PECO Summer Update 2021

[RBAGE]

1 hour ago, Mallard60022 said:

However, if you model well then the not quite right looks a damn site better than many a "oh so correct stuff". It is called theatre.

Just my opinion.

And I agree, whole heartedly. 

[Dungrange]

On 25/06/2021 at 09:50, Chris M said:

The guy behind Finetrax is a good guy doing some great work for the hobby. He has done a lot of work to get to where things are today and salute him for his efforts. I also look forward to seeing developments.
 

One thing I would say though - about a couple of years ago this business was so small that the turnover wasn’t big enough to register for VAT. That’s not a bad thing (I would say a good thing) but  it just shows that Finetrax is a very small business and won’t have a team of developers. I have no knowledge of current status.

 

According to the terms and conditions on their website, Finetrax is not a VAT registered business, which implies that their turnover is still low - maybe 5,000 turnout kits produced per annum.  Of course what that means is that as the range is expanded, presumably turnover will increase, hit the magic £85,000 threshold at which the business will have to register for VAT and the prices for their kits will rise 20% overnight.  Therefore the price differential between Finetrax and Peco will reduce significantly.  Add in the cost of the additional staff necessary to produce, package and dispatch the larger range and the cost differential will reduce further.

 

If they scale up their CV10 turnouts to 00, then I'll give them a try, but with a 'range' that includes just a single B7 turnout in 00, I don't really see them as a serious competitor to Peco, but they do offer a choice for those who want something more accurate than the Peco geometry.

[Denbridge]

On 09/06/2021 at 18:17, dasatcopthorne said:

Bloody great.

 

They can introduce new items that they have no idea whether they will sell or not but cannot produce Bullhead Slips etc. that they well know there is a demand for.

 

Yet again Peco let us down with items promised months and months ago.

 

Dave.

There is a small matter of covid to consider. Peco weren't producing ANYTHING for a long period. They are right to focus on their core products before releasing new ones. They are a business and in business you have to consider those products that make the most money before working on those items that are in development and/or return smaller numbers of sales.. 

[bigherb]

Well I am rather pleased the tank wagon will soon be available, I have always liked them.

[NFWEM57]

18 hours ago, PMP said:

This is incorrect, so to inform and clarify. There is no need with Tortoise point motors to modify the Peco points in any way. Mine are wired through a DPDT switch with no modifications whatsoever. 
 

You can also run the points with Tortoises without switching the frog using them as a simple left/right switch. See video below prior to frog wiring.

There have been some anecdotal reports of some stock shorting through these points. In the dedicated point thread there is a list from me of around 70 (I think) RTR models that haven’t shorted on these points, ranging from very short wheelbase to pacific steam locomotives, and diesel prototypes of various configurations. It would help to determine if there is a problem which specific models have given a problem.

 

You stated  "This is incorrect, so to inform and clarify. There is no need with Tortoise point motors to modify the Peco points in any way. Mine are wired through a DPDT switch with no modifications whatsoever."   I was not referring to the wiring, but the spring action on the switch blades when changing route.  So, I am not incorrect,  you may simply not be aware. As always a picture paints a thousand word, see the video at the link from 11.40 onwards; 

 

 

 

And you may wish to view the following as well....

 

 

 

[Oldddudders]

Removing the Peco spring when using a Tortoise is optional. I have at least 20 points powered thus, and none has the spring removed. Some have been in use for more than a dozen years. 

[NFWEM57]

34 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Removing the Peco spring when using a Tortoise is optional. I have at least 20 points powered thus, and none has the spring removed. Some have been in use for more than a dozen years. 

So, not incorrect.....!

[Danemouth]

42 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Removing the Peco spring when using a Tortoise is optional. I have at least 20 points powered thus, and none has the spring removed. Some have been in use for more than a dozen years. 

 

I use Cobalt motors and have also left the springs in place. When I change points, which are controlled via the Powercab I am reassured when I hear the click of the points changing.

