Haddock51

The siding at the lower part of the schedule is dedicated to an "Airport Shuttle", a rather short train with two engines. The purpose of having both Regulator A and Regulator D on the same track segment is to make it possible to run also long trains with 4 engines or more - e.g. the TEE VT11.5 - all the way up to the Airport level. All power connections with nomenclature A are operated by Regulator A (both plus and minus). Connections B are operated by Regulator B etc. Notice that Regulator A and Regulator B are modified and equipped with LM350T regulators, 3A diodes and outside heatsinks to allow for trains with up to 10 engines. Regulator C and D are standard 9V speed regulators. In comparison, the 9V Extreme track is operated with four modified speed regulators.

I just added a schedule. I am aware of reversed polarities when changing dial positions. That doesn't answer the question of interference between the various tracks, or?

On my new layout, I have now displayed four tracks that are operated individually with a 9V speed regulator each. All power connections to the rails have been checked w.r.t. polarization. Conceptually, the setup is equal to the Lego Train 9V Extreme display, including crossover swiches linking these tracks together. The basic idea is to run trains on these four tracks independent from each other in elective directions. The first tests showed no problems. However, these initial tests were performed with one train at a time. Recently I started to run several trains at the same time. Then I discovered that there seems to be some kind of interference between all four tracks. When running trains in opposite directions, the engines slow down or come to a stop. Notice that all crossover switches are in straight position. When operating the four speed regulators, they work only on the designed tracks, i.e. there is no visible interference at all in terms of other engines on other tracks would start running simultaneously. I just don't understand this problem, particularly considering the fact that I have never experienced similar problems on the Lego Train 9V Extreme track. Any advise to get this problem solved would be highly appreciated! Below a schedule over this layout with positions of the power connections to the track

I just love this forum!! Thank you so much guys for all your comments and suggestions - some of them quite "tangential" indeed ... All this knowledge and experience - ombined with thinking outside the box! Simply fantastic! As for rail cleaning I will go for 70% isopropyl alcohol. When it comes to track cleaning, att some point in time I have to consider vacuum-cleaning rather than spreading dust by using compressed air... W.r.t. train cleaning and compressed air, I will revert back with a separate topic just on this matter! Great to hear your suggestion @zephyr1934 re the rotary snow plow. I mentionned this idea some years ago to my wife as part of introducing "climate" to my track, e.g. artificial snow. This idea is definitely dead...

A guy in Sweden mentionned that methylated spirit includes small quantities of aceton, something he advised against (but never had used for such purposes). Based on your experience, Andy, I will start using methylated spirit from now on, both on cleaning unit type I and III.

Thanks for your comments, Andy and legoboy. Just received a similar comment from a guy in Sweden who suggested using white spirit on cotton wool. What kind of alcohol are you using (for cleaning purposes of course ...)

Interesting. So far, I have been running the cleaning pads dry, primarily in order not to chemically damage the rail plastic. I still remember discussions some years ago re lubricants and the potential risks to damage Legos plastic. Haven't thought about using alcohol. What kind of alcohol do you use for cleaning purpose? Would white spirit work? Cleaning in general has become a major theme w.r.t. the entire layout - and the trains. Using compressed air is an excellent way to get rid of dust, particularly on trains!

Yes, I am building an additional layout with the workname "My Vintage Lego World", 16 square meters! All the 9V tracks are in place, including all the wiring. So now remains the fun part, building the Lego World! I will revert back in a separate topic some months from now.

After last summer, I noticed deteriorations of current transfer from rails to 9V engines. This is due to coatings of rail plates, something that occurs over time. Normally, I clean rails/railplates manually. However, in the case of the 9V Extreme Track, this is hardly possible since many sections are difficult to access alt. out of reach. The only remaining expedient for cleaning is a highly efficient rail cleaning train! The latest version of my rail cleaning train consists of three different types of cleaning units: Cleaning unit type I: Total weight: 760 g Cleaning surface: wooden blocks covered with three layers of fabric Cleaning unit type II (4 units): Total weight: 250 g Cleaning surface: Masonite board Cleaning unit type III: Total weight: 380 g Cleaning surface: Cotton wool rolls (normally used by dentists ...) Because of the heavy weight in combination with considerable friction, I have to operate the rail cleaning train in two versions. (It feels like driving a car with applied handbrakes ...) Both versions include six locomotives 7939 with two 9V engines each: Rail Cleaning Train version Alfa: Rail Cleaning Train version Beta. Does it work? This is how the undersides look like after the first cleaning rounds: After several rounds through the entire layout, the current transfer between rail plates and 9V engines is back to normal again.

Thanks a lot for all replies so far. Some clarifications: The intention is to build a passenger bridge - not a railway bridge - that will connect two separate platforms along the high level track in my Lego room (see Lego Train 9V Extreme - ready!) One of the platforms is a train station with a base for two sightseeing helicopters, the other one is a cableway top station. The distance between these two platforms is not decided yet. The bridge will probably be 96-112 studs long. Very much in line with @zephyr1934s suggestion, I am planning to build a bridge - 8 studs wide - with a rigid frame that actually can carry most of the weight, and then use the suspension mostly for looks. I remember having seen a beautiful suspension bridge many years ago at a Lego World exhibition in Copenhagen, but unfortunately I can´t find the pictures anymore.

