C80 #4 (5).

The way they have those unifrogs wired though.... it would almost look to me that if you cut the two stock rail jumpers and combined them with the single frog jumper wire - it would behave exactly like an old electrofrog.   The points would conduct power to both the frog and the stock rail depending on which way they are thrown.   No additional switch necessary.   You'd still have the potential DCC short between the open point and the outside rail admittedly, but otherwise, wouldn't it be the same?  Or am I missing something here?

I think.... but never having had one in my mitts yet I'm not sure.

I have used Tortoises to do some power routing as well, but I still like the finger snaps on industrial sidings - which is also where you need the best pickup possible for slow speed, light power, and critter territory.   

I know you could do a DPDT to control the frog and throw the switch, I've seen it.   I'm just wondering if we're over thinking it here.

[mmagliaro]

This fellow has a very nice in-depth review and demo of the unifrog, electrofrog and insulfrog behavior and differences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ozNdp0nQKs

I think it clears up exactly how the Unifrogs are wired and how you can modify them to behave however you like.

And yes, I think Randy is correct.  If you clip the stock rail jumpers, you could solder wires to the half-cut jumper wires and also to the frog so that it would be powered and switched by the point rails.  The Unifrog still has the over-center throwbar spring built-in, so you don't need a ground throw or other device to keep the points in place.  They snap and hold.

Now... having said all that, I will say that in all the years I used Peco, I never liked relying on the point rails to switch
the current and do the power routing, because sooner or later, the point rails get dirty and the power routing gets flakey until you clean them.  If you have 20, 30, 100 (?) turnouts, who wants that headache?  So I always used a ground throw with a microswitch to back them up.

[randgust]

I have electrofrogs on the ATSF layout industrial areas, and on four of my T-trak modules.   I also have Kato 4's that have been modified, some on the same T-trak modules.

Yes, I 've had issues with the points periodically getting flaky on power routing and needing cleaned.    I've also had almost the same level of issues with the Kato turnouts and the nest of internal contacts inside there to accomplish the same thing.   The Katos are a nightmare to clean as they have to be removed and disassembled.  I can usually clean up one of the Pecos in a couple seconds.  And of course the ones that I have on the Tortoise powered machines are rigged up for power routing through those contacts as a backup.

I also put in fine wire jumpers between the points and the stock rails on everything, I don't trust rail joiners, never have, never will, and I both paint rail and ballast - which is a great way to insulate rail joiners.

I just wish they'd take on the tie spacing/size, I could deal with any rewiring changes.    That's the forehead slap in my opinion if you were doing a product redesign.  They obviously had to change the tie dies significantly, that was the chance.

[NtheBasement]

At the risk of repeating what is posted above, I used Insulfrogs on my old layout.  They were perfectly reliable - no problems with the unpowered frog either - until I ballasted the track, after which not a week went by without some engine stalling due to a loose piece of ballast inveigling itself between a point rail and a side rail somewhere on the layout. 

On my current layout I use Electrofrogs and power the frogs with SPDT slide switches that also throw the turnouts.  Since this approach involves gapping and soldering another lead to a rail, the Unifrogs are an improvement in ease of installation.  They also don't rely on contact at a point rail pivot to power the frog, which in theory at least makes them more reliable than an Electro wired the same way.

[mmagliaro]

...snip...

I just wish they'd take on the tie spacing/size, I could deal with any rewiring changes.    That's the forehead slap in my opinion if you were doing a product redesign.  They obviously had to change the tie dies significantly, that was the chance.

Oh, man... .YES.  They did a North American tie spacing version in HO years ago.  If they made those in N, I would far and away have chosen their turnouts for my layout over the Atlas. They probably decided that enough Americans use their turnouts just as they are, so why invest the extra money to make another version?

[DKS]

They probably decided that enough Americans use their turnouts just as they are, so why invest the extra money to make another version?

This.

[NtheBasement]

Well, since Peco can now stop making two separate products - Insul and Electro - and just sell one - Uni - maybe this will somehow enable them to sell two but orthogonally different - GB and USA.  One can always hope.

[CRL]

I’d rather see them release an “extra-long” turnout with the savings.

[OldEastRR]

The thing is Peco track ties aren't British prototype -- it's just the version they came up when they started making track. I assume because the "Set Track" versions were basically toy train set tracks.

[nstars]

Oh, man... .YES.  They did a North American tie spacing version in HO years ago.  If they made those in N, I would far and away have chosen their turnouts for my layout over the Atlas. They probably decided that enough Americans use their turnouts just as they are, so why invest the extra money to make another version?

The reason for Peco not making N scale US turnouts has always been production capacity. The introduction of the code 83 HO has taken so much production capacity that the N scale version had to wait. I have no idea if it is correct, but the Unifrog turnout could be an improvement of this situation.

Marc

[robert3985]

I'm having a helluva time not commenting on this thread drift.... 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Mark5]

I'm having a helluva time not commenting on this thread drift.... 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Drift is a prerequisite to Railwire thread conclusion.

