Haddock51

Thank you for your clarifications, peterab. Learning through knowledge-sharing, very much appreciated indeed.The recent replies to my topic have resulted in better understanding of some of the issues related to this challenging world of electronics and electric devices .... My conclusions so far: * The combination of the EP-925 together with one LM317 regulator makes it possible to run heavy trains (such as the Santa FE and the extended HE) equipped with four 9V engines without problems, and without stressing the regulator since the maximum current required will be 1,2A which is below the upper limited of 1,5A . * Even though, I will consider to upgrade the TO 220 heatsink in each of the four speed regulators that will be connected to one EP-925 in order to get better control of the temperature and thereby increasing the safety margin - and hopefully avoid to shorten the lifetime of the LM317s. Given my requirements on future train traffic, I am not considering an upgrade from LM317 to LM350 yet. This decision may still become valid once I have more experiences when the entire track is set up. Peterab, it would be interesting to see a picture of the inside of one of the controllers you have modified, i.e. to see which one of the almost 30 available (conrad) TO 220 heatsinks you have chosen and how you have fitted the small fan at the rear. * To run a long and heavy goodstrain with 25 - 30 waggons and three locomotives with two 9V engines each uphill is a different story. This will not allow for running other trains independantly in parallel since I will use the entire tracklength for this particular exercise. Having 6 engines run with only one regulator might very well increase risks and cause damages as several of you have clearly pointed out. These are my thoughts: As I mentionned before, the 9V Extreme track will be "segmented" into four separate segments with one EP-925 and four regulators to operate each segment independantly. Segmentation will be achieved through adequate adjustments of the switch points. I would call this the "closed" track alternative. When running a train with 6 engines, I would go for an "open" track alternative, i.e. the entire track (except the train yards) is one segment with still four regulators providing current to the track. Using two regulators simultaneously - and at equal speed - along various parts of the track should make it possible to run such a train without problem, having maximum 3,0A available all way long (theoretically 6,0A but so much will not be required/used - and difficult to manage with only two hands). Six engines will require at most 1,8A which still is substantially below the upper limit of two regulators used in synch. An additional challenge in this case will be the lateral forces with such a long and heavy train in the 180 degree curves uphill. In order to prevent derailing, it will be necessary to spread the engines along the train, i.e. 2 in front (pull), 2 midtrain (pull & push) and 2 at the end of the train (push). Another measure of precaution will be inclined curves. The "open" track alternative could even open up for more engines/loads but I guess other questions/questionmarks will pop up, such as: how much Amps/Watt can you run through 9V tracks before they get overheated - or even worse: before they start to melt? It is of couse tempting to push things to the limit when you have so much current and engine power available. However, my primary intention still is to use these capacities to create safety margins, to make sure that the entire power supply chain is in balance, not to stress various components/parts unnecessarily (and thereby risking to shorten lifetime) - but still allowing for exploiting the challenges and opportunities with inclinations and high speed for all types of 9V trains. The replies so far have clearly revealed some of the weak spots (bottlenecks) and risks in this power supply/enduser chain - with very different price tags: to replace one LM317 (TO 220) would cost about 3 Euros (assuming no other parts of the speed regulator have been damaged), to replace a 9V engine would cost in excess of 40 Euros, to replace several hundred damaged/melted 9V tracks (including power connections and wiring) would cost a fortune ... Comments?

