Making Peco Points look better!

Discuss model railway topics and news that do not fit into other sections.
Post Reply
User avatar
centenary
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 pm

Making Peco Points look better!

Post by centenary »

Mods, if this isnt a suitable forum, please move as you see fit.

Lots of people know(?) how to make Peco electro frog points operate 'better' by adding a couple of small bridging wires. But, how many consider the point work still looks a bit clumbersome especially around the tie bar?

I found this very good article on DCC Concepts Guidance page how to make Peco points look a lot better and something similar in appearance to their Unifrog points. See page 3 and 4.

https://www.dccconcepts.com/themencode- ... &pagemode=

Obviously, you have a fair bit of DIY on each point but the finish looks a lot better than the standard product. Has anyone done this to their Peco points?
RFS
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:09 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Making Peco Points look better!

Post by RFS »

Indeed and I have done this on my code 75 points in the scenic section. I've completely removed all the locking mechanism, leaving just the tie-bar, and replaced the removed parts with spare sleepers. I'm using Tortoise point motors which do the locking instead. And also made the electrical changes to isolate the frog and add the bridging wires to eliminate use of the blades for conductivity. Points look a great deal better and perform so much better too.
Robert Smith
User avatar
centenary
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 pm

Re: Making Peco Points look better!

Post by centenary »

RFS wrote:Indeed and I have done this on my code 75 points in the scenic section. I've completely removed all the locking mechanism, leaving just the tie-bar, and replaced the removed parts with spare sleepers. I'm using Tortoise point motors which do the locking instead. And also made the electrical changes to isolate the frog and add the bridging wires to eliminate use of the blades for conductivity. Points look a great deal better and perform so much better too.
Cool! Im looking to use DCC Concepts IP Analogs as the point motors. Can I ask did you find the process of making the Peco points look better as easy as DCC Concepts make out?
RFS
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:09 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Making Peco Points look better!

Post by RFS »

centenary wrote:
RFS wrote:Indeed and I have done this on my code 75 points in the scenic section. I've completely removed all the locking mechanism, leaving just the tie-bar, and replaced the removed parts with spare sleepers. I'm using Tortoise point motors which do the locking instead. And also made the electrical changes to isolate the frog and add the bridging wires to eliminate use of the blades for conductivity. Points look a great deal better and perform so much better too.
Cool! Im looking to use DCC Concepts IP Analogs as the point motors. Can I ask did you find the process of making the Peco points look better as easy as DCC Concepts make out?
It was easy for me. I just removed the locking spring and then cut out the two sleepers either side of the tie-bar. After laying the point and satisfied all was working, I just took a couple of plain track sleepers, filed off the chairs and glued them in place of the removed ones.
Robert Smith
TomTom
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:15 pm

Re: Making Peco Points look better!

Post by TomTom »

I have done much the same - bonded the two rails and trimmed back the gubbins. Some I removed the spring and others I kept, at random it seems - did them twelve years ago so can't remember the whys of it all. I use Peco point motors sited at the edge of the baseboard and connected with wire in tube, all above baseboard to ease the old back, and covered with scenery or buildings. One other thing I did which makes a big difference was adding cosmetic rail chairs - C&L, cut in half, which blends the points in with the C&L plain track. Here are a couple of pics .
IMG_0072-crop-cropq.jpg
Peco point workp.jpg
Post Reply