Haddock51

That's ok peterab. You're right, I've really got some good electronic advice and help on my end. There has been a lot of thinking around this topic during the past months. However the endresult seems to be quite ok. Crazy project? Well yes but it helps you stay sane ...

My HE is extended with two coaches and runs on four 9V engines. I used to have the second 10020 your way but a good friend of mine insisted in flipping it, with the same argument - it will look better.... So now, I will flip it back again ....

My first modified 9V speed control unit is now ready and tested. These are the modifications: Diodes D3, D4, D5 and D6 were replaced by 3A diodes. (See also picture in my first post dated 5 december 2013). The LM317 has been removed and replaced by a LM350. (Soldering on the electric circuit was done by a specialist). The LM350 is mounted on a heatsink with a thermal resistence of 3K/W@20W. https://www.elfa.se/...75-621-50&toc=0 The heatsink is mounted on an Epoxy laminate plate which sits on the backside of the box. Since the 3A diodes will generate heat as well - up to 60/70 degrees Celsius in an almost hermetically sealed box - I mounted a 12VDC minifan (80 mA) on the outside of the box. In order to stress-test this unit properly, I decided to add two more 9V engines to the Iron Ore Train which brings it up to eight engines in total. The main purpose with this first test was to get answers on questions re heat increase and heatsink efficiency. Temperature outside the box was measured with a laser thermometer and inside the box with an outdoor thermometer. Room temperature was/is 20 degrees Celsius. In order to generate as much W (VA) and heat in the LM350 as possible, I ran the train at very low speed initially. Unfortunately, this resulted in several derailments in the grades, most likely due to the length and weight of the train combined with unbalanced push/pull forces at low speed. Therefore I had to continue with medium speed for the rest of the test. This showed again how tricky it is to operate such long trains with so many engines, particularly uphill and downhill (without brakes...) To summarize the test results: LM350 temperature peaked at 75/80 degrees Celsius when operating at very low speed.Temperature on top of the heatsink peaked at 55 degrees. Temperature inside the box rose gradually and reached 37 degrees after approx. 30 minutes. The test track is too short to test maximum speed over a longer distance. However, the engines responded remarkably when I went for full speed (which was expected given the fact that an LM350 provides 3A - which is twice as much compared to the LM317 - and sufficient for eight 9V engines that require approx. 350 mA each at most). Personally, I am satisfied with these first test results re the modified 9V speed control unit. It means that I don't have to worry any more about current and heat when running large trains with many engines in the new display. I also recognize that this modified speed control unit is not suitable for children. So now it's time to build three more modified units. The only major topic that remains to be tested are the safety fences around the curves above floor level. Enough with electronics - and back to mechanics ...

One thought/reflexion that came up when I built these locomotives. It is virtually impossible to add PF-lights to these diesels unless one is willing to modify them considerably (and eventually add space for all the cables). The same comment is valid for other trains that TLG has launched during the past years. Does this mean that TLG has already abandonned PF-lights as a complementary kit for Lego trains?

Quite well developed observation skills indeed ... I put this train together at my summer place where I don't have access to my 9V tracks. So I used the enclosed RC tracks for the display. And yes Redimus, that's the only purpose you can use RC tracks for .... I don't have tons of them because I usually get rid of them immediately. Useless and uggly...

And soon you will see it live on Youtube .....

I got a similar comment from a good friend of mine who also seemed to be concerned about the lack of rain protection for the cattle. I told him that this was supposed to be a good-weather excursion train ....

Yes, I got one set as a gift. Then I ordered extra pieces for the diesel, the wagons and the cattle. There is a relative easy way to do it, not necessarily the cheapest way. Set 60052 includes - like most other sets - numbered bags that are marked for the various objects included in the set. In this case, bag #2 and #3 are to be used for the diesel locomotive, bag #4 for the cattle wagon. When I put this set together, I kept record of all pieces I used that were not part of the numbered bags, e.g. large parts, special parts etc. These pieces are packed in a separate bag without number. Then I contacted Lego customer service in Sweden and gave them set- and bag numbers for the diesel and the cattle wagon and the extra cattle, plus ID numbers for all those pieces I picked from the non-numbered bag. Customer service enters these bag numbers into their system and gets a complete list of all IDs that are included in these bags - plus number and inventory status for each ID. Then they put together one order for everything. As I said, a relative easy way to order additional items - and certainly cheaper than buying additional 7 sets ...