I am getting confused, most likely because my knowledge in electronics is rather limited, and most of it is based on empirical experiences - at least w.r.t. LEGO. The recent information I received about LM317 was based on the following reference: http://www.electroni...LM317/LM117.pdf Have I misunderstood something? Or have I been misled? My first experiences with running 9V trains with multiple engines goes back to 2006. In those days, I only used LEGO 9V regulator(s). The inclinations in this track were very much similar to those I tested in my test-track recently, i.e. 7-9 percent It was not possible to run a Santa Fe train (equipped with 4 engines) uphill with only one regulator - the train would hardly move - which is obvious because the output was only about 1A. That's when I started using 2 regulators in synch - a little tricky but it works and you can actually come up to decent speed. So let me ask the following questions: * If the LM317 - including the wattage loss you calculated - "only" supports up to 1,5A, how come I can run a train with six 9V engines at decent high speed uphill with only one regulator, i.e. one LM317? Calculating approx. 300 mA per engine, that equals to at least 1,8A! If 1,5A were the upper limit, I should have made the same experience as I did back in 2006 when operating only with one regulator. Please help me to understand! * One of the key requirements for the 9V Extreme and Highspeed track is the possibility to run up to 4 trains (with up to 4 engines each) simultaneously and independantly from each other. My plan is to use four 9V speed regulators (connected to the EP-925). (Eight high level single-crossover switch points - at 2 m above floor level - will be operated electrically with a separate power supply unit). I don't understand how this can be achieved by connecting the EP-925 directly to the track (150 m long and approx 25 switch points). With such a solution, how would I operate four trains independantly from each other? And again - PF is not an option! * I haven't experienced any signicant heat problems so far (maybe because the trains are not operated over long time periods). How should I solve "heatsink" on 9V regulators? Below a link to the technical specifications of the Voltcraft EP-925: http://www.produktin...de_en_fr_nl.pdf

I recently learned that the LM317 in the LEGO 9V speed regulator supports up to 2,2 A which is indeed quite a lot - and significantly more than what is provided when using a standard LEGO transformer. A standard 9V regulator with a standard 9V transformer provides approx. 1A which in my case previously resulted in using 2 speed regulators in synch when operating trains - like the extended HE - equipped with four 9V motors. With the Voltcraft EP-925 (see picture below), I can do it with one regulator. I also tested a heavy goodstrain with 1 Maersk and 2 BNSF locomotives, each equipped with two 9V motors, so in total 6 motors. It worked perfectly, and I didn't notice any heating in the speed regulator.

I recently made some tests re inclinations as a preparation for my project 9V Extreme (for details see separate topic "9V Extreme - first test results") The ramps have an inclination of 7,7 percent (length: 3,9 m/30 straight tracks, elevation: 30 cm). The edges between ramp and plain level are "smoothened" with 1x2 plates under the connection of the 1st and 2nd straight before and after the edge. The picture below shows that the Emerald Night (with two 9V engines under the first passenger car) manages the edge superbly without derailing - and at decent speed! My tests also showed that the extended Horizon Express (with 4 9V engines and 8 units) and the extended Maersk train with two engines and 6 waggons with load manage these inclinations and edges with no problem - both uphill and downhill. :sweet: Early January, I will set up a double-track 360 degree climbing-spiral prototype with curved inclinations of approx. 5 percent. This means entering new territory - at least for me. I hope that these tests will show equal positive results ...

After multiple consulting with various experts in the fields of polycarbonate, MDF, plywood (and other materials) and model trains, I am about to change several of my decisions re the AACs: Serious doubts have been raised re 2 mm polycarbonate and the way I planned to attach it to plywood. The kinetic energy released by a 3 kg heavy train derailing in a 180 degree curve - at medium/high speed - would be of such a magnitude that a poorly mounted fence most likely would not hold up the derailed train. In worst case, the polycarbonate fence might even crack. Comparing material properties, in particular lateral bendability, and price, I am almost sure that I will build the AAC circular ramps with two layers of 6 mm MDF, glued together. As for the fences, I will use 3 mm polycarbonate with 2 mm angle-irons (25x25x12 mm), attached to PC and MDF with small bolts and nuts/washers that will spread the forces in a better way. I intend to build a complete prototype of one AAC in the beginning of January. Enclosed below is a track design with level 195 (cm above floor level) on the top, the two AACs and the double high speed track on level 215/210 to the left, to the right and at the bottom of this picture. Dimensions: approx. 7 m x 5,5 m

How will you mount/fix the plywood fences to the track?

Xris, I am not shure how you have calculated your inclinations. If you plan an inclination of max 3,7 percent - and an elevation of 20 cm between the levels - the AAC track length needs to be at least 540 cm which corresponds to 16 curved and 26 straight tracks. Will you have enough space?

