Fitting points next to each other

[Guest]

I am sure this will have been covered before, but I have not been able to find anything through search. After months of planning, I am about to start laying the track for my layout, but have come across a problem, which I hope members will be abe to resolve, the layout, which is based on a K&ESR prototype has quite a few points which are all close to each other, and two are interfering with each other. The poblem two are both Peco large radius curved turnouts which both come off another Peco large curved turnout,and the levers which operate  the point hit each other, even extending one so that they are not opposite each other still causes a problem for one point. The only solution I have been able to come up with is removing one side of the lever extension and cutting back the sleepers, is this an acceptable solution or do others have alternative suggestions?

[RFS]

The extension on the tie-bar is to either attach a side-mounted motor, or to aid with manual changeover. I use point motors mounted below the baseboard so I have removed all extensions to improve their appearance. If you're manually changing points then removing one side should still allow you to do that. 

Edited November 7, 2020 by RFS
Typo

[Guest]

Thanks Robert that is very helpful.

[DCB]

I cut the sleepers away and or take the end off the tie bar while operating the points manually.  Probably best not to take both ends off the tie bar...

Edited November 9, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Guest]

Thanks for the advice, this is a supplementary question. Can anyone advise me what the square holes in the sleepers, either side of the tie bar, are for? It will be much easier to reduce the length of these sleepers at right angles rather than mess about trying to cut accurate angles, is it OK to reduce them?

Edited November 10, 2020 by Guest
typo

['CHARD]

7 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

Thanks for the advice, this is a supplementary question. Can anyone advise me what the square holes in the sleepers, either side of the tie bar, are for? 

 

Never fitted one, but I believe these are for Peco point motors to be installed. 

[Dagworth]

7 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

Thanks for the advice, this is a supplementary question. Can anyone advise me what the square holes in the sleepers, either side of the tie bar, are for? It will be much easier to reduce the length of these sleepers at right angles rather than mess about trying to cut accurate angles, is it OK to reduce them?

They are for direct attachment of Peco point motors. Unless you need to fix motors in that manor then cut them as needed. 
 

Andi

[Guest]

I thought that they might be for fitting Peco point motors, but couldn't find any instructions on line. Thanks for advising their use, and confirming that they can be cut off. Be warned. This is my first proper layout, so I may be asking more dumb questions.

[imt]

As al of us say on here - the ONLY DUMB QUESTION is the one you don't ask.  Everybody is only too pleased to help.

[Guest]

Sorry about yet another question. I am trying to connect Peco code100 points with Peco SL10 joiners, but many of them are what I would describe as a sloppy fit, I would have thought that in order to maintain electrical integrity they should be an interference fit, am I being paranoic?  Another problem I have encountered is that the joiners are a tad too long for one point which is slightly different to all the others, having a longer narrow tie bar, and the spring retainer is not raised above sleeper level. It has "DR (in a circle) 2008" embossed on the underside, wheras all the others have "patent pending" Is this an older (or newer) version?

Edited November 10, 2020 by Guest
typo

[ITG]

Best practice is to not rely on railjoiners for electrical continuity, but instead use multiple power connections to the track. Many folk don’t do that, and say they haven’t been let down, but if you feel the rail joiners are sloppy, you’d be advised to build in the extra contingency of multiple power feeds. Even every piece of track, which is what I’ve done.

 

That said, I’ve found new rail joiners generally a reasonably good fit, apart from previously used ones! Not sure about your points difference, but spec has changed slightly over the years, I’ve been told.

[hayfield]

22 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

Thanks for the advice, this is a supplementary question. Can anyone advise me what the square holes in the sleepers, either side of the tie bar, are for? It will be much easier to reduce the length of these sleepers at right angles rather than mess about trying to cut accurate angles, is it OK to reduce them?

 

David

 

Whilst the tiebar can be trimmed to size be very careful when trimming the sleepers and timbers. If you require something which looks prototypical the sleeper/timber ends must have a minimum length between the chair/fixing and its end

 

This results in either longer timbers being used, or the sleepers/timbers being interlaced with each other. Using either of these methods may take a little tinkering with the plan, but will look so much better than having timbers/sleepers un-prototypically too short, plus saves them from being ruined for future use elsewhere 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

Sorry about yet another question. I am trying to connect Peco code100 points with Peco SL10 joiners, but many of them are what I would describe as a sloppy fit, I would have thought that in order to maintain electrical integrity they should be an interference fit, am I being paranoic?  Another problem I have encountered is that the joiners are a tad too long for one point which is slightly different to all the others, having a longer narrow tie bar, and the spring retainer is not raised above sleeper level. It has "DR (in a circle) 2008" embossed on the underside, wheras all the others have "patent pending" Is this an older (or newer) version?

