Haddock51

I wish you all good luck.

Let me share with you some comments and personal thoughts: Whatever reasons TLG had to discontinue the 9V product line, I still believe there could have been ways to avoid that disastrous decision and continue further developing and exploiting the potentials of this outstanding train product line. So I am not surprised that 3rd party nitiatives have been taken ever since to continue developing 9V where TLG left walk over, particularly w.r.t. tracks and track geometries. Having said that - and without taking on a position of spokesman for all the disappointed and desillusionized 9V fans - I also take a firm stand on how such product development, marketing and sales should be performed - or rather should not be performed. The numbers you are referring to above are no surprise to me. They just confirm some very basic facts, i.e. the need for significant upfront investments in tooling machines, followed by significant investments in production capacity and testing, pre marketing, sales etc. That reads: a need for tons of money, negative cashflows upfront in combination with substantial business/financial risks. Of course you know that. What I am strongly reacting against is the fact that the development and marketing of alternative 9V tracks so far has been performed on some kind of trial and error basis - at the expense of "hungry" 9V fans. And this to me is untenable, whatever your own ambitions, incentives etc. are. If TLG was unable to keep this product line profitable - in particular w.r.t. to tracks - I find it hard to believe that this can be achieved on a small scale basis, with high expectations on product quality, production capacity and delivery security. Yes, I admire your firm will and conviction. However, I also hope that your 2018 resolution will be characterized by a much more professional attitude and business mindset, backed up with a solid financial basis. And make sure you don't experiment on the back of your potential customers.

Right now, there are some 30 brand new units available at BrickLink, with prices starting at 73 Euros. Back in July, I bought 6 units from budgetbricks and 4 units from Bricks "R" Us. In October, I found 4 units at sterihobby and in december 3 units at Bad Bricks. Usually, I search for sellers with high quantities (and reasonable prices) and "clean" their inventory (to keep shipping costs low). Over the past years I learned that new engines pop up periodically. So keep checking once a while. My stock of 9V engines is now up at 140 units and I don't plan to buy more in the new future. However, I have plans to build new trains ... So never say never ... To be honest, I couldn't care less about 3rd party 9V ... Having been a member of the 9V family for more than 20 years - and witnessed all the ups and downs - I am still convinced that there is a bright future for 9V, irrespective of TLGs decision to discontinue this remarkable product line some ten years ago. Recently, I had an interesting conversation with @Electrodiva on this subject in my thread "Lego Train 9V Extreme - ready". I find it always interesting to observe when people still decide to go for 9V instead of PF.

I disagree with your conclusion - 9V is not dead! Personally, I never believed in 3rd party electric tracks (with high quality). I really feel sorry for all those 9V guys who spent a lot of money for crap and illusions. Over the past years when building my Lego Train 9V Extreme layout, I have purchased hundreds - in fact close to a thousand - of original Lego 9V tracks and points through BrickLink and Ebay, most of them used. However, if you spend some time with careful cleaning, they almost become new again. And I had no problems to increase my stock of (brand new) 9V engines. So at least to me, 9V is more alive than ever!

You and me seem to share creative - and solution oriented - mindsets. Lego? Yes, what do you want it to be .....? I am still proud of the protection nets on top of the iron ore wagons (to prevent "iron ore pieces" from spreading around all over the room) - made of fishnet stockings! Probably as far away from Lego as it gets - but it works! So it's got to be Lego as well ...

This is a link to the local news on Swedish Television on 5th of December, unfortunately without English subtitles ... Below, you find a translation of the conversation between the reporter and myself: Translation: News presenter: A railtrack is hidden in Knivsta - and it's one of the world's longest! Reporter: - During vinter time, travelling by train can be a difficult experience for many travelers, with delays and canceled trains. However, there is a train station in Knivsta where trains always go on time, and that's Knivsta South (doesn't exist in reality, my comment) Myself: - This is about realizing dreams and ideas, to work hands on and not electronically. Reporter: - Daniels train layout has a track lenghth of more than 100 meters with more than 30 different trains taking travelers up to the Swiss mountains. Myself: - I was born and grew up in Switzerland. I loved trains already as a child and often visited the railway station in Basel. This love for trains has followed me all my life. Model trains came much later. When our doughters grew up, there was more and more of Lego - and Lego layouts. And then Lego launched the 9V train system in the beginning of the 90s. - This layout goes back to february 2011 when the idea came up for the first time. Initially, this was mostly about planning and testing. Construction started in early 2014. So to build this layout has taken more than 3 years. - To me, this is a big hobby. To work with this kind of challenges is something I find incredibly stimulating.

