SEEP point motors & Peco points

[george stein]

In your experience, if using SEEP self-latching point motors, is it best to reduce the strain on the motor by removing the locking spring on Peco code 100 points?

 

Thanks.

George
North Carolina

[Chris White]

I've not used the self latching SEEPs myself but my experience is that compared to the power of solenoid motors the load of the Peco locking spring is trivial such that I would leave the turnout unmolested.

[spikey]

See http://www.gaugemaster.com/articles/product-spotlight/gaugemaster-SEEP-point-motor.html

 

Quote

... PM4 has a built-in switch for accessory operation. It also has a self-latching mechanism which is useful for handmade points without springs. It should only really be used on points that have no springs ...

 

[george stein]

Thanks for comments.  Using the PM4 to energize frog on Peco electrofrog.

[Chris White]

If you've not already invested in a load of PM4s I'd point out the PM1 has the switch but without the built in latch. Also I'd add a small note of caution here as experience at our club is the SEEP motor is very fussy about precise installation to get the built in switch to operate reliably. Also the switch is just a washer riding on PCB traces such that it can be compromised by dirt and wear on the PCB tracks.

 

A while back we standardised on the SEEP PM1 as it seemed an easier solution than the Peco motor and PL15 however we have now reverted to the Peco motor and PL15 as whilst harder to setup it gives a more robust switch.

 

All that said for future projects we're investigating adopting R/C servos in combination with relays for frog switching and controllers which both drive the servo and operate the relay. This will allow mounting the servos with a simple piece of aluminium U channel and with some judicious shopping around the cost per turnout should come in well below any commercially available solenoid or slow motion switch machines.