Hi Xris, Quite interesting reading indeed! Some questions: Do you use 9V or PF? What kind of track support will you use? Plywood? Masonite? Or something else? What size of trains are you planning to operate? With what weights? The double track 360 degree AACs that I am planning for are based on the following calculations and assumptions: * Total elevation: 20 cm * Minimum clearance: 15 cm * Track length inner circle: 317 cm (9 straight and 16 curved) * Average inclination inner circle: 6,3 percent * Track length outer circle: 421 cm (17 straight and 16 curved) * Average inclination outer circle: 4,8 percent The track length includes 2 straight before the circle starts and 2 straight after the circle ends for the inner circle (3 plus3 for the outer circle). These straights are part of the inclination. I think you need to plan for at least 1 straight before and 1 straight after the point where the inclinations start and end. In my previous large LEGO train track, I had 90 degree curved 8 percent inclinatons. I did not perceive friction as a particular problem when operating trains uphill. Downhill operations with 90 degree inclined curves however were more challenging, with several derailments initially. Therefore I mounted protection fences in plastic

After a long summer break - and the construction of the new 40 sqm LEGO-room being finalized - I have now decided to go ahead wth the 9V Extreme Project (for more details check my topic "9V Extreme - Climbing Wall and High Speed Track"). With all valuable and constructive advice I received during last spring, I have now a pretty clear idea about how this is going to look like (with the exception of the wiring). However, prior to setting up this huge train track, a lot of preparation work - including a series of testing in full scale - still remains to be done. I recently mounted a first test track with the following technical data: * total track length: 11,1 m (70 straight and 16 curved tracks) * two full scale ramps, 3,9 m long, with 30 straight tracks each and inclinations of 7,7 percent * two 180 degree curves on level 1 and level 2 * 30 cm elevation between level 1 and level 2 * one power supply unit Voltcraft EP-925 (3-15VDC, max 25 Amps) in combination with one LEGO 9V speed regulator * four power connections evenly spread along the track In order to "smoothen" the edge where the ramps meet the upper level, I put 1x2 plates under the connection of straight track 1 and 2 before and after the edge, thereby obtaining a hump, spread over four straight tracks. The main purpose was to test the new power supply unit in combination with the LEGO speed regulator and to test the uphill and downhill performane of some medium and large sized trains equipped with two 9V engines - such as the Metroliner, the extended ICE (6 units),the extended Emerald Night (6 units) - and heavy trains equipped with four 9V engines - such as the Santa Fe and the extended Horizon Express (8 units), each of these trains weighing approx. 3 kg. Test results: The Voltcraft EP-925 in combination with the 9V speed regulator works perfectly! To obtain 9V at maximum speed, the exit voltage of the power supply unit needs to be approx. 13V. Unfortunately, the Amp meter of the EP-925 is not digital, so I don't know how much Amps are provided and consumed. However, the tests proved that the internal LM317 unit in the regulator provides enough Amps to get four 9V engines up to full speed. So there is no more need to use two 9V regulators in synch when operating heavy trains with four engines. Using four power connections resulted in very smooth train operations. All tested trains managed to get up and down the ramps - and over the hump - without any problems, and at decent speed. An interesting - and indeed very positive finding - was that even the Emerald Night with its rigid 2+1 wheel axles managed to get over the humps - at decent speed - without derailing! Downhill speed control is easier with trains equipped with four engines compared to those equipped with only two. Both the Santa Fe and the extended Horizon Express could actually be stopped before the end of the slope. It is indeed fascinating and impressive to watch these large and beautiful trains climb up and down! And this is still "minisize" - the total elevation in the final 9V Extreme track will be 160 cm! In summary - so far, so good. So what's next? * In order to get the trains from level 195 (cm above floor level) up to - and down from - the High Speed Track at 215 cm a.f.l. over a short horizontal distance, I need to mount two double track 360 degree Altitude Adjustment Circles (AAC) - hanging 2 m a.f.l. These will be rather sophistcated constructions requiring bendable - but steady- material (most likely plywood). The AAC concept is new and still unknown, at least to me. The circle shaped ramps will have inclinations both vertically and horizontally due to bending. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a 3D CAD software to learn more about the correlations between circle length, elevation/vertical inclination and lateral inclinations, so accurate full scale tests will be necessary, on floor level ... * I still need to evaluate and decide upon various materials such as MDF, plywood, solid glass, and thin polycarbonate (for protection fences around the 180 and 360 degree curves). * As for power supply, I feel rather comfortable with the EP-925. As originally planned, I will connect four LEGO 9V speed regulators to the EP-925 which will allow me to operate up to four trains (with up to four engines each) simultaneously, and independant from each other. I still need to figure out how to install (and hide) some 2x300 m of wire (1,5 sqmm) and 57 power connections (there will be no soldering of wire directly to the tracks). * And last but not least - I need to prepare myself mentally for cleaning/polishing some 1200 tracks ...

