mechanical

Good summary. Besides the sidebar on 'old school' mechanical approaches to switching frog polarity, you pretty much ignored that as an option. It would have been nice to throw that into the price comparison mix. 

To my way of thinking, it's a lot cheaper than frog juicers and just as good. I know people who like the frog juicers will say "but shorts! shorts!". But really what's the advantage of avoiding a short at the frog if you then derail at the points when you go through a turnout set against you?  

You need short protection for DCC anyway. A frog juicer with a loco with stay alive run through a turnout the wrong way still does not run like a dream, it derails. 

It's clearly a 'don't do that' diagnosis case. 

So if you're not going to be frequently running through turnouts the wrong way, what's the advantage of a frog juicer over a mechanical polarity solution? 

Yes, in a club environment, the short shuts down other operators too, but for a single operator at home running one train, I think a short is no worse than a derailment. 

People who use servos can, for just a couple bucks, power their frog too by adding a switch, or if you're already paying for tortoise turnout motors, the added cost is just a foot of green wire.

To me a frog juicer doesn't justify its price differential over those disrespected "old school" solutions. 

Simplifying your life with simpler turnout control

I've decided for my Siskiyou Line 2 layout, powered turnout throws are overkill. I'm just doing the center over springs and nothing underneath the layout. Without the need for a Tortiose or similar powered throw, the wiring and complexity underneath the roadbed disappears and I save myself $11-$12 per turnout.

So I instead spend that $12 on frog juicers since I'm doing "finger flicking" turnouts.

Some of the more impressive layouts I've seen have avoided Tortoises or similar completely. Mike Confalone's layout uses finger flicking turnouts and it's great ... just reach in and throw the turnout you want. Super easy.

Recently, we covered the huge K10 layout. They also use finger flicking points with nothing under the layout to operate the turnouts. With over 400 turnouts, having nothing under the layout that needs maintenance pays huge dividends.

Yes, frog juicers go under the layout, but they can be placed in a convenient location and you run just one wire to the frog and you're done. Meanwhile mechanical solutions require installation and tuning -- and the big one -- maintenance and adjustment. Frog juicers are install and forget -- and the part that does the switching can be conveniently located for easy service.

P.S. I'm finding that because I now have to LOOK at the layout to throw the points, I am much more likely to not miss throwing the turnout. Having to look away to the fascia or having to key some accessory throw code on my throttle takes my eyes off the layout and I more often forget to throw the turnout. This is one case where low tech is way better (center over springs vs Tortoise or servos / solenoids with contacts.)

  "So I instead spend that

My new layout takes it one step further and uses keep alive caps to eliminate the frog juicers. Since I have about 40 turnouts and  only need about 5 engines it's a sweet trade off. If I had 40 engines needing keep alives installed in them I'd probably go the other direction  :> ) ......DaveB

No derail if frog is live

If the points are thrown against the train, won't it derail anyway, regardless of the polarity of the frog?

Look at the layout

I am an enthusiastic convert to finger-flick-with-juicers. Although I sometimes encounter minor problems with overcenter spring mechanisms, I've never had a single problem with any of the twelve hex frog juicers on my layout. They're so easy and convenient! 

But now I crave an equally robust animated switchstand solution for alignment indication, driven by the finger flick or some other "to scale" appliance. Looking at the points sometimes requires a non-prototypical walk to the far end of a yard or siding. Like many modelers before me, I developed wonderful rotating scale switchstand targets that were driven by the push-pull motion of fascia mounted linkage. 

I made the decision to abandon that strategy when I realized how much faster I could advance the progress on my layout using finger flick turnouts. Now my trackwork is complete and operations are wonderful but would be even better with swithstand targets that show turnout alignment from a distance! 

One of the delights of this hobby is solving problems introduced by solutions to other problems. 

Jeff Allen

Finger-flick switchstand indications

Dear Jeff,

It'll take some minor engineering, but Rapido offer the "pretty bit" of their RailCrew Racor switchstands as a standalone part (IE without the slap-slap motor and associated expense).

https://rapidotrains.com/products/railcrew/railcrew-ho-scale-switch-stand-kit-12-pack

In my current project, I'll be likely using them in "static" mode, but I can see a solution where:

- a 1 1/2" length of brass tube is mounted vertically in the roadbed beside the headblock ties
The top of the tube should be _just_ proud of the roadbed surface/approx equal with the vertical _middle_ of the ties

- a length of brass wire to suit the central rod of the Switchstands, and matching the ID of the brass tube,
is bent to form a shallow "T" shape
(The LH half of the top bar is 2" long and fits in the brass tube,
the "leg" forms a 0.0??" U crank,
and the RH half of the top bar starts as 2" long, forms the central rod of the switchstand, and will be trimmed to length/height later... something like the below).