This is the latest contribution to my train collection - a cattle train! The idea came up when I received set # 60052 as a gift. Two diesel locomotives with one 9V engine each, 8 wagons and 24 cattle. Total train length: 1,8 m I really like these Longhorns ...

After more than 3 months of absence it is now high time to proceed with my Lego projects again. Tests in late spring revealed a serious unbalance of pull/push forces re the eight 9V engines on the "full-size" Iron Ore Train, consisting of the Dm3 and 20 wagons. (Full-size at least for me - the original trains used to have 65 wagons ...) This caused spontaneous decouplings and derailments. The main problem appeared to be the Dm3 with its four engines. It was simply "overpowered". I therefore decided to rebuild the Dm3 and downsize it from four to two engines which are now mounted on the midsection. So this is version 2 - maybe even more alike its original. Then I tested the Iron Ore Train again with six 9V engines, two mounted on the Dm3, two on wagon # 9 and two on wagon # 19. Now it works perfectly - apparently without any lateral or vertical tensions. This megatrain is 5,3 m long and its weight is 6,5 kg. A truely amazing experience to watch this train crawl up and down the climbing spirale!

I guess there are different "schools". For some, modelling, design and similarity to original objects and environments are most important, sometimes maybe the only thing that matters. For others - like me - functionality, performance and safety when operating trains comes first. The pleasure, excitement and satisfaction you experience when running multiple beautiful and powerful Lego trains in sophisticated displays - including inclinations! - for me is second to none, at least when it comes to Lego trains! This includes of course the challenge to design and build such displays. This is not about either or - it's about both. The challenge is to combine and to prioritize. I am not the right person to judge what is adequate and what is ridiculous. I recently built the Dm3 (see separate topic) which is 8 studs wide and which will haul an iron ore train with some 20 wagons - also 8 studs wide. From an operating point of view, the issue of standard curves vs smooth curves is not the 8 studs whidth but rather the lenghth of - and distance between - the various train segments (if we disregard speed for a moment). In the case of the Dm3, I had to adjust the distance between the 3 locomotive segments from 2 studs to 3 studs. Now it works perfectly even with standard - and inclined - curves. From a design/realism point of view, you could of course debate. But then I think you need to be consistent when using smooth curves which means that you also should modify standard points (to halfcurve points - or eventually to crossover points in order to avoid the so-called S-curve). I could also argue that smooth curves with modified straight tracks - e.g. half-straight tracks - look more realistic compared to such curves using standard straight tracks. (It will be interesting to see - and compare with - the results of LeifSpangbergs project to build smooth curves with modified tracks and points). "Track realism and beauty" yes - but at what prize/trade-off and to what benefit? As Duq said - each to their own.

When discussing smooth curves, I think you first of all need to answer the question: why? We probably all agree that the standard geometry of the Lego 9V/PF tracks in general, and the curve diameter in particular, have several disadvantages and limitations - most of them related to issues and problems when operating trains at high speed (or using long MOC-wagons). The main disadvantage with smooth curves - and particularly the one that you are proposing - is the need for a lot of space (and for a lot of tracks ...). I guess the only time you can seriously consider to build such kind of smooth curves with multimeter radius - indoors - is at exhibitions in very large halls. I am currently starting to build a huge display at my home in Sweden (see topic "9V Extreme"). The entire track will be approximately 150 - 160 m long with inclinations and several levels. Even though this room has an area of 40 sqm, there is no way to consider any kind of smooth curves. I think that the space trade-off is simply too high taking the pros and cons into consideration. For me, speed has always been of essence (at least when it comes to Lego trains) and part of that huge 9V Extreme display will be a high-speed track 2m above floor level, with standard 90 degree curves. In order to prevent derailments at high speed, I will build lateral curve inclinations by using 1x2 plates along the outside of the 90 degree curves (1-2-3-2-1 plates high). I have tested this concept on the testtrack with my extended 4 engine powered (9V) HE at almost maximum speed and it works very well. Laterally inclined curves could indeed be an alternative to smooth curves if the primary issue is to overcome centrifugal forces at high speed - and to optimize space for other Lego (train) purposes. When running long and heavy trains at medium/high speed, you experience strong centrifugal forces in the curves which put pressure on the track connections. In order to strenghthen these connections between curve-tracks, I am using 2x4 plates at the track connections. The weakness/disadvantage of your proposal with the Bracket 1x2 - 2x2 as a space builder is that the connection between tracks becomes weak/loose. It might eventually open due to the forces I mentionned - particularly if you plan to build a smooth half-circle curve (180 degrees). So these connections need to be strenghthened one way or another. I need to ask you: what are your reasons to consider/build curves with such dimensions - if it's not just about speed? 56 straight tracks and 57 brackets for a 7,3 m long smooth 90 degree curve ....!? Looking at your pictures, it appears that you are using PF. Based on what I have seen so far, I have hard to believe that trains using PF can come up to such speed that it would require smooth curves with multimeter radius.

I just tested the iron ore train with the Dm3 and 12 wagons where the tail wagon is equipped with additional 2 engines (and two LED red tail lights), so six 9V engines all in all. The test was indeed very successful, no problems at all with the 8 percent inclinations. And what a spectacular experience watching this beautiful brown "snake" crawling its way through the climbing spirale! Next week I will hopefully receive all remaining parts to build additional 8 wagons. Then I will add links with more pictures. 72 wagons??! Leif, thats a 20 kg heavy LEGO train, approximately 20 meters long ...! Would probably need some 18 9V engines which would require approximately 9A! I can already smell burnt plastic ... From a space point of view It might work in my future 9V Extreme display but I certainly would have to look for sponsors - and technical advisors to solve the challenges re regulators and heatsinks ..... I don't think that a single LM350T regulator would provide enough power for the 10 plus ? engines. By the way, the 72 original wagons that you are referring to - with a load of 100 tons of ore each - are part of a trainset with a total weight of close to 9000 tons (!) It's hauled by two single-ended Co'Co' locomotives (IORE) , each with a power output of 5,400 kW (7,200 hp), This is the worlds strongest locomotive today: http://en.wikipedia....re_11.08.04.jpg To my knowledge, the first Dm3s back in the early 1960ies were build for trainsets with 65 3-axes wagons (type Mar) and a train weight of 4875 tons.

I guess I still need to learn, understand - and get convinced! - what the best of both worlds really means (in addition to the PF LED lights). In one of my previous topics, we had a lenghthy argument about 9V vs PF engines, in particular XML engines. I read an article in Railbricks about experiences with XML engines. One of the disadvantages/risks described was the lateral rotation force of this powerful engine which could lead to derailments, e.g. when passing points. I can't take that risk running heavy trains in climbing ramps/-spirales and tracks - including points - 2 meters above floor level. From what I have seen so far, I am also rather sceptical to the transmission concept of PF which appears to be vulnerable and seems to imply a high degree of friction, thereby reducing engine power efficiency considerably. (This comment primarily relates to transferring power to the wheels and track in order to get the train moving. It does not include other applications like electric train-door opening, illumination, decoupling etc.) The Railbricks article also supports my argument that you need to spread engine power (particularly w.r.t. long and heavy trains), i.e. pull, push/pull and push. I am still convinced that the 9V engine is the best and most robust - and eventually the only - choice from a combined torque and power point of view, at least related to my needs and requirements. The design limitations related to LEGO 9V engines - in particular regarding wheel/rod details and design - is a price I am willing to pay. I do appreciate the fact that this price is partially offset by opportunities like more available space (see my previous comment on LED lights). Remains to see what else could be benefitial to 9V from the PF world ... I am very pleased with the LED lights (connected to 9V batteries) even though the cables require an incredible amount of space, a significant disadvantage particularly from a design point of view. I guess this needs to be more about special features and applications rather than raw motor power in order to drive engines/trains. Something I will most likely look for in a not too remote future are sound and smoke devices (EN!) that can be applied to LEGO trains. I guess this goes beyond the worlds of LEGO 9V and PF - but that will be a separate topic .... And now back to building iron ore wagons!

