BRealistic Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 As a newbie, I must apologise for probably going over old ground... but its all new to me... having only recently returned to the modelling fold after a 30+ years absence. Old, yes, but grumpy, no, and as keen as mustard! Love the C&L flexitrack (OO), and, to cut a long deliberation short, I've decided to combine it with Peco '75' turnouts. Argghhhh I hear you all say, but give me a break... I'm in my 60's and need to get a move on! I'd seen the combination 'in the flesh' , and with failing eyesight, and really good weathering/ballasting, it wasn't too jarring! But, you can't imagine my delight when I came across an ancient post (via google) by 'beast 66606' (Dave?) titled 'Improve your Peco Points'. What a star! Brilliant idea... getting rid of the 'mechanism'... and those 'joined at the hip' sleepers. I wonder, though, if its practical to go one step further... and actually replace the tie bar with a view to narrowing down the 'gaping gap' between the switches and stock rails. Seems even a mm would make a significant difference (about the same as exists between the wing rails and the crossing V). Has anyone out there dared try this, because if they have LET US ALL KNOW! Best wishes to all Al Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted February 27, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2011 I'd seen the combination 'in the flesh' , and with failing eyesight, and really good weathering/ballasting, it wasn't too jarring! But, you can't imagine my delight when I came across an ancient post (via google) by 'beast 66606' (Dave?) titled 'Improve your Peco Points'. What a star! Brilliant idea... getting rid of the 'mechanism'... and those 'joined at the hip' sleepers. Thanks I wonder, though, if its practical to go one step further... and actually replace the tie bar with a view to narrowing down the 'gaping gap' between the switches and stock rails. Seems even a mm would make a significant difference (about the same as exists between the wing rails and the crossing V). Has anyone out there dared try this, because if they have LET US ALL KNOW! Best wishes to all Al I suspect that would be possible but we needed a quick solution so we went for the paring down approach, cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 I guess that you can go as far rebuilding them as you wish, but you must get to the point (sorry about the pun)of when is it easier and quicker to build from scratch rather than adapt. Fitting a new tiebar providing you do not mind loosing the locking spring mechanism is quite easy with a bit of PC Board. Once you have hidden the turnout in allast and weathering the important factor is running quality, the gap you leave should be compatable with your wheels back to back. Good luck and carry on enjoying the hobby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 Thanks again DAS for sharing your inspirational 'quickfix', and thanks to you John for your encouraging words. I feel suitably charged/reassured to at least have a go... who knows, it might turn out fine (don't puns flow freely from this particular piece of trackage!). Off tomorrow to get a few bits and pieces and hopefully a second-hand turnout... oh the joys of retirement! Alan (must get my signature sorted!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 When we demolished our old club layout we "recovered" a lot of track including code 100 insulfrog points. The process of lifting points inevitably causes damage, sometimes imperceptible to the human eye but very evident to wheels. Our new layout was to be DCC while retaining code 100. I hit on the idea of remanufacturing the old points. This would save money and improve the look of the point. I used the PECO templates from their site and rebuilt the points on copper clad timbers. The beauty is that the blades can be reused and the stock rails already have rebates. The vee does need to be made from scratch. The success we had with remanufacturing points led me to start building more points from scratch including a double slip. Our station is on a very large radius curve and hand built points allowed us to do that convincingly. The layout has been on the road several times and, in my opinion, the trackwork stands head and shoulders above other layouts. Getting ones feet wet with simple improvements to PECO points can lead to more ambitious improvements and ultimately to building ones own points. We need more of that. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 What I'm hoping to do John is get the best I can from 'ready-made' track... then focus all my efforts on creating a particular railway scene... a gradually curving approach to a station throat (mainline, passing loops and branch line beside) with a small marshalling yard alongside the approach. Not too deep, and all at or about chin level when seated. The kind of location many a train spotter would find him/herself rooted to for hours on end (Oh, the memories… and the vision of what’s to come). Stopping trains, through trains (round and round) and plenty of scope for pulling and pushing wagons this way and that. Station platforms at one end and stone over-bridge at the other. Centre piece will be a signal box (a replica of the one that stood at Goodrington Sands near Paignton in Devon... near where I live). Just about finished making the scale 20"x10" slates... out of the real thing, and am currently doing the artwork for the 'iconic' 3 over 2 sliding sashes so that I can have them photo-etched (Those on the market aren't the right size). Happy times! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 If you want to work on your own tie bar design anyway have you thought of starting with the Tillig range of turnouts? http://www.internationalmodels.net/acatalog/Main_Catalogue_Index_HO_22.html You'd have flexible blades which are powered from the stock rail, separate check rails on the new ones and fully metal wing rails as part of an isolated frog. There is a picture of an old one in situ http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=765 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 You've certainly given me something to think about Craig w... having read quite a few positive posts about Tillig turnouts on the 'alternative' site. Bit pricey, and the differing rail profile might not be such a good match with the C & L flexi I want to use. A point many people make when comparing peco with other turnouts (including hand made) is that, on the negative side, peco's switch rails are hinged (whereas others aren't). Isn't it the case, though, that prototype switch rails have a separate section at the business end... like peco! Could be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 You've certainly given me something to think about Craig w... having read quite a few positive posts about Tillig turnouts on the 'alternative' site. Bit pricey, and the differing rail profile might not be such a good match with the C & L flexi I want to use. A point many people make when comparing peco with other turnouts (including hand made) is that, on the negative side, peco's switch rails are hinged (whereas others aren't). Isn't it the case, though, that prototype switch rails have a separate section at the business end... like peco! Could be wrong. Don't you need to pack the C+L anyway as it has 1/2 height sleepering? As for the code 83 FB vs code 75 BH that would indeed be the case but then the Peco rail is FB anyway so you'd already have a mismatch. Loose heel pointwork was used by pre grouping companies, the GWR in very short turnouts and industry but the REA switches most common from the mid 20s was all flexible (theoretically the GWR didn't use the REA stuff but that is going a bit far). For look at eye level you may find the ability to flow the Tillig stuff may give a better look to the scene with less modifications was my only thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 A point many people make when comparing peco with other turnouts (including hand made) is that, on the negative side, peco's switch rails are hinged (whereas others aren't). Isn't it the case, though, that prototype switch rails have a separate section at the business end... like peco! Could be wrong. Some short turnouts do have blades which are 'hinged' like Peco points - they tend to be very much slow speed affairs. Larger S&C has blades much longer in length which flex rather than pivot. It gives a smoother transision (sp?) as a result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted March 5, 2011 Author Share Posted March 5, 2011 Using a friend's 'surplus and previously used' point, I've managed to remove the spring box mechanism, do a job on the sleepers AND widen the swith blades by a mm... all without much trouble... and not a soldering iron in sight! For the moment I'm using the tie bar to change the points... so haven't yet removed the protruding arms. Maybe I can whittle it down a bit more?? A new Backmann wagon runs smoothly through. Is it all worth it??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 That looks rather good! The blade spacing makes a big difference I think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 How did you make the new fixing hole in the tie bar for the blade fixing tab? Is it simply a drilled hole, or did you manage to cut a slot? I presume it's a good strong fixing - it certainly looks a good neat job! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted March 5, 2011 Author Share Posted March 5, 2011 How did you make the new fixing hole in the tie bar for the blade fixing tab? Is it simply a drilled hole, or did you manage to cut a slot? I presume it's a good strong fixing - it certainly looks a good neat job! Firstly I filled one of the existing slits/slots (the one to be 'moved') with a tiny, wedge shaped slither made from the bits I'd removed to hopefully preserve the 'integrity' of the tie Bar. I measured a mm using a 40 thou piece of plasticard, made a mark with a scalpel blade, and then carefully made a similar slot with the pointiest blade I had (a No.11). When I saw light through it - that was the size of the tab - I stopped. Then on the underside I carefully extended the original recess with the same scalpel blade The fixing tab 'popped' into place and underneath I gave it a careful twist to secure it. Surprised myself that it was all so simple, although I'd feel a lot more confident about repeating the procedure on my newly bought points if I knew for sertain I could get spare tie bars and switch rails from Peco! All I'd say is, if you have a go, then BE CAREFUL!!! Those blades are ****** sharp!