Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (Robert Stokes @ 2 Sep 2007, 07:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Does anyone think that peco points would look better if the plastic check rails were cut off and replaced with a piece of real rail suitably bent? Has anyone done this?

I have seen this done before & it does improve the appearance.

However, IMHO it's about time Peco scrapped the tooling (which is almost certainly past it's use by date now) & produced a better product, more suitable for the 21st century.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
Discounting all the often repeated arguments about scale appearance of OO track how could model railway track technically be improved to make it 21st centuary?


Happy modelling
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
there will be an issue of re-acquiring the correct check rail gauge.

especially as the running rail security is closely allied to the check rail moulding?

Retention of the plastic check rail, which CAN be disguised by suitably painting......also allows one to adjust the check rail gauge to improve passage of wheelsets through the frog area?

also, replacing the mouding with actual rail....likley the moulded 'fixings', of check rail to sleeper, will be lunched...and would need to be replaced by something suitable...for appearances' sake..otherwise one ends up with a lump of rail sitting flat on the sleepers, with no visible means of retention?

mods I have done in the past, to old peco points, include, thin strips of plasticard glued to the insides of the frog wing rails, to slightly narrow down the gap...to reduce the risk of the wheels falling into the gap at the frog.

I think Peco have adjusted this gap on later points anyway......in the bad old days, one might actually glue a bit in teh bottom of the frog gap, to support the wheel FLANGE........the things we did to persevere?
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,662 Posts
If using a slow action locking point motor the over centre spring and associated tackle can be removed, and the missing sleeper replaced. If bonding the switch rail to the adjacent stock rail, and switching polarity via the motor, a replacement hole can be made in tie bar for the curved blade to position the open blade 1mm closer to the stock rail.

The RTR product I really want is Peco's code 75 large radius point rail components on a sleeper base to match SMP OO. This product works extremely reliably with all OO wheels, is 'fit and forget' in service longevity terms, of a large enough radius to look decent, and can be easily slightly curved with no more trouble than cutting through some sleeper base links. If Peco had the will to do the experiment on just the large rad LH and RH points and promote it properly, the question about whether there is any demand for better OO track would be answered very quickly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
''Individulay??''

notice the wooden boards laid ,on the prototype, over the point rail locking mechanism..to protect it from dragging couplers, or broken stuff under trains?

placement of these palnks, with the sloping ends, over the Peco blade spring housings, disguises this effectively.

also.....if driving the point rails by motor, from the centre of the tie bar, do away with the little plastic knobs on either end of tie bars?

on my US layout,I tied the tie bar end..with two long parallel planks.....to a home made switch stand, which turned with the tie bar movement.

once laid, ensure the whole point is absolutely level, at rail top height.

confirmation of this can be done, by passing a fine but big file over the whole point.......if any of the plastic sections have raised thmselves, the file will take the top off...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,844 Posts
QUOTE once laid, ensure the whole point is absolutely level, at rail top height.

confirmation of this can be done, by passing a fine but big file over the whole point.......if any of the plastic sections have raised thmselves, the file will take the top off...

Good tip
I've not considered doing that before.

David
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (Gary @ 2 Sep 2007, 10:34) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Discounting all the often repeated arguments about scale appearance of OO track how could model railway track technically be improved to make it 21st centuary?


Happy modelling
Gary

Simple (as far as Peco goes, in my own experience) - to make them reliable & to produce a slow action point motor with decent reliable (again) auxiliary contacts !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Although Widnes uses Peco track we always remove the mechanism, I cannot understand why some modellers build really nice looking layouts and leave a big plastic square at the toe of the point


We leave the tie-bar in place, trimmed to the minimum, then remove the rest of the mechanism and associated mouldings, these are replaced with some suitable plastic, gently scribed to simulate the wood grain and then painted. The point directly in front of the 57/3 has been so treated and although the check rails are obviously Peco in the photo its not so obvious in the flesh.

