I have a few small cast resin 009 loco bodies running on the Kato 4 wheel chassis, and they run perfectly through electrofrog points. However, these points are too large for the small layout I want to build and I am considering the much small points that are only available as insulfrog. Is anybody here currently using the 4 wheel chassis with insulfrog points, and if so do they run smoothly through them?
I'm a new member and this is my first post here - I have looked through older posts and cannot see a query like this.
The wheelbase of the Kato chassis is quite long so they should run through reasonably well. I've used Insulfrog points on an N gauge layout with short wheelbase locos. Some of Kato's own turnouts have insulated frogs and small locos are probably more likely to be run on compact layouts, especially as the chassis are from their 'Pocket Line' range. I doubt they would design chassis that would not run on their own track. That might be one reason the wheelbase is so long for such small models.
Live frog points will be more reliable but I do not think there is an absolute 'will they - won't they' divide. They may be less reliable if the loco is run through very slowly or stopped on the frog but taken at a reasonable speed they should be satisfactory.
There are several variables so I think it is hard to give a definitive answer.
Weighting the loco suitably may help. The newer version of the Kato chassis may be more reliable than the old one, having a flywheel (so I understand). Performance might be improved by looking very carefully to see if the wheels rise up or drop down as they go through the from as this will rock the chassis and lift another wheel. Fine-tuning the flangeway depth might help.
Thank you for the advice.
All the models use Kato chassis purchased in the last 6 months and are the current version, and all the bodies have had weight added since my experiments showed that this increased hauling power. One potential body kit purchase was abandoned after the seller confirmed that the kit had no cavity in which weight could be added. Some sellers always allow for weight to be added, and some appear to not even consider it, which is strange since the Kato chasses is made for an n-gauge tram model that presumably isn't expected to pull very much.
I will probably have to buy one insulfrog point and play with it.
I use insulfrog point for the same reason, the electrofrog version is too big. With the old Kato 103/104 chassis I used to have a lot of problems with locos stalling on insulfrog points especially at low speeds. I've now replaced all the chassis with the new 109/110 version and I find that the flywheel is enough to maintain the loco's movement through the points, unless of course the loco is running really really slow then then there could be a stall.
But generally, no I don't have problems with insulfrog points and the new Kato 109/110 chassis.
I built a small 009 layout for a grandson a year or so ago. As it was small I used a dead frog set track point. I built a loco for it using a new Kato chassis (109) and it had no problem with the point at all, it ran beautifully.
I think as well as the flywheel there is a small amount of compensation which helps keep all four wheels on the track, this helps with running through dead frog points as well.
Frank
Thank you for all the helpful replies - all my chassis are the 109 version, so I will try a setrack insulfrog point on a small test track. I know that Peco announced an electrofrog 9 inch radius point some years ago, but then appear to have abandoned it. Since points of this radius don't look ridiculous on 009 'industrial' layouts, and such layouts are likely to be populated by short wheelbase locomotives, it must be time for Peco to reconsider a modern electrofrog/unifrog version of the 9 inch radius point.
Peco used to make 9-inch electrofrog 009 points in the late 1970's and if you look long enough they do sometimes come up for sale. 009 Society sales has been the best place for these over the years. Production stopped in early 1980 as the masters (ie moulds) had worn out.
One problem Peco would have with making a 009 9-inch electroifrog point is that it would use rails that are unique to the 009 point and would have to be especially made for the 009 point only. All the other 009 points that are in production use rails that are also used in Peco's N gauge point range. The N gauge points outsell 009 points by some margin, so having to make rails just for the 009 point may not be cost effective.
In addition over the years Peco have no diubt experienced many users of electrofrog points having difficulty with the wiring, short circuits etc.. The entire idea behind the 'set track' range it to make it easy so having electrofrog point in that range would not be ideal.
From what I understand Peco did look in to producing a 'unifrog' version of the 9 inch 009 point, but these would still have a small dead plastic section, that would still casue issues with locos stalling at slow speeds and again the rails would be unique.
Thanks Brian, that is interesting but also raises the obvious question of: why do the 009 points require different types of rail to the standard N gauge ones particularly as (at least until recently and the 009 RTR revolution) a very large proportion of 009 locos and stock run on N gauge wheelsets?
