More problems - Fastrack/CW-80/Remote Switches

[palallin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wolverine49

I generalized your comments to apply also to the similarly-rated CW-80.
wolverine49

Actually, I suspect they probably do, but I can't prove it. I know the innards are different, but the control (and the controlled) electronics are the same AFAIK.

[lionelsoni]

I have trouble with the idea that the best way to protect electronic locomotives is to have faster circuit breakers or fuses. This is not to say that circuit breakers and fuses shouldn't be used, just that they do not address the problem directly.

Unless it has already failed, an electronic locomotive can be counted on not to draw an excessive current suddenly. Sudden fault currents will almost certainly be drawn by something else, like a short circuit caused by a derailment. The effect on the locomotive will be that its voltage suddenly goes to zero, or close to it. This is not harmful. What might be harmful is that, when the short circuit is cleared, there may be a high-voltage pulse from the inductance of the transformer's secondary winding.

Since a typical short circuit comes and goes at first, a fast circuit breaker or fuse might well prevent the high-voltage pulse if it can open the circuit before the short circuit clears the first time. A more direct and more reliable approach would be to suppress the pulse, as with a TVS, leaving the circuit breaker to protect the transformer and wiring, which is what it is best at.

[Anonymous]

As to frying the electronics I was told the TMCC direct lockon will protect me. If there is a short or derailment it immediatly cuts the power to the track and I mean fast, as in like instantly.

Wolverine, for the interim I am going to try and replace the CW80 w/ and 05 or 06 model and am taking my time looking for a new transformer. I am thinking about a MRC Pure power 130 or a Lionel Powerstation 120 watts (I don't think Lionel makes these anymore). I am going to wait for a deal on e-bay. I have searched some completed sales and saw some killer transformer deals.

Thanks

Marc

[casconi]

Hobo,
Did you try my suggestions? See above.

[Anonymous]

Casconi

Yes I tried your suggestion. It did not work.
Thanks

Marc

[Anonymous]

Here are the results of yesterday's little "experiment" regarding the power capabilities and limitations of my Lionel CW-80's.

Equipment used, in various combinations: CW-80 (date of manufacture of 0603); CW-80 (0405); Lionel 1033 transformer (date unknown) Lionel 2343 and 2344 dual motor diesel locomotives (1950); Lionel 681 postwar "turbine" steamer; modern dual-can motor Williams diesel, # "CSX 7848;" six 2400-series postwar plastic passenger cars with at least one pickup roller and lamp each -- some with two; about fifteen 18 volt lamps, depending on consist ; "three conductors, 25 sacks of mail."

The transformer-to-track connection was fused at a nominal 5 amps (except as noted) fast blow.

Results, observations and comments:

1. Either lionel diesel plus the 681 with no other consist ( a total of three large postwar motors simultaneously) ran easily on each of the transformers.

2. Removing the 681 and substituting the second Lionel postwar dual motored diesel (four large postwar motors running simultaneously) immediately caused problems. None of the transformers, including the 1033, would drive this consist at more than a crawl, and the CW-80 signaled it's distress by blinking it's "current overload" light.

3. Either of the two postwar diesels (A-A confuguration) would pull up to six of the illuminated passenger cars. A four car consist produced no problems; with five the CW-80's began to blink a little; and with six the CW's blinked quite a bit, only ceasing after running for several minutes. The 1033, which has no visible indication of near-overload, performed similarly, but ran a little slower at maximum throttle than the CW-80's.

According to my inexpensive analog voltmeter, at full throttle with the full consist described above, the track showed 16 volts with the CW-80's, 14 volts with the 1033. (This seems to parallel the two-volt difference in the maximum voltage specifications for these transformers.)

At no time did the five amp in-line fuse blow. I substituted a three amp which blew instantly. (Unfortunately, I didn't have a 4 amp fuse to try.) From this I conclude that the CW-80's will sustain a current of better than three amps without showing any signs of overload, but do show signs of stress somewhere under five amps, assuming that the fuses performed as labled. The circuit breaker in the 1033 didn't open under any circumstances but I know for a fact that it is "sticky" and unreliable.

4. The Williams diesel with its dual can motors performed flawlessly with the "full consist." It never caused the overload light on the CW-80 to blink, it walked off with the full string of cars and was able to run faster than the postwar "growlers." The Williams also had better slow speed performance than the old Lionels but the 2343 and 2344 have MagneTraction and clung to the rails like glue.

5. On page 219 of the Complete Service Manual for Lionel Trains, 1982 Edition, for a similar consist using the 2343/44, Lionel recommends as a minimum the Type RW 110 watt transformer, but clearly states that more power is desirable. Converting the "110 watt" specification (postwar terminology) to modern transformer terminology yields about 74 watts delivered to the track. In the same scheme (apples to apples) the 1033 should deliver about 60 and the CW-80 should put out 80 watts. My observations, however, suggest that there is very little difference in the capabilities of the 1033 and the CW-80.

6. For whatever it's worth, I could observe absolutely no differences between my two CW-80's, despite one having been manufactured in June 2003 and the other in April 2005.