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Why not go the whole hog, chop out the tie bar with its 'orrible toy handles and the adjacent sleeper which held the spring plate and now looks even stranger and replace with a new pcb sleeper acting as a tie bar? To me the improvement you have made is marred by the improvements you haven't yet made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted March 5, 2011 Author Share Posted March 5, 2011 Why not go the whole hog, chop out the tie bar with its 'orrible toy handles and the adjacent sleeper which held the spring plate and now looks even stranger and replace with a new pcb sleeper acting as a tie bar? To me the improvement you have made is marred by the improvements you haven't yet made. Thanks so much for your encouragement and helpful comment... as if I hadn't thought beforehand about 'going the whole hog', and I decided 'not for me'. As a complete newbie I was actually very very very pleased by the results I achieved (which with painting/ballasting/weathering will further improve) but your post has put a stop to that... well, could have if I took it personally and seriously. I deliberately went as far as I could without harming the integrity of the turnout as a unit... which would have been harmed if I'd cut out more than I did. I also know my limitations and work within them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tender Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Have a look at the Cobalt Motor manual (DCC Concepts) from page 16 onwards. It gives a pretty good guide to improving RTR points (Peco illustrated). It can be found here : http://www.bromsgrovemodels.co.uk/assets/own/cobalt_manual.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linesman Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Have a look at the Cobalt Motor manual (DCC Concepts) from page 16 onwards. It gives a pretty good guide to improving RTR points (Peco illustrated). It can be found here : http://www.bromsgrov...balt_manual.pdf I second that. The Cobalt PDF is an excellent guide to improving off-the-shelf points. Combined with the relevant wisdom available on this board anyone should be able to make a Peco point look fairly respectable. The Cobalt point motors ain't half bad either! I'm taking the same approach as the OP. C+L track (OO) and Peco code 75 turnouts (suitably butchered). I did consider C+L with Tillig turnouts but while the Tillig point is a much finer model than the Peco, the Tillig sleeper orientation is all wrong for a UK prototype and I just couldn't live with it. Peco code 75 turnouts with a bit of cosmetic surgery and a suitable degree of weathering and ballasting are pretty acceptable for me. I was considering building turnouts from C+L components but limited time and fading eyesight ruled this out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted March 6, 2011 Author Share Posted March 6, 2011 Have a look at the Cobalt Motor manual (DCC Concepts) from page 16 onwards. It gives a pretty good guide to improving RTR points (Peco illustrated). It can be found here : http://www.bromsgrov...balt_manual.pdf Hi I actually came across that manual late last night when doing a search on point motors!... but it's good to have the link for others to see 'how it should be done! By then I'd already finshed chopping and filling in the sleepers and only had to make the new switch blade to tie bar connection to complete... which I did this morning. I just didn't fancy soldering copperclad sleepers... (haven't got any... nor even a soldering iron I can call my own!) so who knows when I might have finished. I do intend to remove the ends of the tie bar and whittle it down just a tad, and when painted a rusty brown to match the rail sides and chairs (ie . different to the sleepers) I can imagine being well satisfied with the result. Not a rebuild, just a fairly simple modification I thought I'd have a go at to improve appearances from a viewing distance. Am undecided whether to repeat the closing of the 'switch rail gap' (the fiddly bit) although, to me, it makes quite a significant visual improvement. Hope others have a go at something similar, especially at closing the gap. I was hoping someone might have done it so we could discuss by what amount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linesman Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Hi I actually came across that manual late last night when doing a search on point motors!... but it's good to have the link for others to see 'how it should be done! By