Where can I find pictures of suspension bridges built in Lego? Estimated length: approx. 1 meter.

The first test with the TEE VT11.5 went well - with virtually no margins at all ...!

Thanks! TME - why not? Interesting to see what's coming up next ...

It's possible if you have plastic tracks/switches. In the case of 9V switches, to change direction without throw lever is more difficult because of the resistance related to the metal plates.

Fixed - finally... Not after 20 minutes, but after several hours... This has indeed been a rather challenging exercise with several difficult modifications. Since the system is not symmetric, I had to add an additional pin to the bar to get contact with the "tongue" of the switch. Unfortunately. OnDrew J. Hardigan did not reveal the details inside his modification (see first picture at the beginning of this topic). In fact I doubt if this modfied switch really works, unless modifications on the bar have been done - which would certainly require more than 20 minutes for the entire modification... Also notice that the bar (with unchanged length) requires a space of 7 (not 5) studs on the opposite side.

Thank you @Toastie I am still interested in seeing your rendering you mentionned on May 16!

This is what this entire topic is all about!! With the risk of repeating myself, the fact remains that the levers are pointing in different directions (relative to the point) - for the same point position - depending on which side of the point the levers are mounted! Having used 9V tracks and points for more than 20 years, of course I can immediately read all my point postions by just watching the throw levers. For somebody who is not familiar with the discussed modifications, this might be more confusing in the future, particularly on layout sections with multiple points - and levers on different sides. (One solution could be to go for different lever colours...) Having said that, I am still set to proceed with the modification to move the lever to the opposite side, in both cases shown in this topic.

So here's the challenge! Any suggestions on how to combine the LEGO throw lever with a simple signal that always shows the right point direction irrespective location of the throw mechanism!

@Toastie A modification of the throw lever to the opposite side would also imply that the lever would point in the opposite direction. A trained "switch eye" would of course immediately notice this difference compared to standard throw levers on the layout. Strange that no one so far has commented this consequence (either because it is simply too obvious or because it doesn't matter for non fundamentalists ...). I checked some switches IRL (Weichensignale Deutschland) and found among others these two pictures. Unlike LEGO's standard switches, they both show levers (combined with switch signals) on the straight side of the switch which seems to be standard in Germany (and most likely in other countries as well). So the modified version with throw lever on the straight side would actually be the "correct" one compared to reality, showing straight position when lever points away from track.

@Roadmonkeytj My feeling is that this is both a functional and a design matter. From a design point of view, I would probably give duq's suggestion with the speed regulators under the table a second thought, rather than elevate these speed regulators by 4 bricks. I don't want these regulators to dominate this layout at the very front. In addition, this switch will be one of the most important and trafficated switches of the entire layout since most of the trains in the future will access/exit the train shelves through this siding.

Don't worry @zephyr1934, I don't consider myself to be ultra pure w.r.t. modifications. After close to a hundred 9V track and switch modifications, I feel rather experienced in this field. To remove a throw lever however will be slightly different since it touches the "heart" of the switch. At this point in time, I am still set to proceed with Toasties "20 minutes time frame" proposal (see his reply from May 9). I am quite sure that this modification would fit and work nicely on both spots.

Unfortunately, to swap regulators is not an option here. The reason - again - is the nose overhang of the VT 11.5. Your solution with speed regulators under the table looks indeed very nice and professional. In this case however, there are two major problems with this proposal: at this very corner, I have to install the cable terminal and another Voltcraft EP-925 transformer under the table. As you can see on the picture, this corner is close to the door to the porch. The remaining space between table and door is approx. 60 cm and to the shelves on the left hand side approx. 1 m, a minimum space I promised to my wife .... A speed regulator shelf under the table would by default further reduce this space, at a frequently trafficated spot in this room, including dogs ... Therefore, I have decided to place all four speed regulators on the table at the edge. And to insert another straight track before the switch is also ruled out because this would not leave enough space for the longest train shelves that will be placed at this siding. Quite amazing, in this 40 square meters Lego room, I have to force studs and millimeters all over ...

During the past weekend, I preliminarily mounted tracks on my new layout to check space and distances. I reallized that I need to modify another switch to provide space for the second speed regulator with outside heatsink. On this halfcurve switch, I will have to move the throw to the opposite side.

There is no rush at all. I am still using LDD despite all the missing pieces. Several Swebrick members have been trying to convince me to move to Stud.io but I still have not made up my mind. They also told me that I can use Stud.io files in LDD.

The main reason behind this modification is to provide clearance. Remote control - both electric and pneumatic - are not on top of my agenda, for reasons mainly related to the complexity of this layout. To spend a lot of effort on a remote switch with medium to low importance is simply not proportionate to the outcome. Having said that, my focus remains on manually operated solutions. No, I don't use MLCAD any longer (a tool I abandonned many years ago for couple of reasons). I basically share your comments w.r.t. Ben Coiffman's approach. So @Toastie, I would be happy if you could render some more pictures.