Am I correct in thinking these are not currently in production? All the ones I can find (009 or N) are either insulfrog or a larger radius.
You are, it was decades ago when they were last made! Shame though, I think many people would like to see their return...
Quote from: Hobby on December 24, 2017, 15:10
You are, it was decades ago when they were last made! Shame though, I think many people would like to see their return...
*
If Blair will be kind enough to permit the observation -
"Hear, hear!"
In this matter I heartily agree. Well said Blair.
[And declaring an interest, not only would they be appreciated by "OO9" and "HOe" modellers, but could also be of considerable value to of us who might want to contemplate minimum space layouts in "O9".]
CP
Quote from: Hobby on December 24, 2017, 15:10
You are, it was decades ago when they were last made! Shame though, I think many people would like to see their return...
I thought so. Are they to return as part of the changes to Peco's ranges of 009 track?
I think I heard in the past that they were to have been introduced as Electrofrog but tooling difficulties arose. So they were introduced with dead frogs but with the understanding that they would be retooled with live frogs in due course. Mind you, when that might be is anyone's guess.
Quote from: rod335 on December 24, 2017, 18:39
I think I heard in the past that they were to have been introduced as Electrofrog but tooling difficulties arose. So they were introduced with dead frogs but with the understanding that they would be retooled with live frogs in due course. Mind you, when that might be is anyone's guess.
It's a shame as the smaller radius is useful for industrial prototypes, which also tend to be the ones with 4 wheel locos for which plastic frogs are more of a problem. I think for now I will have to investigate other options. The flywheel in the new Minitrains locos is already reducing the number of stalls so it may just be a case of adapting the points to have a shorter dead section. The layout on which I'm currently working has N gauge track with alternate sleepers removed to give a Hudson/Decauville sectional track sort of feel, but if they aren't available in N either that's beside the point.
Quote from: rod335 on December 24, 2017, 18:39
I think I heard in the past that they were to have been introduced as Electrofrog but tooling difficulties arose. So they were introduced with dead frogs but with the understanding that they would be retooled with live frogs in due course. Mind you, when that might be is anyone's guess.
My understanding was that the original intent had been that they be "unifrog". This would have permitted their use as live frog or insulated. Sadly this was changed to "insulfrog" much to the huge disappointment of those of us whose exhibition experience means we know the value of "electrofog" types.
CP
Quote from: cp.409067 on December 24, 2017, 16:46
If Blair will be kind enough to permit the observation -
"Hear, hear!"
In this matter I heartily agree. Well said Blair.
:)
Nice to end the year like this, Chris! I only tend to use 9" in the fiddle yards, but there they are a great space saver!
My understanding was that the original intent had been that they be "unifrog". This would have permitted their use as live frog or insulated. Sadly this was changed to "insulfrog" much to the huge disappointment of those of us whose exhibition experience means we know the value of "electrofog" types.
CP
[/quote]
You are I think correct as the original Unifrog idea had to be abandoned because of product problems. Peco make them in larger gauges where they have proved popular.
I have used the Insulfrog versions very successfully in exhibition conditions. Unless you have dodgy locos then 0-4-0 locos will work fine with these at sensible speeds. There are many myths about dead frog points. If they were as unreliable as people suggest on the forums then the majority of manufacturers who make these instead of live frog would not do so.
I would suggest that you give them a try before dismissing them.
Quote from: jimowers on December 25, 2017, 12:14
You are I think correct as the original Unifrog idea had to be abandoned because of product problems. Peco make them in larger gauges where they have proved popular.
I have used the Insulfrog versions very successfully in exhibition conditions. Unless you have dodgy locos then 0-4-0 locos will work fine with these at sensible speeds. There are many myths about dead frog points. If they were as unreliable as people suggest on the forums then the majority of manufacturers who make these instead of live frog would not do so.
I would suggest that you give them a try before dismissing them.
I have read elsewhere on the forum your suggestion of using phone vibration motors underneath 90 degree crossings. Would this also work for Insulfrog points? (Incidentally I note that in some other gauges first radius electrofrogs are not always available.)
In 9mm gauge Unitfrog design points still have a dead section that can cause locos to stall. At about 2mm long it is not as big as a complete plastic frog, but it is far from ideal. In larger scales or with locos with multiple wheels and contacts this is not a issue, but it would be in 009.
I was told some time ago that an electrofrog version of the 9 inch 009 points will be developed, but it is not a priority for development at Peco.
It should be noted that a 9 inch radius 009 electrofrog point would require unique metal rail parts different to those used in the N gauge inch points that are all dead frog.