Mick
Quote from: MickT on July 04, 2022, 11:40
Thanks Brian, that is interesting but also raises the obvious question of: why do the 009 points require different types of rail to the standard N gauge ones particularly as (at least until recently and the 009 RTR revolution) a very large proportion of 009 locos and stock run on N gauge wheelsets?
Mick
As far as I know the 12 inch and 18 inch Y and mainline 009 points do have the same rails as the Peco N gauge electriofrog points.
I think that the 9 inch dead frog set track 009 points also use the same rails as the 9 inch dead frog N gauge set track points.
However, Peco have never made a 9 inch N gauge electrofrog point. The only 9 inch electrofrog point was the 009 point of over 40 years ago.
Before buying a Setrack point to test with my Kato 109 chassis models, I have just tried insulating 1 cm of a piece of track with some masking tape, and running one of my models over it. At a very slow crawl there was sometimes a very slight hesitation (without stopping), but otherwise no problems. The chassis appears to allow some vertical movement of the wheels, which I assume must help keep contact with the rails.
I have just been to the Peco website (to get an idea of the size of the dead frog on the points) and found another problem: they no longer list the Setrack points as separate items, but only as part of 'starter sets'. I hope this is not permanent, and just a temporary situation.
*
ST-405 (right hand) - https://peco-uk.com/products/setrack-turnout-right-hand
- and ST-406 (left hand) - https://peco-uk.com/products/setrack-turnout-left-hand
- are currently listed as separate items on the Peco web-site.
CP
Thank you for the links - I had used the menu and search options and did not find these pages.
I never use deadfrog points.
It is just my opinion and also my experience over the years, and others may not agree but I have found that any deadfrog points on a 009 layout will give issues with stalling at slow speeds.
It is difficult enough to get good running in 009 at slow speeds, but to deliberately add in a section of plastic rail will only make things worse.
Regarding the Kato chassis, they may work ok in deadfrog points when new, but as with all chassis as they are used and start to wear the chances of one wheel lifting off the track momentarily will increase somewhat and with it the chances of stalling in the deadfrog points at slow speed.
In short I think it is a bad idea to spend a lot of time and money building a 009-layout using deadfrog points.
The 18-inch radius 009 electrofrog Y point is only 24mm longer than the set track point. Re-designing you track plan to incorporate these along with the 12-inch radius 009 electrofrog points that are 38mm longer should be possible. Even if this involves some simplification of the track plan, I am sure that in the long run this will prove a far better way forward than using the dead frog points.
The exit angle of all the 009 points is the same.
I have ordered one setrack point to experiment with before finalising a track plan. My problem is that since I will probably have to work with 90x60 cm, even the extra 38mm of an electrofrog point make a great different if I want to use two of them at either end of a passing loop at a small station. I will look more closely at the electrofrog Y points. The free Anyrail software I use make 'what if' ideas very easy to try, and proved very accurate when I had a very small OO gauge 'shunting plank' layout that has been abandoned in favour of 009 because I really want a loop so that I can relax and watch the trains go round.
What length train do you want to hold in the passing loop (at the risk of turning this into a layout design discussion)? :D
Quote from: Chester 009 on July 07, 2022, 21:43
I have ordered one setrack point to experiment with before finalising a track plan. My problem is that since I will probably have to work with 90x60 cm, even the extra 38mm of an electrofrog point make a great different if I want to use two of them at either end of a passing loop at a small station. I will look more closely at the electrofrog Y points. The free Anyrail software I use make 'what if' ideas very easy to try, and proved very accurate when I had a very small OO gauge 'shunting plank' layout that has been abandoned in favour of 009 because I really want a loop so that I can relax and watch the trains go round.
With a 60cm board you are looking at using 9 inch curves.
To extend the length of your station loop just place the points at the end of the curve, not on the stright. Looking at the front of the layout it will be a left hand point on the left and a right hand point on the right. There will still be enough room for the outer loop on a 60 cm deep board and for a train in the loop. This will also avoid having reverse curves in the passing loop can can cause couplings to lock up.
