This year I took down my old layout because I had some work to do in the basement. It was a good excuse to redesign the whole layout. I am using the same postwar ZW for track power but added a CW80 I got in a set at Christmas to the 1033/1034's I was using for accessories. All the commons are connected. Initially, I set the CW80's accessory voltage to 14 using a cheap Radio Shack multimeter so it would match the 1033's. Everything was working fine, and actually still does. However, the CW80's green light has started to blink when powered up. The only things on the accessory circuit right now are Super O 112 switches and some Super O uncoupler tracks. I noticed when the uncouplers were wired up that the CW80 blinked when I activated the uncoupler control. Now, after hooking up about 15 of the 112 switch to controls, and the accessory voltage instead of track voltage, that the CW80 blinks all the time. Other than the possibility of a short somewhere, (I don't discount it, but everything does work right now) is this normal for a CW80 to do this? Is it compatible with the postwar 1033's, or should I just leave it out of that group? Is setting the voltage on the CW80 to match the 1033's with a cheap voltmeter adequate or do I need to use something else to do the job?
Thanks,
Scott
Scott,
First of all, what is the Made in China date-code on the bottom panel of your particular CW-80?
The "common" posts for a ZW are U; for a 1033 they are A or B; and for a CW-80 they are either A and B, or U under A and U under B, depending on the Made in China date. This could well be the key to it.
To measure the output voltage of any version of the CW-80* you need to have a load (at least a single lamp) on the CW, either the throttle or the accessory side, whichever you are measuring. Then, to sharpen up the accuracy a bit, you need to refer to a voltage conversion chart by "lionelsoni " which can be found in the archives of this forum. See "Search Community, Advanced Search." The postwar ZW and 1033 should read accurately enough straight off the meter.
When we get the "commons" sorted out satisfactorily (the "uncoupler control hook-up is suspect) we can take a look at the load. Unless they are LED's, the amps drawn by multiple lamp bulbs build up amazingly rapidly.
*With a simple household volt meter.
>
The usual way of measuring AC voltages is the root-mean-square (RMS, the square-root of the average of the square) voltage. Any AC voltmeter you are likely to have will measure the correct RMS voltage only if the waveform is sinusoidal. Unfortunately, the CW80's waveform is not sinusoidal. So its voltage can be measured accurately only with a rather special voltmeter.
Here is a chart for converting your voltmeter's reading to RMS:
Meter RMS 0 0 0.5 1.6 1 2.7 1.5 3.7 2 4.6 2.5 5.4 3 6.1 3.5 6.9 4 7.5 4.5 8.2 5 8.8 5.5 9.5 6 10 6.5 10.6 7 11.2 7.5 11.7 8 12.2 8.5 12.7 9 13.2 9.5 13.7 10 14.1 10.5 14.6 11 15 11.5 15.4 12 15.8 12.5 16.2 13 16.6 13.5 16.9 14 17.3 14.5 17.6 15 17.9 15.5 18.2 16 18.5 16.5 18.8 17 19 17.5 19.3 18 19.5 18.5 19.7 19 19.8 19.5 19.9 20 20
You can see that, when your voltmeter reads 14 volts, you are actually getting 17.3 volts from the CW80. You need to set the CW80 so that the meter reads about 10 in order to have an actual voltage of 14.
Bob Nelson
scrager...Now, after hooking up about 15 of the 112 switch to controls, and the accessory voltage instead of track voltage, that the CW80 blinks all the time...
Just the 30 bulbs of these 15 switches & controllers are about 90 watts or more. You are asking too much of the 5 amp output of the CW-80.
Rob
If you lower the voltage to the true 14 volts that you intended however, the load may be reduced enough for the CW80 to handle it.
Rob,
Wouldn't it be more consistent to show the typical amperage of each bulb so that the cumulative draw could be added up and compared to the transformer's rated output of 5 amps in the case of CW-80's?*
For example, if the average draw of a single lamp was 0.15 amps (not necessarily a real value) then the CW-80 at 5 amps could power about 33 lamps, assuming that nothing else was drawing on any of the transformer's outputs, and assuming that my calculation is good enough for government work. (5 amps per transformer divided by 0.15 amps per bulb equals approximately 33 bulbs per transformer.)
The question of which version of the CW-80 is involved here still has not been answered by the original poster. If the problem is a simple overload, it doesn't matter, but there could be more to it than is immediately apparent. Also, other members might be interested in some of the more tricky "polarity issues" posed by the CW-80 family, and how they affect wiring schemes. Of course, they may not, but it's an inefficient learning process if the forum provides answers that are useful to only one member at a time. (Nice small classes, though.)
