May I ask where you got the

May I ask where you got the turnouts?

Peco Turnout Source

Wish the PM feature was with us. 

Hattons in the UK. I doubt any North American importers have been able to get them through the clogged supply chain blockage and Christmas mail issues. I used to model English prototype (I am ex pat English-hard to call it a UK these days) and have had an account at Hattons since 1985.  II have had maybe two problems in the last 20 years.  I think they are the largest retailer for Peco in the world so always have stock if it is to be had. Look under the Peco Manufacturer section to find 1:87 products.  Hattons deals worldwide and have international mails shipments pretty much under control with reasonably low costs.  About two weeks for delivery. No UK VAT offsets postage charges. Only Flex track is a bit of a problem as it has to be shipped by courier (DHL?) as it it is for outsize postal regulations.

Your situation with Canadian Customs may cause you problems.  US Customs considers these toys and not worth impounding for duty. They come through the regular post/mail dropped on my doorstep. 

UK exports to Canada

No tariffs on model railroad products (9503.00.90.20) imported into Canada from the UK, thanks to CETA/UKTCA.

The only costs would be any brokerage fees/sales taxes owed.

Frog area

Looks good.  Have you had a chance to buzz out (check with a continuity tester) the various pieces in the frog area to see what’s connected to what yet?

Congrats on the first score.

Congrats on the first score. Since I'm in Mexico, your tip about Hattons is helpful. Now that I'm going to have to buy peco flex track instead of ME, it may be cheaper for me to buy from the UK direct to Mexico than from a US retailer. And DHL is a good way to have something delivered here (the regular Mexican postal system is the pits).

I'm still waiting on a package (of letters) shipped from the US via USPS on November 11th to arrive. It took the USPS until Nov 26th to get it to Mexico, and the last tracking I have was Nov 29th when it cleared customs.  Then it disappeared into the black hole of the mexican postal system. I haven't given up hope yet as it's nothing valuable.  

But that's all off topic. Congrats on your purchase, they look good for starters!

Head Block Ties

Back when Peco announced all-new code 70 switches, I hoped that they would finally make a switch without their awful, oversize head block ties (with switch machine mounting slots). Oh well...

Peco Unifrog Wiring

They should be wired internally the same as the C83 versions. After all, it is essentially the same product with a different rail height.

Frog wiring

There appear to be two additional short rail segments in the frog area on the code 70 turnouts.  Together with the small frog point piece, they total about the same size as the single piece frog in other brands.  I’m curious what the two additional pieces are connected to.  Or if there are easy options for changing what they’re connected to.

I'm curious if Peco

I'm curious if Peco engineered the frog on the code 70 to mitigate shorting as they mentioned in an email I got from them:

Testing Peco Code 70 Turnouts and Package Wiring Information

This is an underside photo and photos of the package information and wiring diagram:

 
I will compose a second message on my testing this morning with a LH/RH pair of switches and transition tracks for Code 70/83 joins.

Testing Peco Code 70 Turnouts and Package Wiring Information 2

I published the photos of the turnouts and package information first. 

This morning I set up a temporary DCC hookup to the Peco Code 70 Turnout test bed.  I had not used my PowerCab which is normally used only for programming locomotives in some time and had to locate all the parts including an alternate power supply when my normal one turned out to be dead. 

As many of you will know I model SP in the early 1950's at the Port Costa engine facility. My "stud" reflects that era. For the testing I used both a Bachmann S4 and an Atlas S2 and then a somewhat modified Mehano 2-6-0 mogul that represents SP M4 1685, an engine that worked the both the SP Western and Sacramento Divisions at in the early 1950's. 

None of the track and turnouts are fastened down.  All are laid loose on Woodland Scenics foam roadbed. It is a bit of a "Rube Goldberg" setup only for temporary testing on the dining room table away from my regular 10 x 11 layout and office room. There is only one power feed at the end of the right most track. The new Code 70 turnouts (Peco SL-U7061 RH and SL-U7062 LH) have not been modified in any way. 

Before the engines were tried I tested continuity with a probe and alligator clip bulb tester. 

After a bit of tightening rail joiners to ensure contact I was able to run the Atlas S2 smoothly and reliably through the turnout configuration shown. The Bachman S4 is having intermittent contact problems that I verified on my regular layout. The Mehano Mogul 1685 surprised me and ran smoothly through all the turnouts without a problem with wheel flange depth. Only the drivers are original pizza cutters. The pony is a replacement adapted from a Bachmann Baldwin 2-8-0 and the wheels on the replacement  tender Andrews Trucks are IM Code 110 33 inch. The engine has a TCS K2 Keep Alive and runs through any dead turnout. 

Power from the single source was constant in the siding on the diverging route of the right hand layout no matter which way the turnout was thrown with just iffy rail joiner connections.  

I mentioned earlier that the turnouts are fairly stiff to throw.  Whether this is due to the unhinged design or a stronger spring, I do not know. 