Congratulations Fenaughty, Commander Wolf and Electricsteam. Well done!

According to the original rules, the Wacky & Weird Locomotive Challenge includes 3 categories. Can you only vote for one category? Or is there only category 1 "Locomotives" left to vote for? I am getting confused because of all typos. "GO BACK TO THE WWBC ENTRY FOURM". Is this a voting forum or is there a voting form? If there is a voting form, where can I find it? Have you changed the name of this contest? What does BC mean? Maybe I am just stupid - or my english is too poor...

The track modifications you are referring to in Brickshelf were done by OnDrew J Hartigan. They are simply fantastic! Unfortunately he is no longer in business. He made an excellent ppt presentation on the subject of Track Modification and Application at Brickworld 2008 in Chicago (see brickworld_08_track_presentation). Based on this presentation, I have done several 9V track modifications myself such as (single) crossover-switches, halfcurve- switches, half and quarter straights. And yes, zap-a-gap glue works extremely well for Lego track modifications!

I haven´t followed up this challenge since I submitted my own entry. It would be interesting to see pictures from all submitted and qualified entries for the 3 categories. Would that be possible ? One personal thought about voting: who would be best qualified to judge what is most wacky and weird - children and young people! So Electricsteam - contact a local school and show them all entries without names and origin - and let them vote!

My tram from set 8404 has been stored in a box and never been used because you can´t run it. When I recently read this topic, I was so much inspired that I decided to modify my tram as well, however with a 9V engine. In contrast to the PF modification, it doesn´t occupy any space inside - it actually adds another 6 passenger seats. And the engine is (almost) invisible.

Thank you Spitfire2865 for all the advice and experience you are sharing with me. Within soon I will hopefully know much more about PF and its applications, so we`ll see...

It´s never too late to start and try it ..... You can get a used 9V transformer on Brickshelf for 16 USD. Well Spitfire2865, let me challenge your statement about parents and toys ... I started with Lego 9V when my doughters were 8 and 10 years old. One of my ambitions as a parent was not just to understand toys but, even more important, to introduce them to the wonderful world of Lego and Lego Trains 9V, and share the joy, excitement and creativity (and realize some of the dreams I had when I was a kid myself...). Looking back, I think I was quite successful - with both - even though it costed me half a fortune ... The daughters are now grown up ladies - but certainly still show interest in Lego, and certainly interest in my future 9V Extreme display! So I guess there are parents - and parents. Ultimately it´s up to yourself to decide and act - and I believe it can be done even without spending half a fortune ...

Yes they do rotate because of friction and heavy load. I also use some sewing-machine oil to lubricate the brush axel. So far I have successfully tested the vacuum cleaner with cotton pads (because they are very similar to dust and easier to video) - and it sucked up everything between the rails. Crumbs might be too heavy but I don´t expect to vac crumbs on my future high speed track which will be 2.2 m above floor level. Watch the test video I posted on April 6 in this topic - and enjoy the vacuum cleaner doing the job!

That´s an interesting comment! Around what size do you normally build your PF MOCs - 6 or 8 studs?