* I suppose you'd have to specify the current draw at a specified voltage, or a series of voltages? Rob or Bob?
lionelsoniIf you lower the voltage to the true 14 volts that you intended however, the load may be reduced enough for the CW80 to handle it.
Maybe, depending on which bulbs are in the switches. But then you don't have enough overhead to run the switch machines too - you will get the blinking green overload indicator every time even when just one switch point throws(figure ~ 5-7 ohms for the switch coils).
Incandescent lamps are rated both for voltage and for the current that they can be expected to draw at the rated voltage. There is a pretty good rule that lamp current varies as the .55 power of voltage, which allows you to calculate the current at the actual voltage used. For example, the very common number 53 lamp is rated at 120 milliamperes at 14.4 volts. So it can be expected to draw 118 milliamperes at 14 volts, and 133 milliamperes at 17.3 volts, or, in terms of power, 1654 milliwatts at 14 volts, 1728 milliwatts at 14.4 volts, and 2296 milliwatts at 17.3 volts.
Whether there is enough transformer capability left to throw the turnouts may depend on how the CW80's overload protection is designed. A true transformer (like the 1033) would have no problem even if it were fully loaded by the lamps, since the turnout would have thrown long before the thermal circuit breaker could respond to the overcurrent. This is a good thing and does not endanger the transformer nor the wiring, since they both respond to the heating effects of the overcurrent in the same sort of way as the circuit breaker does. If the CW80 is designed to delay shutting off for, say, 1 second after sensing overcurrent, that would be ample time for a turnout to throw. The light may blink, but there is no harm in that.
lionelsoni Incandescent lamps are rated both for voltage and for the current that they can be expected to draw at the rated voltage. There is a pretty good rule that lamp current varies as the .55 power of voltage, which allows you to calculate the current at the actual voltage used. For example, the very common number 53 lamp is rated at 120 milliamperes at 14.4 volts. So it can be expected to draw 118 milliamperes at 14 volts, and 133 milliamperes at 17.3 volts, or, in terms of power, 1654 milliwatts at 14 volts, 1728 milliwatts at 14.4 volts, and 2296 milliwatts at 17.3 volts. Whether there is enough transformer capability left to throw the turnouts may depend on how the CW80's overload protection is designed. A true transformer (like the 1033) would have no problem even if it were fully loaded by the lamps, since the turnout would have thrown long before the thermal circuit breaker could respond to the overcurrent. This is a good thing and does not endanger the transformer or the wiring, since they both respond to the heating effects of the overcurrent in the same sort of way as the circuit breaker does. If the CW80 is designed to delay shutting off for, say, 1 second after sensing overcurrent, that would be ample time for a turnout to throw. The light may blink, but there is no harm in that.
Whether there is enough transformer capability left to throw the turnouts may depend on how the CW80's overload protection is designed. A true transformer (like the 1033) would have no problem even if it were fully loaded by the lamps, since the turnout would have thrown long before the thermal circuit breaker could respond to the overcurrent. This is a good thing and does not endanger the transformer or the wiring, since they both respond to the heating effects of the overcurrent in the same sort of way as the circuit breaker does. If the CW80 is designed to delay shutting off for, say, 1 second after sensing overcurrent, that would be ample time for a turnout to throw. The light may blink, but there is no harm in that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right you are, Bob. Two additional comments:
1. Apparently I haven't been able to "sell" my plea for consistency in units (units of measurement.) The lamp (bulb) specifications that are readily available to toy train operators use amps and decimal fractions thereof. Thus my make-believe lamp, mentioned above, rated at .150 amps (150 milliamps) was certainly in the ballpark, with many Lionel lamps being rated between 100 and 250 milliamps, or, as I prefer, 0.1 and 0.25 amps at their rated voltages. So, since more and more "transformers" are being rated in amps, it seems easier to look at the total load in amps also. Not everyone was comfortable in high school physics, especially with "dimensional analysis" and conversion factors. If one wants to use milliamps, one ought to start with the CW-80 (both major versions) ratings of 5,000 milliamps. Yes? But that's not how it's commonly stated. The specification that Tommy Trainoperator generally sees is "5 amps." Other folks can dither about watts or, heaven help us, volt-amps, but I prefer to keep things simple.