 This shows the oversize headblock ties and a very smooth join to ME Code 70 flex track using ME rail joiners.  More on that in another topic later about the SL-115 Code 70/83 transition track pieces. 

Steam?

As I understand the problem with Insulfrogs, it was with 0-4-0 switchers with no tender. Also, some 2-10-0's with blind drivers. You tested an 0-6-0 with tender - and a keep alive? That wasn't the problem. A keep alive will allow almost any engine to cruise through the Insulfrog. So what I'd like to see is an el cheapo 0-4-0/no tender and no keep alive, and run through at a crawl. That's the real test as I understand it. And if this Unifrog is going to be the "ultimate"/ or the only choice - deleting both the Insulfrog and Electrofrog, it should be flawless with any engine. Am I correct?

  "if this Unifrog is going

It should be flawless if installed and used as intended. Keeping in mind that some engines have a too short electrical wheelbase and can't be reliably run on dead frog turnouts. Someone somewhere can always screw up even when using the best designed products so nothing is flawless in that sense. My last O scale layout had dead frog turnouts and all the common engines ran fine over them but one little critter had such a short wheel base that it lost power on one long curved turnout so I had to add a toggle switch to power that frog if I wanted to run the critter through it....DaveB

And if this Unifrog is going

I think that's an unreasonable expectation. A turnout should adhere to the standards, such as they are, and rolling stock that adheres to those standards should work flawlessly with only a few exceptions. There are going to be some problematic combinations, since the two things are made by two different companies. You can't blame the turnout for that.

The issue with specifically peco turnouts in the past was with wheels that were too wide reaching across the plastic frog divider and causing a short.  

Manufacturing and Tolerances

The commercially manufactured turnouts have compromises, which must be made to enable mass production. They are perfectly acceptable, the standards gauge doesn't show any gross errors, but it isn't perfect. There are limits to the manufacturing technology available, and things like injection molding dies and other fixtures do wear as time passes.

If you truly want precision, you will have to build it yourself. Sure, they could make them super precise, but they would be almost hand made and the price would reflect that.

As mentioned before, the issue at the frog is related to the wheels, flat wide wheels can bridge across the rails at the heel of the frog. If the wheels had the correct profile, that would not be an issue. The prototype's rail head and wheel profiles keep the wheels on the track, not the flange. It's a "just in case" feature.

Look at the pictures

If you look at the picture of the top of the turnout, you can see one small piece that’s the tip of the frog, and then two additional short pieces of rail, then another gap, then the regular rails approaching the frog.  If you look at the picture of the bottom of the turnout, it looks like the three pieces that comprise the frog area are electrically connected by a wire, which I assume is the provision for powering the frog if you want.

Assuming that’s correct, this turnout should not suffer from the same problems of wider wheels shorting at the frog.

Perhaps the OP could do a little continuity checking and confirm that?

Thank YOU!

All. I wasn't trying to imply that anything can be Perfect. It's just that if PECO is replacing 2 turnouts with one, then that one must be superior to both the old ones. And it sounds like they've solved the frog problem/based upon the wires underneath. As for those wheels. I have repeated stated: If you are going through the trouble of fixing your cars with couplers, trucks or wheels, then it behooves you to be sure your "flat" wheels are replaced. (I do have a disclaimer in that I have and use ONLY Insulfrogs and don't do anything to them. No wires. Not glued down. Held in place only by the rail joiners. And have had no trouble with them with any of my locos or cars.) As most of you have stated: If you install a turnout correctly and your equipment has the right wheels, there is no problem. It should be obvious that a "little" 0-4-0 is going to need a "fix" when a turnout does not have a continuous electrical circuit through the frog. So I will thank you all for correcting my statement. I know that "nothing is perfect". I guess "flawless" is "perfect" and I didn't intend it that way. To me, "flawless" means that problems that occur are not the fault of the turnout. So, my final statement is: If an 0-4-0 can creep through the Unifrog, then that Unifrog is "flawless". It just seems a shame to me that you "may" have to electrify the frog to cure that. As stated, my turnouts have NO wires. I guess I am lucky to not own an 0-4-0.

New Peco Code 70 Turnout Test Setup Dismantled

The OP responds,

Sorry, no more turnout testing for now.  On to other things. The test setup has been dismantled as I wanted my dining room table back for Christmas season.

The test steam locomotive is a 2-6-0 Mogul not an 0-6-0. I don't have any 0-4-0's and my UK 2-4-0's are currently packed away. All my US steam locomotives are getting keep alives and will soon be LocoFi controlled instead of DCC. I try to minimize track wiring as it is not my favorite way to spend model railroading time. 

If you would like to conduct further testing, I would suggest ordering a pair of the new turnouts from Hattons. I have noted they are an MRH forum advertiser now. 

In parting below is a comparison photo of a Code 83 Electrofrog # 6 (the only one I haven't used on my layout yet) and the new Code 70 Unifrog (at top).

• SL-U8361  #6 Right Hand turnout
• SL-U8362  #6 Left Hand turnout