H & M Clipper help required

[brian777999]

I love the 12 o'clock off position with reverse and normal to the left and right. I wish all modern controllers were built like this...so much easier !

[Pacific231G]

8 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Just to make the point that I have some of these oldies actually in everyday use.  The Powermaster is a good solid piece of kit but it is a bit short of volts and limits some locos to a scale 50 mph max. Now I like my expresses to come through the dip at the junction at well over 80 so its a bit lame and the Powermaster is linked to the loco shed and only occasionally powers a train on the main line.  The variwave seems a waste of time, I never use anything but 1/2 or full, but I suppose you could bring up the second half wave progressively to avoid the jerk as you change from 1/2 to full wave.   The boost button is very useful with old triang etc mechs which don't like starting, you just have to judge the controller setting for slow speed and jab the boost and the (steam)  train jerks into motion very realistically.  With near constant volts for any given knob position the amps rises with the load on the locos and gives very good speed stability.  The voltage for a given knob position is much the same whether there are 3 locos  or no locos on the track.   The innards just have a spindle disappearing into the depths of the transformer so its not worth winkling it out and taking the case off to get a photo effectively showing nothing.

The Safety Minor is in use with an On Track as the main line controllers. There is a bit of a gap in the 0-3volt range unlike modern Voltage control units so you can't test LEDs with it.  It is slower than the OnTrack but has the half wave necessary to get old worm drive mechs to run nicely down hill . Iike the Powermaster it gives excellent control when double heading or banking or both.

The Duette has no problems sped wise , 21 volts output off load but it's a resistor controller and the speed control is dire, old locos nearly stall uphill and hurtle back down at crazy speeds.  It has to be fiddled with constantly to keep trains at any reasonable speed so it has  relegated to testing with a pair of crocodile clips rather than being in reguar use.

 

Interesting David

I've been looking at H&M's advertising from 1957 when they first introduced the Powermaster to about 1961and they changed the design from this (advert from Dec 1957)

to yours sometime in 1960-1961

In 1959 they made the Safety Minor into a variable transformer design for 48/-  with a Variwave option for an extra 10/6. It later went up to 54/- and then to 58/-while the Powermaster stayed at four guineas 84/-)

 

Having raved about the Powermaster in 1957, in 1960 Railway Modeller were equally enthusiastic about Basset-Lowke's new Trainmaster.

This offered two variable transformer controllers with a secondary "flexicontrol" minimum voltage control (I've no idea how that worked) to allow for different locos' starting voltages and six section switches switchable between the two controllers to give cab control (though apparently without a centre off position which seems odd) 

This was nine guineas so at over twice the price of the H&M Powermaster must have been the Rolls Royce of model train controllers. It does seem o have been aimed in part at the O gauge market . They all look to be a lot more advance than the Kirdon Major I was using at the time. 

H&M kept the price of the Powermaster to 84/- until at least 1962 when in that December they introduced the first (AFAIK) commercial transistor controller

 

Going back to the OP. There is an article on the super Clipper including an image of its innards and perhaps more important a circuit diagram here

https://www.scottpages.net/SuperClipper.html

 

Something I'd not thought of before but one of the many controller ads (not H&M) in RM advertised that their resistance mat was wound onto an asbestos former. I don't know how common that was at that time but it's worth being aware of. Nasty stuff asbestos!

 

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by Pacific231G

[Oldddudders]

19 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

an asbestos former. I don't know how common that was at that time but it's worth being aware of. Nasty stuff asbestos!

That asbestos former is now an asbestos present. Probably white asbestos, among the least dangerous - but that's only like saying some fungi are less toxic than others, really. Stay well clear!

[PatB]

1 hour ago, Porkscratching said:

Probably not as a result of playing with our train sets tho...! 

I do seem to recall however they were running model railways back in the 30s or something, using full mains voltage on the track..I believe they gave up on that idea after a few kids got electrocuted..!

Apparently it's brilliant for avoiding track cleaning on coarse scale garden railways. There was an article years ago in, IIRC, the Gauge 0 Guild Gazette by a bloke who did just this using a Hornby Metropolitan and something steam outline and possibly German that worked on a similarly irresponsible voltage. 

[melmerby]

22 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

That asbestos former is now an asbestos present. Probably white asbestos, among the least dangerous - but that's only like saying some fungi are less toxic than others, really. Stay well clear!

Especially the edible ones!

[melmerby]

22 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

That asbestos former is now an asbestos present. Probably white asbestos, among the least dangerous - but that's only like saying some fungi are less toxic than others, really. Stay well clear!

Especially the edible ones!

[PatB]

13 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

I believe pre WW2  the toffs who had electricity fed the track mains power through a resistor and the locos "Saw" 24 volts.  Rather like people feed LEDs with 12 volts through a resistor nowadays.  It works, and with a modern 30ma RCD would not necessarily be terminal. 

