DCC Concepts Powerbase

[Phil S]

cc'c powebase is of course a variation of triang-Hornby's magnadhesion, which relied on their steel track of the time, and is also used by Busch for their field train in H0f.... this was initially released with Marklin Z gauge track and a steel plate ( 4 of them, each the size of the set box, to cover the extent of oval provided.  Busch now have their own H0f track with a shaped steel plate attached... the effective adhesive is such that the track can operate upside down, without the loco falling off.... so the system does work demonstrably.  however, the problems arise at the edges....where the new track meets the old steel plate, and steel plate meets track without any.... because the loco will jump to the newer type track in preference, and be reluctant to leave it.... a problem for those of us who started a layout with the original system...  with new track the continuiy is assisted by the stepoed-ends of the metal piece so they ibterlock giving a contunous magnrtic field.

in 00 and N WITH POWERBASE the loco masses are larger and the magnet separations greater, so It is probably easier to fade out the effect at the ends

[ColHut]

Thanks all. Interesting charts. I have some more experimenting to go, but am even considering running a thin strip of galvanised steel from a roll above the sleepers in the offboard section to greatly increase the attractive force.

 

I will first try a few more options on my little Bachmann 45xx first.

 

regards

[John ks]

Here's a thought

If you are using Kadee's what happens when a magnet fitted loco encounters a Magnetic uncoupler

If the fields are opposite do the 2 magnetic fields lock together & stall the train?

If the fields ate the same then does the loco jump off the track when it passes over the uncoupler?  

 

John 

[newbryford]

Here's a thought

If you are using Kadee's what happens when a magnet fitted loco encounters a Magnetic uncoupler

If the fields are opposite do the 2 magnetic fields lock together & stall the train?

If the fields ate the same then does the loco jump off the track when it passes over the uncoupler?

 

John 

 

AFAIIA, I haven't found any reported issues with using Kadees - magnets or couplings and powerbase.

I would be interested to hear otherwise, as one of my future projects may be using powerbase and Kadees....

 

Cheers,

Mick

[fcwilt]

Interesting concept...

 

Or you could do what has been done in the real word and implement a "on demand" rack system to handle tough grades.

 

Frederick

[ColHut]

Interesting concept...

 

Or you could do what has been done in the real word and implement a "on demand" rack system to handle tough grades.

 

Frederick

I wish

 

I have given up on the frets. Much too weak for me, and not being a brass kit builder, I have no ability to run beads of silver on brass etches. That will await further training !

 

In any case I think Richard was having a lend when he provided tiny steel self tappers to screw the frets down in the immediete presence of intense magnetic fields. I cannot get the near the holes I drill without the screw shooting off to the magnet.

 

Fair results by using balsa spacers whish are reasonably easily cleaned up if I need to remove them, 3 on the Bachmann 45xx have allowed it to pull 4 Pullmans (the ones with coach lighting and quite heavy - 238g each) up the the curved gradients.

 

I will try now for 6 ordinary coaches.

 

regards

[newbryford]

 

I have given up on the frets. Much too weak for me, and not being a brass kit builder, I have no ability to run beads of silver on brass etches. That will await further training !

 

In any case I think Richard was having a lend when he provided tiny steel self tappers to screw the frets down in the immediete presence of intense magnetic fields. I cannot get the near the holes I drill without the screw shooting off to the magnet.

 

 

 

You could always use a bit of two part epoxy glue instead of solder.

Blu-tac or similar to temporarily hold the screw to the driver.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[ColHut]

Thanks Mick, My screwdrivers are magnetic but no match for the nearby rare earth magnets. They shoot off like darts!

[Denbridge]

You could always use a bit of two part epoxy glue instead of solder.

Blu-tac or similar to temporarily hold the screw to the driver.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Place the screws in the hole first, then the screwdriver to the head

[nicolasgreenin]

a small dot of superglue on the screw driver to glue the screw in place and the break if off when in a tight. I had the same issue as I glued 2 DCC magnets to the bottom of my J78 and it was a nightmare when I had to remove the chassis screws trying to get them back in again.  