2. Unlike many postwar transformers, the CW-80's don't employ a thermal circuit-breaker per se. They use what Lionel calls a "fold-back circuit," which senses when the CW is getting close to its maximum capability, and gradually reduces the current as necessary to protect itself. The device is capable of exceeding its rated output for short periods of time. In the example above, any CW-80, operating right at its rated 5 amps (with no blinking) will almost certainly flip the switch, an action that increases the load only for an instant. The green light will blink once or twice and then return to a steady state. If a continuous load truly exceeds the rated output, the light will blink continuously , and the CW will slowly reduce its output to zero, if necessary. (Nothing blows, breaks, or needs to be replaced/re-set.) This is a unique feature of the CW series that a lot of owners seem not to understand. It actually works very well; but evidently the blinking light scares a lot of folks. An occasional blink as the train goes around the track is of almost no significance, but it seems to annoy or alarm a lot of folks. Only when the green lamp continues to blink and blink and blink is it time to check whether the load is truly excessive, such as with a derailment with a "short circuit." The Lionel Owners Manuals are VERY clear on this point.
Many owners fail to recognize how quickly the load from lamps and other continuously operating items on the layout actually build up. There was a question on this forum a year or so ago where an operator hung so many lamps on a postwar 1033 transformer that he all but melted it. That wouldn't have happened with a CW. All transformers have their limits, but the CW's actually deal with them more "gracefully" than many others. Nothing in this or any other of my post should discourage the use of Transient Voltage Supression diodes (TVS diodes) or fuses/circuit breakers where called for, in addition to what the power supply provides in the way of protection for itself AND the various devices, including the wires, on the layout. You don't want your wires to effectively be your fuses! This is a distinct possibility, especially if the "common" bus is undersized in a "common ground" scheme. Lionelsoni has posted a good deal of useful information on safe wire sizes on this forum. Ignore him and you will be lucky if you only see scorch-city. A major house fire could be in your future.
Relatively cool-running, low current Light Emitting Diodes (LED's) are almost certainly the lamps of the future.
This may not be precisely responsive to the original post, but I think it is useful general info about CW's and a few other operational topics.
I am at work right now and will have to check the date code later tonight on the CW80. Everyone else is gone from the house today so I can't even call and get them to look it up for me. This was a replacement that I got from Lionel (through a local repair shop) a few months ago. The original from the set I got at Christmas had issues that I needed fixed.
On the load, wouldn't having the 1033's in the circuit spread the load among all the transformers? The size of the load was the reason I had this number of transformers in a parallel group in the first place.
Thanks Bob for the conversion table, I will have to reset the CW80 and see if that changes anything.
I tried to add this to my original reply, but I think I messed it up somehow.
Anyway, Just a note:
The bulbs are #19's that go in the 112 switches. The control is a submini momentary toggle with an added LED indicator, so both a bulb and an LED are lit for each switch.
The uncoupler is connected by a single wire from the 14 volt accessory circuit with the common going back through the track. The control is a submini momentary toggle with an LED in parallel. I have several of these and all get the same reaction from the CW80 whether through the control or directly jumping it. From the comments I suppose the momentary blinking is not a problem, though why this load would be causing the CW80 to overload is interesting.
I can't give this much more time. What I would do, is to run both a "hot" and "common" wire to a bank of lamps that are totally separate from the track and everything else. I would do this for the CW-80, and again for the 1033, completely separate from any track or other accessory connections. Hang a bunch of your lamps on the CW, or the 1033, or split the load between them, but don't connect both power sources to the same load, and don't overload either power source. Use the guidance above about loads. Be conservative.
If one assumes that the basic wiring scheme for the postwar ZW is the "true standard" (the U posts are common), then both the early version CW-80's AND the 1033's are non-standard (they are quirky) and great care must be taken not to cross-wire either of them in all but the most basic layout.
Feeding the same load with two or more transformers, that is "sharing" the same load, is inherently problematic, in my opinion; and I would only do it if there were no other way to go. Sharing commons, however, (the very essence of the highly- regarded "common ground" scheme) is OK as long as you keep rigorous track of what is common and what is not. The early CW's and the 1033 family of transformers make it absurdly easy to screw this up.
Try it the straight-forward way. Wire is relatively inexpensive, and well worth the cost to get answer. Leave the uncoupler track out of the circuits until everything else works. If you get it to work in its simplest form, you can always get fancy later.
Do I personally use common-ground systems? All the time. Have I ever screwed one up? Of course.
