DCC concepts Powerbase

[Ruston]

Afternoon All,

 

I have just seen a product of the title name on sale in my local model shop. It's supposed to help locos climb gradients and seems to consist of lengths of painted, or coated, steel plate and magnets. The proprietor didn't seem to know much about it and had not tried it himself so I'm wondering if anyone here has experience of it? Does it do what it says on the tin?

 

My new layout will use small 0-4-0 industrial engines and some very steep, but prototypical in industry, gradients. I think my scratch and kit-built engines should do OK as they are made of brass and stuffed with lead but some of the RTR stuff is a bit on the light side and I doubt the capability of these models, so I wondered if this thing really works.

 

If it really is just some steel plate and magnets I'm sure I could make it myself for a much lower cost. Some neodymium magnets glued under the locos and some strips of mild steel under the track? Probably a quarter of the price.

[wirey33]

I think BRM did an article about this system about two years ago?

 

I seem to remember they liked it a lot.

 

There is also this annoying video from DCC Concepts; non-voice, all text and loud steam train noises...

 

 

There are lots of other videos on YouTube.

[Ruston]

Thank but youtube is no good to me. It doesn't work on my computer.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Soft iron will perform a little better than mild steel, as it has higher susceptibility.

[NIK]

Hi,

 

DCC Concepts claim their magnets are stronger than standard neodymium magnets and having bought some plus some standard neodymium magnets that I can see that might be true.

 

If you do use steel or Iron you might need to put a waterproof coating on it to avoid stains if ballasting afterwards with water based adhesive.

 

I've done some traction pull tests and the official magnets and plates gave impressive results.

 

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Marcyg]

It's basically a 21st century take on Hornby's old magnatraction, where magnets used to stick the wheels to the steel rails. Now we use nickel-silver rails, that wont work. The Power Base sits under the track and magnets in the locos pull the loco down onto the rails increasing traction

[NIK]

It's basically a 21st century take on Hornby's old magnatraction, where magnets used to stick the wheels to the steel rails. Now we use nickel-silver rails, that wont work. The Power Base sits under the track and magnets in the locos pull the loco down onto the rails increasing traction

 

Hi,

 

Magnadhesion?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[melmerby]

Hi,

 

Magnadhesion?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

One of the problems with Magnadhesion was all the crud that sticks to the magnets! On the Hornby system it could clog up the wheels with the magnet.

 

Keith

[NIK]

Hi,

 

I forgot to say in my previous post that when the layout crew I belong to used the Powerbase plates we had problems with short circuits.

 

This was due to us soldering medium diameter dropper wires for the track to the underside of code 75 bullhead rail. During soldering the wire insulation would shrink back. Sometimes the exposed wire would touch the side of the punched holes in the Powerbase plates.

 

I think the Powerbase instructions might mention leaving a slight gap between plates but we didn't and we had intermittent shorts and the glued track had to be taken up to look for the problem.

 

The problem can be avoided by leaving a slight gap between the plates and putting any track feeds on different plates (say left rail feed on one plate and the right hand on the adjacent plate (if the section of track is long enough)).

 

 

PS just sometimes locos can be surprisingly good going up gradients. A Lima Class 47 without Powerbase magnets hauled 7 bogie parcels vans up our 1 in 40 gradient with 36" curve. The 47 has just two axles powered and is not as heavy as some recent RTR diesel/electric locos.

 

 

Regards

 

Nick

 

 

[Wheatley]

The closer you get the magnets to the steel base the better it works. I have a Hornby Clan set up as a test rig - with two magnets screwed directly to the keeper plate (so higher up / further from the steel base than they could be if I faffed about lowering them so they were just above rail level) it can restart 9 Hornby Mk1s on a 1 in 60 gradient. Without the magnets it just slips.

 

But - if I set a piece of 2mm piano wire in the four foot instead of using the PB bases (so bringing the steel nearer the magnets rather than the magnets nearer the steel) it romps away with 14 on.

 

There's nothing to stop you using steel shim under the track and sourcing your own magnets, but the PB bases go round curves without cutting.