In my previous display (see Brickshelf, member DaRePo) - which also will be part of my future Legoland (but more legofied) - I had similar inclinations, but shorter (approx 2.5 meters). It was back in 2008 when I had the latest opportunities to run trains on that display. I used to push/pull the four 9V engine equipped Santa Fe Train all the way up to the top, without any problems - and no overheating. The main challenge - and risk! - was downhill driving since heavy trains keep accelerating. These experiences will result in significant safety and security measures and installations in the new display, in particular around the curves, e.g. plexiglas frames. All 180 degree curves will be on plane levels. I will also replace all old train buffers and switch to train buffers with sealed magnets and double 1x2 flat tiles to avoid decoupling of waggons by accident, particularly when climbing up inclinations. (To run trains with push and pull engines will certainly be an advantage and a significant safety factor). The Santa Fe train has about the same weight like the Horizon Express, so I am quite confident it will work with four 9V engines. I will set up a test display within short with similar inclinations to get more experience and information, not the least w.r.t. power supply. (The future display will have approx. 160 soldered power connection points with a total cabel length of some 500 - 600 meters...). I am stll eager to run the HE at high speed, so I am not sure to convert that train to PF to start with. In a couple of weeks, I will also watch and participate in extensive tests with PF and PF XL engines on this test display and it will of course be very interesting to compare torque and speed. The Track, Ramp and Shelf Maintenance Train however could be an interesting test train for PF and PF XL since high speed is not relevant in this case. It would be very interesting to see how one or two XL motor(s) would manage to push/pull a total train weight of approx. 1.7 kg - and cope with the braking/friction effect of the railclean waggon and the 8 percent inclinations. If I were to use PF in the future, I would go for track power, i.e. all PF engines would be 9V modified.

Thank you spitfire2865. I have basically most trains since the 9V system was launched in the 90ies. That also includes most of the RC and PF trains - several of them extended (which all are adjusted to 9V). In addition, a couple of MOC and MOD trains - all in all some 20 - 25 trains. So far I have only used 9V engines. Most of the trains are equipped with double 9V engines, the Santa FE, the extended Horizon Express and the Track, Ramp and Shelf Maintenance Train with 4 9V engines. As I said, speed has always been a high priority. Therefore, 9V has been the natural choice for me. I wasn´t impressed at all by RC - and then I took a time-out for almost 5 years, missing the entire PF introduction. So at this stage, I am basically thinking of engines to be mounted on standard trains/locomotives. However, I am also planning a new "era" with MOC trains/locomotives which could open up for gear mechs. You didn´t mention 9V at all. Why? Within soon, I will meet with alainneke in Belgium and hopefully get a lot of ideas and inspiration, not the least w.r.t. the various themes related to PF. Seeing is believing .... I guess, at the end of the day it´s all about getting out the best from both worlds.

So if you had to chose - to get some kind of "optimal" compromise between speed and torque - what would be your choice in this case?

The fundamental challenge in this case - the way I see it - is to meet the multiple needs of propulsion, i.e. "raw" power (to pull heavy trains up the inclinations) and high speed once the trains have reached the high speed track. For me, high speed still has top priority (except the Track, Ramp and Shelf Maintenance Train). Having studied the technical specifications of the Lego motors available, it seems to me that I have to make a choice either/or alt. to select a solution that is somewhere in between, with all the trade-offs that this would imply. Question: which solution would be most optimal to meet both the power and the speed requirements - 9V or PF XL, or something else? Of course it would be fantastic to have an engine with several gears (i.e. multiple torques) - like on a bicycle - but this seems to be still part of futuristic dreams. Or has anyone tried to develop such an engine feasable for Lego trains? One thought that came to my mind is to equip a train - for example the extended Horizon Express - with both a PF XL (picking up power from the 9V rail) and a couple of 9V engines. Maybe there is a technical solution to switch from PF XL to 9V engines and vice versa (even though both are using the same power source), i.e. using the PF XL to pull the train up the inclinations and then switch to 9V engines in order to maximize speed? Maybe there is a way to turn the PF XL on/off by using a relay which is operated through a wireless device, some kind of remote control unit? Or maybe PF XL and 9V engines should be operated simultaneously - thereby avoiding potential braking impact by the turned-off engine(s) - where you could divert/share power to one/both of them, like a 4 wheel drive? Has anyone tested this kind of "combi-approach"?