 

I have also noticed another issue, I have been putting in magnets under the track for Kadee uncoupling and the loco either gets stuck or repels from the track magnets depending on the direction of the loco which makes shunting fun to say the least. 

 

I am playing with positioning the loco magnets closer to the centre but on the 0-4-0's that is impossible as they are too short... They just have to have 1 truck always connected..

[NIK]

Hi,

 

As part of my experimental Gradient and Curve calculator I decided to test the effect of the DCC Concepts Powerbase on the static pull when extra weight is applied.

 

I'd previously tested a Replica Railways OO 64' powered chassis to see how the static pull increased as weight was applied. The static pull tailed off when the chassis weighed around 350 grammes. The track was Hornby Code 100 Nickel Silver set track.

 

The weight divided by four is a rule of thumb I read on the internet about the relationship between tractive effort and loco weight.

 

I then repeated the tests with DCC Concepts Powerbase metal strips installed under the test track and two DCC Concepts Powerbase magnets a fraction of a millimetre above track level.

 

I found it interesting that up to 400 grammes chassis weight the Powerbase system added to the static pull and may actually enhance the effect of added weight.

 

These were initial tests, I didn't realise how close the magnets were to the rails, but conversely the metal strips weren't closely attached to the track as I forced the strips between the track and the double sided tape that had attached it to the baseboard.

 

At 400 grammes weight the chassis has a static pull of 150 grammes which takes it beyond the Heljan Class 128 OO Single Diesel Parcels Unit (my previous record holder) in terms of both static pull and pull to weight ratio.

 

My experimental gradient and curve calculator* predicts that at that weight it would take 15 Bachmann Mk1 coaches up a 1 in 40 gradient with a 36" radius curve.

 

I can't explain the blip around 280 grammes, the chassis was shaking as it slipped so there may have been some resonance effect. Hopefully the shaking won't occur when the train is moving.

 

When I have time I will repeat the tests with thinner magnets and with better laid strips under the tracks.

 

Regards

 

Nick

Edited March 3, 2018 by NIK

[NIK]

Hi,

 

I tried doing a gradient test using my Replica Chassis with two Powerbase magnets attached.

 

It went up a 1 in 3.6 gradient as predicted by my experimental gradient and curve calculator.

 

I then replaced the two DCC concepts 3mm thick magnets with four Neodynium magnets 12mm x 5mm x 1mm.

 

The 3mm thick DCC concepts magnets were very close to the rails and since they were too thick to fit under the axles I thought I would need some thinner magnets.

 

The 1mm magnets were a bit too thin and I was worried they wouldn't have enough magnetic force so stuck them on double sided sticky foam pads to lower them to about 1mm above the rails.

 

The static pull was reduced from 150 grammes to 119 grammes.

 

The experimental gradient calculator predicts it would pull 12 Bachmann OO Mk1 coaches up a 1 in 40 gradient with 36" radius curve.

 

I will get some slightly thicker magnets if I can. DCC Concepts say their magnets are more powerful than ordinary Neo Supermagnets so I will have to see what is available to the amateur.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[ColHut]

try halving the radius...

 

regards

[NIK]

try halving the radius...

 

regards

 

Hi,

 

My experimental gradient/curve calculator predicts that at 18 inch radius the maximum gradient would be 1 in 70. Alternatively to keep the 1 in 40 gradient it predicts the number of coaches would have to come down from 12 to 9.

 

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Denbridge]

Hi,

 

My experimental gradient/curve calculator predicts that at 18 inch radius the maximum gradient would be 1 in 70. Alternatively to keep the 1 in 40 gradient it predicts the number of coaches would have to come down from 12 to 9.

 

REPLICA 64 FOOT 3 POLE CHASSIS FOUR 1MM MAGNETS GRAD CURVE A 1.PNG

 

Regards

 

Nick

i would like to see these tests done with some steam. The results would be interesting.

[NIK]

i would like to see these tests done with some steam. The results would be interesting.