The 9 inch dead frog, 12 inch, 18 inch Y and
Quote from: B.Meldon on December 27, 2017, 12:36
In 9mm gauge Unitfrog design points still have a dead section that can cause locos to stall. At about 2mm long it is not as big as a complete plastic frog, but it is far from ideal. In larger scales or with locos with multiple wheels and contacts this is not a issue, but it would be in 009.
I was told some time ago that an electrofrog version of the 9 inch 009 points will be developed, but it is not a priority for development at Peco.
It should be noted that a 9 inch radius 009 electrofrog point would require unique metal rail parts different to those used in the N gauge inch points that are all dead frog.
The 9 inch dead frog, 12 inch, 18 inch Y and
It doesn't actually matter how long we spend debating/arguing about this here. My understanding is that 9" radius points , whether N gauge or 009, require different tooling from all other N gauge and 009 points and that tooling, for whatever reason, has not been done yet. When it has been done and I have no knowledge of when that might be, unifrog points will appear. Until then all you can do is wait. But for what it is worth, I have yesterday and today been using my N gauge Setrack test track with the dead frog points and my four-wheeled Rustons with a wheelbase of 10.5mm, run through them without stalling at any speed.
Quote from: rod335 on December 27, 2017, 18:19
It doesn't actually matter how long we spend debating/arguing about this here. My understanding is that 9" radius points , whether N gauge or 009, require different tooling from all other N gauge and 009 points and that tooling, for whatever reason, has not been done yet. When it has been done and I have no knowledge of when that might be, unifrog points will appear. Until then all you can do is wait. But for what it is worth, I have yesterday and today been using my N gauge Setrack test track with the dead frog points and my four-wheeled Rustons with a wheelbase of 10.5mm, run through them without stalling at any speed.
I would be happy to keep using them, I was just curious about the availability of live frog points and the possibility of saving myself trouble later on. From experimenting so far I think the flywheel on the new Minitrains locos has ironed out most of the problems I have experienced with dead frogs and 4 wheel locos in the past. A little more thought on my part could perhaps have avoided a situation where the loco has to be stopped so close to the point, but obviously having track that is clean and level also helps. The other options that I can see are either to build a point from scratch (which I don't think I currently have the skills for) substantially rebuild the set track point (possibly more complex than starting from scratch) or find and expensively buy a second hand one from when they were previously manufactured. This all takes up a huge amount of time on what was supposed to be a quick project so I think for now I will keep the set track point and work round any slight problems it might throw up.
What mystifies me whenever we discuss this is that they DID produce them at one point (!) so what happened to the tooling that they used?
They were electro frog, not the now favoured unifrog. As far as Peco are concerned it is a very simple equation. Does the cost of retooling represent a commensurate increase in sales? Bear in mind that the vast majority of 9" radius points sold are N gauge and N gauge modellers probably don't notice the difference and care even less.
Quote from: rod335 on December 28, 2017, 11:07
They were electro frog, not the now favoured unifrog.
Why is unifrog now preferred? Are they better or simply easy to manufacture? I think the problem with small radius points, and with 'first radius' in 00, is that they are perceived to appeal more to the 'train set' market (even when a small radius may be accurate for industrial and/or narrow gauge prototypes or necessary on smaller layouts) and so manufacturers make them with dead frogs (easier for a beginner to use).
Quote from: rod335 on December 28, 2017, 11:07cost of retooling
The point I made is that they had the tooling back then, in fact I think they made dead and live frog versions at the same time... So what happened to the tooling for the live frog version?
*
Once again I think Blair makes a valid comment.
In my possession are a small number of the old 9ins Electrofrog points bought second hand whenever I could find them. I have been acquiring them for a project I might one day build in "O9".
For some of my larger scale (1:34 and 1:25) layouts I wanted sharp radius 16.5mm gauge Electrofrog points. As Danny says the smallest radius from Peco in code 100 is the Setrack point that only comes as Insulfrog. Fortunately it is not too difficult to change them to Electrofrog by the following method.
[I have successfully done this on a number of occasions and the points have given good continuing service under exhibition conditions.]
[1] Remove the plastic frog.
[2] Slide the rails along to make a new "Vee" and solder together.
[3] Remove the small amount if plastic between the blades and the wing rails.
[4] Slide the wing rails towards the blades and solder together.
[5] Wire the blades and new frog as one electrical unit.
[That power can be picked up from the wing rails (including by the back of the wheels) means the modification works well.]
I have considered doing the same thing to an "N" gauge 9ins radius Setrack point. However, the fact that the wing rails are not metal would probably make the conversion somewhat less successful. If it did work, presumably the same procedure could be applied to a 9ins rad "OO9" point.
