9V Extreme - Power Supply

[Haddock51]

Not by me.

The LEGO 9V controller has a max output of 9VA which is about 1A at maximum speed (9V).

This is not true for LEGO trains with four motors. Each motor draws about 300mA at top speed, which means a four motor train requires 1.2 A, which leads to my recommendation of two controllers in parallel for each section.

The most critical part of this layout are the two identical inclination sections - Ramp Alpha and Ramp Beta - between level 0 and level +1. Total length approx. 20 meters each, total climbing altitude approx. 120 cm. Since all 180 degree curves will be on plane levels - for safety reasons - the inclination is approx. 8 percent.

The total weight of the extended Horizon Express is approx. 3 kg that have to be pulled "all the way up to the top". I calculate to have two 9V transformers in synch for each Ramp section with 2x4 connection points - every 5 meters - basically side by side. So my key question: Will the two transformers manage to get this train - with 4 engines and a total weight of 3 kg - all the way up to level +1? Will 4 x 300mA be enough or do I need to consider even more engines (and eventually more trafos) for such a heavy train given the size and length of these inclinations?

Experience from my previous layout (Brickshelf, DaRePo) with similar inclinations (approx. 8 percent) but shorter track length showed that there was no problem getting a 4 engine powered full sized Santa Fe train "all the way up to the hill" (ground level + 35 centimeters), with two 9V transformers in synch and no multiple connections at all (total track length for that loop - up and down - approx. 10 meters).

Edited February 23, 2013 by Haddock51

[Haddock51]

The most critical part of this layout are the two identical inclination sections - Ramp Alpha and Ramp Beta - between level 0 and level +1. Total lenght approx. 20 meters, total climbing altitude approx. 120 cm. Since all 180 degree curves are on plane levels - for safety reasons - the inclination is approx. 8 percent.

The total weight of the extended Horizon Express - two locomotives and 6 waggons with 4 engines - is approx. 3 kg that have to be pulled "all the way up to the top". I calculate to have two 9V transformers in synch for each Ramp section with 2x4 connection points - every 5 meters - basically side by side. So my key question: Will the two transformers manage to get this train - with 4 engines and a total weight of 3 kg - all the way up to level +1? Will 4 x 300mA be enough or do I need to consider even more engines (and eventually more trafos) for such a heavy train given the size and length of these inclinations?

This is how this trainset looks like

[peterab]

The most critical part of this layout are the two identical inclination sections - Ramp Alpha and Ramp Beta - between level 0 and level +1. Total length approx. 20 meters each, total climbing altitude approx. 120 cm. Since all 180 degree curves are on plane levels - for safety reasons - the inclination is approx. 8 percent.

The total weight of the extended Horizon Express is approx. 3 kg that have to be pulled "all the way up to the top". I calculate to have two 9V transformers in synch for each Ramp section with 2x4 connection points - every 5 meters - basically side by side. So my key question: Will the two transformers manage to get this train - with 4 engines and a total weight of 3 kg - all the way up to level +1? Will 4 x 300mA be enough or do I need to consider even more engines (and eventually more trafos) for such a heavy train given the size and length of these inclinations?

As I said before if the train can climb one section, as long as there are sufficient connections so there is no great voltage drop between them, it will be able to climb the whole way.

The ramp is the big unknown for me too, but I don't think the wiring will be the problem. I don't have a lot of experience with ramps and 9V, because my club avoids them, since we've had problems in the past with traction issues. My suggestion is to build one ramp section (or maybe two with a 180 degree curve between them) and test it. Then you can experiment with how many motors you require for the ramp, and how many connections are needed. You mentioned you had a Santa Fe, I'd use that for the test since it is probably heavier. If you get that working reliably everything else should work too.

If it doesn't work you can add more motors and controllers, but turning 3 controllers in sync is difficult even with extra people, and it's almost impossible to turn them all off quickly in case of accident. I'd probably try and reduce the weight of the trains instead, perhaps by reducing the number of carriages. I'd guess 4 motors in your Horizon Express should be fine though, since 1 motor can pull the standard set.