There is obviously a risk that you pretty soon start forgetting about construction- and installation details, not to mention all the wiring .... So yes, documentation in this case is a must. I have also mad it clear that anybody interested in operating trains on this layout (including my adult doughters and brother in law) will have to take a "driving license" - with the mentionned documentation as study material - before even touching the speed regulators ...

That's a creative idea indeed. If some of my fundamentalistic Lego train colleagues were to learn about this non-Lego approach, they might get upset again (most of them still have not forgotten the drilled round windows on the two RC locomotives on the blue Uppsala - Stockholm commuter train...)

I assume that other 9V train fans like me have experienced similar problems like those described above when building layouts with multiple points in row, e.g. on rail yards. The rather primitive description provided by LEGO of how powering with standard points works is indeed of very little help in such cases. I still find your schemes very informative and suggest that you make them available (including power feed(s) mounted on yard(s)) - maybe with a more generic approach, i.e. without the complexity of my layout - in a separate thread.

Thank you so much for your tremendous effort to provide clarification re. these mysterious findings! The ppt drawings are very informative, certainly to me, so you definitely should not appologize... However, it's me that needs to start appologizing for two findings that came up since I posted my latest reply: The scheme on level 85 turned out not to be the final one. There has been a minor change on the layout (which doesn't make any difference w.r.t. the case results). HC 2 in fact is a standard point left. However, I discovered to my surprise that one of the rails on HC 1 leading to the yards was disconnected! After fixing this issue, the result for case 2b turned out to be different and was in line with your own expected result: both trains were moving! Then I tested case 2c - operate train on yard B: Point configuration: HC 1: straight, P 2: straight Power feed configuration: yard A: off, yard B: on Result: only train B is moving! (Studying your drawings, this makes actually sense) So where do I go from here? Since I know the required configurations to operate trains from yard A and B to and from the mainline, I will certainly not get into additional wiring.... (Another important section in the future documentation ...) W.r.t. the issues on siding 175 and the yards on level 50, I guess I would have to do additional wiring to get these problems solved. However, this is simply too much work and not worth the effort. Power supply for siding 175 and the yards/main line on level 50 is good enough even without these additional power feeds. The siding on level 175 is not a reversing loop but a shortcut. Trains running uphill on the vertical climb can take the siding and return downhill. This is part of the layout segmentation concept that I have mentionned before. So outside power lines remain outside and inside power lines remain inside. No risk for short circuits. Referring to your final comment, I must admit that I didn't get your point. I believed - and still do - that I have a rather good knowledge and understanding on how the 9V speed regulator works. So I was rather surprised to read about your own thoughts w.r.t. changed polarities (something I have not experienced on my layout): "Finally, things may even become more confusing when changing directions on the regulator. As far as I remember, the dial hardware (the "coded" copper conductors of the dial and the copper conductors on the printed circuit board) of the regulator actually reverses the entire power ("+" becomes "-" and vice versa). In the "stop" position power is completely removed from the outputs (both, "+" and "-"). In this case the common power block changes polarity as well in your setup and depending on the permanently powered lines of the points, this may create further issues." To conclude: once again, thank you so much @Toastiefor your efforts and clarifications! You certainly succeeded in shedding some light into the mysterious things that happened!