 

I have just discovered this eight year old RMweb thread:-  https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/57973-peco-turnout-design-change/   It suggests that Peco started to introduce a new design of points about ten years ago, which would help explain the DR 2018 moulding on the "slimmer" (newer) tie bar version.  Interesting that I bought both types of the same model points from the same supplier in identical packaging at the same time, and that was only three years ago, and all those I have bought more recently on line are the older type.

 

 

 

 

[jonny777]

17 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

Sorry about yet another question. I am trying to connect Peco code100 points with Peco SL10 joiners, but many of them are what I would describe as a sloppy fit, I would have thought that in order to maintain electrical integrity they should be an interference fit, am I being paranoic?  Another problem I have encountered is that the joiners are a tad too long for one point which is slightly different to all the others, having a longer narrow tie bar, and the spring retainer is not raised above sleeper level. It has "DR (in a circle) 2008" embossed on the underside, wheras all the others have "patent pending" Is this an older (or newer) version?

 

For any 'sloppy' rail joiners I just give them a tweak with a pair of pliers, but doing this probably makes them impossible to remove again and so needs to be an almost permanent join. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jonny777 said:

 

For any 'sloppy' rail joiners I just give them a tweak with a pair of pliers, but doing this probably makes them impossible to remove again and so needs to be an almost permanent join. 

 

Yes. I tried that but it is less easy than it sounds, and there is the risk of over tweaking them making them impossible to fit (don't ask). I have worked out what I think may be a workable adjustment - laying a 2mm drill (shank) along the top of the joiner, I can give it a gentle tap with a light hammer, which crimps the two open sides a little, thus increasing the grip. I have tried one and it seems to work. As I said previously, this is the first proper layout I have built, so it is a steep learning curve.

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Guest

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

It suggests that Peco started to introduce a new design of points about ten years ago, which would help explain the DR 2018 moulding on the "slimmer" (newer) tie bar version. 

 

Odd that, if I read your posts right, it is the newer version that gives trouble with rail joiners, as I would have expected Peco's designers to take account of that aspect.  I do recall having to shorten rail joiners for Streamline points of 1970s vintage, certainly the insulating type, but possibly metal ones too.  Unfortunately it's a long time ago and if we did I can't remember how - I suspect we would have used Dad's pincers and opened the resulting crushed end with a fine screwdriver.

[JST]

On 10/11/2020 at 12:50, David Schweizer said:

I thought that they might be for fitting Peco point motors, but couldn't find any instructions on line. Thanks for advising their use, and confirming that they can be cut off. Be warned. This is my first proper layout, so I may be asking more dumb questions.

 

Just a belated aside, but you can cut off these and still use Peco point motors as long as you use the extended pin version (PL10E I think) and the associated under baseboard mounting plates.

[DCB]

On 10/11/2020 at 16:45, David Schweizer said:

Sorry about yet another question. I am trying to connect Peco code100 points with Peco SL10 joiners, but many of them are what I would describe as a sloppy fit, I would have thought that in order to maintain electrical integrity they should be an interference fit, am I being paranoic?  Another problem I have encountered is that the joiners are a tad too long for one point which is slightly different to all the others, having a longer narrow tie bar, and the spring retainer is not raised above sleeper level. It has "DR (in a circle) 2008" embossed on the underside, wheras all the others have "patent pending" Is this an older (or newer) version?

I usually shorten the joiners on points so I can slide them along to extract the point if it fails without removing those adjacent.  I had at least one non raised spring box point the DR 2008 type I believe. it lhad a plastic spring and was totally useless it lasted about a fortnight.

Its probably not a good idea to put more than 1 amp through an SL 10 or a point blade, Indoors I have no trouble with loads of points, six or more, and several yards of track with one feed on DC, outdoors it needs extra feeds and frog switches, and for DCC most folk recommend a wire to every bit of track, they then end up with isolated point blades and lousy running which was the opposite of what they were after.   I have a one axle pick up test loco. If it stops then there is a fault.  Anyone can make one, just bust off the other pickups leaving one each side.