At some point it comes to user preference if both options can solve the required timing related logic problems.

For the big block, everything is right there in one place.

For the other option, the pieces could be spread all over the place.

There is a time and place where either might serve the requirements better than the other option.

Sometimes the big block will not visually fit but the other option might look less cluttered.

Sometimes having the reset input for every timer in the same place (because all timers are related in some way) would make things more understandable, easier to maintain, or easier to monitor for proper operation.

I hope that did not muddy things up too much.

To me, I am 99.9% TON block.  Sometimes I even use a TON where a TONR serves the logic function better.  People that follow behind me can usually understand a strangely configured TON more quickly than a normally configured TONR.

LeRe

Well, that's the obvious answer. Of course I did that already .

What I am wondering is why there are 2 TP or TON or TOFF  like blocks. Taking TON as the example: they both delay an input, they both are reset when the input returns to 0, they both are tirggered by a rising edge.
So what is the big difference that would make a user choose the one over the other?

You can cheat that if you read the elapsed time if I recall correctly (IIRC).

qwazee

As summation..

For your use there is no difference between the coil type or block type timer. There is an historical  / legacy reason why both are included.

Be very careful.. The output of the timer (ex. "mytimer".Q) should be called somewhere in the code or the Q of the block should be connected to some bit coil. The iec-timers for the S7-1200 / S7-1500 is known to not function properly if the timer output is not used somewhere.

~