*
May I make reference to an excellent idea posited a couple of years ago by Neil Briggs for rendering Peco Setrack points live frog? The information is here on RMweb starting with Neil's post of 1 March 2020 and continuing to the end of the page.
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/125126-scarside-009-the-easy-way/page/6/
Unfortunately the photographs provided by Neil are no longer available, but the essence of his idea was to make the flangeways around the frog conductive by inserting strips of 0.4mm nickel silver. I imagine brass would work equally well.
The strips were connected to the frog and the polarity switched as a result, the intent being that the locomotive wheels could pick up electricity via the flanges.
In a subsequent post I suggested that the metal strips might be chemically blackened so that they became less noticeable whilst continuing to be electrically conductive.
CP
Quote from: cp.409067 on July 08, 2022, 14:24
*
May I make reference to an excellent idea posited a couple of years ago by Neil Briggs for rendering Peco Setrack points live frog? The information is here on RMweb starting with Neil's post of 1 March 2020 and continuing to the end of the page.
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/125126-scarside-009-the-easy-way/page/6/
Unfortunately the photographs provided by Neil are no longer available, but the essence of his idea was to make the flangeways around the frog conductive by inserting strips of 0.4mm nickel silver. I imagine brass would work equally well.
The strips were connected to the frog and the polarity switched as a result, the intent being that the locomotive wheels could pick up electricity via the flanges.
In a subsequent post I suggested that the metal strips might be chemically blackened so that they became less noticeable whilst continuing to be electrically conductive.
CP
Sadly although this did improve the situation in the end it was not a great success.
I have operated Neil's layout and had locos stall in the points at slow speed.
Just for a start there is a very wide range of wheel flange sizes in use.
I doubt that Neil would ever spend the time and effort building another layout with dead frog points again.
[/quote]
Sadly although this did improve the situation in the end it was not a great success.
I have operated Neil's layout and had locos stall in the points at slow speed.
Just for a start there is a very wide range of wheel flange sizes in use.
I doubt that Neil would ever spend the time and effort building another layout with dead frog points again.
[/quote]
*
Thank you for this update.
We are then back where many of us started - deeply disappointed that when Peco produced the current Setrack point they did not (as originally announced) make it with a "uni frog".
CP
Quote from: Chester 009 on July 04, 2022, 21:31
Thank you for the links - I had used the menu and search options and did not find these pages.
There's your problem, the Peco website navigation is not very good at all <rubbish>
I used to buy points on eBay, but don't anymore, unless they are listed as new old stock, as so many were not really useable that it didn't work out any cheaper.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/008/189/demotivational-posters-well-theres-your-problem6.jpg)
I too use set track points on micro layouts, and yes some locos will stall at slow speeds.
My Kato 103 locos are all slightly weighted so might stutter on the insulated bit only stall when crawling. The 109 and 110 based ones are ".. what insulated bit?" they just sail over.
Most others are fine too, but smaller 4 wheel locos would still stop for a breather as they went over.
However...
I am in the process of converting to DCC, and the addition of a stay-alive circuit completely overcomes this issue, and the occasional bit of dirt on the track. :-) However its not cheap!
Re. 'What length train do you want to hold in the passing loop (at the risk of turning this into a layout design discussion)?'
About 35 cm - one typical loco body on a Kato 109 chasses, plus 2 'kit bashed' ratio small grounded coach bodies which are about 12 cm each and a little space at each end. I have tried the electrofrog Y points on a curve using my Anyrail software, and can do it using setrack ST-403 transition curves at the toe end to link to 16-17 cm radius flexitrack, and got a 35 cm passing loop. My first attempt at 009 used the medium radius electrofrog points connected directly to flexitrack of this radius and I had derailment problems that were fixed by using the ST-403 pieces in this way. Perhaps it helps having a rigid piece of curved track in that position.
Quote from: cp.409067 on July 09, 2022, 01:27
Thank you for this update.
We are then back where many of us started - deeply disappointed that when Peco produced the current Setrack point they did not (as originally announced) make it with a "uni frog".
CP
There are still issues with unifrog points as they do have small plastic sections of track.
In practice it is just not possible to make these plastic section small enough so they do not cause four wheel locos to stall. It works ok with larger scales and with locos with more wheels that pick up, but again is not so good for the four-wheel pickup locos that proliferate in 009.
