transformers

While the CW-80 may not be up to the job, dead spots in the track are far more likely to be poor track connections and insufficient power drops to the track.

My advice, stand tight, help will come soon, there are a host of smart folks on this FORUM willing/wanting  to help,

Brent

I would avoid older Lionel transformers. Their circuit breaker were not designed to protect the delicate electronics in today's locomotives. In my opinion, the best transformer for the past several years has been the MTH Z4000. Sorta looks like the old Lionel ZW but is way more protective with up to date circuit breakers and smoothly delivered power. Go to train shows which have modular layouts and see what they use. Modern Lionel is fine, but dollar for dollar you can't beat the Z4000.

I would avoid the MTH Z4000.  Its circuit breaker was not designed to protect the delicate electronics in today's locomotives.

To be fair, though, no transformer's breaker will protect the delicate electronics in today's locomotives from the cumulative damage caused by spikes, as breakers are for current limiting, not voltage. That is an entirely different issue(search the forum for "TVS").

Use any transformer you wish, ZW or otherwise, but your immediate issue is a track/continuity issue, not a transformer/power issue.

Actually, for folks that run strictly command, a more cost effective option is the Lionel PowerHouse 180.  180 watts of 18VAC output power and an electronically controlled circuit breaker that is one of the best in the business.

You also forgot the ZW-L, Lionel's new flagship.  Sure, it's super expensive and really large, but it is 620 watts of power with up to date circuit protection.  It's also a really cool looking transformer!

John,

Is the ZW-L good for postwar engines as well as newer Lionel and MTH engines. (all engines) ?  I've seen comments on the different sine waves but don't know if one is better for keeping it simple and running all engines..

Mike,

John brought up a good point; how do you plan to run your layout?  That will help determine what transformers may be best for you.

Conventonal only, command only, or both?

The ZW-L is a great transformer for all trains, at the cost of about 4 top-condition postwar ZWs.

 Are postwar ZW's fine for the newer engines?   Assuming you have to add spike protection.

Mike Rice,

    Ah yes my favorite Layout Subject "Transformers",  IMO there are many good Transformers  on the market today, both old and new.  You must however understand how to set them up to power your layout, with them.   I  always recommend that any mid sized layout be powered by at least a MTH Z-1000 or bigger.  The CW-80 is not one of those good available transformers, it is an introductory transformer, IMO it should be eliminated from your layout, as soon as you can upgrade. Further I use Scott Type 7 & 10 Amp resettable breakers, in front of all my Transformers, old or new, especially if you are going to run DCS.  Place the Resettable Breakers on the Red line between the Transformer and each Red TIU IN Channel.  I highly recommend the MTH Z4K, old Lionel ZW & KW  Transformers, for Cost Effective Longevity powering of your layout.  I own multiples of all 3 type, of these transformers, and use some or all of them, depending on how large my Christmas layouts happen to be, at any given Christmas season.   I do not recommend Bricks, IMO they do not provide enough options for powering a layout, the Lionel 180 Brick does have probably the best fast action internal Breaker on the market however.   I do not own a Lionel ZW-L because of the cost justification, they are not Cost effective to use, however they are a fine power station, providing decent running options, especially for large layouts.  If they ever come down in cost, I will probably owning one 2nd Hand.  As Guns indicated, dead spots are not usually transformer orientated, especially with the proper track drops.

PCRR/Dave 

PRR Mark,

    Absolutely both the old ZW's & KW's are great for running modern DCS/Legacy layouts, and one of the most cost effective ways to do it, as long as you set them with the 7 or 10 Amp Breakers or fast blowing fuses.  As Rob indicated in the above post, you can purchase 4 rebuilt/upgraded old Lionel ZW's for the cost of just one modern ZW-L

PCRR/Dave

ADCX Rob posted:

I would avoid the MTH Z4000.  Its circuit breaker was not designed to protect the delicate electronics in today's locomotives.