[zephyr1934]

If it doesn't work you can add more motors and controllers, but turning 3 controllers in sync is difficult even with extra people, and it's almost impossible to turn them all off quickly in case of accident. I'd probably try and reduce the weight of the trains instead, perhaps by reducing the number of carriages. I'd guess 4 motors in your Horizon Express should be fine though, since 1 motor can pull the standard set.

I think I've gone up to four controllers on one track. You make your life easier if you put all of the controllers next to each other and run extension cords to get the power to where you need it, but you can also do it with the controllers physically located in different parts of the room. When I last did it, I think I took the motors off the track, then went around turning all of the controllers to the same level (during set up I unhooked all but one controller, made sure the train went the direction I wanted, then repeated with the next controller, and the next). With all four controllers at full power I then quickly put the motors on the rails while physically holding the train back until all of the motors were on the track (it was either four or six). Then when I released it I did so slowly, letting it accelerate away from the stop while still in my hands instead of jerking out at full speed and breaking the coupling.

At other displays I think I also tried adjusting one controller at a time, one step at a time (controller A to level 1, then controller B to level 1, then controller A to level 2, etc)

Since our layouts are often a large table, I did not feel comfortable letting a 50 car train go around completely unsupervised. I bought a remote control outlet for $10 or $15 and then plugged all of the controllers into that outlet. So with the push of a button I could kill power to all of the controllers.

Now if I were to do it again, here's what I would do:

1. try to get all of the controllers physically next to each other and have some means to cut power to all of them all at once (e.g., pulling the plug or the remote control outlet)
   
2. unhook all of the controllers except one, the one that is closest to the train.
   
3. figure out minimum number of controllers it takes to get the train moving (probably just one), then bring this one back to a stop. (If you have a downgrade in your layout, you can use this to your advantage for getting the train moving and start the train while it is on the downhill section)
   
4. turn the unconnected controllers from #2 to the final power level I wanted.
   
5. start the train from a stop using the controller(s) from #3 up to speed, then put the connector back on the controllers from #4, with the one closest downstream first and so on until they are all connected.
   

Oh, and a word of warning, I would assume using multiple controllers on one track could shorten the life of the controllers.

[Haddock51]

As I said before if the train can climb one section, as long as there are sufficient connections so there is no great voltage drop between them, it will be able to climb the whole way.

The ramp is the big unknown for me too, but I don't think the wiring will be the problem. I don't have a lot of experience with ramps and 9V, because my club avoids them, since we've had problems in the past with traction issues. My suggestion is to build one ramp section (or maybe two with a 180 degree curve between them) and test it. Then you can experiment with how many motors you require for the ramp, and how many connections are needed. You mentioned you had a Santa Fe, I'd use that for the test since it is probably heavier. If you get that working reliably everything else should work too.

If it doesn't work you can add more motors and controllers, but turning 3 controllers in sync is difficult even with extra people, and it's almost impossible to turn them all off quickly in case of accident. I'd probably try and reduce the weight of the trains instead, perhaps by reducing the number of carriages. I'd guess 4 motors in your Horizon Express should be fine though, since 1 motor can pull the standard set.

What kind of problems did you have with traction issues?

I am still puzzled by the fact that there is so little to find (articles, pictures, movies) about Lego Train inclinations. We all know that floor space is the very limiting factor (besides financial resources ...) for all Lego building activities, in particular w.r.t. trains. Using inclinations within the ramifications for Lego Train 9V opens up for opportunities to use space in a much more efficient way. This 175 meter track will actually be rather compact since it will not occupy more than 6 square meters floor space (disregarding the high speed track which will run 2.2 meters above floor, i.e. the floor space below can still be used for other Lego purposes).

I am actually planning to set up a test track exactly in line with your recommendation, but first I need to get my new hobby-room ready which will be later this spring.