In short unifrog is not the answer for 009 points, what is needed are electrofrog points, just as was made by Peco in the 1970's.
In 009 we only had 12 inch points for over 30 years and we just planned our layouts around these.
Quote from: Stephen Rainsbury on July 09, 2022, 17:02
The 109 and 110 based ones are ".. what insulated bit?" they just sail over.
I now have one insulfrog point and a few bits of track to test it with, and my locos on the Kato 109 chassis run perfectly through it, even at a very slow crawl. The only problem was the fact that a minute particle of dust can insulate the contact where the hinged blade meet the side rail, which also occurs with the electrofrog points, so as always regular cleaning should be the answer. I cannot foresee being able to afford expensive models with wheelbases shorter than the 109 chassis, so will probably try a small layout using 4 or 5 insulfrog points with wire in tube control.
Glad you got it checked out and working to your satisfaction. I reckon you have gone about it in the right way.
Quote from: GraemeD on July 12, 2022, 15:33
Glad you got it checked out and working to your satisfaction. I reckon you have gone about it in the right way.
I note some comments about the older Kato 4 wheel chassis, but the 109 model appears to have improvements that make it practical for use with insulfrog points. Also, after re-appraising available space I have had to go for a 500 wide baseboard (probably a Grange and Hodder 914 x 500 mm plywood kit one), so the size and radius of the points is even more critical.
Quote from: Chester 009 on July 13, 2022, 22:32
Quote from: GraemeD on July 12, 2022, 15:33
Glad you got it checked out and working to your satisfaction. I reckon you have gone about it in the right way.
I note some comments about the older Kato 4 wheel chassis, but the 109 model appears to have improvements that make it practical for use with insulfrog points. Also, after re-appraising available space I have had to go for a 500 wide baseboard (probably a Grange and Hodder 914 x 500 mm plywood kit one), so the size and radius of the points is even more critical.
Obviously at the end of the day it is up to you what points you use.
As I have said before there is no way I would spend the time, money and effort building a layout with dead frog points.
Most chassis are good when new, but it is as they have use and start to ware that the stalling in dead frog points can become an issue.
Quote from: Chester 009 on July 13, 2022, 22:32
..... Also, after re-appraising available space I have had to go for a 500 wide baseboard (probably a Grange and Hodder 914 x 500 mm plywood kit one), so the size and radius of the points is even more critical.
*
There is no law that says 12ins radius (electrofrog) points have to be used with the same radius curves. A mix of these points with somewhat tighter radius track can and does work. I speak from experience.
[See for example the track plan of my "Pyn Valley Railway" - RM, November 2018, pp.917-921.]
CP
Quote from: cp.409067 on July 14, 2022, 10:42
There is no law that says 12ins radius (electrofrog) points have to be used with the same radius curves. A mix of these points with somewhat tighter radius track can and does work. I speak from experience.
An example of how that might be applied would be a passing loop starting on a curve of an oval where the curved road of the point acts as a sort of transition curve. There are some schools of layout design that would always include transition curves, though that is perhaps more of a standard gauge or mainline approach where prototype speeds are higher.
Quote from: B.Meldon on July 05, 2022, 08:14
The 18-inch radius 009 electrofrog Y point is only 24mm longer than the set track point. Re-designing you track plan to incorporate these along with the 12-inch radius 009 electrofrog points that are 38mm longer should be possible. Even if this involves some simplification of the track plan, I am sure that in the long run this will prove a far better way forward than using the dead frog points.
Although my experiments with insulfrog points have shown no problems with the Kato 4 wheel chassis, I have taken your advice about the electrofrog Y points and designed a small 915 x 500 mm layout that uses only them. There is not a straight bit of track anywhere, with curves varying from 14 cm radius up to about 40 cm on a longer side of the board. My experiments with the insulfrog points and tight curves on a small bit of board showed that the Kato chassis will happily run round 10 cm radius curves, and I don't anticipate affording any of the expensive ready to run models that need larger radii.
I wonder if it is possible to fit a stay alive capacitor to get around this issue? I have Googled it myself but there does not seem to be anything about fitting capacitors, at least for Kato chassis.