If it's too difficult to raise the bridge, lower the river.
Thanks bf I appreciate your help. I don't post much on these forums because most of my questions are answered by you guys before I can ask the question and my answers are usually the same as what you guys have already said. Great resource.
After I reset the CW80 and check the code and the proper connections to common, if I still see the blinking I will probably try what you have suggested in distributing the load separately. The motor and bulbs in the switches all go to common internally through the track so I will only be able to feed the power through separate wiring from the different source transformers, but that is doable.
I would like to hear your thoughts on why the "sharing the load" is problematic. I see this all the time in parallel batteries, the power grid is sourced from multiple generators, etc. Is your concern back to my original question concerning compatibility between new and old toy train transformers, or the quirky way they are designed? If I stick to just 1033's in the load sharing is that safer (relatively). Do you find that most people use separate transformers for isolated districts for accessories (except common), with maybe a single transformer powering a high draw accessory?
I am all conventional so I have divided the track into blocks, some of which are fed from different handles on the ZW, partly to run multiple trains separately, but also to isolate a siding or a section of track. I guess on the accessory side it shouldn't be much different, except I would use different separate transformers instead of handles.
Thanks again,
Scott, I'm not trying to blow you off, but I have a personal situation involving minor* surgery coming up very soon and I have a lot to do to prepare.
I have been studying the various versions of the CW-80 since at least 2004. I am by no means an expert on the "innards" but I do know a little about it's behavior. So let me tackle one of your questions via an analogy. I think that trying to couple two transformers to the same load is inherently problematic in the same sense that "It's not that one commander is better than another; it's that one commander is better than two."
I'm well aware that it's done, but I suspect it's more successful when the two transformers are as alike as possible. When Lionel introduced the CW-80, they said it was "unlike any transformer Lionel has ever offered previously." Evidently I was the only person who read it. After seeing what was going wrong, I posted repeatedly that the more you knew about postwar transformers the less you knew about the CW-80. Everyone laughed, but I was right. To make matters much, much worse, the Lionel factory in China managed to botch the internal wiring in the pre-revision models. This was not a minor error. They miswired the common posts. Their Owners Manuals they were as messed up and confusing as the devices themselves. This went on and on for over three full years -- every single CW-80 sold -- until they finally corrected it with the "major revision" in mid 2006. But I have lost count of the posts that have been fired at me by folks who obviously don't understand or won't believe it. The factory-miswiring does not always present an operational problem, especially in simple layouts, but it's always there, lurking. That is why I insist on knowing what version we are talking about.
Now, back to your question about using multiple power supplies on a single load. I know this is done frequently both with toy trains and in other areas; but I suspect that the various power sources are pretty well matched to each other to begin with; and/or, in industrial cases, computer-controlled in real-time.
As I hope I have made clear: I think the revised CW-80 is a fine and fun little transformer, but it doesn't match anything else out there in terms of both readily measurable output voltages or waveforms. That sounds to me like a recipe for disaster in the world of mix-and-match. I could be wrong.
When shown to be wrong, my philosophy is to apologize, strike through the erroneous text but leave it "up" for all the world to laugh at, correct it as best I can, and try to do better next time. That's as honest as I know how to be on a forum.
ADCX Rob knows about as much as I think I do (maybe more?) about the behavior of the various versions of the CW-80, and a great deal more than I do about its innards. Bob "lionelsoni" Nelson is the recognized guru on this forum for issues of electronics and electrics. He recently posted an approach to end the flickering of passenger-car lights that I have never seen anywhere else. He has also posted cogently about the danger of having cars and locos with multiple roller-pickups straddle "blocks" powered by two different transformers, or different taps of the same transformer. It is very thought-provoking, and possibly relevant to your issues.
There are others with useful knowledge and experience in various aspects of the toy train world, but you'll have to figure out who they are and avoid the blowhards. Good luck.
*I have always been guided by the principle that "minor surgery" is, by definition, surgery performed on somebody else. I struggle to avoid it; but in this case I have no real choice.
Thanks for your insights. Hope all goes well with the surgery.
Here's why you shouldn't connect your CW80 and 1033 in parallel:
The 1033 puts out a sinusoidal waveform, which wiggles back and forth 60 times a second. When you set it to 14 volts, for example, the sine wave alternates smoothly between -20 and +20 volts. If you move the control lever, the entire waveform gets larger or smaller, but keeps the same undulating shape.