 

Magnadhesion?.

Magnet set between the driving wheels within the chassis block to make the wheels literally stick to the track. Only works with steel tyres and steel rail, it was superceded by traction tyres when NS rail and tyres became more popular.

[NIK]

The closer you get the magnets to the steel base the better it works. I have a Hornby Clan set up as a test rig - with two magnets screwed directly to the keeper plate (so higher up / further from the steel base than they could be if I faffed about lowering them so they were just above rail level) it can restart 9 Hornby Mk1s on a 1 in 60 gradient. Without the magnets it just slips.

 

But - if I set a piece of 2mm piano wire in the four foot instead of using the PB bases (so bringing the steel nearer the magnets rather than the magnets nearer the steel) it romps away with 14 on.

 

There's nothing to stop you using steel shim under the track and sourcing your own magnets, but the PB bases go round curves without cutting.

 

 

Magnet set between the driving wheels within the chassis block to make the wheels literally stick to the track. Only works with steel tyres and steel rail, it was superceded by traction tyres when NS rail and tyres became more popular.

 

Hi,

 

I hadn't thought about putting suitable metal above the sleepers. On my clubs layout we only had enough Powerbase plates to go up the gradient and two feet along the summit (the summit is mostly behind a backscene in the approaches to the fiddle yard).

 

If we have any problems with trains slipping where the Powerbase ends we could add piano wire or equivalent magnetically (steel checkrails?).

 

I'm working on a Gradient and Curve predictor which given the weight of the train and the locos weight and haulage capacity (hopefully from a database such as the one I'm building) can estimate the gradient and curves it can get up without slipping.

 

The predictor should also work for Powerbase although since there is a choice of magnet size, position and quantity means the haulage capacity on the flat may have to be measured after the magnets have been applied.

 

Here I've applied the experimental predictor to a train that made it up our 1 in 40 gradient with 36" curved section the train is going from right to left (no Powerbase magnets).

 

So if a  locos haulage capacity was only 15 grammes without Powerbase then hauling the same train it would have got up the gradient but slipped when it reached the end of the Powerbase. It may be a bit of an extreme example as Powerbase might not double the haulage capacity.

 

As to my posting 'magnadhesion?' I  just meant to query the spelling. I remember it from my childhood as it collected track pins and  filings until the mechanism jammed.

 

 

Regards

 

Nick

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Gosh, a predictor, how elaborate! It needs more factors in it to do the job reliably. Three that really matter.

 

Top of the list, the rollability of the trainload. I am somewhat fanatical about this, and insist on 'rolls away when placed on a true 1 in 100' as the minimum standard. Most metal wheel pinpoint axle wheelsets running in plastic or metal can exceed this standard, and that includes current RTR.

 

Mass of trainload, not forgetting that this includes unpowered wheelsets and tenders, particularly applicable to steam models.

 

Coefficient of friction of the driven wheelset tyres. This varies significantly by tyre material and of the three current RTR OO manufacturers whose products I have sufficient of to have reasonable confidence that my test results are significant, from the top down it goes Heljan, Hornby, Bachmann. (Loco traction is estimated by a weight lift test rig.)

 

 

My own 'predictor' for an OO operation is rules of thumb in my head. The trainload that can be started on level track is halved at 1%, quartered at 2%. Curves of 36" radius or greater may be ignored until the train occupies more than a right angle on the curve, from that point reckon same effect as 1% gradient. For traction that has centre of mass positioned near the centre of the driven wheelbase these rules of thumb are very reliable.

 

I have gone the added mass route to obtain the traction required for a layout with a 1.25% ruling gradient. Happily all the RTR centre motor diesel types and a good number of current RTR steam models are sufficiently heavy as supplied to do the job. Those that are not are modified by hammering lumps of lead into shape and installing. (It's good therapy hamering lumps of lead into shape while thinking about the latest inane or malevolent  individual causing a nuisance in public life...)

[Wheatley]

As to my posting 'magnadhesion?' I  just meant

to query the spelling. I remember it from my childhood as it collected track pins and  filings until the mechanism jammed.

