[34C]

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.

 

[34C]

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.

 

[34C]

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.

 

[34C]

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.

 

[34C]

QUOTE (Brossard @ 12 Sep 2007, 04:15) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I hear quite a bit about PECO making the track more British and I guess that mostly refers to sleeper spacing. But which track? A quick browse through any permanent way book and you will quickly realise that every company prior to 1923 had its own designs and even these evolved with time. After the grouping there was still a broad variety of track style even into BR days.
It has to be a 'typical' representation suitable for use from the big four era to present day. For a 'better OO track' they could do much worse than copy the style they have employed for their O gauge track. For those who must have an exact representation of Obscure Junction Joint, where the distinctly different styles of the GNWR and LBNC could be seen alongside each other, handbuilt will still have to be resorted to.