Reguarding the tighter curves, it is the coupling overhang that will be the first thing to give problems, not the actual locos.
With Meanderbahn that has 9 inch curves I only use locos with short coupling overhangs as well as almost every wagon and all coaches with couplings on bogies.
Stay-alives are really only for DCC.
(is the short answer).
Quote from: B.Meldon on March 29, 2023, 08:10
Reguarding the tighter curves, it is the coupling overhang that will be the first thing to give problems, not the actual locos.
With Meanderbahn that has 9 inch curves I only use locos with short coupling overhangs as well as almost every wagon and all coaches with couplings on bogies.
Yes, with my oval of track in a boxfile layout (radius 95 mm) I was aware of the potential issues and it was interesting to see how it played out and was prepared to abandon the project if it didn't work with the track secured (really secured using a No More Nails equivalent) to an MDF track base and weighted down flat while the adhesive set. My quarry Hunslets had no problem pulling Peco skips round but my Minitrains loco just pulled them off the track.The Minitrains loco have rigid couplings on the buffer beams whereas the quarry Hunslet coupling is sprung and can swing just enough from side to side. Coupling height may have played a part too, but it has not been an issue on other layouts.
It is possible to push the limits of track and operation but I think it comes with selecting and accepting limitations on what will run. I suggest getting that bottom right curve laid and tested with your stock ASAP, especially if laying flexible track there 'free style' without tracksettas or printed/drawn curves. There is the added complication of a tight curve and a transition to an incline so extra care may be needed to avoid twists in the track which could also affect running, so early testing is key I think.
Analogue stay alives seem to be available from Hobby trax but i'm not sure they would be suitable for a Kato chassis.
https://www.hobbytrax.co.uk/products/dc-analogue-stay-alive
Quote from: cnw6847 on March 29, 2023, 17:34
Analogue stay alives seem to be available from Hobby trax but i'm not sure they would be suitable for a Kato chassis.
https://www.hobbytrax.co.uk/products/dc-analogue-stay-alive
My opinion is that such things are largely snake oil. The main issue is that when they are most needed, that is when a locomotive is moving slowly they have have least effect. Moving slowly means of course the voltage on the capacitor is similarly low. The capacitor then contains only a tiny amount of energy. On the other hand when moving at high speed the capacitor is more fully charged and contains more energy. A lot more, as the energy stored goes up as the voltage squared.
The claims of an extra 46% coasting when the power is shut off may well be true but not necessarily useful if it is 46% of coming to an almost immediate halt. It should have a certain flywheel effect and that may be what is wanted if running vintage locomotives under trainset type operating conditions.
Quote from: GraemeD on March 29, 2023, 18:44
My opinion is that such things are largely snake oil. The main issue is that when they are most needed, that is when a locomotive is moving slowly they have have least effect. Moving slowly means of course the voltage on the capacitor is similarly low. The capacitor then contains only a tiny amount of energy. On the other hand when moving at high speed the capacitor is more fully charged and contains more energy. A lot more, as the energy stored goes up as the voltage squared.
The claims of an extra 46% coasting when the power is shut off may well be true but not necessarily useful if it is 46% of coming to an almost immediate halt. It should have a certain flywheel effect and that may be what is wanted if running vintage locomotives under trainset type operating conditions.
I am no expert, but I would imagine with some fancy electronics you could build some intelligence into it where current is stored and then released during times when it is needed most, i.e. low running speeds (I am thinking from a DC perspective, maybe DCC systems have that?). The stay alive advertised does not have any of that. So as you said, at best it will provide a small amount of simulated flywheel, but probably only for a second or two at best. But, then that might be enough to get the train over dirty spots on the track and prevent a stall. Its one of those suck it and see things.
Quote from: Justin Phillips on March 29, 2023, 23:31
Quote from: GraemeD on March 29, 2023, 18:44
My opinion is that such things are largely snake oil. The main issue is that when they are most needed, that is when a locomotive is moving slowly they have have least effect.
..
I am no expert, but I would imagine with some fancy electronics you could build some intelligence into it where current is stored and then released during times when it is needed most, i.e. low running speeds (I am thinking from a DC perspective, maybe DCC systems have that?). The stay alive advertised does not have any of that. So as you said, at best it will provide a small amount of simulated flywheel, but probably only for a second or two at best. But, then that might be enough to get the train over dirty spots on the track and prevent a stall. Its one of those suck it and see things.