Actually, I have the same problem with the two yards on level 85. These power feeds can not be removed! Let me explain in detail with the help of this picture and the schemes below: The picture shows speed regulator D, a switch connected to speed regulator D and the switch box. The switch connected to regulator D is in position "Yard" which means that all power feeds operated by speed regulator D on the main line (level 50, parts of level 85 and ramps between level 50 and 85) are inactive. The only active power feed with this configuration is power feed T1 on the left ramp between level 50 and 85. The basic idea behind this configuration is to move trains from yard A resp. yard B smoothly to alt. off the main line without other trains moving at the same time. And now the cases: Case 1: Operate train on yard A: Point configuration: Halfcurve (HC) 1: left, HC 2: right Power feed configuration: yard A: on, yard B: off Result: only train on yard A is moving Case 2A: Operate train on yard B: Point configuration: HC 1: left, HC 2: straight Power feed configuration: yard A: off, yard B: on Result: both trains are moving! Case 2B: Operate train on yard B: Point configuration: HC 1: left, HC 2: right Power feed configuration: yard A: off, yard B: on Result: only train on yard B be is moving with HC 2 in "wrong" position! The "minus" wires for power feeds on yard A and yard B are directly wired to block DD "minus" in the cable terminal." Plus" wires are connected to switches "Yd A" resp. "Yd B" on the switch box and then to block DD "plus" (operated by speed regulator D with switch in position "Yard") in the cable terminal. (see picture of cable terminal on the first page of this thread). The only common denominator for all three problems (yards on level 50, level 85 and the siding on level 175) are additional power feeds that are/were properly mounted and wired. It seems like these additional power feeds "disturbe(d)" neighbouring points. In the cases described above, some kind of interference seems to have affected HC 2. Finally, this is the scheme with siding on level 175 and power feed S 175 (which has been removed) and standard points on each end of the siding. This section is operated with speed regulator C. Wiring of S 175 the same way as described above. This siding and the neighbouring main line (vertical climb) had the same mysterious problems as described above and before.

Interesting comments. I basically agree with you - with the exception of soldering directly to the metal rail, something I commented in one of my previous replies. However this is a separate discussion. I guess this is the right time for bringing up a mysterious experience that I still fail to understand and find a logical explanation to. As Toastie correctly pointed out, the distribution of power feeds is very important. There are indeed substantial losses of power where you have sections with several points in a row. Being aware of this problem, I therefore decided to mount power feeds on each of the four yards and main line on level 50 according to the following scheme: The idea was to assure appropriate power supply and to selectively turn on/turn off each of these power feeds with the help of switches on the box to the right of the speed controllers (in combination with adequate points settings). However, this did not work (all power connections all the way to the cable terminal have been carefully checked). And this is what happened: even with turned off power feed - and closed switches for the relevant yard - neighbouring yard(s) would still be on power! (The same mystery occured on the siding on level 175 with an additional power feed halfway into the siding). After several hours of testing, I ended up with all these extra power feeds being taken away. Now, everything works properly and power on yards and siding is shut down with the help of points. However, as a consequence, sensible power losses occur, particularly on yards # 4 and # 5. Can somebody explain this mystery?

This is of course a balance between space and grades. The more space you have, the longer ramps/planks and the lower grades you can use. In addition, you have to decide how high up you ultimately want to go.

That's very steep indeed! Amazing! Next time, you have to show us a video with locomotive and some (heavy) wagons. That might be a different story ...

Testing gradients back in 2013/14 showed that 9V engines on short and light trains could manage grades of 10 percent or even somewhat more. For me it was important to find the right gradient so that all trains - without exceptions - could make it through the planned layout. Back in those days when I used to run trains with up to ten engines on the test gradients, there were problems with wheel slipping with 10 percent grades. Therefore, I decided to go for 8 procent to be on the safe side.

Back in 2013/14 when I tested gradients and various components for the 9V Extreme layout - incl. 9V speed regulators with mounted thermometers on the LM317s - I remember some occasions when temperature passed 70 degrees Celsius after approx. 6 minutes, and I stopped. Then I decided to upgrade to LM350 regulators and outside heatsinks with a thermal resistance of 1.9 K/W. Don't underestimate heat management and -control when operating trains with multiple 9V engines and keep in mind the correlation between low speed and high temperatures.