Hi,

 

Hornby magazine did some DCC Concepts Powerbase tests with N gauge steam locos:

 

https://www.dccconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HM-I95-05-Gradients-and-Powerbase-2015.pdf

 

 

Regards

 

Nick

[ColHut]

FWIW I managed to haul 6 normal coaches without wheel slip (3 SR new Hornby Maunsell coaches and 3 LNER teak Railroad coaches) and 7 with a bit of slip adding a RR Pullman. I was aiming for 5 so very good effort.

 

No trouble with 15 "loaded" assorted mineral wagons and a weighted brake van. Similar results with a similar length goods train. This was slightly better than my Robinson O4. I will double check the magnet heights on that one.

 

By comparison the tender drive A3 was woeful with bare capability to pull 4 old style coaches. Not much to be done there with only two driven axles despite the magnets. As the loco has sentimental value, a new Hollywood Foundry 8 wheel drive tender chassis is in the offing.

 

regards

Edited March 6, 2018 by ColHut

[NIK]

Hi,

 

There is a possibility a club layout I'm involved in may gain a 1 in 20 gradient in the fiddle yard. It was originally floated as a down gradient only. There is no space for a shallower grade. I'd like to fit it with DCC Concepts Powerbase just in case (the layout already has Powerbase on a 1 in 40 gradient).

 

I thought I'd do a detailed prediction of a Replica 64' powered chassis (fitted with four 1mm thick magnets) hauling five Mk1 coaches. This is to represent a 6 car Hastings unit I'm thinking of remotoring. I'd like to run the unit up the gradient if its possible.

The prediction uses my experimental gradient and curve calculator.

 

The gradient summits about halfway from the right.

 

The prediction is that with the Powerbase and the four thin magnets the Hastings unit will go up the 1 in 20 with a 36" radius.

 

The only RTR loco I've tested that should do this without Powerbase is the Bachmann Class 47 which has 12 wheel drive and weighs 530 grammes.

 

However due to the higher weight of the 47 its drag is higher on the 1 in 20 so there is less margin.

 

The Replica chassis has 1mm magnets as the 3mm thick DCC concepts magnets wouldn't fit under the bogies. The 1mm thick magnets may be replaced with slightly thicker ones at a later date.

 

 

Regards

 

Nick

[ColHut]

I will be interested to see how this turns out.

 

I think the "curve friction" might be slightly understated as the tighter the curve the more force is wasted in lateral thrust adding to the actual curve resistence.

 

regards

[Monte]

I have just come across this topic, and I have realised that I am going to need to install the Powerbase idea on my layout, but the cost of the "genuine article" i.e. the actual centipede plates available from DCC Concepts would cost me a fortune as my incline is over 80 feet long! So I will have to source some rolls or sheets of mild steel shim as suggested by Andy Reichert back 2014.

Does anyone what the thickness of the plates is that DCC supply?

 

TIA,

 

Monte

[NIK]

7 hours ago, Monte said:

I have just come across this topic, and I have realised that I am going to need to install the Powerbase idea on my layout, but the cost of the "genuine article" i.e. the actual centipede plates available from DCC Concepts would cost me a fortune as my incline is over 80 feet long! So I will have to source some rolls or sheets of mild steel shim as suggested by Andy Reichert back 2014.

Does anyone what the thickness of the plates is that DCC supply?

 

TIA,

 

Monte

Hi,

 

I will see if I've got any at home to measure.

 

I've bought some 12mm wide steel strip to try out between the rails on very steep non scenic gradients on layouts. I found it tricky to stick down as the loco magnets have so much force when the strip is really close.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[WIMorrison]

Surely as the principle behind the use is to clamp the rail between the loco and the steel sheet the only item that needs solid adhesion is the magnet onto the loco?

 

when I looked at this idea a few years ago the problem on N Gauge chassis was there wasn’t sufficient clearance under the locos to get strong enough magnets to create any benefit. The fixing of track to the sheets and fixing the sheets to the baseboard was not an issue at all.

[adb968008]

I installed this a few years ago, and had a similar idea of using sheets given the size of my layout.

 

I bought a pack to try it out, installation on the track is easy enough.

I installed the magnets under a Black 5 and the results on the gradient were positive, it does pull more.