What you say is true, but the 'fancy electronics' has to do pretty much all that either a DCC decoder with a stay-alive system or much of a radio control based system with added on-line battery charging - less the radio bit obviously. Instead, it needs sufficient onboard intelligence to take the voltage on the track whether it be the full 12 V or a slow running at say around 1 V. The track voltage is intermittent (the reason for it in the first place) and so it has to decide when it contains speed or stop information or is noise, and whether there is enough there to charge the battery and whether it can boost it to a charge value or turn off charging.
The solution is likely to be at least as complex and bulky as either DCC or radio control, require modification to the locomotive with little if any benefit over either.
Also it is likely to work only with 'pure DC' controllers or be clever enough to work out what sort of controller (pulsed full-wave rectified such as Gaugemaster, PWM, feedback and so on) and interpret the waveform as speed information.
I have sometimes wondered about trying to do the calculations for how long a stay alive would keep a loco running. There are just so many variables. One thing though, with a simple capacitor stay-alive, because of the square law for energy on a capacitor, if it were possible to achieve 1 second's worth of storage at 12 V then at slow running, say a tenth of that then there is one hundredth of the energy stored. Let us say 1/100th the distance. If the suppliers of the capacitor that claims an extra 46% coasting over no capacitor, which is presumably when running at speed then one might expect 1/100th of 46% when running at 1/10th speed.
Such things can keep the Electronics SIG amused for quite some time. ;D
My own take on this is that the wheelbase of the Kato tram chassis should be more than enough to bridge the gap on an insulfrog (dead frog) point, so if the track and wheels are clean things should be OK.
Where there are likely to be issues are when the point blade itself is 'dead' due to an accumulation of crud (technical term) isolating it from contacting the stock rail, as this will make the dead section much longer than the chassis wheelbase.
The other issue with the older type of Kato 4 wheel chassis (the 11-103 and 11-104) is a lack of contact between the pick up(s) and wheel(s). Whilst the chassis will still run if it's only picking up from 2 wheels - not necessarily on the same axle! - when the a wheel with pick up hits a dead frog there's no current going to the motor.
Quote from: JulienW on March 30, 2023, 12:39
My own take on this is that the wheelbase of the Kato tram chassis should be more than enough to bridge the gap on an insulfrog (dead frog) point, so if the track and wheels are clean things should be OK.
Where there are likely to be issues are when the point blade itself is 'dead' due to an accumulation of crud (technical term) isolating it from contacting the stock rail, as this will make the dead section much longer than the chassis wheelbase.
The other issue with the older type of Kato 4 wheel chassis (the 11-103 and 11-104) is a lack of contact between the pick up(s) and wheel(s). Whilst the chassis will still run if it's only picking up from 2 wheels - not necessarily on the same axle! - when the a wheel with pick up hits a dead frog there's no current going to the motor.
I have a Kato 109 chassis with no body that I use to test my track laying (it's the only functional "loco" I have at the moment) and it is a little sketchy even with "clean" track and electrofrog points. But then I realised of course it probably needs more weight! So I guess another aspect to this original question is how much is optimal weight to provide more adhesion, better electrical contact without putting too much strain on the motor?
I don't know the ideal weight but bear in mind that the chassis are from their Pocket Line range that have lightweight plastic bodies. I'm fairly sure there is no extra weight in them but I guess I could check my still intact tram. I put a diecast Chuggington Dunbar on the bogie version and it pretty much gave in, but that chassis is known to a more feeble than the four wheel version. I'd maybe try add weight bit by bit and see how much (or rather how little) it takes for reliable running.
I invested in one of the little electronic scales that are available. I was wondering why they were so cheap and readily available. Then the penny dropped. Fortunately I've not been raided. I've also got some tungsten putty as used by anglers which is convenient for adding weight temporarily but a bit expensive for general use.
Quote from: GraemeD on March 30, 2023, 16:12
I was wondering why they were so cheap and readily available. Then the penny dropped. Fortunately I've not been raided.
;D