That said, if Peco ever did a North American "N" line, I would probably be all over it. I am totally not into the current line though.

[Missaberoad]

Perhaps if the manufacturer were flooded with enough requests over the coming months (years   ) they would be more inclined to put a new line into production.

Everyone who wants needs to provide some free market research. 

[VonRyan]

The thing is Peco track ties aren't British prototype -- it's just the version they came up when they started making track. I assume because the "Set Track" versions were basically toy train set tracks.

But Peco ties are British prototype... They're a British manufacturer...

[robert3985]

Drift is a prerequisite to Railwire thread conclusion.

That said, if Peco ever did a North American "N" line, I would probably be all over it. I am totally not into the current line though.

It's not thread drift I'm having a problem with.  Some of my very best posts have been due to the subjects that appear when the thread's direction drifts from the OP's original intent.

What I am having a problem with is the subject of Peco 55 N-scale track, and the fantasy that they should follow their HO scale American Prototype product's conception and implementation both of which are favorite subjects of mine.

I have written about it so many times here and on other forums that I hisitate to do it again because the evidence is mounting that it's the personification of "beating a dead horse".

I notice @peteski Peter has not joined in either.  Perhaps he is feeling somewhat the same as me.

Oh well...here goes!

Fact #1: Peco C55 N scale track, with the buried second rail foot is a superb design, which...if evaluated the way it should have been, should have allowed Peco to make the very best, the most prototypical looking N-scale track ever made.
Fact #2: Peco CHOSE to design it to look toylike, not because it is necessary, but for some unknown reason.  Peco already had the drawings and diagrams to manufacture 1:160th scale track based on real A.R.E.A. drawings because of their HO scale C83 trackage products based on the same drawings.  Doing the same in N-scale would have been a logical next step.
Fact #3: Make no mistake, Peco C55 N-scale track representing track with wooden ties, does not look like ANY prototype track anywhere.  It is NOT made to look like British Bullhead trackage, nor British FlatBottom trackage, nor any other country's trackage.  It most closely looks like what was first available in N-gauge toy train sets back in the middle 1960's.  You don't manufacture injection molding tooling by guessing at the dimensions of what you're doing.  Peco did it on purpose and they made a very big mistake.
Fact #4: Peco's two turnout types ( Insulfrog & Electrofrog) were ancient and obsolete designs (electrically) when introduced.  Their new Unifrog design complies with common sense turnout electrical design that has been around for decades...FINALLY! We're only 19.75 years into the 21st Century. TOOK YA LONG ENOUGH!!  Only problems are the plastic guardrails, the weird-looking closure point rails, the funky looking (still) throwbar and the equally funky looking tie spacing/dimensions.

If Peco would have used their head and looked at what was happening to N-gauge...it was turning into N-SCALE with Kadee N-scale couplers, Kadee low-profile wheelsets, Rail-Craft C70, C55 and C40 flex with ultra small spikehead details and North American tie sizes and spacing...they could have, without any extra effort, made their brand-new track products the cutting edge from an appearance standpoint, from a functional standpoint, and from an electrical standpoint.  Peco chose to ignore emerging N-scale trends and believe that toylike N-gauge would remain the dominant direction of model trains running on 9mm gauge track.

Since Peco needed to draw their own custom rail anyway, it would not have cost any more to make the railhead width and height, the railfoot width and height and the overall visible height within prototoype A.R.E.A. rail profile dimensions....Code 46 being the height of A.R.E.A. 136lb steel rail.

Since the buried 2nd railfoot is what holds the rails and ties together with the Peco buried 2nd railfoot design, tie plate and spike head details could have easily been made totally prototypical...scale sized spike heads...since they would be purely cosmetic.

Of course, making the ties at least scale length, scale width and spaced a scale distance apart would have been simple.  The buried railfoot design may have mandated they be taller than prototypical, but since they're buried in ballast or dirt 99% of the time anyway, we could have lived with that.

Turnouts would have looked a lot like ME #6's, except with more correct visible rail profiles (particularly with a narrower rail head), correct turnout tieplates, reinforcing plates and scale-sized spikeheads.  With a bit of extra effort, nickel silver guardrails, frog and triple-planed closure point rails would have been perfect.  Additionally, a much more prototype appearing throwbar could have easily been designed...even with the over-center spring keeper mechanism.  All with isolated frogs and DCC friendly rail configuration of course.

Finally, with a properly designed injection mold tool, substituting a lower height rail, frog, and guardrails into the injection mold tool would provide .040" tall siding, spur, industrial and branchline shorter trackages, contrasting very nicely with the C46 mainline heavily trafficked trackage.

If Peco would have done that, or if Rail-Craft would have designed and manufactured at least three more turnouts, I probably would have never learned to hand-lay my own turnouts because there wouldn't have been a need for me to learn.

That said (again and again) I think there is a bias in Peco's thinking toward N-scale, and that we are unlikely to see an N-scale equivalent of their HO-scale C83 track products, even if we petition them repeatedly.  Too bad, they could corner the N-scale market with a rail product that is truly 1/160th scale.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore