LGB Pantograph Maintenance

[James Day]

I have had LGB catenary for quite a while and the child in me demands that I run with the pantographs up and where possible collecting power through them.

I have the original stainless steel LGB catenary and run locos and trams with the red single head panto and the bow collector.

I tend to use graphite grease on the panto heads every now and then to reduce wear and learned early on that the actual head from the red panto can be unclipped and replaced with carefully bent brass rod. This has enabled me to keep my pantographs going, rather than replace them.

Despite many years of use I have not yet worn out a bow collector head, although I have reprofiled one of mine when it began to 'rut'.

I bought a second-hand 2034 (green and white) steple cab, and was amazed to find the head peice was stainless steel, so that was quickly removed and replaced with a home made brass one.

The only real issues that I have found when running from the catenary has been the sometimes poor connection betwen the base of the pan and the wire coming up to the pan from the switch. This is a very creaky compression contact and I feel that soldering it would be a lot more positive and reduce the ressistance. Has anyone done this?

Finally, I have a spare pair of the Crocodile typepans with the twin head. Has anyone used these under the contact wire? I do have a Croc, but feel it is too big for my catenary equipped branch lines!

James

 

[Madman]

Keep 'em up ! I would love to have my catenary back in the garden. But SWMBO says it's a garden after all, and doesn't like being admonished for getting herself tangled it my wires !

 

[Melbournesparks]

My tramway is fully electrified for trolley pole and pantograph operation.

It's been a bit of a trail and error process, but I feel like I've got it pretty much sorted now. The contact wire is all 0.7 copper, from old mains wiring. I originally tried using trolley heads made from soft metal (brass with the groove filled with solder) thinking the groove would wear to a shape that fits the wire. Turns out that doesn't really work well, the soft metal can't scrape the tarnish off the wire. Now I use hard steel trolley heads (filed from a piece of bolt) which work way better.

Did you replace the stainless steel pantograph conductor because it didn't make good contact James? I have pantographs of both the single and twin conductor type both made from stainless steel, but I have not had any problems with them yet. I've actually been pretty amazed with just how much crud they'll deal with, especially the twin conductor one. As I discovered though the relationship between the two metals of the wire and the pickup contact is important, what is your wire made out of?

I tried greasing the overhead at first, but now I don't put anything on it. After a week or so the grease baked in the sun and formed a grimy coating that the trolley poles picked up. I have not noticed any wear on the trolley heads/pantograph conductors yet, but they are made out of much harder metal compared to the wire.

Something I learned which seemed a bit counter intuitive at first is that it's actually easier to make overhead for trolley poles than it is for pantographs. The trolley poles don't like sharp kinks, but they tolerate all sorts of other shoddiness. The pantographs need the wire to be tight and at least somewhere near the centre of the track.

 

[James Day]

Nice Picture! A lot of work has gone into those wires. I like the side pulls!

Thanks for your reply and all the advice. Yes the grease does tend to turn to crud, as you say. I only apply it every now and then, but will give it a rest and see what happens.

The wire I use is the original LGB set length stainless steel type with hooped ends. I manged to get loads of this when Beatties sold up, along with a few spare mast arms.

I didn't like the idea of the head being stainless steel as well as the wire. My reasoning was that 'something has got to give' but that would have been a lot harder with both being the same hardness.

I am guessing that LGB thought much the same, which is why they stopped using stainless for the pan heads too? My 2034 dates from 1974 I think, but all my other locos and trams with pans are more recent. I have a 2033 Green Works loco dating from around 1979 or so and that has a plated brass head.

I did not know that the Croc type twin head pan was ever supplied in stainless steel, as it first came out around the same time as my 2033. I need to go and check my crocodile now, as it is also an old one!

It would be interesting to know exactly when they stopped using stainless steel and why? The brass railed 'Model' catenary did not come out until after 1983 I think, so that would not be the reason. I could be on a flight of fancy of course, but it made sense to me at the time!

I find that generally the pan heads pick up very well, but I am concerned by the terrible way they anchor the wire from the selector switch!

Thanks for the advice about the model type pans - I will replace a pan on one of my locos with a double headed one, just to see how things 'pan out!' Sorry!

I love watching the pans flex and the wire zig and zag as the locos pass underneath. I recall getting a similar thrill form my old Tri-ang Hornby too! The shocking thing there was the amount on punnishment those small pans took from all the movement. No wonder so many old Tri-ang locos ended up with broken pans! LGB seem to have got the strength of the pan and the amount of springing just right.

James

 

[Melbournesparks]

No worries, glad to see someone else who uses overhead wires!

Yeah that makes sense if both the wire and the pantograph are stainless steel. I like the idea of hard pantograph conductor/soft wire. If we assume they are both subject to an equal wearing action, the wear is spread out along the entire length of the wire but is concentrated only on the small area of the pantograph. Lucky getting so much LGB wire. For the amount it costs if you even see it for sale at all here you'd think it was made from gold...

I just looked more closely at the pantographs, I'm not so sure they are stainless steel now. Maybe it's just plated. It's some sort of hard shiny metal. Interestingly they have developed a slight copper colour to the contact area, so the wire obviously is wearing slowly.

I sort of get the impression that pantograph operation was a bit of an afterthought. Like you say the wiring is a bit dodgy, and I seem to remember reading in one of the manuals that they don't recommend using live overhead with DCC. I once heard someone describe overhead that isn't live as being like beer that is not alcoholic. I'm inclined to agree, it's just no fun that way...

I'm a massive electric traction nerd, so all things to do with wires and stuff is fun! The trolley poles are especially satisfying to watch, they even make a nice realistic noise going through the overhead frogs.

The LGB pantographs certainly work beautifully, even on my shoddily constructed overhead. It would be a crime not to use them for their intended purpose!

 

[idlemarvel]

...I seem to remember reading in one of the manuals that they don't recommend using live overhead with DCC...

Yes I have read that too, the reason given was that DCC needs constant signal (like DC doesn't need constant power?) but I think you could just use power buffers (capacitors) like you do to handle point frogs and track dirt. Does anyone know a more technical reason why you could not use DCC from overhead? You could have a common return rail so you could mix overhead and track powered locos could you not?

 

[PhilP]

there is no error correction, or hand-shake, on DCC.. So you could not expect the commands to get through reliably.
The 'noise' on the line would be greater as well.

 

[James Day]

I just looked more closely at the pantographs, I'm not so sure they are stainless steel now. Maybe it's just plated. It's some sort of hard shiny metal. Interestingly they have developed a slight copper colour to the contact area, so the wire obviously is wearing slowly.

I sort of get the impression that pantograph operation was a bit of an afterthought. Like you say the wiring is a bit dodgy, and I seem to remember reading in one of the manuals that they don't recommend using live overhead with DCC. I once heard someone describe overhead that isn't live as being like beer that is not alcoholic. I'm inclined to agree, it's just no fun that way....

The LGB pantographs certainly work beautifully, even on my shoddily constructed overhead. It would be a crime not to use them for their intended purpose!

Thanks for this. I have just looked at my spare pair of twin head pans and those on my vintage Croc. I tend to agree with you, I suspect that they are plated brass too. Following your earlier post I put one of my spare ones on my 2033 works loco and took it out for a spin on my short branch....

It works really well as you say, although it initially objected to the LGB 'Spring Bow Reverser Wires', until I gave them a good tweak/bend down. After that it ran smoothly, constantly presenting a nice flat surface to the wire and coped well with my junctions too

To make a junction with the old style wires you connect two wires in the normal way - hoop to hoop and then bind the third hoop to the other two with single strand wire. The trick is to ensure that the two wires leaving this joint are perfectly level until they are more than a pan-head width apart, or the pans can get 'strung up', which is not pretty!

As to powering up via the pans - Yes and No. I have two catenary equipped branches, but only one can at present actually power the locos, although the pans (where fitted) when running on both branches are always up.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, automation is my thing and for me the real fun is getting two trains to run on the same line and interact automatically. One will be pan powered the other needs to be track powered, but both can of course have pans - and these must be up!

James

 

[Melbournesparks]

I usually try and have a span wire close to where the wires separate. That way if one of them gets pushed up by the pan the other one gets lifted too. It also helps with adjustment of the trolley pole frogs, since they have to be positioned within a fairly narrow tolerance to work reliably.

I'm not too familiar with the LGB catenary, have only seen a few pictures. The amount it would cost to get it here is several orders of magnitude more than I can afford! Do you get problems with the joins between the wire sections going high resistance? I'd imagine the stainless steel is pretty much impervious to any sort of tarnish outside, but there's a lot of joins. Luckily even though the copper tarnishes, it doesn't seem to affect it's electrical conductivity too much and does not require any active cleaning. Sometimes the first tram of the day causes a few trolley pole sparks though!

Being able to run a track powered and overhead powered train on the same line is certainly an advantage. I can't do that unfortunately, both rails are used for current return. I think I'd have trouble with the small four wheeled trams if only two wheels were available for current collection, especially on the aluminium rail.

 

[Madman]

"Something I learned which seemed a bit counter intuitive at first is that it's actually easier to make overhead for trolley poles than it is for pantographs. The trolley poles don't like sharp kinks, but they tolerate all sorts of other shoddiness. The pantographs need the wire to be tight and at least somewhere near the centre of the track."

That's very interesting. When I had a catenary system, in my garden, I experimented with different types of wire and masts. The simplest was two poles and a copper wire stretched between them. On curves it got interesting as more poles were needed along with a mass of stand-offs. I too had always thought that stringing trolley wire was too difficult to do.

 

[Melbournesparks]

"Something I learned which seemed a bit counter intuitive at first is that it's actually easier to make overhead for trolley poles than it is for pantographs. The trolley poles don't like sharp kinks, but they tolerate all sorts of other shoddiness. The pantographs need the wire to be tight and at least somewhere near the centre of the track."

That's very interesting. When I had a catenary system, in my garden, I experimented with different types of wire and masts. The simplest was two poles and a copper wire stretched between them. On curves it got interesting as more poles were needed along with a mass of stand-offs. I too had always thought that stringing trolley wire was too difficult to do.

I think I might have found some pictures of yours, I did a bit of googling to see how many other people have home made overhead. Not many, it seems.

For those that I found though (including yours) it's really interesting seeing the different construction styles people use. Often people have arrived at the same solution via wildly different routes.
Yours is a lot more heavy duty than mine, with the metal poles and thick wire.

Mine is pretty light weight and hard to photograph, it tends to disappear into the background. It was originally only used by trolley poles, so is very much a light tramway standard.

 

[James Day]

I usually try and have a span wire close to where the wires separate. That way if one of them gets pushed up by the pan the other one gets lifted too. It also helps with adjustment of the trolley pole frogs, since they have to be positioned within a fairly narrow tolerance to work reliably..

I like the idea of a nearby span wire at junctions. I usually place an extra LGB mast near the joint to stop one of the wires flexing too much. This just sits there, with the bow arm resting on the wire and works quite well.

If I was using the newer LGB 'flexible rail' type contact wire, I would have more options, but I am accustomed to dealing with the issues of the old system, and would not be able to afford to upgrade even if I wanted to!

Yes, the wires just clip together, over the bow of each mast, so although from length to length the connection is good, there is a fair amount of resistance over a long length. My longest branch is 67 ft long and the drop in voltage from one end to the other was quite noticeable. A second feeder mast was quickly incorporated at the far end, which in turn required another cable run! The resolved the issue effectively.

Here are a couple of images I have pillaged from the internet:



This shows the hoop ends of the wire. Unfortunately whoever set this up forget to join the other wire over the front of the first one, encapsulating the straight part of the bow! The second mast is just resting on the wire, like my extra masts at junctions!



Here is a selection of different length wires. They were made for straights, double straights and r1, 2 and 3 curves. There was also a 300mm length with a spring in the middle, which was a great way of reversing the throw of your bow collectors: As you reversed the tram with the bow still trailing, (as it arrived), the bow collector would be snagged by the spring, rise up and then be thrown into the trailing position. It was not always necessary to use this, as the give in a 600mm length would also give the bow the freedom to flip over, but not always 100%!

My overhead line set up is nowhere near as pretty or authentically engineered as yours, but it still gives me a lot of pleasure.