I think I've gone up to four controllers on one track. You make your life easier if you put all of the controllers next to each other and run extension cords to get the power to where you need it, but you can also do it with the controllers physically located in different parts of the room. When I last did it, I think I took the motors off the track, then went around turning all of the controllers to the same level (during set up I unhooked all but one controller, made sure the train went the direction I wanted, then repeated with the next controller, and the next). With all four controllers at full power I then quickly put the motors on the rails while physically holding the train back until all of the motors were on the track (it was either four or six). Then when I released it I did so slowly, letting it accelerate away from the stop while still in my hands instead of jerking out at full speed and breaking the coupling.

At other displays I think I also tried adjusting one controller at a time, one step at a time (controller A to level 1, then controller B to level 1, then controller A to level 2, etc)

Since our layouts are often a large table, I did not feel comfortable letting a 50 car train go around completely unsupervised. I bought a remote control outlet for $10 or $15 and then plugged all of the controllers into that outlet. So with the push of a button I could kill power to all of the controllers.

Now if I were to do it again, here's what I would do:

1. try to get all of the controllers physically next to each other and have some means to cut power to all of them all at once (e.g., pulling the plug or the remote control outlet)
   
2. unhook all of the controllers except one, the one that is closest to the train.
   
3. figure out minimum number of controllers it takes to get the train moving (probably just one), then bring this one back to a stop. (If you have a downgrade in your layout, you can use this to your advantage for getting the train moving and start the train while it is on the downhill section)
   
4. turn the unconnected controllers from #2 to the final power level I wanted.
   
5. start the train from a stop using the controller(s) from #3 up to speed, then put the connector back on the controllers from #4, with the one closest downstream first and so on until they are all connected.
   

Oh, and a word of warning, I would assume using multiple controllers on one track could shorten the life of the controllers.

Why would the use of multiple controllers on one track shorten their lifetime?

From what I understand from some of the previous comments, the stress level for 9V controllers seems to be related to the number of controllers used in relation to the number of engines involved and the way these controllers are synched. What are your experiences?

Edited February 24, 2013 by Haddock51

[peterab]

What kind of problems did you have with traction issues?

Trains with complex wheel arrangements like the Emerald Night or three axled bogie tend to get stuck at the change of inclines because they lift the driving wheels off the track. Heavy trains tend not to have enough power to go up the grades. Since the members of my club build all sorts of rolling stock we try and avoid grades so everyone can run their trains. Also long grades are difficult to transport and set up so we have avoided them so far.

I am still puzzled by the fact that there is so little to find (articles, pictures, movies) about Lego Train inclinations. We all know that floor space is the very limiting factor (besides financial resources ...) for all Lego building activities, in particular w.r.t. trains. Using inclinations within the ramifications for Lego Train 9V opens up for opportunities to use space in a much more efficient way. This 175 meter track will actually be rather compact since it will not occupy more than 6 square meters floor space (disregarding the high speed track which will run 2.2 meters above floor, i.e. the floor space below can still be used for other Lego purposes).

I am actually planning to set up a test track exactly in line with your recommendation, but first I need to get my new hobby-room ready which will be later this spring.

Our limitation is not normally space, but set-up time and ease of transport for our large club layouts. I was surprised that most people recommend only one plate rise per track piece for 9V trains. 4.5V trains can easily climb 1 brick per track piece, but you need to be careful of downhill speed. Good Luck with your tests.

[Haddock51]

Trains with complex wheel arrangements like the Emerald Night or three axled bogie tend to get stuck at the change of inclines because they lift the driving wheels off the track. Heavy trains tend not to have enough power to go up the grades. Since the members of my club build all sorts of rolling stock we try and avoid grades so everyone can run their trains. Also long grades are difficult to transport and set up so we have avoided them so far.

Our limitation is not normally space, but set-up time and ease of transport for our large club layouts. I was surprised that most people recommend only one plate rise per track piece for 9V trains. 4.5V trains can easily climb 1 brick per track piece, but you need to be careful of downhill speed. Good Luck with your tests.

You´re absolutely right - the Emerald Night, which in my case is equipped with two 9V engines on the first waggon (out of four) will not manage the incline due to the three axled bogie. I will anyway run it on the high speed track (with an Altitude Adjustment Circle between level +1 and level +2 which has an almost "seemless" change of incline).

Yes, downhill will be a challenge - a lot of kinetic energy in movement. As mentionned before, the 180 degree curves will be on plane levels - for safety reasons - with some straights (all in all approx. 2 meters).I will also build plastic fences outside the 180 degree curves, just in case ...I don't like the idea of dropping the Horizon Express - or any other train - from 1 meter above level 0 (with a surface in Plexi-glas to be able to watch train movements on level -1).

I will "smoothen" the edge at the end of the long inclines by lifting up the last straight and the first straight after the edge with 1 plate.

I hope you will try inclinations in the future and share your experience (and pictures!) with me.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Haddock51

[Haddock51]

'Somebody from the US' sounds like an expert Of course I'm also just someone from Australia. Here's a video of the club layout that I contributed to where we use some of these techniques;

As far as we know this is the biggest layout ever built in the southern hemisphere.

You need to connect the two controllers to the track close to each other and with the same polarity (each controller should make a motor move the same direction when turned the same way). By turning them in sync I mean you should make sure both controllers are set close to the same positions at all times. You will cause a short circuit if you have the in opposite directions for example, but you will also put unnecessary strain on them if they are not set at the same speed.

The reason this is helpful for a four motor train is the standard controller is able to put out about 1A at 9V from memory. Each motor draws about 300mA at 9V. Four motors draw about 1.2A which is more than a single controller can deliver, the result is you can overheat your transformer and your trains wont run with full power. By adding an extra controller in parallel you add more current solving both potential problems.

I need to get further clarification on this synch issue.

On my previous display - many years back - I used to operate two 9V transformers simultaneously to pull up a 4 engine powered Santa Fe train on inclinations of approx. 8 percent (without any multiple connections) on a loop of approx 10 meters. This worked without any problems - sometimes a little tricky - particularly on downhill operations when you free a lot of energy that needs to be managed and controlled.

From what I remember, I used these two transformators not in synch, i.e. not at the same speed. One transformer was used to keep some kind of base speed, the second one to increase/decrease speed - particularly when pushing the train uphill. Is this what you mean by "stressing transformers"? If yes, I am glad that these transformers never were fried ....

So if I understand you correctly, in order to "unstress" these transformers, one should always use them "in synch" by switching at the same speed level (except in downhill operations where you only need one transformer anyway)?

Edited February 24, 2013 by Haddock51

[Haddock51]

Trains with complex wheel arrangements like the Emerald Night or three axled bogie tend to get stuck at the change of inclines because they lift the driving wheels off the track. Heavy trains tend not to have enough power to go up the grades. Since the members of my club build all sorts of rolling stock we try and avoid grades so everyone can run their trains. Also long grades are difficult to transport and set up so we have avoided them so far.

Our limitation is not normally space, but set-up time and ease of transport for our large club layouts. I was surprised that most people recommend only one plate rise per track piece for 9V trains. 4.5V trains can easily climb 1 brick per track piece, but you need to be careful of downhill speed. Good Luck with your tests.

I have seen these recommendations as well, and I believe they are linked to inclination constructions built only in Lego (for example the bearing constructions).

For me, this is ok but I also feel that such recommendations could refrain people from going beyond what is feasable and from exploring what is possible.

I consider myself an AFOL but not a Lego fundamentalist where everything has to be built in Lego. Buildings, landscapes, MOCs etc. yes, but when it comes to long and heavy Lego trains in combination with steep inclinations, high altitude platforms, high speed and limited space, then topics like stability, damage prevention and safety must be prioritized - at least in my opinion - in worst case at the expense of "everything in Lego". Lego Train offers such fantastic opportunities, among many others the possibility to operate to a large extent in three dimensions! However, I am convinced that pushing the limits also requires a mindset of balancing risks vs thrilling Lego design opportunities.

What is your opinion?

Edited February 25, 2013 by Haddock51

[peterab]

From what I remember, I used these two transformators not in synch, i.e. not at the same speed. One transformer was used to keep some kind of base speed, the second one to increase/decrease speed - particularly when pushing the train uphill. Is this what you mean by "stressing transformers"? If yes, I am glad that these transformers never were fried ....

Yes, this may stress the transformers. It would be more likely to damage the transformers (or at least blow a fuse) if they were set to opposite directions, but it's probably not a good idea. They are likely to be designed to be fairly robust since they're designed for kids, but why risk shortening their lifespan?

So if I understand you correctly, in order to "unstress" these transformers, one should always use them "in synch" by switching at the same speed level (except in downhill operations where you only need one transformer anyway)?

Yes, that's the safest way to use them.

[hoeij]

* Most trains equipped with two 9V engines, Santa Fe and Horizon Express with 4 engines each

I don't think you need four 9V motors for your 8-car Horizon Express, three should certainly do it (two would be enough if it weren't for the inclines). One of the reasons that a train like Santa Fe is hard to pull is a defect in the design of the wheelsets. After some wear, the wheels rub against the wheelsets (see Railbricks #2 for a solution).

According to http://www.philohome...s/motorcomp.htm, a 9V train motor draws about 380 mA

That's under a very high load. The 9V motors in my trains generally pull about 250 mA each (regardless of the speed setting, increasing voltage does not lead to a higher current because this is a motor and not a resistor or a lamp).

[hoeij]

The total weight of the extended Horizon Express is approx. 3 kg that have to be pulled "all the way up to the top". I calculate to have two 9V transformers in synch for each Ramp section with 2x4 connection points - every 5 meters - basically side by side. So my key question: Will the two transformers manage to get this train - with 4 engines and a total weight of 3 kg - all the way up to level +1? Will 4 x 300mA be enough or do I need to consider even more engines (and eventually more trafos) for such a heavy train given the size and length of these inclinations?

Each transformer can produce about 750 mA, so two transformers is enough to pull the train up. Four motors is definitely enough too.

Parts of the track have to be electrically isolated from each other. The problem is going downhill. The voltage needs to be very low there, otherwise you'll derail. But the voltage can't be low going up. So the downhill part has to be isolated. You probably want 3 different voltages: going up, going level, going down.

By the way, if one transformer is placed say at 4.2 volts, and the other at say 5.4 volts, it won't harm either one (however, unless they are quite far separated in the track, the one on 5.4 volt is doing almost all of the work).

[Haddock51]

I don't think you need four 9V motors for your 8-car Horizon Express, three should certainly do it (two would be enough if it weren't for the inclines). One of the reasons that a train like Santa Fe is hard to pull is a defect in the design of the wheelsets. After some wear, the wheels rub against the wheelsets (see Railbricks #2 for a solution).

That's under a very high load. The 9V motors in my trains generally pull about 250 mA each (regardless of the speed setting, increasing voltage does not lead to a higher current because this is a motor and not a resistor or a lamp).

Couldn´t find the article on wheelset design defect re Santa Fe in Railbricks #2? Could it be in an other edition? Do you have a link to this article?

Edited February 25, 2013 by Haddock51

[Haddock51]

Each transformer can produce about 750 mA, so two transformers is enough to pull the train up. Four motors is definitely enough too.

Parts of the track have to be electrically isolated from each other. The problem is going downhill. The voltage needs to be very low there, otherwise you'll derail. But the voltage can't be low going up. So the downhill part has to be isolated. You probably want 3 different voltages: going up, going level, going down.

By the way, if one transformer is placed say at 4.2 volts, and the other at say 5.4 volts, it won't harm either one (however, unless they are quite far separated in the track, the one on 5.4 volt is doing almost all of the work).

That will be difficult to do. The basic idea is that you should be able to use both ramp sections for uphill and downhill - I don't like the "one-way" concept.

In order to increase safety and prevent damage, each ramp section will consist of 4 inclination ramps, 3 of them with a ramp length of 4 meters and an inclination of 8 percent/+32 cm, and one with a ramp length of 3 meters (8 percent/+24 cm). There will be 3 plane levels for the 180 degree curves with some straight rails (approx. 2 m of track length). The plane level should contribute to slow down the heavy trains - in fact, it should be possible to reach a complete stop at each curve if necessary.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Haddock51

[Bamos]

Instead of using multiple controllers could you use a large scale model train control with more amps and just limit the voltage to the track. Meaning if the control produces 9 volts at speed step 6 then don’t turn the dial past 6 I know it’s not purist but it may be easier than using four controllers to increase the amps.

As for the inclination LEGO tight curves cause drag on the train that can be equal to say a two percent grade. So a grade of eight percent will become a ten percent a grade with one curve and twelve percent with two

EDIT I found out lenz and NCE both have systems where the track voltage can be brought down to 10 volts for Z gauge trains.

.

Bill

Edited February 26, 2013 by Bamos

[peterab]

Instead of using multiple controllers could you use a large scale model train control with more amps and just limit the voltage to the track. Meaning if the control produces 9 volts at speed step 6 then don’t turn the dial past 6 I know it’s not purist but it may be easier than using four controllers to increase the amps.

This is certainly possible, in fact many LEGO train clubs use more powerful controllers because it is easier. You don't need to replace the whole controller though, you can just replace the wall wart. We run a more powerful transformer through a pair of standard LEGO controllers. I think our transformer outputs about 2 x 1.5A at 10V.

If you want to do this, take a look at the input and output specs of your wall plug (they vary from region to region), and buy a higher current transformer with the same output voltage. You should also check if it's AC or DC out, and if it's DC what polarity is used for the plug.

[zephyr1934]

Couldn´t find the article on wheelset design defect re Santa Fe in Railbricks #2? Could it be in an other edition? Do you have a link to this article?

It wasn't a full article, just an aside on p51, summarizing this post on some other message board.

[alainneke]

This is certainly possible, in fact many LEGO train clubs use more powerful controllers because it is easier. You don't need to replace the whole controller though, you can just replace the wall wart. We run a more powerful transformer through a pair of standard LEGO controllers. I think our transformer outputs about 2 x 1.5A at 10V.

If you want to do this, take a look at the input and output specs of your wall plug (they vary from region to region), and buy a higher current transformer with the same output voltage. You should also check if it's AC or DC out, and if it's DC what polarity is used for the plug.

I came accoss a post on a Dutch board in which they, in addition to replacing the wall wart, suggest to replace the diodes of the bridge rectifier with higher rated ones: http://legotreinforum.forum2go.nl/9v-trein-meer-vermogen-meerdere-transformatoren-t1764.html . Also, the internal LM317 regulator chip is designed for 1,5A; maybe it's possible to replace this by a LM150 (3A) or LM138 (5A)?

[Haddock51]

I came accoss a post on a Dutch board in which they, in addition to replacing the wall wart, suggest to replace the diodes of the bridge rectifier with higher rated ones: http://legotreinforu...oren-t1764.html . Also, the internal LM317 regulator chip is designed for 1,5A; maybe it's possible to replace this by a LM150 (3A) or LM138 (5A)?

I can't read dutch ....

Instead of using multiple controllers could you use a large scale model train control with more amps and just limit the voltage to the track. Meaning if the control produces 9 volts at speed step 6 then don’t turn the dial past 6 I know it’s not purist but it may be easier than using four controllers to increase the amps.

As for the inclination LEGO tight curves cause drag on the train that can be equal to say a two percent grade. So a grade of eight percent will become a ten percent a grade with one curve and twelve percent with two

EDIT I found out lenz and NCE both have systems where the track voltage can be brought down to 10 volts for Z gauge trains.

.

Bill

I guess it brings us back to the issue of multiple connections to the track. Placing contacts with 5 meter intervals will result in approx. 50 connection points. I would still need 4 separate transformers in order to run 3 trains independant of each other, and it would still leave me with approx. 40 connection points - linked to one large scale model train control?

Since all 180 degree curves will be on plane levels (with a track length of approx. 2 meters), there will be no inclination at all in the curves - maybe with the exception of the Horizon Express with a total length of 2.3 meters - but that inclination effect should be minor.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Haddock51

[alainneke]

I can't read dutch ....

That's why I explained what they suggested: replace the diodes with higher rated ones. Besides, there's always Google translate

[Dan-147]

I can't read dutch ....

Can you read french?

Seriously, FreeLUG did a write-up with pictures a while back about boosting the power of the 9volt controller;

http://www.freelug.org/spip.php?article328

They also had a write-up with pictures about fixing the wheels of the Santa Fe cars;

http://www.freelug.org/spip.php?article701

Good luck with GoogleTranslate. Sometimes the translations can be hilarious.

Dan-147

[Haddock51]

Can you read french?

Seriously, FreeLUG did a write-up with pictures a while back about boosting the power of the 9volt controller;

http://www.freelug.o....php?article328

They also had a write-up with pictures about fixing the wheels of the Santa Fe cars;

http://www.freelug.o....php?article701

Good luck with GoogleTranslate. Sometimes the translations can be hilarious.

Dan-147

Francais, ca va mieux...

[Haddock51]

Can you read french?

Seriously, FreeLUG did a write-up with pictures a while back about boosting the power of the 9volt controller;

http://www.freelug.o....php?article328

They also had a write-up with pictures about fixing the wheels of the Santa Fe cars;

http://www.freelug.o....php?article701

Good luck with GoogleTranslate. Sometimes the translations can be hilarious.

Dan-147

Merci beaucoup!

I first read the article about fixing the wheels of the Santa Fe cars. Checked my own cars and understand the issue (really poor design on such an exclusive train set!).

What I don´t understand is the way they fix it. You can certainly do it much more precisely and nicely by using e.g. a Cotech Mini Grinder instead of carving with a knife...

Good comments about lubrication. Maybe I haven't used my trains so much in the past - but this definitely gives fruit for thoughts (also w.r.t. engine wheels).

I also read the excellent article about improving the power supply to a 9V track. Very pedagogically written indeed - understandable even for a non-professional (even though my french is no longer what it used to be ...).

Replacing the 9V controller(s) is basically ok even though I still don't know how much you actually gain at the end - you will probably still be operating with multiple transformers anyway. Increase the number of connections to the rails seems to be almost mandatory in this case.

When it comes to the "surgical" part - replacing electrical components in the 9V transformer - I get more doubtful (I noticed the warnings....) unless I can find somebody who is willing to help me.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Haddock51

[hoeij]

I first read the article about fixing the wheels of the Santa Fe cars.

It's not just Santa Fe cars, over time, most wheelsets get this problem.

For heavier train cars (e.g. Santa Fe) the problem develops sooner, and is more noticeable, than for lighter train cars.

Before treatment, my SF needed two 9V motors to run, even though it was only a 4-car train (1 engine + 3 cars). Now it only needs one 9V motor, and the amount of work that motor has to do is less than what each of the two motors had to do before treatment.

[Haddock51]

It's not just Santa Fe cars, over time, most wheelsets get this problem.

For heavier train cars (e.g. Santa Fe) the problem develops sooner, and is more noticeable, than for lighter train cars.

Before treatment, my SF needed two 9V motors to run, even though it was only a 4-car train (1 engine + 3 cars). Now it only needs one 9V motor, and the amount of work that motor has to do is less than what each of the two motors had to do before treatment.

Arthritis in Lego wheels .... quite amazing!

Why hasn´t Lego adressed this issue?!? Very poor design indeed - with potentially serious consequences on engines!