 

Dave

Edited June 27, 2021 by Danemouth

[The Stationmaster]

14 minutes ago, NFWEM57 said:

So, not incorrect.....!

I'm confused.  It was either correct or incorrect and we now have posts from three people saying there is no need to modify Peco points when using Tortoise or Cobalt point motors.  So I read that as saying it was correct to say that there is no need to modify Peco points in such circumstances.  

 

So your statement was in fact incorrect or are two people using Tortoise motors with unmodified Peco points spinning us a yarn?   I am sure that they are not.

 

PS You could also leave the spring in when using Peco points with an H&M point motor (or am I also spinning a yarn?).

 

 

[NFWEM57]

15 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I'm confused.  It was either correct or incorrect and we now have posts from three people saying there is no need to modify Peco points when using Tortoise or Cobalt point motors.  So I read that as saying it was correct to say that there is no need to modify Peco points in such circumstances.  

 

So your statement was in fact incorrect or are two people using Tortoise motors with unmodified Peco points spinning us a yarn?   I am sure that they are not.

 

PS You could also leave the spring in when using Peco points with an H&M point motor (or am I also spinning a yarn?).

 

 

Not incorrect or correct, optional..!  The grey bit in the middle..!

[RBAGE]

1 hour ago, Danemouth said:

 

I use Cobalt motors and have also left the springs in place. When I change points, which are controlled via the Powercab I am reassured when I hear the click of the points changing.

 

Dave

Ah! Just like the real think.

Why not go for a solenoid if you want the snap action? They are a fraction of the price and the whole street can be reassured.

What is the point of a slow action motor if you leave the spring in?

[PMP]

5 hours ago, NFWEM57 said:

.  So, I am not incorrect,  you may simply not be aware. 

 

 

 

And you may wish to view the following as well....

 

 

 

Your original statement is incorrect.

 

 Just for clarity and information obviously.

 

I’m quite aware of modifying Peco points and removing the spring. I’ve been doing it for years. Here’s some from 2016 where they were removed for cosmetic purposes.

https://albionyard.net/2016/05/26/throwback-thursday-back-on-track/

 

 

 

 

 

[PMP]

34 minutes ago, RBAGE said:

.

What is the point of a slow action motor if you leave the spring in?

Some point types eg. Peco CD75 asymmetrical 3-way require frog polarity switching to make them work, a vanilla solenoid not being an option. Using a tortoise type gives you smooth switches, power distribution and ease of wiring too. 

[Dungrange]

 

On 26/06/2021 at 01:25, NFWEM57 said:

Not as quick as getting a PECO turnout out of the packet but if you want to use tortoise motors or similar you have to modify the PECO point, and that's your warranty gone..!

 

1 hour ago, NFWEM57 said:

Not incorrect or correct, optional..!  The grey bit in the middle..!

 

I'm confused - first you say that 'have' to modify the point (ie it is imperative - or not optional) and now you are saying it is 'optional'.  Which of these two opinions of yours is correct?  If it's the second, then clearly the original statement is incorrect.  Simple. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Dungrange

[NFWEM57]

15 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

 

 

I'm confused - first you say that 'have' to modify the point (ie it is imperative) and now you are saying it is 'optional'.  Which of these two opinions of yours is correct?  If it's the second, then clearly the original statement is incorrect.  Simple. 

I had absolutely no idea that some wished to retain the snap/click when fitting slow motion turnout motors.  Clearly, every day is a learning day!   So yes, optional is now the right word..!  But, generally, the switch to slow motion is to get rid of the snap/click.  But now I am confused.  What is the point of fitting slow motion turnout motors, stand fast the excellent explanation given by PMP above for the asymmetrical 3 way, if you are leaving the spring in to retain the snap/click?  Surely it is cheaper to use a solenoid?.  Does a slow motion even work properly with the spring in?

[Dungrange]

44 minutes ago, NFWEM57 said:

 What is the point of fitting slow motion turnout motors, stand fast the excellent explanation given by PMP above for the asymmetrical 3 way, if you are leaving the spring in to retain the snap/click?  Surely it is cheaper to use a solenoid?.  Does a slow motion even work properly with the spring in?