 

Apologies, I missed the earlier spelling !

 

My gradients are only on hidden bits so I can get away with piano wire, 2mm or so garden wire will work too but is more of a faff to get straight.

[NIK]

Gosh, a predictor, how elaborate! It needs more factors in it to do the job reliably. Three that really matter.

 

Top of the list, the rollability of the trainload. I am somewhat fanatical about this, and insist on 'rolls away when placed on a true 1 in 100' as the minimum standard. Most metal wheel pinpoint axle wheelsets running in plastic or metal can exceed this standard, and that includes current RTR.

 

Mass of trainload, not forgetting that this includes unpowered wheelsets and tenders, particularly applicable to steam models.

 

Coefficient of friction of the driven wheelset tyres. This varies significantly by tyre material and of the three current RTR OO manufacturers whose products I have sufficient of to have reasonable confidence that my test results are significant, from the top down it goes Heljan, Hornby, Bachmann. (Loco traction is estimated by a weight lift test rig.)

 

 

My own 'predictor' for an OO operation is rules of thumb in my head. The trainload that can be started on level track is halved at 1%, quartered at 2%. Curves of 36" radius or greater may be ignored until the train occupies more than a right angle on the curve, from that point reckon same effect as 1% gradient. For traction that has centre of mass positioned near the centre of the driven wheelbase these rules of thumb are very reliable.

 

I have gone the added mass route to obtain the traction required for a layout with a 1.25% ruling gradient. Happily all the RTR centre motor diesel types and a good number of current RTR steam models are sufficiently heavy as supplied to do the job. Those that are not are modified by hammering lumps of lead into shape and installing. (It's good therapy hamering lumps of lead into shape while thinking about the latest inane or malevolent  individual causing a nuisance in public life...)

 

Hi,

 

I did mention the weight of the train and the tractive effort of the loco on the flat (I do this as you do by measuring the pull of the loco).

 

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Trofimow]

I've been following this with interest as I retrofitted Power Base to the gradients on my previous layout with good results. That layout is now being dismantled pending a rebuild, and I am sufficiently impressed with the performance that I have decided to fully fit all the track on the replacement layout.

 

I have sufficient power base plates recovered from the old layout to do the visible trackwork, but with over 100 metres of hidden gradients and storage the cost for the rest would be significant, so I've been looking for a cheaper DIY alternative.

 

I obtained some steel tape

https://www.psasolutions.uk.com/product/25mm-x-30-metre-white-faced-steel-magnetic-receptive-tape

 

and some flexible magnetic receptive tape

https://www.psasolutions.uk.com/product/12mm-x-10-metres-flexible-iron-magnetic-receptive-tape

 

and tried some comparative traction tests using my Bachmann standard 4 2-6-0, which is quite light footed.

 

The results are as follows:

 

All on level Peco code 100 N/S track

 

Plain track                                                             loco slips at 37 gram pull

 

Power Base plates                                                 loco slips at 46g pull        

 

Steel strip 25mm                                                   loco slips at 46g pull  

 

Flexible iron strip, double width (24mm) under track  loco slips at 40g pull   

 

Flexible iron strip single width (12mm) betwen rails   loco slips at 57g pull

 

 

So for hidden track where appearance does not matter, the last option would seem to be the best and at 40p per metre the most cost effective as well.

[NIK]

I've been following this with interest as I retrofitted Power Base to the gradients on my previous layout with good results. That layout is now being dismantled pending a rebuild, and I am sufficiently impressed with the performance that I have decided to fully fit all the track on the replacement layout.

 

I have sufficient power base plates recovered from the old layout to do the visible trackwork, but with over 100 metres of hidden gradients and storage the cost for the rest would be significant, so I've been looking for a cheaper DIY alternative.

 

I obtained some steel tape

https://www.psasolutions.uk.com/product/25mm-x-30-metre-white-faced-steel-magnetic-receptive-tape

 

and some flexible magnetic receptive tape

https://www.psasolutions.uk.com/product/12mm-x-10-metres-flexible-iron-magnetic-receptive-tape

 

and tried some comparative traction tests using my Bachmann standard 4 2-6-0, which is quite light footed.