The CW80 has a 20 volt transformer inside it, which puts out the same sinusoidal waveform, except that it alternates between -28 and +28 volts. It does not change when you move the control lever. This internal transformer is not connected directly to the terminals. Instead, it is connected indirectly through thyristors, or electronic switches. Each half-cycle of the transformer voltage begins with the switch open. Part-way through the half-cycle, the switch closes and connects the transformer to the terminals. At the end of the half-cycle the switch opens again; and the same thing repeats for the next half-cycle. The control lever determines when in each half-cycle the switch will close. This varies the voltage that gets out of the CW80, but not at all in the same way as the 1033.
When you connect the two of them together, the 1033 drives all the load for the first part of the half-cycle, when the CW80's switch is open. Then, when the switch closes, the CW80 tries to drive both the load and the 1033--backwards. That is, the CW80 takes energy from the power line and pumps it into the 1033. This involves a lot of extra current flow and may have something to do with your difficulties.
Something similar happens when you connect two simple transformers, like two 1033s, together. However, whichever one is set higher just continuously pumps energy into the other one, on every part of every half-cycle, unless you have set both transformers to precisely the same voltage.
It is true that generators are connected together. But they have regulating circuits that continually adjust each generator to match the voltage that is on the power line that it is feeding. When you connect two batteries in parallel, one will quickly charge the other until they match.
I recommend maintaining a common return for your entire layout and your transformers. Aside from the fact that turnouts run from fixed voltage and accessories operated by control rails won't work without such an arrangement, there are some other benefits:
If your outside rails are all connected together at the transformers, you can also connect them together elsewhere. Wherever two tracks come close together, run a wire between the outside rails, so that all the outside rails are carrying current together for every part of your layout. This (along with the fact that the track has two outside rails for each center rail) can virtually eliminate voltage drop in that side of the track circuit.
Another trick is to operate your track-return accessories with the opposite voltage phase from the trains. You will hear advice that the accessory transformer should be in phase with the track transformer. It is not true. It will work fine either way; and, when it is out of phase, the return currents from the train and the accessories will cancel each other to some degree in the outside rails, reducing voltage drop.
Bob,
Great explanation, I will certainly take it in to account as I finish wiring up my layout.
I did some checking tonight and I have a CW80 with the code of G0908. The black terminals labeled U seem to be internally connected as common. The red terminals are labeled A/track and B/accessories. I had my common connected to the B terminal, so I switched them and most of the blinking light condition went away. I also reset the voltage using the RMS chart and the only blinking left, including the uncouplers, was momentarily when I hit the control for the 112 switches.
I am using the fixed voltage 14v terminals on the1033/1034's, which is B (common) and C (power), and my ZW250 has the upper terminals labeled common.
So, now after getting the commons straightened out I will break up the accessories circuit so that I am using separate transformers for separate load districts, hopefully sizing them correctly for the capability of the transformer.
BTW, I am using the technique you mention about the opposite phasing of the track and accessories transformers, which I learned from you a while ago.
Thanks all for your inputs, this was great and helped me immensely.
You're welcome.
It seems that you lucked out on the CW80 version.
Sounds like you are good to go. Lionelsoni's last post was a technical tour-de-force, was it not? You definitely have a Revised CW-80, with the "G" prefix, which stands for" good". The best test, as you have discovered, is to place an ohmmeter across the outputs. The common posts will read zero ohms, the non-commons will read several ohms.
In one sense, your 1033 is the odd man out as far as the "common" is concerned. I'm sure you've noticed that the plug on the CW is polarized whereas the others are not. Whatever hook-up scheme you decide on, it might be a good idea to put a drop of paint on the top of the unpolarized plugs so that you always insert them into the socket the same way.
The power* of the 1033 is about the same as that of the CW-80, although the 1033 can be overdriven continuously (especially if the circuit-breaker is frozen shut, as many are) and will quickly heat up, whereas in normal operation the CW-80 cannot, due to the active fold-back circuitry. (Always listen closely to ensure that the fan inside the CW has come up to speed.) The factory specs of the two devices were the same in terms of output amps.
I always fuse my postwar transformers at their rated output or perhaps an amp above it if the original factory-built circuit-breaker is suspect, as they all are. I also test mine regularly, although this is not a task devoid of some trepidation, Testing a the internal circuit-breaker on a ZW borders on the wild, especially the first time you try it.
