May I add another 2 cents worth here? If I were making my own, my main reason would be because I don’t like insulated frogs. I do understand that if you’re using DCC you need to isolate the frog, though.
But if you’re using regular track power, you only need to make sure the points don’t bridge the two running rails, even when a wheel is at that location. This means having an adequate space between the point rail and its adjacent running rail, so that a wheel running through will contact only the running rail without having its flange contact the point rail.
Aside from that, you simply power the turnout from its point end, not from its frog end. Then you can use track power, and the frog will be powered. In my opinion that is a most worthy object. Even better, perhaps, is the fact that track beyond the frog will only be powered if the points are correctly aligned for it. This gives you very convenient places to park locos without fiddling with onboard switches.
If your particular track layout means that power will be coming from the point end of the turnout, then you will need to put a gap in the rails just beyond the frog to isolate it from any power coming from that direction.
In smaller scales, in indoor applications, additional contacts are often used to supplement the points’ switching capability and to insure that the frog is receiving power from the points end. I am not sure that this is possible outdoors; the one time I saw such contacts used on an outdoor switch, owing to weather damage they were unreliable. It may be that in large scales points contact contact alone is adequate, especially if the throwbar is engineered to contribute to the turnout’s switching capability. In the last case, I think I would fabricate my throwbar from circuit board, 'though I haven’t thought this through all the way yet.
My apologies if all this is old hat.