 

The results are as follows:

 

All on level Peco code 100 N/S track

 

Plain track                                                             loco slips at 37 gram pull

 

Power Base plates                                                 loco slips at 46g pull        

 

Steel strip 25mm                                                   loco slips at 46g pull  

 

Flexible iron strip, double width (24mm) under track  loco slips at 40g pull   

 

Flexible iron strip single width (12mm) betwen rails   loco slips at 57g pull

 

 

So for hidden track where appearance does not matter, the last option would seem to be the best and at 40p per metre the most cost effective as well.

 

Hi,

 

That's really useful data and I think the first I've seen that includes the loco pull in grammes - how did you measure that?.

 

How much did your loco on its own weigh and how much its tender?.

 

There is space on a club layout I'm helping with to fit an off-scene 1 in 20 gradient at 36" minimum radius. That flexible steel strip you tested on top of the sleepers might allow more types of train to go up the gradient.

 

I don't suppose the strip is flexible in the horizontal plane so it will go round curves?.

 

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Trofimow]

Hi Nik,

 

The pull was measured with a metal chain being lifted from a bowl on a digital scale on the floor, via a thread passing over a pulley on the edge of the baseboard, connected via a paperclip to the tender coupling. The scale is set to zero with all the chain in the bowl, and as the loco moves forward, the weight of chain it has lifted from the bowl is displayed.

 

The loco is 280g and the tender is 95g.

 

The flexible strip is a plastic compound impregnated with soft iron powder. It has minimal flexibility in the horizontal plane and would need to be cut into short lengths to go around curves. The steel strip I had at 25 mm is too wide to go between the rails, but a narrower alternative might be available.

 

 

Regards

Alan

[NIK]

Hi Nik,

 

The pull was measured with a metal chain being lifted from a bowl on a digital scale on the floor, via a thread passing over a pulley on the edge of the baseboard, connected via a paperclip to the tender coupling. The scale is set to zero with all the chain in the bowl, and as the loco moves forward, the weight of chain it has lifted from the bowl is displayed.

 

The loco is 280g and the tender is 95g.

 

The flexible strip is a plastic compound impregnated with soft iron powder. It has minimal flexibility in the horizontal plane and would need to be cut into short lengths to go around curves. The steel strip I had at 25 mm is too wide to go between the rails, but a narrower alternative might be available.

 

 

Regards

Alan

 

Hi Alan,

 

Many thanks for the info on your Standard 4 2-6-0. I shall add it to the database for the experimental gradient predictor.

 

Although its experimental I put the loco pull (with 12mm flexi strip on sleepers) and weight into the predictor (with 5 Bachmann Mk1s):

 

So that prediction is the loco/train/flexistrip/Powerbase type magnets could handle a 1 in 33 on the straight and 1 in 66 on a third radius (20") curve.

 

I've bought the parts to make a helix so I can try the effects of gradient combined with curves. I was going to have two OO tracks one with Powerbase and one without. Now I may add a third OO track with that flexible strip on the sleepers (although each track will have a different radius which complicates comparisons).

 

I hadn't thought of using a metal chain in the loco pull testing. I used a large battery sitting on the electronic scales.

 

I've now bought a £7 electronic scales from my local Argos and taken it apart and mounted it on short piece of plywood with track on. I've glued an eyelet onto the load sensor at buffer height and a thread is attached a coupling.

 

 

Many thanks

 

Nick

[Trofimow]

"So that prediction is the loco/train/flexistrip/Powerbase type magnets could handle a 1 in 33 on the straight and 1 in 66 on a third radius (20") curve."

 

 

That's a very useful prediction, Nick.

 

The new layout, when it eventually gets built, will have a ruling gradient of 1 in 100 from the lower deck storage, but one route is going to come out at 1 in 70 on a 3rd radius curve. Five Mk1's would be a very acceptable result for that loco.