However the magnets themselves are a bit of a fiddle to get the right depth, I ended up drilling a few holes under my keeper plate to get it right. Odd derailments occurred as the magnets attracted themselves to other trackwork. 

I gave up at 3 locos, as too much effort... I have way too many locos, the solution isnt cheap...it’d take me a lifetime to implement. However it does work, it just takes time and patience getting the magnets right under your locos.

 

Overall, if you have a small collection of locos, a lot of time, or a number of people to set up your loco fleet, then its a good solution, good for a club layout for instance.

I have a pack of plates left, if your interested pm me.

Edited April 8, 2021 by adb968008

[Monte]

Gentlemen,

 

Thank you for your kind replies, and your words of wisdom.  

 

adb968008 - re your comment about  "drilling a few holes under my keeper plate..........." can you elaborate please as I don`t follow you on that one. Also re the magnets attracting themselves to other trackwork, did the tendency for something to derail occur if you have two tracks side by side with the plates underneath, or for example a facing point where two tracks diverge off it, both of which are powerbase fitted, causing the magnets to want to pull over to where you don`t want them to? I have read some people fit small magnets underneath the leading pony trucks of steam locos to help the keep on the track which is powerbase fitted?

Due to the length of my incline I will only be fitting this system to the uphill line, and like you have a large loco fleet.  I think I`ll start with the locos that in real life were powerful ones, but are disproportionally poor pullers in model form (my Hornby tender drive A4 for example)

 

Thanks again,

 

Monte

 

[adb968008]

Yes the derailments were mostly on points, where the neo magnet dragged it one way instead of another.. would be a kind of interesting derailment as the Neo magnets are very very strong, but also short range, so once derailed theres enough strength to move the loco towards the metallic object..or vice versa if its not fastened... it will take out loose trackpins...but if fixed too high only by a mm the magnetic force field wont reach the object at all.

 

Initially I tried 1 magnet glued to the base of a Castle.. it didnt react, so I doubled the magnets, then tripled it.. then it definitely found the power base very well... it was so strong superglue didnt hold it ! And it separated, magnetically attracted to the sleepers and derailed the loco.. so I went to a different solution...

 

There is an additional pack consisting of a brass strips called “Magnet Mounting Etches” (DCX-PBEX) which folds into an “u” with arms at the upper edge of each side of the u shape.  The arms have a hole, to screw the u shaped base into the underside of your chassis. You may need to remove brake rigging to fit. Despite measuring it still required a few holes to get the alignment right. The magnet is glued into the ‘u’ acting as a cradle that then hangs under your loco. 

 

The tricky balance is to get the “u- hang” low enough that the magnet picks up the metal strip, but not hanging too low that it fowls the track (such as point work), or too high that it doesnt attract to the baseplates. Each loco is different, larger size wheels tend to have a higher under clearance and hence need to hang the “u” cradle  lower/longer from the keeper plate, where as a little shunter you could probably glue the magnet straight to the keeper plate and skip the cradle altogether.. but risk it riding up onto the point blades then shorting out ! 

 

Although it says you can glue the magnet straight to the chassis bottom, I didnt find it low enough to pick up the base plate to attract to, on my Black 5, Castle or 9F hence used the brass strips provided to make that under slung cradle.
 

My collection is such I decided I could be spending a lot of time measuring, testing, drilling and fitting magnets, plus painting them to disguise them), which effectively need to be measured for each loco, that it would be too excessive, and as I do occasionally turn over some of my fleet for newer ones, I’d be risking devaluing them with the holes drilled too.

 

However it does work, so if you have a club layout, dedicated fleet or can share the task, it can be rewarding seeing a Black 5 change from 4-5 struggling on a gradient to a healthy 7-8 coaches, but its more trial and error than plug and play... if you have time, patience and are in it for a long term solution, then yes i’d recommend it.

 

I would add, just simply “roughing up” your track on a gradient,  (I used a rough file), that alone added 1.5 coaches to a load, as it was no longer shiny wheels on smooth track... the loco got better adhesion.. just clean that piece of track a bit more often and it sounds a bit louder... My layout is a messy bundle, so it would suffice for me.

Edited April 8, 2021 by adb968008