To be fair, though, no transformer's breaker will protect the delicate electronics in today's locomotives from the cumulative damage caused by spikes, as breakers are for current limiting, not voltage. That is an entirely different issue(search the forum for "TVS").

Use any transformer you wish, ZW or otherwise, but your immediate issue is a track/continuity issue, not a transformer/power issue.

I didn't think any breaker or a fuse was meant to protect the load. I thought they were there to protect the transformer.  While the Z-4000 does not have a fast breaker like the PH-180, it does fold back the voltage on an over current detection.   What is good about the Z-4000 is the built in voltage and current meters and robust operation.  They are very beneficial to operations and detecting an abnormality that may be causing higher than normal current draw.  Some thing that is missing on all but the latest ZW-L.   G

Thanks to everyone for all the feedback.  Other people must be having some issues with Fastrack  and circuit continuity as Lionel referred me to a video demonstrating the slight bending of the middle rail as a remedy for "dead spots."  Ironically, I had no problems whatsoever when I first set up the track.  I disassembled the track to paint the plywood and the foam and, upon reassembling the layout, I've had nothing but problems.

Mike Rice,

    If you have the newest generation of FasTrack you problem is probably the mid pin in some of your Track, you may have to take those particular pieces of FT back out of your layout and clean the pins, line them up properly and squeeze the rail tight around them.  If I were you, I would start to collect some 1st or 2nd generation FasTrack at the Train shows, to help eliminate your problem completely.  Also make sure your electrical connections under your FasTrack are perfect when you put your track down, and Test as you build.  If you are using DCS/Legacy this is especially important.

PCRR/Dave

GGG,

   You are absolutely correct and using the DCS TIU you get the TVS protection and along with using the Scott type 7 or 10 Amp Breakers in front of all my Transformers, I have never had any of my equipment damaged, and the Resettable Breakers are easy to use, simply lower the transformer handles, push the breaker back down, and go back to running your trains, no damage occurs.  

PCRR/Dave

Taking Fastrack apart will spread the track at joints because you can't pull it straight apart. I try to always use a sharp utility knife to pry it apart as straight as possible until you can finish it by hand.

A small pocket screwdriver works also & is a lot safer.

Ken M

The reason I use the knife is because it will get into a smaller gap and it is a lot wider so it will spread it apart further without gouging. I use one with a dull blade, but you are right, a screwdriver is safer.

To the original question, fixing the joints between track sections and adding power drops will probably solve the power problems.  

While many suggested good circuit breaker options, the TVS diodes are the important thing for running modern engines with postwar transformers.  There are lots of good threads that can give you exact part numbers if you use the search engine here on the forum for 'TVS'.  You don't need a DCS system to get this protection, 50 cent parts will do just fine.  The simplest use on a ZW is to just wrap a lead between the U post and the other around the lettered post right above it.  

JGL

PCRR, Thanks,  Do you have ordering info for the breakers you referenced?  Also FYI I couldn't find the Macy's cup anywhere but NY or online so I ordered online.

Mark

PCRR/Dave posted:

  If you have the newest generation of FasTrack you problem is probably the mid pin in some of your Track, you may have to take those particular pieces of FT back out of your layout and clean the pins, line them up properly and squeeze the rail tight around them.  If I were you, I would start to collect some 1st or 2nd generation FasTrack at the Train shows, to help eliminate your problem completely.  Also make sure your electrical connections under your FasTrack are perfect when you put your track down, and Test as you build.  If you are using DCS/Legacy this is especially important.

Sounds to me like FT (Fastrack) is losing it's SUPPOSED edge in electrical continuity over RT (Realtrax).  If care is used(as suggested above with FT) RT can be very reliable as well. I agree that the more power drops the better, I have run a 13x24 temporary Christmas Layout on CARPET for 6 weeks with a SINGLE power connection. Admittedly, Surprised the HECK out of me, but I have always laid the track, then added extra drops, when/where as needed.

