Improving Peco points

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?

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.

''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...

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.

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?

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.