A colleague of mine is actually working on a PF version with large drivers only. I have seen a concept construction and I am sure that this model will look very nice and accurate. I am not a fan of PF, for a number of reasons (except for the LED lights which unfortunately require a lot of space). But I guess if you're primarily interested in design and wheel arrangements - in particular in steam/diesel engines with large wheels, rods etc. - and not so much in performance then PF is probably the way to go (assuming that you don't get constantly fed up with batteries loosing power by the minute ...). For me, LEGO trains and engines are not primarily exhibition or experimental objects, they have to perform. For me, speed has always been of essence, at least with regard to LEGO trains. So functionality and performance (in combination with nice design) comes first. This reads: equip the trains/locomotives with adequate power - eventually at the expense of design. To be honest Duq, the design trade-off in the case of the Dm3 due to the 9V engines is not a shame for me, I can accept it for the reasons mentionned. And besides, I could mount front and tail LED lights - a nice feature indeed - which would not have been possible with PF engines due to space limitations. As I have written in my other topic "9V Extreme", I have started to build construction prototypes for a very large display including climbing ramps and -spirales with inclinations of up to 8 percent, and a high speed track 2 m above floor level (all in all approx. 150 m of tracks). The basic requirement for most of my trains - and in particular the extended Horizon Express, the Santa Fe and the extended IC train - will be to manage this entire track without any problems. The ultimate challenge will be the 5 m long and 6,5 - 7 kg heavy iron ore train (with the Dm3 and some 18 wagons) which will probably need eight 9V engines all in all - eventually even ten. This will also require more powerful regulators (e.g. LM350T) and more efficient heatsinks. Just imagine, what a fantastic and breathtaking experience watching this iron ore train - and all the other trains - climbing all the way up to the top, speeding along the high speed track and then crawling down back to the trainyard again! This will be 9V at its very best! PF? Not a chance ...

The iron ore train with the Dm3 is my first 8 stud wide train. Tests so far have shown that the Dm3 is very stable - also in curves - most likely due to its heavy weight in combination with a relatively low center of gravity. I don´t think there is a significant difference between 6, 7 or 8 stud wide trains with regard to risk for derailing in curves, unless you build locomotives/trains with high centers of gravity.

Good guess but I am actually origin from Switzerland - the paradise country of trains ... The next choice will hopefully be a Swiss engine (the "crocodile" is already part of my collection).

In my other topic "9V Extreme" you can read about my plans to build a huge display with a climbing wall and climbing spirals which will have inclinations up to 8 percent. The ultimate challenge will be to get the iron ore train with the Dm3 and 10 wagons (where the tail wagon will be equipped with another two engines) all the way up to the top. So six engines all in all! I am still working on the heatsink issue. First tests with six engines showed that the temperature of the LM317T regulator passed 70 degrees Celsius after 5 minutes of operation ... The first Dm3s were delivered in 1960 and modified several times later on. This picture taken at Narvik station in september 1988 shows a modernized Dm3 with a "facelift" of the front (and substantially improved working conditions for the personnel).

And finally here she is - the long awaited Dm3 in a 9V version! A lot of good advice and contributions in form of technical suggestions and solutions have resulted in this thrilling creation. For many years, its original used to be the world's strongest locomotive. This Dm3 is equipped with four 9V engines in order to haul an iron ore train with 18 wagons (all in all approx. 6,5 kg) uphill inclinations of 8 percent. Some technical data: Length: 70 cm (86 studs) Width: 8 studs Weight: 1,5 kg (incl. two 9V batteries) Distance between segments: 3 studs Engines: four 9V engines Front and tail lights: 4x2 PF LED lights connected to two 9V batteries via 2x2 mini switches (unbelievable how much space these cables need ...) And now it's high time to build the iron ore wagons!