I hope it doesn't appear that I was knocking "Common Ground" wiring schemes. I use one all the time. It's just that I sometimes go back to basic point-to-point wiring temporarily when I am troubleshooting. You can learn a lot from Lionelsoni's several posts on this subject which are in the forum archives. If I understand him correctly, it is necessary to realize that the common ground "bus" has to carry ALL THE CURRENT that could be flowing anywhere in the layout from all possible sources, i.e., transformers. It must be sized correctly in order to be safe. You may be surprised at how large a common wire (bus) size has to be in order to be safe. Bob has posted useful charts.
It's been a pleasure working with you. I hope others too are benefitting from this thread.
Onward and upward!
* The CW's (both versions) have a somewhat slow application-of-power feature ("ramp-up") that works when the direction button is pressed, but not when the throttle lever is pushed forward. (Upon power-down, the power is cut off immediately whether the direction button is pressed or the throttle is yanked back.) At lot of folks don't believe it, and think the CW's are weak, I am indebted to ADCX Rob not only for clarifying this, but also devising a simple test/demo that seems to be persuasive. Ask him about it.
.
Thanks for your kind review of my post, bf. I hope you won't mind a few additional comments about the subjects you raised.
The 1033 is not the eccentric that its terminal labeling makes it appear. Actually, Lionel was pretty consistent in connecting the U terminal to the wiper on all their postwar transformers with a single voltage control, like the 1033. Their inexplicable inconsistency was in using the completely different convention of U as common in all the other, multiple control, transformers, like the Z and ZW.
I agree that marking plugs is a good idea. My preference is to mark the side of the plug that goes to the grounded conductor. This is consistent with the NEC philosophy of always "identifying" the grounded conductor, whether by white color, ridge on the zip cord, or whatever. The grounded conductor is the fatter blade on modern American plugs.
As you say, the common conductor can get very large. This is a consequence of the fact that the ampacity of a wire increases only as the 3/4 power of its size. One way to mitigate this is to wire transformers so that their commons stay separate for much or all of the distance between them and the track. For example, I use two (15-ampere) type-Z transformers on a roll-around cart, but with separate 14-AWG common wires in the tether. If I had combined them at the cart, I would need a 10-AWG wire, which has about 2 1/2 times as much copper in it as a 14 AWG.
I tend to prefer using metric prefixes to avoid decimal points, for two reasons: They are easily lost when printed or hard to see in many computer fonts, like this one And the United States is almost alone in using the period or dot as the decimal point. The comma is much more popular in the rest of the world, with the period used where we would use the comma. So I avoid commas entirely; and I write quantities that would require a period with a smaller metric unit when possible. Thus, 120 milliamperes rather than .120 amperes. This forum is mostly American (that is, includes Canadians); but we do have a fair number of participants in Europe and other countries.
As always your remarks are interesting and cogent. My comments about consistency only refer to going from the spec for the load (the lamps in this case) to the spec for the output of the transformer. To me It matters not whether we use amps, as in 0.15 amps for the lamps and 5 amps for the power source or 115 milliamps for the lamps and 5,000 milliamps for the power source -- they are equivalent statements as you well know but some members may not. I just think that we ought to use one or the other scheme, and not both, in any given post. That way, the operator can easily calculate how many items can be conected safely onto a given power source, without constantly having to convert the units. Or so it seems to me. [It might amuse you to know that when I use the decimal point I embolden it (. vs .) and use the leading zero -- when I remember to.]
Your points about European conventions and the NEC standards are certainly well taken.
Lionel's early (post-war, at least) convention was to distinguish between transformers with only a single throttle, such as the 1033, from those with two or more, such as the ZW, was to use a low-lettered post as common on the former group, and posts marked "U" for common in the latter ones. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this old Lionel convention confused the development of the CW series and resulted in the bass-ackwards wiring/labeling of the output terminals during the first three years of production.
I notice that the voltage conversion factors for the CW's that we collaborated on several years ago are still in use. You may recall that I took the readings off an early version CW with my handy $10 Sears analog voltmeter. I'd love to see someone update those numbers with a post-revision CW and a good quality, well-calibrated digital voltmeter or the like. Maybe another member will take it on and feed you some new data to convert, if you'd be good enough to do so.
I hope that between us we have finally made the point that a little occasional blinking from the green light on CW's generally NOT indicative of a problem. In fact, it's actually quite reassuring. Compare it to a 1033, for example. As an operator runs his train, how does he know -- in real-time -- that his circuit-breaker is actually on duty?
Perhaps just one more dance. Then I really must go...
Regards,
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month