Peco 9 inch radius electrofrog points

[rod335]

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.

[danny]

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).

[Hobby]

cost 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?

[cp.409067]

*

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

[danny]

*

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

[cp.409067]

[/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

[Hugh Norwood]

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.

[B.Meldon]

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

[B.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

[rod335]

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.

[danny]

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.

[rod335]

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!

[B.Meldon]

................... 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

[danny]

................... 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

[rod335]

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.