I built an extended Horizon Express (two sets plus two extra waggons), equipped with four 9V engines, two pull and two push. Total weight: approx. 3 kg. This train manages inclinations of 8 percent without any problems, at decent speed! No spinning and amazing acceleration. Operating on flat level, this Horizon Express indeed turns out to be a spectacular high-speed train! The speed regulator is connected to a Voltcraft EP-925 transformer which provides enough Amps to run four engines with one speed regulator.

Maybe, but for me this is history. If I had to decide again, I might consider.

Hi Ashi, Thanks for your comment re power supply. This has indeed been one of the most discussed and elaborated topics re my 9V Extreme projects so far. I finally decided to go for the Voltcraft EP-925. This is by all means an oversized solution since it provides up to 25 Amps at maximum 15 V (which reads 375 VA ...) My plan is to connect four 9V speed regulators to one Voltcraft unit and to operate at most four trains - each one equipped with up to four engines - simultaneously, which will require approximately 5 Amps at most (approx. 45 VA). The LM317 provides approx. 1,5 Amps which is enough to operate trains equipped with four engines, each one requiring up to 300 mA. I am quite happy with the Voltcraft. One issue that still remains to be solved is heat control of the LM317. I decided to exchange all existing heatsinks in the LEGO 9V speed regulators and eventually install small vans. By the way, Peterab, don't forget to send me the pictures you promised me.

The prototype for the double-track climbing spirale is now ready (except for the security fences). After some experimenting, I decided to build the spirale ramps with MDF 6 mm, mounted on strips of wood (21x43 mm). Since the prototype is built on floor level, I had to construct special pillars to cope with the lateral tensions. The basic idea was to build a solid and robust construction that can support long and heavy trains such as the extended Horizon Express and the Santa Fe train. Some technical details: * Elevation: 20 cm * Maximum inclinations: approx. 8 percent (inner spirale) and approx. 5 percent (outer spirale) * Minimum clearance (measured from railtop): approx. 14 cm * Ramp width: 12,5 - 13 cm * Track lengths (measured from start to end of inclination): * inner spirale: 323 cm (9 straight, 1 half straight, 16 curved) * outer spirale: 466 cm (20 straight, 3 half straight, 16 curved) * Horizontal distance (measured between start and end of inclination): 70 cm * Lateral ramp inclination: negligeable * Power supply: 1 Voltcraft EP-925, 1 speed regulator for each track, 2x4 power connections (total test track lengths:12,4 m resp. 14,9 m) The test results showed that the climbing spirale concept works perfectly! Compared with the previous tests on straight ramps with 8 percent inclination,, more power/speed is needed due to friction in the curves - particularly for the inner spirale. Future tests will show if the trains equipped with only two or one motor(s) manage to get up the inner spirale. If the results would be negative, I will have to run these trains on the outer spirale. Quite amazing to watch these long and heavy trains winding up and down the spirales! What a spectacular view it will be to see these climbing spirales hanging in the ceiling - 2 m above floor level - when the 9V Extreme project is finalized!

Interesting question. I guess the answer is no, at least not in this topic or previous topics related to power supply discussions re my 9V Extreme project. Given my limited knowledge about electronics and electrical devices suitable for LEGO 9V trains, I am certainly not the right person to explain why "power transistors biased by a LM317 to supply higher current" have not been considered so far. What would your recommendation be? How would such a fitting look like? I assume that temperature control/-management in this scenario would be even more important and necessary.

As the picture above shows, I am using the connections to the far left of the EP-925 which provide 3-15V/25A, the main reason being that I need approx. 13V outgoing voltage in order to obtain 9V at the power connections through the regulator - at maximum speed. In addition, connecting four regulators to the EP-925 will require approx. 5-6A. Making a mistake could in worst case result in supplying 15V/25A which reeds 375 VA(W) - and that would certainly result in serious damages. Most likely, the LM317 would burn before reaching the power connections and the tracks. No problem with waiting for that picture until end of January. In the meantime, I will certainly be busy with building the AAC (climbing spiral) prototype ...