7. Although the overload light blinked occasionally on the CW-80's under full load and full throttle, I could see no evidence that the "self-protection circuit" ever actually found it necessary to cut the power output. Keeping the throttle at or below the "straight up" position enabled the full consist to run "plenty fast" with no blinking caution light.

8. The Lionel advertising regarding the CW-80 (see any catalog) claims it will run "small to medium" size layouts. This statement enjoys such a lack of specificity as to be virtually useless. Whatever it implies, it seems clear that they are not talking about the old heavy postwar trains.

Discussion and conclusions: It seems to me that the simple answer to hobo79's original question is that his layout simply was too large for the CW-80, (One cannot rule out the possiblity of a defective* transformer [or even two in his case] but my best guess is that a new CW-80 isn't going to prove satisfactory.) In a word, hobo79 needs much more power.

I think the way to buy a transformer is first to add up the total power requirements of the proposed layout** and add a little safety margin (say 25%) to that, and then shop for a device that can handle that load and has the features that make a good fit. I would take the claims of manufacturer's with a grain of salt and instead turn to train shows, demos, or experienced friends for solid advice.

* "defective" and "inadequate" are not the same concept. Hobo's CW-80's may (emphasis on may) be operating perfectly (within its design parameters) but still be way too small for the requirements of his layout.

Variations in quality control and reliability among samples and over time are other important considerations, but I don't have sufficient data to say more than my CW-80's have worked fine, in one instance for almost three years now, and meet most of my modest requirements. One point in their favor is that they send me a clear signal (without burning out) whenever t's time to break out a ZW or KW. Your mileage may...well, you know.

** Be careful not to underestimate the power requirements of the lamps on a layout. Lionel's chart in the Service Manual suggests that even the small-globe 18 volt lamps consume 2 watts or more apiece. That adds up quickly. Relative to plastic freight cars, many passenger cars are relatively heavy and have the additional drag of the roller pick-ups and the additional electrical load of the lamps.

I have tried to approach this problem as objectively as I could, avoiding, insofar as possible, rumor, rancor, name-calling and speculation; but rather presenting some empirical benchmarks that others may use to help determine whether their CW-80 is working as designed -- at least in conventional mode. I hope I have shed some light on this issue for hobo79 and perhaps a few others. In any event, it's about all I know on the subject.

wolverine49

[casconi]

Thanks! It was worth a try!

[fwright]

Wolverine

Very nice presentation of your findings, and some well run experiments. I have to conclude from your work that the CW-80 does not do well under no-load, and does not do well at 90%+ load factors. But it does signal an educated user when the load is getting to be too much, unlike my favorite 1033s.

Thanks again for all your time and effort in educating the rest of us on the idiosyncrasies (sp?) of the CW-80.

yours in transforming
Fred w

[dwiemer]

Wolverine, thanks for your efforts. Backs up my "educated guess", but I never had the data to back it up.

Hobo, You may be better served by a Postwar KW off ebay. I picked a good condition one up off Ebay for $24.00, that included a #450 signal bridge. With a little investment, and effort, I am in the process of overhauling this transformer just to make sure it is safe, new power cord, new rollers, new studs, and new handles. In all, I will have less than $50 in a 190W transformer. This would handle most of my needs, and I believe it would for you too, with room to expand. I will still use my CW80s on the layout for separate loops,( a trolley line, and a old prewar Marx set on it's own loop), but for the main layout, I will be going with the KW. I think if you are hitting the limits of a 80W, you would soon out grow a 110.
Dennis

[Anonymous]

fwright and dwiemer,

Thanks for the kind words. They are very much appreciated.

One small(?) clarification of my fractured prose.

My CW-80's will run just fine at full throttle -- if the total load permits them to do so. The the blinking of the overload light (above about 90% throttle in my case) was no doubt the current-limiting circuitry, working as designed.

Under the heaviest of my experimental loads, advancing the CW-80 lever was predictable and unremarkable until the blinking started at about the "90%" mark. From that point on, the blinking would persist as the throttle lever was pushed fully forward, but the train would not increase speed. Similarly, the speed would not decrease as the throttle was pulled back until it again reached about 90%.

In other words, under my experimental maximum loads, the throttle behaved as if it was not functioning at all between about 90 and 100%, whereas under lesser loads it functioned smoothly and predictably right up to 100% full throttle.

I think this behavior is what the owner's manual* calls "fold-back mode."

Evidently, with an overload (as opposed to a full-blown short circuit) the CW-80 automatically pulls back a little from full power until it finds a level it is comfortable with, at which point the blinking stops and operations may continue uninterrupted -- at the reduced level.

The operator can simply continue to run the train at this "confortable" level, or he can remove a car (or an accessory, or whatever) and run the train at even higher speeds

By way of contrast, in a similar overload condition, a 1033 or other post-war transformer would just keep applying power until the circuit-breaker opened, or failed to open (stuck) during which process heat would continue to build up inside, possibly with unsafe consequences.