 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,662 Posts
QUOTE (dbclass50 @ 3 Sep 2007, 07:18) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Simple (as far as Peco goes, in my own experience) - to make them reliable & to produce a slow action point motor with decent reliable (again) auxiliary contacts !
Regarding a motor, the Fulgurex product is most satisfactory. It delivers slow action with reliable switching, and has a reasonably low profile for underboard installation; helpful when there are tracks on different levels which must go underneath. Its' best feature is surprisingly little advertised: since it is double ended it can drive a pair of points (typically when arranged in crossover formation), and has enough switching capacity installed to handle this, (and space for more contacts to be added, though I have not yet used this feature). With the majority of the points on my layout arranged as crossovers this makes a real economy, price per point for motorisation is little more than using solenoids; but with the immediate advantage of quiet and slow operation, and the expected benefit of longevity this should confer on the points. And although this has not been necessary after three years use, should a motor ever fail, the construction is such that replacing the motor on the mechanism base will be fairly straightofrward: two soldered joints, and a clip fit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
QUOTE (34C @ 3 Sep 2007, 08:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Regarding a motor, the Fulgurex product is most satisfactory. It delivers slow action with reliable switching, and has a reasonably low profile for underboard installation; helpful when there are tracks on different levels which must go underneath. Its' best feature is surprisingly little advertised: since it is double ended it can drive a pair of points (typically when arranged in crossover formation), and has enough switching capacity installed to handle this, (and space for more contacts to be added, though I have not yet used this feature).

Thank you for your comments. I am interested in the last writer's idea as most of the points on my new layout will be arranged as crossovers. Could 34C please give me a bit more detail about how this is done?
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,662 Posts
The Fulgurex motor drives a bar from side to side. To use it to drive a pair of points in crossover formation, the motor is positioned centrally* under the crossings, with the bar movement near parallel to the running lines. Push rods are taken in a straight line from each end of the bar to a crank on a pivot going up through the baseboard, with a second crank on top engaging the tie bar. I make the pushrods from lengths of soft iron florists wire. This material forms easily and fits the holes in the drive bar perfectly, while at the other end it can be flattened with one hammer blow, then drilled half millimetre for the crank wire. I hope that's a helpful description

*Where there are obstructions to this layout the motor position can be varied to suit. It is just convenience that has me using this layout, since I use only the Peco large rad point, the parts I make like the pushrods can be a standard size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
blast from the past......there USED to be a pneumatic system of point control on the market.

anyone remember it?

forget how it was 'powered'...probably a bicycle pump!.......
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,397 Posts
QUOTE (34C @ 3 Sep 2007, 17:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Regarding a motor, the Fulgurex product is most satisfactory. It delivers slow action with reliable switching, and has a reasonably low profile for underboard installation; helpful when there are tracks on different levels which must go underneath.
How noisy is it?
I have been using a combination of Tillig and Tortoise motorised points and found that the Tillig is better space wise but is quite noisy and the Tortoise is quiet but bulky. If the Fulgurex are quiet then they will combine the best features of both.

I haven't been able to source Fulgurex in Ozz, but if they have the best atributes of both motors I may well be tempted to import a load of them if I can find a supplier.
 

·
No Longer Active.
Joined
·
13,319 Posts
QUOTE (34C @ 3 Sep 2007, 08:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Regarding a motor, the Fulgurex product is most satisfactory.

Cannot agree more - the only motorised Peco points on St.Laurent are Fulgurex operated - the auto fiddle yards are now all Fleischmann Profi !
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,662 Posts
QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 4 Sep 2007, 00:16) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>How noisy is it?
I have been using a combination of Tillig and Tortoise motorised points and found that the Tillig is better space wise but is quite noisy and the Tortoise is quiet but bulky. If the Fulgurex are quiet then they will combine the best features of both.
Little bit more noise than from the Tortoise, but 'quiet enough' since they cannot be heard if a train is running anywhere nearby, and don't draw attention to themselves, unlike the insistent 'whap' of solenoids.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
What about conrad point motors? I have seen these advertised on the internet at just £4 a time if you buy 10 at one go. Has anyone used these? How do they compare to fulgurex and tortoise for reliability and noise? I haven't bought any yet but the price is very tempting.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,397 Posts
Thanks, I must try to source some Fulgurex motors to try.


QUOTE (Robert Stokes @ 4 Sep 2007, 17:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>What about conrad point motors? I have seen these advertised on the internet at just £4 a time if you buy 10 at one go. Has anyone used these? How do they compare to fulgurex and tortoise for reliability and noise? I haven't bought any yet but the price is very tempting.
These were discussed on a thread about Tillig motors some time ago. They seemed to get a favourable opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,592 Posts
Doug's the expert with Tillig, I really do like the look of their track.........but they don't do narrow gauge so I've settled for O-16.5 it's not right but then it better than standard H/O.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top