 

The 'twack' that you get with a solenoid is, as I understand it, largely from the coils of the solenoid rather than the spring in the turnout.  Therefore, the snap / click will be reduced with a slow motion point motor even if the springs are left in place.  If you remove the spring, then you are relying on the motor to hold the points closed, but you will get the slowest motion.  Performance with the springs left in place will be a function of how stiff the operating wire is relative to the springiness of the spring.  The more rigid the operating wire, the less impact the spring will have on the slow motion, so the less need their should be to remove it.

[NFWEM57]

17 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

The 'twack' that you get with a solenoid is, as I understand it, largely from the coils of the solenoid rather than the spring in the turnout.  Therefore, the snap / click will be reduced with a slow motion point motor even if the springs are left in place.  If you remove the spring, then you are relying on the motor to hold the points closed, but you will get the slowest motion.  Performance with the springs left in place will be a function of how stiff the operating wire is relative to the springiness of the spring.  The more rigid the operating wire, the less impact the spring will have on the slow motion, so the less need their should be to remove it.

Thank you for the explanation. Most grateful.

[DCCconcepts]

On 27/06/2021 at 10:38, Danemouth said:

 

I use Cobalt motors and have also left the springs in place. When I change points, which are controlled via the Powercab I am reassured when I hear the click of the points changing.

 

Dave

 

The usual recommendation is to remove springs with slow action motors, but we understand there are users that do not.

The stall action of the motor is more than enough to hold the blades in place.

Leaving the springs in can sometimes create a "timing" issue with frog switching if using pointwork with frogs that aren't fully isolated from the blades [*] and both the blades and motor frog switch are used for frog polarity

 

What can happen with the springs left in is that the point motor frog switch may change polarity before the blades click over, causing a short.

 

This timing short can also sometimes occur with the likes of N gauge pointwork if the motor operating wire isn't centred properly, as the switch can operate before the blades change polarity, or vice versa.

 

The timing/shorting issue is not unique to Cobalt motors - it will occur with other slow action motors (including servos) fitted with a frog switch and pointwork that does not have the blades electrically isolated from the frog.

[*]Often referred to with the misleading "making points DCC friendly" instead of "making points electrically friendly for DCC AND DC"

 

Best Regards

The DCCconcepts Team

Edited July 3, 2021 by DCCconcepts

[woodenhead]

12 minutes ago, DCCconcepts said:

 

This timing short can also sometimes occur with the likes of N gauge pointwork if the motor operating wire isn't centred properly, as the switch can operate before the blades change polarity, or vice versa.

Something else for me to worry about with these - finding it hard to install them (my mental block, not the motors themselves).

 

Got 13 of them to install, got as far as testing one on the bench then flaked out with anxiety at trying to put it under the point - it's hardly difficult either - the motor is centred, it comes with a sticky pad, all I need is a wire off the points for polarity and a screwdriver to hold the motor in place.   Really should get brave and do this....

[davefromacrossthepond]

36 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Something else for me to worry about with these - finding it hard to install them (my mental block, not the motors themselves).

 

Got 13 of them to install, got as far as testing one on the bench then flaked out with anxiety at trying to put it under the point - it's hardly difficult either - the motor is centred, it comes with a sticky pad, all I need is a wire off the points for polarity and a screwdriver to hold the motor in place.   Really should get brave and do this....

Go for it!

[autocoach]

Will there be a "Fall" update soon?

[Nile]

Not in this country  .

Maybe an Autumn update soon.

Or was you actually after a "Fell" update?

[Downer]

I’d really appreciate knowing when the long bullhead turnouts are going to be available again.  

[RichardT]

At the risk of throwing the flatbottomed cat amongst the bullhead pigeons, what I’d really love to see in a future Peco announcement is that they are going to replicate their US HO code 83 range in N code 55! 

 

Richard T