 

Regards

 

Alan

[NIK]

"So that prediction is the loco/train/flexistrip/Powerbase type magnets could handle a 1 in 33 on the straight and 1 in 66 on a third radius (20") curve."

 

 

That's a very useful prediction, Nick.

 

The new layout, when it eventually gets built, will have a ruling gradient of 1 in 100 from the lower deck storage, but one route is going to come out at 1 in 70 on a 3rd radius curve. Five Mk1's would be a very acceptable result for that loco.

 

Regards

 

Alan

 

Hi Alan,

 

Its still an experimental predictor so should be treated with caution especially the curves.

 

It might be that more grip can be achieved by two layers of that flexible strip. If so then it might be possible to put two layers above the sleepers on non scenic curves.

If putting two or more layers together is practicable then layers could be added until the trains of choice go round the curves.

 

It might be possible to determine what is the maximum pull between a Powerbase magnet and that flexible strip is.

 

I haven't identified what type of magnets DCC Concepts supply (claimed to be stronger than standard Neo magnets).

 

I've bought some Neo magnets from E-Magnets UK to experiment with.

 

PS I was walking along my local canal's towpath the other day and there was a chap fishing for steel/iron objects such as lock keys and windlasses.

He had a magnet with a 800kg pull and as we were chatting he found something. The item wouldn't budge and he thought it was either stuck in the canal bed or there was so much crud on its surface the magnet couldn't get a good grip.

 

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Marcyg]

to query the spelling. I remember it from my childhood as it collected track pins and  filings until the mechanism jammed.

 

Apologies, I missed the earlier spelling !

 

My gradients are only on hidden bits so I can get away with piano wire, 2mm or so garden wire will work too but is more of a faff to get straight.

Sorry, my fault. I think Magnatraction was a Scalextric term for basically the same thing. Forgot the railway side of Hornby would have called it a different thing.

[NIK]

Hi,

 

I've just tried a Heljan Class 16 Chassis with DCC Concepts Powerbase. I used two of the magnets from the OO/HO starter pack. I stuck them on one bogie only of the Class 16. Due to the bulge in the bogie keeper plate for the gears I mounted the magnets in board of the wheels. These magnets were clearly visible when not obscured by the wheels.

 

The pull @ 12V DC  increased from 66 grammes without magnets to 92 grammes with.

 

As I don't want the magnets visible I will go for a thinner magnet so the test above is probably a best case.

 

I may cut down some Powerbase strip to go between the rails to see what effect that has (can only be used on non-scenic sections unless something like DCC Concepts own Stainless Steel rail is magnetic). EDIT - I've just dug out some DCC Concepts Stainless Steel track and the rail is not magnetic.

 

Regards

 

Nick

Edited September 18, 2018 by NIK

[NIK]

Hi,

 

I just tried two Neodymium magnets (not from DCC Concepts) on a Heljan Class 16 chassis sitting above Powerbase plates.

There was no increase in pull. So maybe the magnets field was not enough to grip the Powerbase plates.

 

I've mislaid my Powerbase magnets so I've ordered some more.

 

EDIT

I've just found some Powerbase magnets. With a Heljan Class 16 with one bogie drive disconnected the pull went up from 37 grammes (no magnets) to 51 grammes (Two OO Powerbase magnets). So that's a 37% increase in pull. Tests were done with Hornby Code 100 track. Probably get a bit more pull with thinner track such as SMP.

 

Now to buy some 12mm strip as per a previous post to see if I can improve the pull on non scenic sections where the strip can be between the rails.

 

END EDIT

 

Regards

 

Nick

 

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by NIK

[NIK]

Hi,

 

I've just tried one Powerbase magnet (could only get one to stick in place with glue) with single bogie drive version of Heljan Class 16 and:

 

Extra 12mm wide strip cut from Powerbase strip between rails (for non scenic sections), Powerbase strip still under track.

 

Pull increased to 86 grammes (was 37g without any Powerbase, 51g with two Powerbase magnets and Powerbase strip under track).

 

That's more pull than a Bachmann Class 25 with all four axles driven. I will try and glue the other magnet back on and see if the pull increases further.

 

Regards

 

Nick