I<    2"  > I  i<    2" > I
_______  _______
              U

- grab a length of 0.010" phosphor-bronze wire, long enough to reach from the brass tube to the throwrod, + maybe 1/2".
Form an eye in the end of the p-b wire,
slip it down the brass rod so it sits in elbow of the crank

- Turn the brass rod vertical, and insert it in the brass tube. It should bottom-out when the crank "U" is sitting on top of the brass tube, essentially putting the crank equal height with the _top_ surface of the ties, or right-around the height of the Throwbar.

- Slip the Switchstand parts down over the vertical rod, essentially assembling the switchstand in-situ.

- trim and link the p-b wire to the throwbar, such that when the turnout is mid-throw, the crank is perpendicular (90 degrees) to the throwbar. If you've engineered the length of the crank right, that should mean that the throw distance of the turnout throws the crank thru a 90degree arc, +/-45 degrees off perpendicular.

- with everything working as-expected, add the Switchstand targets as required and trim the brass rod to final height.

- and if you want to anchor the whole assembly down, bend the bottom 1/4 - 1/2" of brass rod that is protruding under the roadbed _beyond_ the bottom-end of the brass tube so the bend + crank stops the brass rod from sliding UP or DOWN thru the tube as it rotates...

...or something like that....

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS It might be worth reviewing the Rapido "how to install" YT,
if only to get ideas how to replace the motor and plastic crank-disk with a bent-brass-crank-rod...

An excellent, thoughtful

Mechanical

There are old school manual mechanical solutions for 1/2 to 1/3 the cost and provide visual indication of whether or not switches are lined against you and can power the frog.  The one common used around Omaha does take more time to fabricate and require a deeper benchwork (4" +-).  Its just a matter of what your priorities are.

Thanks Prof

You are amazing, sir! 

A little over a year ago I saw that Andy Reichert (www.proto87.com) was developing a super-thin etched brass gearbox specifically for this application so I bought a six-pack before he'd finished productizing the kit (i.e. no instructions or guidance were available). I figured out the basic idea but decided to shelve the project until I could see his implementation strategy explicitly, which I just now found is available on his site! 

Progress! 

Jeff Allen

The powered frog should just croak and be done with it...

Revenge on Galvani (the guy who made dead frogs jump with a little electrical juice in the 18th century)

Better and better keep alives until we approach the ultimate in realistic operation....dead rail!  I have already started down the WiFi command control path with a successful LocoFi install.

I do like Andy Reichert's turnout throws...Just wondering about the mechanical leverage support needed to mount the the under the table parts in a stable manner and the throw when the track baseboard is 1/2 inch foam board.

finger flick

Well, Joe, I stand by my point that you didn't fairly address the electro-mechanical juicing option in your article - you've rejected it as an option based on a separate personal decision about throwing the turnouts which wasn't disclosed. 

One could say you're ignoring the 20th century frog juicing 'best practices' solutions because you made a preceding decision in favor of a 19th century method of throwing your turnouts. 

We would gladly publish an article

If someone wants to write up an article on the other 20th century options as of this date, then we would gladly publish it.

I didn't write about it because it's not my area of expertise. I've always moved away from using Tortoises, servos, or solenoids for throwing my turnouts (used manual doorbolts on my SL1 layout). If I wrote about those powered throw methods, it would be me guessing.

So if someone who DOES have experience with these methods would like to write up a pros/cons of each article (Tortoises, servos, solenoids and using their contacts), I will publish it in a heartbeat.

targets .

   They sell dummy HO scale switch stands of various types that can be set up with targets on brass rods connected to the switch throw bar. Shouldn't be too hard for the average modeler to figure out the geometry needed to make them rotate 90 degrees. For my S scale layout I'm using HO scale Caboose industries switch stands with built in targets, very simple way to go.....DaveB 

Spring frog

So where did you find that turnout with the spring frog in the lead photo?  We had lots of them on the Southern back in the day.  Some are still out there.

Scott Chatfield

Spring frog

I had to look twice at that photo before I realized what it was.  I’ve read about them, but I’ve never seen one in person.

I think if a frog got caught in that, it would indeed get juiced. 