We never had mains till post war so it was clockwork or an accumulator or three for my folks generation hence probably the popularity of H/D with its DC power....

My old 0 gauge controller had Off, Slow and Fast as its only speeds, the damn thing reversed when the power was interrupted.

My folks banned me using it when I had a big time electric shock off it while playing with it on the rather damp lawn.

ISTR a photo of a Hornby Metropolitan electric and it's controller which indicated that the "resistor" took the form of a mains lamp bulb next to the speed control handle. 

[kevinlms]

25 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

I believe pre WW2  the toffs who had electricity fed the track mains power through a resistor and the locos "Saw" 24 volts. 

But, if there is no loco on the track (such as the all to common derailments caused by high speeds), what voltage is there on the track?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go to the top of the class, if you said 240 Volts! It will definitely not be 24 Volts any more. That is why the system was dangerous and discontinued.

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

Rather like people feed LEDs with 12 volts through a resistor nowadays. 

 

Not this again! Nothing like the same. If you are feeding it with low volts, such as 12 Volts it is quite safe, but also explains why you should not, use 240 Volts dropped by a resistor to drive LED's.

[melmerby]

34 minutes ago, PatB said:

ISTR a photo of a Hornby Metropolitan electric and it's controller which indicated that the "resistor" took the form of a mains lamp bulb next to the speed control handle. 

More likely a baretter.

These were common before the  near universal use of transformers.

[PatB]

14 minutes ago, melmerby said:

More likely a baretter.

These were common before the  near universal use of transformers.

Possibly, although none of the images offered by Google are quite as like a domestic bulb as I remember. However, it's quite possible that the photo was incorrect as it was a modern shot in my (sadly long gone) set of the partwork History of Model and Miniature Railways. It's entirely plausible that someone, seeing a bayonet fitting on the box, stuck in a regular bulb rather than the proper part. After all, I'd never heard of a baretter until 10 minutes ago, and I'm reasonably technically cluey, so such ignorance may well be quite widespread. 

[WIMorrison]

Or possibly the lamp was simply a short circuit protection device as sill used by many on their model railways where the bulb dissipates the energy resulting from a short?

[melmerby]

Somewhat off topic but another way of dropping 240v AC was to use a series capacitor where the reactance acts as a dropper resistor.

I've seen a pre-war radio where the valve heaters were so powered.

Plenty of dodgy circuits years ago that are a definite no-no.

Obviously doesn't work on DC!

 

2 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

Or possibly the lamp was simply a short circuit protection device as sill used by many on their model railways where the bulb dissipates the energy resulting from a short?

Baretters (or possibly sometimes a light bulb) were used directly in series on AC mains to drop the 240v to something usable for the train set but still extremely dangerous compared to modern perceptions of what is allowable.

Until the advent of interconnectivity for TVs and such like, "live" chassis were very common with the neutral nomally connected to the chassis and the HT supply derived directly from line via a half wave rectifier. OK if no metal parts can be touched and the L&N aren't reversed!

[AndyID]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

TVs and such like, "live" chassis were very common with the neutral nomally connected to the chassis and the HT supply derived directly from line via a half wave rectifier. OK if no metal parts can be touched and the L&N aren't reversed! 

 

And as they were often supplied by a two-pin 5A plug there was a 50/50 chance the chassis was at 240 V. The shafts of the controls were tied to chassis too. If one of the control knobs fell off and you tried to turn the shaft with your fingers.....

[spamcan61]

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

Somewhat off topic but another way of dropping 240v AC was to use a series capacitor where the reactance acts as a dropper resistor.

I've seen a pre-war radio where the valve heaters were so powered.

Plenty of dodgy circuits years ago that are a definite no-no.

 

 

The 2017 vintage wireless thermostat connected to the CH boiler here at Spamcan towers uses this technique, so it's still alive and "well" ! I only realised after a quick Google as it's a well known failure point of this particular thermostat.

[Colin_McLeod]

This has transformed" (sorry) into a very interesting vintage controller thread.

[Crosland]

On 22/09/2019 at 12:27, DavidCBroad said:

I believe pre WW2  the toffs who had electricity fed the track mains power through a resistor and the locos "Saw" 24 volts.  Rather like people feed LEDs with 12 volts through a resistor nowadays. 

 

It's nothing like that at all. If you don't understand why then either ask or stop posting about the use (and abuse) of LEDs.

[Crosland]

On 22/09/2019 at 13:06, kevinlms said:

you should not, use 240 Volts dropped by a resistor to drive LED's.