Hobo79 may well have hooked up his transformer to a layout that constituted a pre-existing overload. His CW-80, even if not "defective," simply couldn't drag itself out of "fold-back mode" at any but the very lowest (useless) throttle setting. (Or, as previously noted, it could be defective)

One early suggestion was for hobo79 to remove everything except the track and see what, if anything, happened. Then add a locomotive, see how it performed, and then gradually increase the load, item by single item, in a systematic diagnostic process. Clear feedback about such an analysis might have saved a lot of back-and-forth.

A relatively clear explanation of the self-protective behavior of the CW-80 is available on the Lionel.com website, under Customer Service. Check out *Owner's Manual #71-4198-250 (or 251) product number 6-14198, expecially pages 10 and 11. It can be downloaded and printed. (It still has an inconsistency in the section about hooking up to the track [p.5] but other than that it is quite helpful.) I would have been well-advised to re-review it myself recently.

The bottom line is, that Lionel claims that the CW-80 will put out about 5 amps, and will run "most small to medium-sized layouts." I think that's reasonably accurate, but unlike some other transformers, it will not tolerate overloading. In fact, it will begin to blink and automatically limit its own output as it approaches an overload condition. This is a "feature" in my estimation; but one that may be perceived as an annoyance by others.

Again, thank those of you who have expressed interest. (For those of you who find that this stuff is tedious to read, please consider what it is like to write!) [:)]

wolverine49

[lionelsoni]

"Foldback" is a power-supply design feature that, instead of simply limiting the current to some maximum value, actually reduces the current limit as the output voltage drops below the voltage commanded, so that a heavy overload, like a short circuit, will draw less current that a full load.

Why it is called "foldback" can be seen by looking at the voltage-current characteristic of such a supply, as in this example:
http://www.hills2.u-net.com/electron/psu.htm

[ADCX Rob]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wolverine49

Here are the results of yesterday's little "experiment" regarding the power capabilities and limitations of my Lionel CW-80's...

... I substituted a three amp which blew instantly. (Unfortunately, I didn't have a 4 amp fuse to try.) From this I conclude that the CW-80's will sustain a current of better than three amps without showing any signs of overload, but do show signs of stress somewhere under five amps, ...wolverine49

wolverine49,

I ran very similar tests just after Christmas on our Polar Express loop with the CW-80, only with a good ammeter added in to the circuit. I also used F-3s(the 2333 pair), a 783 Hudson, an MPC GP-20 pair, and a few others. I also tested the K-Line PowerChief 120 transformer.

The ammeter provided the most important information. The CW & PowerChief will provide excellent power & control right up until hitting a wall, at exactly 5 amps for the CW, & exactly 7 amps for the K-Line unit.

The CW limits power beyond the 5 amps, & communicates this by way of the flashing light. The PowerChief actually starts cutting power at the 7 amp limit, sometimes sequencing e-units.

Otherwise, I had similar findings.

Rob

[Anonymous]

The latest contributions by lionelsoni and AFDX Rob are most interesting. I don't have an ammeter; thus my experiments using fast-blow fuses to attempt to estimate the current that a CW-80 could sustain were quite crude, which is why I used the term "nominal" when listing the different fuse values. The fact is I didn't know what the CW will actually carry, and am delighted to see Rob's data.

Lionelsoni's explanation of and link to the diagram of a "fold-back" circuit is clear and revealing; and it is clear that Rob's measurments were more precise than mine. Between them and others they have provided keys to an understanding of much of the "quirkiness" of the CW.

On several occasions I have reiterated that, in Lionel's own words, the CW-80 is "unlike any other transformer they have ever built." Not necessarily either better or worse, but certainly different. When something looks similar but is actually different, a new owner's prior experience actually works against* him, and a thorough study of the owner's manual is absolutely essential.

What I have been trying to do in this and other CW-80 threads is to bring the discussions of this widely seen transformer out of the realm of myth and "urban legend" and to try to show clearly what it will and will not do, when operated as designed, and run according to Lionel's owner's manual.

I wish someone would present some hard data on the reliability of the CW-80, and whether it has improved over the years.

Finally, I have no TMCC devices whatsoever and thus have no way of testing the CW-80 in that environment. The "cropped waveform" may well be problematic, but I can neither check it out nor comment -- but it does interest me and probably many others..

I hope this and other threads will continue to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the CW-80 and other products, as long as it is done a factual manner with more light than heat.

My greatest hope, however, is that the first experiences that children (and their dads) have with their toy train is a good one. That will require that the various pieces of equipment in their first train be of good quality and well-matched to each other. I believe there is a place for the CW-80, but only on relatively small layouts. Parents ought always ensure that a train will run happily before showing it to the kids, in my opinion.

I'll admit to having been dogged in this effort, and there comes a time when it is difficult to distinguish between persistence and obsession. I think I have reached that stage -- that is, it's time for me to give it a rest. Others, please carry on.

*This is (or at least once was) known in learning theory as "negative transference," and probably explains why a so many experienced train operators find the CW-80 so frustrating.

wolverine49

[Anonymous]

Picked up a new CW-80, 2005 model on Saturday. No difference, still not enough power. One of the employees at my local shop said he has a 120 watt powerstation that I am hopefully going to buy off him next Saturday.
It should do the trick.
THANKS for all the Help!

Marc