Alternative Type of Frog Juicer

I belong to the Model Electronic Railway Group ( MERG).

There are a couple of members who are developing a new type of frog juicer (FJ). I don't profess to know the principles involved but, although wired in the same way as a 'normal' FJ, it does not rely on detecting a short but rather on voltage differences. One of the objections to FJs, is that you have to have a short, however brief, to detect. This eliminates that problem. It will also cost less than any current commercial FJs

Lee Ward

Alternative juicer

Do you have any more details on that alternative juicer Lee?  It seems like they must have essentially figured out a way to detect turnout position without any sensors, which could be a pretty useful trick for other purposes as well.

ALternative juicer

Hi Ken

Unfortunately the electronics are beyond me and as the site is members only so I can't link to it. To give you an idea the discussion is now 455 posts long. However, examples have been built and tested and are in use on layouts. I know the big design driver was to avoid using shorts as the detection method a la Tam Valley etc.

From what I can gather the frog is held at a potential half way between the two running rails by a high impedance circuit. A PIC monitors this via opto-isolators and when it sees a swing either up or down it switches on the appropriate FET to power the frog. After a 4 second 'ON Time' it switches off the FET, if power to the frog is no longer required it stays off, if the frog is still occupied it switches back on for another 4 seconds. The off time is less than 4ms. However, this could be a completely over simplified explanation.

Lee

MERG kits : Broader availability?

Dear Lee,

Given this, copied from the MERG site:
(emphasis added)

https://www.merg.org.uk/kits.php

I'm unsure how available the MERG option would be to the broader "walk-up sale" Model RR marketplace,
irrespective of how much cheaper and/or superior the circuit design may be over the cost-effective, road-proven, and broadly-available TVD Frog Juicer? 

Happy Modelling,
Aiming to understand,
Prof Klyzlr

MERG Membership

With only an annual membership fee of  £16 (UK), £18 (Europe), £20 (RoW inc USA), it's not really a great deal especially with the added benefit of having on-tap a vast pool of knowledge. The current thinking is that the alternative Juicer would cost about £4 per turn-out

However, I wasn't really suggesting that it would take over the entire world market for FJs only that there are alternatives.

Lee

Alternative juicer

Lee, that explains it very nicely thanks!  I get the concept, neat idea.  I hope the effort succeeds and something becomes generally available.

I've decided for my Siskiyou

This is the choice I have settle on as well, in my case Peco electrofrog turnouts using TV Hex juicers to power the frog.

That is my line of thinking too.  Keep it simple with finger flick turnouts.  No need to spend time wiring control panels which take your eyes off the layout and action, and more chance for you to throw the wrong turnout by hitting the wrong button.  Simple and effective.  And cheaper than outfitting a large fleet of engines with Keep-Alive's.

Reasons why i would not choose your method"

- Keep-alive's cost about double what it costs to install a frog juicer, unit per unit.

- Keep-alive's mean you have to open up each engine and install, IMO, a more difficult and time consuming process than attaching a wire to a frog (Peco's already have the frog wire - snicker snack)

- I have probably about double the number of engines as I do turnouts planned, so more cost and time and complexity to outfit well over 100 engines vs. 50 or 60 turnouts, no thank you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad solution; but it is a more costly and time consuming option and requires some skill at disassembling a fleet of engines and installing the keep alive's, each engine being likely a new challenge to getting that job done.  That solution may be more workable for some who have completed layouts and the funds, time and skill for an engine upgrade project that could last for months, maybe years.

keep alives aren't just for frogs

If stuttering over frogs was the only reason to install keep alive caps, frog juicers would be a preferable alternative. But for buttery smooth, reduced maintenance operation over the entire layout, you'll want both.

I'm glad to see factory installed caps becoming more common. Installing them myself is one of the tasks I tend to put off. 

Jeff Allen

keep alives aren't just for

It's hard to disagree with the above, and if you've got plenty of money, time and skill, then that's a "belt and suspenders" solution.  In my case, I have limited time and money so, at least for now Joe's solution is the most attractive and logical one for me.   Sure, it would be nice to have all my engines with keep alive's, but for the present, I'm struggling to find time to work on the layout, let alone a major electronics project and the associated cost.

From what I understand, ScaleTrains has been factory installing some type of Keep Alive in their rivet counter engines, which I have been buying.  And if I find some engines needful of keep alive, I would consider installing a few; but a whole fleet of engines is out of the question right now.