then I'd already finshed chopping and filling in the sleepers and only had to make the new switch blade to tie bar connection to complete... which I did this morning. I just didn't fancy soldering copperclad sleepers... (haven't got any... nor even a soldering iron I can call my own!) so who knows when I might have finished. I do intend to remove the ends of the tie bar and whittle it down just a tad, and when painted a rusty brown to match the rail sides and chairs (ie . different to the sleepers) I can imagine being well satisfied with the result. Not a rebuild, just a fairly simple modification I thought I'd have a go at to improve appearances from a viewing distance. Am undecided whether to repeat the closing of the 'switch rail gap' (the fiddly bit) although, to me, it makes quite a significant visual improvement. Hope others have a go at something similar, especially at closing the gap. I was hoping someone might have done it so we could discuss by what amount. The gap reduction will depend on the wheels on your rolling stock. Peco points are designed to play nicely with the old, crude wheel sets found on models years ago. If your stock is modern, or you are prepared to re-wheel it, then there is certainly scope for reducing the gap between the switch and stock rails. By how much remains a matter for experimentation. Bear in mind that if you run other people's (older) locos/stock on your layout they may have trouble negotiating the adjusted points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted March 6, 2011 Author Share Posted March 6, 2011 Being a 'born again modeller' (like you Linesman?) the only stock I have/will get is modern... and I can't get over how good the best of it looks now. Only likely to be running my own stock too, so, as you say, experimentation is the order of the day as far as determing by how much the gap might be closed. I chose a mm simply because it looked about right (considering 'all' things) and would be easy to measure and consistently replicate. With my fingers crossed I've this minute 'shoved' my Bachmann Hall into the point, and in both directions it works just fine! Can't stop doing it! Boy, am I pleased!!! ... and If I can do it, anybody can!... with copperclad slepers if they so desire!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 could have if I took it personally and seriously. Oh, I was being very serious - but not personal. I understand your reluctance to "do more" but for me the changes you have made simply miss the worst thing about the Peco tie bar - the handles. If I didn't take my routine modifications further (already illustrated on RMweb) I would at least do something about those handles at the same time as removing the "Peco point motor attachment sleepers" I would also consider replacing the spring cover as personally I find the dip in the sleeper more of a visual jar than the replaced cover. I did praise the "have a go attitude" to making some improvement (and for posting it here to be subject to the critical eye of others) but do see it as a step along the road which TBH probably ends with building your own track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted March 6, 2011 Author Share Posted March 6, 2011 Hello Kenton... of course I'm going to remove the handles... but at the mo I need them to mechanically change the point to trial how well it performs... and so far so good! I have mentioned that above, but not used the term 'handles'. Also, I have actually infilled the 'dip' in the sleeper you mention with a piece of 10 thou plasticard (suitably scratched and painted out), and since posting the photos have skimmed off most of the 'oversized' slide chairs on the sleeper on the other side of the tie bar. That's the one you can see in the photos that looks like a 'dip'. And to repeat what I'm sure I've already said, I've adopted this approach because I won't ever be making my own points. For me, spending time making individual slates for my signal box, using real slate, is far more satisfying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Thanks for your reply to my request for more info, BRealistic. Don't be put off by Kenton's manner, which can seem rather chilly if you're not used to it. His advice is always sound and well considered. Like you, I've been looking for track solutions within my present capabilities; after losing several months of hands-on modelling because of domestic upheaval I needed help to come up with some acceptable compromise in what I expect to get built. Your contribution has been added to my notes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRealistic Posted March 6, 2011 Author Share Posted March 6, 2011 Sorry to hear about your 'upheavals' bluebottle and hope things are settling down. This thread will probably close now... so I'd just like to pay a tribute to beast66606 (DAS!) for his original idea. And although it's full of diesels (not my era) I think his Widnes is a superb and inspirational layout. Certainly got me out of my armchair! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.