 

Well, you can  subject to

1. All points of the circuit are innaccessible to the user.

2. The resistor(s) are suitably rated. Even just a few mA through the LED will cause a Watt or more dissipation in the resistor(s)

3. You protect against reverse breakdown if it's AC.

 

I wouldn't do it, however.

 

[melmerby]

22 hours ago, AndyID said:

 

And as they were often supplied by a two-pin 5A plug there was a 50/50 chance the chassis was at 240 V. The shafts of the controls were tied to chassis too. If one of the control knobs fell off and you tried to turn the shaft with your fingers.....

I have seen pots & switches with plastic shafts but as you say, normally steel.

[stovepipe]

On 21/09/2019 at 12:46, Emmo said:

My thanks go out to reigate Models for these photographs. That was all I wanted in the first place! Unfortunately they are too late as I have now given the unit away being fed up with all the 'Post Drifts' as it is called. Incidentally I am not a moderator under a different guise, so the deleted posts were not done by me! These units are perfectly safe I have been told, I even saw one in use at an exhibition recently who mostly insist on PAT testing.

 

Translated - thanks but no thanks, as you took 3 days to reply, the Clipper gets it.

 

Charming.

 

Thankfully others have made a nice thread all the same.

Edited September 23, 2019 by stovepipe

[BoD]

4 hours ago, Crosland said:

 

Well, you can  subject to

1. All points of the circuit are innaccessible to the user.

2. The resistor(s) are suitably rated. Even just a few mA through the LED will cause a Watt or more dissipation in the resistor(s)

3. You protect against reverse breakdown if it's AC.

 

I wouldn't do it, however.

 

 

I’ve always wondered how to keep the layout room warm in winter.

I’ll let you know how it goes.

[SHMD]

On ‎22‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 12:27, DavidCBroad said:

I believe pre WW2  the toffs who had electricity fed the track ####################################.  Rather like people feed LEDs with 12 volts through a resistor nowadays.  It works, and with a modern 30ma RCD would not necessarily be terminal. 

 

I'm sorry David but I am going to have to ask to have this post removed.

 

To imply that complex control of mains voltages can be achieved so easily is irresponsible and dangerous.

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of theoretical knowledge on even the simplest power source design concept. (Source impedance, maximum power transfer, loads - even potential divider circuits it would seem!)

 

The gullible and ignorant (of electronics) will attempt this without knowing the consequences of such a suggestion.

 

I respect you for your practical knowledge learnt over a long period of time, and the fact that you are trying to help, BUT please don't keep promoting your pet LED concepts and especially trying to apply it to circuits far more dangerous than an LEDs.

 

(LEDs are a constant load when connected to a fixed voltage source via resister. A model loco on a layout is not a fixed load.)

 

 

 Kev.

 

 

 

[Danemouth]

I did have a Clipper until a few months ago - used with my rolling road. I found the speed control towards the end very poor and ended up checking voltages at the various outputs.

 

All were on the high side e.g. the 16v ac output was nearer 20v.

 

Knowing next to buqqer all about the inside of the controller I decided the best option was to bin it having cut the mains cable off it.

 

I am always super cautious where mains voltages are involved.

 

Dave

[PatB]

I'm finding it very difficult to read any kind of recommendation into David's post. Anyone taking "not necessarily terminal" as some sort of endorsement of a practice as being safe is probably already well on the way to a Darwin Award. 

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, SHMD said:

 

I'm sorry David but I am going to have to ask to have this post removed.

 

To imply that complex control of mains voltages can be achieved so easily is irresponsible and dangerous.

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of theoretical knowledge on even the simplest power source design concept. (Source impedance, maximum power transfer, loads - even potential divider circuits it would seem!)

 

The gullible and ignorant (of electronics) will attempt this without knowing the consequences of such a suggestion.

 

I respect you for your practical knowledge learnt over a long period of time, and the fact that you are trying to help, BUT please don't keep promoting your pet LED concepts and especially trying to apply it to circuits far more dangerous than an LEDs.

 

(LEDs are a constant load when connected to a fixed voltage source via resister. A model loco on a layout is not a fixed load.)

 

 

 Kev.

 

 

 

I would hope that anyone reading any advice here, would take the trouble to read at least some of the following posts, before embarking on such a project.

 

Doing so, would soon reveal that David is somewhat alone on his advice, certainly in this instance.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, PatB said:

I'm finding it very difficult to read any kind of recommendation into David's post. Anyone taking "not necessarily terminal" as some sort of endorsement of a practice as being safe is probably already well on the way to a Darwin Award. 

A late non railway club member of mine, had a very cavalier approach to electricity and claimed it was 'fear' that stopped most people working with it. 

I tried fruitlessly to explain, that it was not about fear, but electricity certainly needed to be treated with respect. He refused to accept that there was any difference.

 

He did die of his own hands, but not involving electricity.