*****
There is a German company (name escapes me) that supply a complete metal frog and wing rail unit that could be spliced into an Insulfrog point. I am not sure if these are available for the "N" gauge 9ins radius Setrack point and imagine the price is quite high.
CP
Quote from: cp.409067 on December 28, 2017, 16:07
*
Once again I think Blair makes a valid comment.
In my possession are a small number of the old 9ins Electrofrog points bought second hand whenever I could find them. I have been acquiring them for a project I might one day build in "O9".
For some of my larger scale (1:34 and 1:25) layouts I wanted sharp radius 16.5mm gauge Electrofrog points. As Danny says the smallest radius from Peco in code 100 is the Setrack point that only comes as Insulfrog. Fortunately it is not too difficult to change them to Electrofrog by the following method.
[I have successfully done this on a number of occasions and the points have given good continuing service under exhibition conditions.]
[1] Remove the plastic frog.
[2] Slide the rails along to make a new "Vee" and solder together.
[3] Remove the small amount if plastic between the blades and the wing rails.
[4] Slide the wing rails towards the blades and solder together.
[5] Wire the blades and new frog as one electrical unit.
[That power can be picked up from the wing rails (including by the back of the wheels) means the modification works well.]
I have considered doing the same thing to an "N" gauge 9ins radius Setrack point. However, the fact that the wing rails are not metal would probably make the conversion somewhat less successful. If it did work, presumably the same procedure could be applied to a 9ins rad "OO9" point.
CP
Does sliding the rails along not affect the curvature of the diverging track and the geometry generally?
Danny
[/quote]
Does sliding the rails along not affect the curvature of the diverging track and the geometry generally?
Danny
[/quote]
*
Yes, I suppose it does. But it is marginal and proved to be no problem with 16.5mm track. It does of course mean that the stock rails beyond the frog need to be very slightly trimmed back if one wants rail joints to be level.
CP
I have not used insul-frog points, so I do not comment on the pros and cons of their use. Some modellers use them in our scale with no problems, so I believe.
I use electrofrog points on my layout and I am very happy with how they work.
When I first heard about the new-style uni-frog points, I immediately thought that I would like to try them out. And the piece in a recent Railway Modeller has only sharpened my curiosity. What I will NOT do, however, is comment on them until I have had the chance to try them out.
However, I think it does the reputations of certain modellers no good whatever to criticise new technology when they have not had the opportunity to try it for themselves.
The tooling for the old 9 inch Peco 009 points wore out.
They started production in about 1970 in dead frog form and were later changed to electrofrog in about 1974 following many requests from 009 modellers.
Production of the 9 inch points stopped in 1980 as the moulding dies had worn out and required replacement.
From what I have been told the production methods and materials used resulted in more ware in the dies for these early points than the later ones and the new moulding dies also coincided with advances in production at the factory. (Possibly a new injection moulding machine with different sized moulding dies???)
As far as I know Peco never produced 9 inch N gauge electrofrog points so the rail sections used in the early 9 inch 009 points were unique.
At the time there was a strong desire from many modelling in 009 for larger radius points so Peco produced the 12 inch left and right points and the 18 inch Y point using the same metal rail sections as their N gauge points.
Brian Meldon
I have in the past used the old Peco 9 inch dead frog 009 points.
Unlike Rod I did have problems with locos stalling on the dead frogs and as a result I would never use a dead frog of any type on a layout again.
I have lost count of the 009 layouts I have seen that have had problems with locos stalling on dead frogs over the years. (Most using N gauge points.)
I have not used them myself but I have also seen several layouts in the past year that have had problems with locos stalling on the new 9 inch dead frog 009 points. These locos include the Kato chassis, Roco 0-6-0 diesels, Minitrains 0-4-0
I have to say I am completely baffled by your last post Brian. My Bachmann Skarloey and Rheneas, along with other locos including a Portram powered RT Lister, all run perfectly through the Peco dead frog setrack points. I don't know what people have been doing to their Bachmann locos to stop them doing this. The chassis on mine are completely unaltered (except for a Meridian Slimline siderod kit on Skarloey) and I would be extremely annoyed if they did not work with the points as my own chassis all do without exception. I can't see that I am particularly lucky in any way, are others unlucky? Whilst most people furiously clean both track and wheels, I do neither, maybe they omit to clean (and adjust) pickups, which are just as important, if not more so, to good running? It does worry me slightly that you state, regularly and definitively, that 009 chassis will not run through Peco deadfrog points when quite clearly they will. Several members of SWOONS use these points without problem. If they experienced problems they would change them. I have to say I would not use dead frog points from choice, but they DO work. I am sure that any members who come to our open day at Ilton on 13 January will be able to see dead frog points working for themselves. If I knew how to post a video on this forum showing these points in operation I would do so just to lay this repeated fallacy to rest.