James

 

[Madman]

I like the idea of a nearby span wire at junctions. I usually place an extra LGB mast near the joint to stop one of the wires flexing too much. This just sits there, with the bow arm resting on the wire and works quite well.

If I was using the newer LGB 'flexible rail' type contact wire, I would have more options, but I am accustomed to dealing with the issues of the old system, and would not be able to afford to upgrade even if I wanted to!

Yes, the wires just clip together, over the bow of each mast, so although from length to length the connection is good, there is a fair amount of resistance over a long length. My longest branch is 67 ft long and the drop in voltage from one end to the other was quite noticeable. A second feeder mast was quickly incorporated at the far end, which in turn required another cable run! The resolved the issue effectively.

Here are a couple of images I have pillaged from the internet:

View attachment 210774

This shows the hoop ends of the wire. Unfortunately whoever set this up forget to join the other wire over the front of the first one, encapsulating the straight part of the bow! The second mast is just resting on the wire, like my extra masts at junctions!

View attachment 210775

Here is a selection of different length wires. They were made for straights, double straights and r1, 2 and 3 curves. There was also a 300mm length with a spring in the middle, which was a great way of reversing the throw of your bow collectors: As you reversed the tram with the bow still trailing, (as it arrived), the bow collector would be snagged by the spring, rise up and then be thrown into the trailing position. It was not always necessary to use this, as the give in a 600mm length would also give the bow the freedom to flip over, but not always 100%!

My overhead line set up is nowhere near as pretty or authentically engineered as yours, but it still gives me a lot of pleasure.


James

James, In the photo of the loco under catenary, how does the connection at the mast stay put. The two wires are simply hooked over the mast wire and also over one another. Wouldn't they have a tendency to want to move horizontally on the mast wire, thus throwing them out of alignment with the track below ?

 

[James Day]

James, In the photo of the loco under catenary, how does the connection at the mast stay put. The two wires are simply hooked over the mast wire and also over one another. Wouldn't they have a tendency to want to move horizontally on the mast wire, thus throwing them out of alignment with the track below ?

Thanks Dan,

An excellent question.

Here is another stolen image:



Sadly it does not show much, but if you drink a couple of glasses of scotch and then squint you may just be able to see three evenly spaced crimpings on the horizontal bar. One in the middle and the other two are on both sides, 1.5cm out from centre.

These allow you to lock the pairs of wires over them so that they will remain in a specific place on the arm and to also 'zig and zag' the wires as you go along. I usually arrange my wires to travel right out to one side and go long a length and then go over and do the same on the other side, spending as little time in the middle as posible.

The other 'joy' of the old system is the set length wires, with each length corresponding to a specific rail. You thus need to have a rule on where the masts will go - My rule is two sleepers in from one end. You then need to stick to this throughout the line you are wiring up.

However things like points can be a real pain, as can short rails, half rails, cut rails. So frankly you need to be flexible and do what you can/need to to get the wires along the length.

I spoke about this in the thread "Catenary That Works Again"

James

 

[Madman]

Thanks James. I did have some of these masts when I had a catenary system, and remember now the crimps you mentioned. At the time, I could not figure out why they were there as I was using my own scratch-built brass wire as a contact wire.

 

[Melbournesparks]

Ah that explains it. It's a clever system.

It probably wouldn't have worked for me anyway though, I have too much weird track geometry and constraints on pole placement.

 

[James Day]

Ah that explains it. It's a clever system.

It probably wouldn't have worked for me anyway though, I have too much weird track geometry and constraints on pole placement.

The stainless steel wire system wouldn't work for trolley type collectors, and I don't think the new brass rail version would either, although both can be persuaded to negotiate weird/non-standard geometry with some thought, planning and a little rule breaking!

To be fair LGB have really looked at many of the issues that the original system had: The continuous wire now allows you to place masts almost wherever you want them and allows you to avoid having them where you don't, or they won't fit! The masts now have feet with adjustable reach from the track and detachable bases. I could buy these and clip on an old style support arm if I ever needed more, but I have just enough masts for my current needs and for the foreseeable future.

I would love to have the new system, or indeed the 'model' version with proper catenary, droppers, gantries etc, BUT - I seized the opportunity to buy what I could afford when it was available and it has had a lot of use and given me a lot of fun since then!

James