New Railway Modellers Forums

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

Hi George, Read somewhere the Pm4 motor is best for hand built points (no spring) and for points that have had spring removed so on that basis spring can be removed. I use the PM1 motor with code 100 points with a CDU and that works well (spring intact). Before removing spring I would try how they work....putting those springs back is a pain !. I'm sure others will advise or you could contact http://WWW.GAUGEMASTER.COM.
Regards
Malc
Leicester
UK.

Ffrom the Gaugemaster website ...

... the PM4 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, as it will be very hard to throw a point with an over centre spring.

Relying on the spring in the motor is more sensible, as there is less scope for lost motion between the force and the over centre spring. It does mean that you have to be a bit more careful getting the centring of the motor and the points to match. The spring currently used by Peco is so easy to remove when the point is fastened down it could almost be regarded as a design fault. I've dislodged one trying to remove a grain of ballast from the gap.

I would only use a PM4 on a Peco point if the original point spring has failed and its too much hassle to fit a new one.

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