Does reliable operation through dead frog points perhaps depend on the ability to maintain a reasonable speed through the frog area, something which is easier or harder to do depending on the location of the point on the layout? I am finding that my new Minitrains loco will run smoothly through the point (most of the problems have arisen from accidentally shutting off power while on the frog due to the short siding beyond rather than stalling). I haven't tried my older locos yet. While I am obviously not expecting them all to be quite as good, I do think the smooth and clean track (relative to previous layouts where I have had problems) will help to reduce the number of stalls to a low enough level to be acceptable. While some modellers are sceptical about flywheels, I think the ones fitted to Minitrains locos must give them a slight advantage, making the loco slow to a stand more gradually, so that, by the time it is ready to stop, it is back on the live rail.
Speed will always help dodgy running whatever the cause. But I try to run all my locos at realistic, low, speeds. Flywheels do help, if I had room I would fit them wherever possible, in preference to using the space for other things such as decoders but most of my locos are too small for either and the ones that use coreless motors do not have double-ended shafts to allow fitment anyway. But, as I said before, I and others in our group do find it perfectly possible to get good running over dead frog points. It is NOT impossible. As I said in a previous post, I would not use dead frog points from choice but I am also increasingly coming to the conclusion that I do not really want to use Peco track either because of the over-large rail section. Nothing wrong with the products apart from that but I strongly suspect they will never produce track with smaller section rail because of compatibility problems. It is a pity when you reflect of the fact that the present rail section was determined 52 years ago by the enormous flanges on Arnold and Minitrix N gauge stock. We have come quite a long way since then but track standards haven't!
Quote from: rod335 on January 02, 2018, 09:59
................... It is a pity when you reflect of the fact that the present rail section was determined 52 years ago by the enormous flanges on Arnold and Minitrix N gauge stock. We have come quite a long way since then but track standards haven't!
But the Arnold chassis wheel flanges are too large for all the 009 and N gauge Peco point frogs and always have been!
Even with the old 1970
Quote from: B.Meldon on January 02, 2018, 10:29
Quote from: rod335 on January 02, 2018, 09:59
................... It is a pity when you reflect of the fact that the present rail section was determined 52 years ago by the enormous flanges on Arnold and Minitrix N gauge stock. We have come quite a long way since then but track standards haven't!
But the Arnold chassis wheel flanges are too large for all the 009 and N gauge Peco point frogs and always have been!
Even with the old 1970
I think their use of the 009 rail section, sorry I don't know what code it is, is all about compatibility with previous sales. I believe the code 75 track (which is probably H0 rather than 00) is to favour their (huge) US market. I have some 2mm Association code 40 fb rail which looks lovely. The 009 rail is a rather strange profile, narrow in the head and foot but overly tall and looks horrible in photographs.
Peco use code 80 for OO9 track and the rest of Europe use code 83, Rod. The Code 80/83 is pretty close to the Real Thing on the more commercial 750/760mm lines I've visited (JHMD, Ziller, Pinzgauer, Saxon lines, etc.), I've measured the rail on them at several locations and it's been around 6.5ins high which equates to 1.9mm in HO scale (just over 2mm in OO) and as code 80/83 is roughly 2mm it's not far out. For older or less heavy rail then I'd have thought that code 55/60 would be a reasonable compromise bearing in mind overscale flanges on most OO9/HOe stock.
With regard to code 75, yes I suspect that the SG stuff is HO rather than OO, though Peco also do a code 75 Bullhead where the sleeper size and spacing is more OO than HO.
I think Tillig et al also use code 83 for H0 standard gauge, as does the new Peco 'American' (different pattern of sleepers) H0 track. Out of interest what do Peco use for 6.5mm and 12mm gauges?
Following on from Rod's comments on the other thread, I believe they use their code 60 for their Z track which would explain the unusual section (it's OO scale third rail rail) and the fact it's slightly bigger than marklin Z which I think is code 55.
Just been doing some measurements (all in mm):
Marklin Z 1.55
Peco Z 1.61
Peco code 60 1.61
Peco HOm 1.91 (?)
Peco Code 80 2.01
Peco Crazy 2.01
Peco Mainline 2.01
Roco/Lilliput/Tillig HOe 2.03
I could do with someone else measuring the HOm rail to double check, I can't see peco using an odd rail section just for HOm, I only had a single piece of flexi track to measure, I couldn't find my points.
