Jump to content

panzerjaeger

PECO turnout design change

Recommended Posts

I purchased a number of SL-E95 and SL-E96 turnouts over the weekend and used them to replace existing turnouts in the fiddle yard. However, when I refitted the surface mounted motors and tried to change the points, the point motors operated but the points did not change.

It appeared that the 'O' shaped ring on the motor operating arm was flicking over the upright spigot on the sliding bar of the turnout. Upon closer examination I noticed that the spigots on the new turnouts were considerably slimmer (61 thou v 79 thou) and shorter by over 1 mm than on the original turnouts. If a bar is placed across the turnout resting on the rails, the uprights on the old turnouts are level with the track. On the new turnouts there is a visible gap between the bar and the top of the spigots.

The solution was fairly simple, I placed a slither of plastic under the turnout sliding bar to increase the height of the upright spigot and so far the operating arm has not slid over the top of the spigot and the turnout is operating as it should. But why should the purchaser have to adopt this solution at all?

Why has PECO changed the design of the sliding bar and other aspects of a perfectly good turnout? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :dontknow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why has PECO changed the design of the sliding bar and other aspects of a perfectly good turnout? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_dntknw.gif

 

Better ask Peco.

It could well be accidental rather than deliberate.

Tooling does wear out and needs replacing.

Who of us is to know what the original tooling drawings showed, or how near to this drawing the tooling actually was. Or even if the new product is closer to the original drawing than the old product was.

Bernard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why has PECO changed the design of the sliding bar and other aspects of a perfectly good turnout? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_dntknw.gif

 

Maybe they agree with some of us that they are broken or are simply trying to continually improve. Probably the majority of their customers using these points would cut off the offending arms anyway (not using the surface mounted motors). But there are many simple changes that I would prefer them to have made.

 

Perhaps, as said above, the most likely reason is a change of tooling, perhaps change of factory. Also, I'm not sure that backward compatibility is high on their list of quality control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with the exact point model you refer to but I noticed on some recently purchased insulfrog short rad points that the tooling is totally different to some of the older ones I have in stock. The switching pins are much finer as you have referred to but there are a host of improvements to the overall appearance of the point - things generally less chunky all round and the switching blades a different length. I would guess that they have tried to improve the appearance of their points based on feedback and generally I would say they are better.

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why should the purchaser have to adopt this solution at all?

Why has PECO changed the design of the sliding bar and other aspects of a perfectly good turnout? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_dntknw.gif

 

I guess that most purchasers will use the points in a new situation/for the first time (rather than as a replacement) and not with surface mounted motors so won't 'have to adopt a solution' at all.

 

Manufacturers always reserve ther right to alter their desins and specificiations without notice for various reasons such as improvement, cost reduction, modernisation, ease of manufacture, change of supplier and so on. It's hardly a big issue and probably really not worth getting indignent about.

 

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a couple of years now since Peco started rolling out some changes in their track. Obviously it takes time for supplies to trickle through the chain to the user and there are still a good many of the older style of points on sale. But anything actually manufactured recently will be to the new style.

 

Apart from the changes to the mechanism noted by OP the spring is located beneath rather than above the moulded sleeper base which makes it impossible to service or replace without lifting the track. That arrangement does however do away with the rather chunky box which used to house this spring and the two tabs which in turn held the cover plate in place. The newer points also have a slightly different design of wood grain on the sleeper tops and no electrical contact tabs - conductivity is by blade alone unless other arrangements are installed by the user. I suspect the composition of the plastic has also changed somewhat as it seems to be less rigid and a brighter shade of brown than previously.

 

I find the new points perfectly good but have had to slightly adjust the presentation of surface-mounted point motors to accommodate them. Points don't last forever and mine are outside which decreases the life somewhat due to the extremes of temperature they are expected to cope with. A few have had to be replaced and some of those replacements have been of the newer style. I understand the entire range has been retooled and that in the face of ever-rising costs that cheaper materials are also in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a possible improvement in the appearance of the turnouts; could you show us a photograph, please?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photos please?

 

Thank you

 

Tim

 

Invisible ink?

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invisible ink?

 

Tim

 

 

Not exactly a friendly comment, is it?

 

Perhaps the OP doesn't have a digital camera. Perhaps he/she's been away for the weekend. Perhaps he/she has been taken ill with the virus that seems to be doing the rounds, like many other people I know. Perhaps he/she has had an accident & is unable to answer. Perhaps he/she is suffering from a disruption to internet access due to the foul weather.

Should I go on?

Patience is a virtue, they say. There are endless reasons which may explain why the OP hasn't complied with your request.