Dave, what seems to be the big difference between the CW-80, and the Z-1000, other than a NOMINAL 20 watts?, I find that the CW-80 has a much lower minimum (near ZERO) starting voltage, which for many locomotives makes the difference between SMOOOTH starts and slow speed running and jerky starts, with higher minimum speeds.

The CW-80 also offers a variable voltage accessory output, where the Z-1000 only offers a fixed voltage(10 or 14 Volt, I forget) accessory output.

The CW-80 is a self contained unit, the Z-1000 is a 2 piece power brick plus controller set, which to ME, in this power class is unnecessary and inconvenient.

The CW-80 uses a  power fold back overload protection, that automatically resets when the overload is corrected, the Z-1000 uses a breaker that must be reset, again inconvenient if the brick is mounted under layout, out of sight.

 The CW-80 has a Post War era look to it, that many want for their layouts, To ME, the Z-1000 looks like it came out of a cheap HO set, just MY OPINION, YMMV.

In the type of use that both the CW-80, and the Z-1000 are likely to be used, I haven't found the nominal 20 watt power difference to be a deal breaker, neither is designed, or INTENDED to run a Basement filling layout.

It IS TRUE, that the EARLY CW-80's had some issues, but those were corrected by 2006, but some people just can't seem to get over the past.

I have, and have used both the CW-80 and the Z-1000, and with more hours on the CW-80's, have had LOWER failure rates with them, than the Z-1000's, maybe not the typical experience, but it has been my experience.

I personally find that the CW-80's produced since 2006 (as verified by the date code on the bottom) to be Fine transformers, that perform Well, and in MY OPINION Better than the Z-1000. I find the CW-80 a more enjoyable transformer to use, again YMMV.

Doug

My experience with CW-80's was WAY different than yours!

But, YMMV.

Bill

Gentlemen,

     Maybe I need to change my opinion on the Z-1000, maybe my min recommendation for all medium layouts should now be upgraded to at least an old Lionel KW.  Maybe the Z-1000 which usually does a good job, actually running small to medium layouts, is not powerful enough after all. However I will never change my mind on the CW-80, it is an Intro Transformer for a small layout, that has proven to be a dangerous power supply.  IMO you should get rid of it and upgrade ASAP, don't care when the CW-80 was made, Invest in a  good KW, ZW or Z4K and run both DCS & Legacy.

PCRR/Dave

Pine Creek Railroad posted:

...the CW-80... has proven to be a dangerous power supply.

This is an interesting take, could you expand on this?

Pine Creek Railroad posted:

However I will never change my mind on the CW-80, it ... has proven to be a dangerous power supply.  

Invest in a  good KW, ZW or Z4K and run both DCS & Legacy.

PCRR/Dave

I would also like more information on this.  I know you've mentioned in many posts that you think the CW-80 is unsafe, and have eluded to some sort of catastrophic failure, perhaps with a fire?  I would like details on this, as from every transformer I've ever dismantaled the cw-80 has equal or better saftey features.

The CW-80 is ABSOLUTELY safer than any post war transformer, and is at least equally as safe as a Z1000... Safer on paper.  

The CW-80 will provide 3 stages of circuit protection within the unit.  First you have the fold-back protection.  this works with the micro-processor monitoring the output current/voltage, and stepping back the voltage if there is too high of a load.  in normal operation this is more than enough to prevent an overload.  If one of the components were to fail, however, the second line of defense is a fuse between the output from the transformer (the actual component, rather than the general term for a train power source)and the input to the control board.  Finally, if the transformer it's self were to fail, from a shorted winding or some such, it has a second fuse on the input to the primary winding.  The only thing not fused now is the power cord it's self.  If your home's fuse/breaker box, and your household wiring is in proper order, any shorted power cord should pop a breaker or fuse in the box.  