This seems to be the staple that holds the LM317 regulator against the "heatsink". With a broken staple, your regulator should be disconnected from the heatsink. Depending on how many engines you use for how long time - and keeping in mind that you don't have a functional heatsink - your LM317 might get very hot. According to specification, I think it works up to approx. 90 degrees Celsius.

Coming back to testing grades, let me share with you the "hump" approach (this might not be applicable to 12V). When building layouts with gradients - and particularly with 8 percent gradients - you are faced with a problem that eventually can cause derailing: a sharp edge between the upper part of the gradient and the flat level.. In order to "disarm" this potential derailing pitfall, I have built humps, resulting in three minor track edges instead of one big at each edge: As you can see on this picture, I have put 1x2 plates under the linkage of the first and second straight on each side of the edge. In addition, I used a grinder to grind all three track edges. With this "hump", you get a rather smooth transition fram gradient to flat level (and vice versa), something you can also observe in the iron ore train video. This also provides safer "landing zones" for 3 wheel constructions, e.g. on EN, Dm3 and Da locomotives.

Yes it was, mainly due to the lack and distribution of engine power. I had calculated that I needed 8 percent gradients to get the trains from floor to ceiling within reasonable space. So the grades were a given from the very beginning.

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about 12V. Hopefully somebody else with good knowledge about and experience with this train product line can give you more advice/help. W.r.t. testing, in this video you can see - and hopefully get some inspiration from - my test layout with a climbing spiral and test gradients back in 2014: Good luck!

Maybe my own imagination is not big enough.for this fancy idea. To me, the concept of running different sets of motors at different speeds with a train like the iron ore train is wishful thinking. Referring to my scheme with the red marked problem sections, I just can't imagine how you can manage to change speed of 13 motors - probably within seconds - when passing these difficult sections. Yes I know, never say never ...

From what I have seen myself when watching trains/locomotives with PF motors, I am still convinced that one of the main disadvantages with PF compared with 9V are the inbuilt mechanical frictions with all these parts to transmit that engine power to the wheels. Would be interesting to know the real efficiency of PF engines after discounting for these frictions. And then you have the constant issue of decreasing battery load .... To my opinion, the key and remaining advantage with 9V engines is the fact that power supply is stable and engine power is transmitted directly to the engine-wheels. I would simply hate the idea to watch my trains stop somewhere halfway up to the top because of power shortage.... Speaking about long trains in grades, I don't believe in the idea of mounting a super strong motor in the very front of such trains. As you wrote yourself, you need to spread engine power. And for that there is no need for engines like a PF XL. And somewhere along the line, you start to ask yourself if you really want to proceed with all the necessary modifications to meet your requirements ... PS: Maybe I am wrong, but then somebody has to prove that the combination of long trains and PF - in a track environment with 8 percent grades - really works. Meantime, my impression is that this entire discussion about PF - including third party devices - in this kind of environment is highly speculative, not to say just an illusion.

Sometimes, I am still experiencing derailing issues with the EN - another heavy breakpad - and its tender . Even though it carries a 9V battery, it apparently is still too light and often pushed off the track when passing points and/or s-curves uphill, something that I unfortunately can't do much about it. Again, the trick is to find and apply the appropriate speed when passing these critical parts of the layout.

There are no motors in/on the Dm3. My decision to mount your rods on all three cars of the Dm3 meant that I had to sacrifice the idea of having 9V engines on the locomotive.The same goes for the three Da locomotives on the timber train. This was the first time I surrendered when it comes to one of my favourite principles - functionality always precedes design... Despite the problems that this decision lead to, I never repented it. The Dm3 is indeed a jewel in my train collection. I was obviously aware of the fact that this would result in a tremendous breakpad (more than 1 kg) in the very front of this train, but after many hours of testing, I finally managed to solve this issue. PS: Yesterday, Swedish Telivision visited me to make a reportage about my layout! It was sent the same evening on local news at 6.30 pm - best prime time! (unfortunately without english subtitles...)