Civility is also a virtue which, as we unfortunately know, you don't always show to others.

Edited by devonseasider
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. I may be able to post some images soon but my post above was made at night (and the layout is outside in the dark) and I am now at work the next morning. I'll do what I can when I can if no-one else gets in first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old style:

 

post-3305-0-83709900-1340606135_thumb.jpg

 

New style:

 

post-3305-0-44141800-1340606100_thumb.jpg

 

The difference in dimensions and "chunkiness" is readily apparent

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The common problem with the older style was that the T shaped bit with the metal clips used to gradually move away from the tie bar during operation and gradually slackened off the pressure on the over-centre spring ..therefore reducing the "Snap" over effect and electrical contact with blades and rail....easy to rectify (IF you notice what has happened)..push the T back into position and press the clips down a bit tighter ..

 

Obviously the new type removes this problem ..

 

Regards Trevor ... :sungum:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the new style seems to retain a crisp throw for longer but it removes any ability to service the mechanism which is now concealed below the point and therefore secured in place (and usually ballasted as well) once the track is laid. I found with the older style that it wasn't always possible to adjust the spring tension by pressing the metal tabs back into place; sometimes the insertion of a track pin to secure the cover plate was a better fix as it was much harder for the plate to slip back again. I now have to remember to place a pin-head drop of oil onto the spring before laying the track and hope it lasts several years. Electrical contact is not always as reliable through the blades alone as it was with the tabs which are no longer fitted; bus-wiring overcomes the problem however. That much said the new style is a little more realistic and Peco track remains among the best (certainly the most robust) popular ready-to-use brands.

Edited by Gwiwer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly a friendly comment, is it?

 

Perhaps the OP doesn't have a digital camera. Perhaps he/she's been away for the weekend. Perhaps he/she has been taken ill with the virus that seems to be doing the rounds, like many other people I know. Perhaps he/she has had an accident & is unable to answer. Perhaps he/she is suffering from a disruption to internet access due to the foul weather.

Should I go on?

Patience is a virtue, they say. There are endless reasons which may explain why the OP hasn't complied with your request.

Civility is also a virtue which, as we unfortunately know, you don't always show to others.

 

:offtopic:

 

Tim was referring to bluebottle's repeat of his request for photos, he was not having a go in any shape or form at the OP.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be practicable to drill a hole so that th spring is accessible? Alternatively how easy is it to remove the spring so that a locking point motor can be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is just as easy to remove - simply bend back the clips, but it has to be done before installation - that is fine for those of us who remove them as default but not for repairing one that has already been laid. Perhaps yet another incentive to use latching point motors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_offtopic.gif

 

Tim was referring to bluebottle's repeat of his request for photos, he was not having a go in any shape or form at the OP.

 

 

Regarding the content of my post – yes, strictly speaking off-topic, perhaps, but certainly very relevant, if only to highlight the ambiguity of the written statement. Also, from comments received, it seems that other people feel similarly.

 

Your interpretation and mine were different, but equally valid on the basis of the curt response. I accept that your interpretation *could* be the more accurate, I trust that you can see that the same is true of mine.

If he’d put something like “I’ve already asked for photos†instead of the unhelpful “invisible ink†comment, his meaning would have been obvious.

 

It’s just courtesy, that’s all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peco turnouts have gone through a few variations - I suspect the likelihood is that the tooling starts to wear out so is replaced (I guess a lot more turnouts are produced than runs of locos etc, so they will wear out faster!), and they take the opportunity to change things when this happens.

 

Cheers,

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.......... Electrical contact is not always as reliable through the blades alone as it was with the tabs which are no longer fitted; bus-wiring overcomes the problem however...........

That was always my bugbear with PECO Points. The Tabs often made no contact with the undeneath of the blade, usually because they were shaped or bent too low from the right position. So you had to use an awl or something similar to lift them up slightly, so they would make contact. Of course you had to be very careful not to weaken them or even break them off. Can anyone quote what the official accompanying guidelines that PECO supply with them, are now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any wording I can use when ordering Peco points to make sure I get this latest version and not some old stock?

Has the catalogue number and/or description changed to distiguish between them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any wording I can use when ordering Peco points to make sure I get this latest version and not some old stock?

Has the catalogue number and/or description changed to distiguish between them?

 

Catalogue numbers are the same - not even suffixed with an "A" as Bachmann might do for a reissue. The packaging is also the same as in recent years. That means the only way to be certain is to buy over the counter and inspect the goods at the time. It would be reasonable to assume none of the older style have been produced for a couple of years now and that most high-volume retailers would probably be selling only the new style by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.