By comparison, the Z1000 depends on the 6 amp breaker in the power brick to protect the components in the Z-Controller. There is no circuit protection in the controller.  I do not know if the transformer has a self contained, input side, fuse. If it does, it is equally as safe as the CW-80.  If it does not have an input-side fuse to the transformer in the windings, it is decidedly less safe... even if damaged transformer windings are quite uncommon.  

The other major difference in the CW-80 and Z1000 is the actual part used to regulate the power to the tracks.  The CW-80 uses a single 25amp Triac rated up to 600 volts for the track output, and a second identical Triac for the accessory output. Track and accessory are both adjustable and have fold-back protection.   The Z1000, on the other hand uses a pair of MOSFETs for the output control to the track.  These are rated at 64 amps, but just 55 volts.  A TVS diode is used to limit voltage spikes from damaging the MOSFETs with surges over 55 volts. The Z1000 also relies on static air cooling a heat sink surface of plated circuit board... Not a fantastic design for heat dissipation.  The accessory output on the Z-brick is wired directly to the transformers 14v tap, and to the common side of the winding through the same 6A breaker as the cord for the Z-controller.  as a note, there is absolutely no circuit protection if you were to touch the hot side of the accessory output to the hot side of the controller output.  You would have a 4VAC direct short with no fuse or breaker between, similar to hooking the A and D handles of a ZW together and set to different voltages.  Because of this fact, upon further review, I am forced to say that the Z1000 is unreasonably dangerous compared to a CW-80.  

(EDIT:  it is worth mentioning that I am unsure of the effects of connecting the track and accessory terminals together on the CW-80. I believe that you would simply have all the current of the load passing through whichever is set to a higher voltage.  Essentially the triac's would act like having two light switches connected in parrellel. if you turn one off, all the power will flow through the other.  If it were possible for some kind of short to form between the outputs, the worst case scenario would be that one or both triacs would be damaged to a non-functioning state. )

As a last note, while the TVS in the Z-controller is there to protect the controller, not the trains, it is better than nothing... If you use just the power brick, you essentially have a transformer with a 6 amp circuit breaker.  It offers ZERO protection for modern electronics.  I only note this because I often see these z-1000 power bricks suggested for powering layouts or accessories, and they are really no better for this than using any old post war transformer or an off the shelf transformer that costs 1/5 the price.  The CW offers no direct spike protection either, but with 600VAC triac's it won't be damaged by them any more than the TVS diode will be.  

Anyway, point of all this is I do not understand what makes the CW80 a poor choice from a safety stand point.  All other considerations of performance or functionality aside, it's design is safer than any other transformer I've seen, except maybe finding an equal in the PH180 and the GW180 which use the same basic design, as far as I am aware.  (I can not confirm this as I have never taken a PH180 or GW180 apart.)

As for the CW-80, I base most of my information on the schematic provided by Dale Manquen, and on the Z-1000, my information is based on personally disassembling one to see how it works.  With all the comments that the Z1000 is such a better transformer, I bought one with the express purpose of opening it up.  One last thing I discovered was that the nuts on the binding posts were only finger tight.  nuts were removed with very light finger pressure... not especially safe given the reports of melted TIU's cause by this same loose wire problem.  

JGL

I have a couple CW-80s and I offer the following-

1. Fans get noisy.

2. Foldback protection is absolute and has no inverse time characteristic. Momentary overloads that pose no danger trigger the foldback. Running PW equipment, it is easy to trigger the foldback by blowing a whistle, for example. Admittedly, the CW-80 is not designed for PW equipment!

3. Voltage control handles could be a little stiffer, mine tend to fall with vibration.

4. I don't like the "inertia" feature on the direction button.

Other than that, I have no issues with the CW-80, I use them where they are appropriate. I also have a couple Z-1000s; I like the small physical size of the control head, plus the fact that they let me keep 120 vac cords off the top of the control panel. I don't like the fact that the circuit breaker is manually reset (and remote from the control head.) But, I do like the fact that the breaker seems to tolerate minor overloads without nuisance trips. I do wish the connector to the brick fit correctly into the back of the control head! And, the "transparent sand" finish on the controller front tends to scrape off.