Quote from: Hobby on January 02, 2018, 19:10
Just been doing some measurements (all in mm):
Marklin Z 1.55
Peco Z 1.61
Peco code 60 1.61
Peco HOm 1.91 (?)
Peco Code 80 2.01
Peco Crazy 2.01
Peco Mainline 2.01
ROCO/Lilliput/Tillig HOe 2.03
I could do with someone else measuring the HOm rail to double check, I can't see peco using an odd rail section just for HOm, I only had a single piece of flexi track to measure, I couldn't find my points.
It would seem strange for the H0m to have a smaller section than 009 track. However, on prototype lines gauge and rail weight are not always related. A light hand worked 2ft gauge line would have lighter rail than some heavily used 15" lines. I have some old Gem 00n3 (or is it meant for TT?) track which is stored alongside lengths of 00 code 100 and from a distance it can be hard to tell the difference, so that must have quite large rail section. I could be wrong but I think 12mm gauge is unusual in that, because 00n3/0012/H0m are more popular than TT, it is only produced by Peco with narrow gauge sleepers, the reverse situation to other gauges. I remember seeing a Railway Modeller article a few years ago where a 3mm standard gauge modeller had used H0m track and compromised on the sleepers, much as 009 modellers sometimes use N gauge track where an 009 equivalent is not available. Some of my early 009 layouts used a random selection of N gauge set track curves bought second hand (of which I still haven't used a couple) and the Minitrix ones seemed to have a different rail height from the Peco as there were bumps at some of the joins.
Quote from: Hobby on January 02, 2018, 19:10
Just been doing some measurements (all in mm):
Marklin Z 1.55
Peco Z 1.61
Peco code 60 1.61
Peco HOm 1.91 (?)
Peco Code 80 2.01
Peco Crazy 2.01
Peco Mainline 2.01
Roco/Lilliput/Tillig HOe 2.03
I could do with someone else measuring the HOm rail to double check, I can't see peco using an odd rail section just for HOm, I only had a single piece of flexi track to measure, I couldn't find my points.
It should be noted when reading these rail heights that the older Arnold N gauge wheel flanges are 2mm deep, so it is easy to see why they do not like the frog depth in the Peco 009 points.
Brian Meldon
Quote from: danny on January 02, 2018, 20:33
It would seem strange for the H0m to have a smaller section than 009 track. However, on prototype lines gauge and rail weight are not always related.
I suspect this is partly due to the degree of fineness of scale of the models as much as relationship to prototype, along with backwards compatibility with earlier models. I wonder how HOm track compares to old Triang TT track in terms of profile and specifications? I can remember being bowled over by the quality and detail of commercial HOm models at exhibitions a good few years ago when 009/HOe seemed clunky in comparison in many cases.
The Triang track was big, Graeme, think Super 4 standards, definitely not compatible... However the locos had quite fine flanges compared to their OO scale equivalents, and would work on Peco 12mm gauge track!! Like many OOn3 modellers I used the Jinty and 2-6-2T chassis on 3MM Society track and handbuilt points by 3SMR.
I checked a length of PECO H0m track a couple of days ago (but have been unable to post until now). It is indeed code 75, so lower than the 009/N code 80. I believe it to be the same as the 00 standard gauge rail section, which would be logical in view of reducing the number of sections that PECO make. As such, the head is wider than the 009 rail, and IMHO would not look right for that track, although I agree that the height of code 80 looks too large, especially from the side view.
I have used code 60, which was originally made as 00 conductor rail, and this is better for height, but still a little wide for 00 narrow gauge. For more recent models, I have gone back to code 80, but use the more modern mainline track.
All of this is getting away from the original topic of 9" radius points!
Thanks for that, Elmgate, that would make sense with regard to the Peco SG track...
I find once you've weathered the track the discrepancies are hardly visible unless you are actively looking for it...
Quote from: Hobby on January 05, 2018, 11:12
Thanks for that, Elmgate, that would make sense with regard to the Peco SG track...
I find once you've weathered the track the discrepancies are hardly visible unless you are actively looking for it...
Yes. Remember the code number is 1000ths of an inch, so the difference between code 75 and 80 is only about a scale 1/2". So is the larger 009 rail section purely to allow compatibility with older stock?
I suspect it is to keep it compatible with older product. And, sorry to say, the standard 009 rail section, to me at least, does look grossly oversize in photographs. The narrow rail section, particularly the head, means it doesn't look too bad for overhead shots but sideways on it is very 'mainline'-ish. Not at all suitable for light UK prototypes.