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. My plans are to start building the new 9V Extreme layout in my new hobbyroom at the end of the summer/early fall. By then, I need to take some important and critical decisions. The guiding principle will be - based on the specific requirements related to this track - to take the best from 9V and PF, i.e. to get a maximum leverage of the investments already made in 9V, and to combine it with products/solutions made available through the introduction of PF. I agree with alainneke that it´s certainly worth exploring these opportunities. "Seeing is believing", so I might decide to visit a site not too remote from here to get more inspiration and understanding. Eventually this will also entail some basic learning and practice w.r.t. to micro electronics.... I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I guess I have simply become somewhat allergic to PF, which in fact is quite stupid since this "allergy" seems to be cultured by basic lack of knowledge and experience. However, I still have a lot of curiosity and eagerness to learn more and to look for/materialize opportunities. "Seeing is believing", so I guess I need to get out of this splendid isolation and visit some sites fysically to learn more. I will visit Normandy and Bretagne by car within short and pass through Belgium. Why not step by at your place?

Yes, I cut a hole in the bottom of the waggon and strengthened the platform with two 1x10 plates below.. In addition, I taped a couple of cotton pads close to the hole to get the vac closer to the rail. I guess it´s a mini vacu cleaner to be used for sucking up crumbs on a kitchen or dinner table. It´s powered by 4 AA batteries - and sounds like a low flying aircraft (my dogs certainly don´t like that vacu cleaner in action ...) I got it through an auction on ebay.de You can find quite some mini vacu cleaners on the intranet, but I haven't found this one (which is actually the only model among those I found that fits lego train from a size point of view. I had to extend the lower platform by 2 studs). It's a "Batteriebetriebener Mini Staubsauger" imported by Georg Roth GmbH, Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb KG, Würzburgerstrasse 196/198, 90766 Fürth, Germany

Thank you alainneke for your comment and input. I truely appreciate your feedback - interesting and useful as usual. Maybe I am simply too old (61+) or simply lack the technical knowhow and experience with PF to understand and appreciate all the articles about PF, DCC etc. which I have been reading since I joined Eurobrick some months ago, so I certainly need some more guidance and convincing arguements before switching from 9V to something else. First of all, I still don't understand all these complaints about 9V engines like overheating etc. Sorry alainneke, after all these years, I don´t have one single defect 9V engine... and some of them are close to 15 years old! I have never experienced overheating, not even when pulling a 4 engine powered Santa Fe Train up 8 percent inclinations - dozens of time. So please tell me - how did you damage your 9V engines?! I remember somebody complaining about overheating when using "massive" loads. I have more than 20 trains and all in all 120 rolling units. In the past I didn´t have enough space to run trains with "massive" loads in terms of dozens of waggons. Maybe the answer simply is that you have to properly size the trains with enough engines - and preferably rather oversize than undersize. Some members recently questionned the need for 4 9V engines on my extended Horizon Express. Maybe it would work with two, but why take the risk? Yes, this is of course also a question of money, but maybe undersizing engine power gets more expensive in the long run. I remember one of your comments re maintenance of 9V engines, i.e. using lubricants. I will definitely follow that advice which will certainly contribute in prolonging the lifetime of my engines. Now coming back to your comment on the "very powerful PF XL" and the "Emerald Night is just not the same without it". It´s difficult to judge when you haven´t made this experience yourself but the way I read your comment is that you were not happy with a regular PF motor and therefore decided to upgrade to PF XL. Fair enough. My Emerald Night is extended (tender plus 4 coaches) and I have mounted a 9V engine under the first coach. Maybe it´s not in line with the "steam engine philosophy" but it works very well - and fast!(you can´t use maximum speed). Or is this primarily about design? I understand the advantage of the steel wheels picking up power from the top of the rail and not from the flange (inside) even though I have difficulties to draw any conclusions in terms of efficiency, speed, wearing out material etc. Alainneke, you have a lot of experience and knowledge in both 9V and PF, tell me - what are the key convincing arguments to replace/modify 50 9V engines with/to modified PF engines that are able to pick up power from 9V rails? What are your experiences using 9V and PF on tracks with inclinations similar the ones I will have in my future track? And what makes you still investing in 9V despite your belief in PF?