While I have experimented with the accessory outputs on both and find that they both work as intended, I never use them. My fixed voltage accessories are fed off a Lionel V, with resettable fuses on all four outputs. Least expensive way I have found to get four adjustable accessory voltages. Yes, I have fused the primary of the V.

At the end of the day, I use the Z-1000 more than the CW-80 due to the operational characteristics noted above, but when used for its intended purpose with modern equipment the CW-80 seems to be just fine. I too would like to know about the safety concerns.

Has anybody ever traced out the circuit of the Z-1000 control head? 

If you like the CW-80 you would like the K-Line Power Chief better.  Kind of an improved CW-80.  I think the issue many had, was the early versions had reversed the common hence could not correctly be phased with other transformers unless you were ok with reverse whistle/bell button.  AND

Safer is a misnomer, because early ones where less reliable when the glass fuse inside opened.  Leading to an unrepairable transformer, unless you were willing to open the tamper proof screws, which on some occasion required drilling out and breaking post.

These failed in significant numbers.  I repaired plenty at the hobby shop, and others you just cut the cord and got a replacement.

So what do you want a safer but unreliable transformer, or a slightly "less safe" what ever that means, but a more reliable transformer. 

Practical application of engineering also matter.  The new CW are good transformers, but you need to like the momentum, like the fold back setting as is, and like the specific chopped wave form.  OR you go with one of the more pure type transformers with a little more power to boot, with less of the electronic effects.

Your choice.   Every transformer has some advantages and disadvantages.   Certainly selection of words in describing these transformers matter.

The K-line had all the good features of the CW-80 with out all the electronic effects, more power, on off switch, no fan.  But they had some reliability issues too.  Usually simply a feed back resistor solder joint broken, or cold solder joint on Throttle pot.  Once fixed they ran like champs.  G

A lot of good advice and comments.

Brent

GGG, I think that I either agree or understand every point you've made on functionality, reliability, and repairability.   My long post above was addressing strictly the concerns of the safety of using a CW-80 as opposed to other transformers, specifically the Z1000 which has been suggested countless times to be a much better alternative, as well as the comments made many times that the only way to make a CW-80 safe is to toss it in the trash.  I have asked in at least two other threads for more information on why Dave/PCRR is so adamant that this is not a safe transformer.  In this case I asked again, then provided all the information I have on why it is, at least on paper, equally as safe, if not more so, than the product most often suggested to replace it.  

When it comes to the physical design, I think some folks like one and other folks the other.  I think measuring ascetics is an exercise in futility.  I think folks opinions on the separate transformer brick versus the all in one option are equally mixed, but I do see the benefit of not having any line voltage cords on the control table.  

In the end, I'm not saying the CW80 is the best transformer ever, or even that it is any good at all.  It is just not any worse than anything else in it's price/wattage range.  I'll stick to KW's and ZW's for my power needs for the foreseeable future, but I see no reason to toss a CW80 in the trash... In fact I'll make the same offer I did the last time. If anyone has a CW80 they want to throw away I'll pay the shipping to my house instead.

JGL

JohnGaltLine posted:

If anyone has a CW80 they want to throw away I'll pay the shipping to my house instead.

I've made this exact offer in the past with zero takers. That speaks volumes.

GGG posted:

The K-line had all the good features of the CW-80 with out all the electronic effects, more power, on off switch, no fan.

The ramp-up feature of the CW direction button is on the PowerChief 120V, it just works faster and is sometimes difficult to notice. The PowerChief also has a 270° sweep throttle vs. only 90° for the CW. It is virtually a clone(7 amps output instead of 5) of the CW-80 otherwise, but was built correctly from the start with the black "U" posts common for the entire production.

The accessory voltage programming is a little different, using the buttons only, not the throttle to set it.