Stainz Double Heart Bypass

GWhizz wrote:

paul stainz holt wrote:

In the case of connecting two locos together of different ages and possibly different wear rates on each motor, its wise to do the rule of thumb test where you set both locos off simultaneously (on analogue) with a measured gap between them, if the motors are compatible, the gap won't change.

That's good advice Paul and actually reflects Mikey's original concern over motors drawing different currents.

Whereas the disparity in motors running under analogue would be dissapated by track slippage, could the disparity in some way feedback into the chip and damage it?

Its the gearbox and motor which suffers if there is disparity in the two motor speeds, not tried it though ! As far as I know the chip is unaffected.

paul stainz holt wrote:

Its the gearbox and motor which suffers if there is disparity in the two motor speeds, not tried it though ! As far as I know the chip is unaffected.

More likely the gearbox suffers most, especially for those (and I won't name names) who like to add lots of weight to their Stainzes.

Thanks for the continuing advice guys!

I seperated the two loco's and set them running with an analogue supply on my indoors test track and .....

You're absolutely right there was a big speed diifference between the older (slower) motor block and the newer 20201D designated block.

I'm now in a bit of a quandary as to whether to proceed or not, I know the two loco's can stand being coupled, but I'm loathe to blow 50 Euro's on a burnt out XL chip, particularly as there's a lot of work involved in any case! Perhaps it would be better if I followed Paul's example and chip each loco independently whilst preserving the common pick up?

Or perhaps try and buy another s/h Stainz and see if the motor speed is similar to either of my current one's ?

I will think on !

You might try cleaning and lubricating the motor/gearbox of the one that runs slower. You'd be amazed what a difference it can make. I cut the amp draw on my Spreewald from 0.8 to 0.55 amps (freewheeling) with a good cleaning and fresh lube. I cleaned the commutator as well using some spray carburetor cleaner. It runs faster now than before. Cheaper than a new loco.

KleineDicke wrote:

You might try cleaning and lubricating the motor/gearbox of the one that runs slower. You'd be amazed what a difference it can make. I cut the amp draw on my Spreewald from 0.8 to 0.55 amps (freewheeling) with a good cleaning and fresh lube. I cleaned the commutator as well using some spray carburetor cleaner. It runs faster now than before. Cheaper than a new loco.

Good idea Bill, I was going to take a look in the gearbox in any case, but hadn't thought of cleaning the commutator

Actually the old motor block has three terminals so I would have to open it up to rewire the motor in any case!

Cheers

OK guys - decision made, I'm going for it! Here's the patient before the op....




This is how I'd permanently linked the two units....

Next assemble a trio of Stainz's and pull the motor block out of the oldest loco ....



I then discover that the oldest loco has the really old (non pinned) motor block which might explain the slow running.

I decide to switch this block and chassis into another previously chipped Stainz ( the red one) so that I have two similarly powered and red chassis loco's in the double header.

This creates a bit more work, and the first thing is to "hot wire" the old block so I can transfer it to the Red Stainz....

Well I've now switched the old motor block and chassis into my red Stainz, and tested it. So I've now got one dismantled Stainz with a 4 pin motor block ready for action.

But that's enough for one day, may continue tomorrow!

I spent most of yesterday morning pondering various plug/socket combinations to connect the six umbilical wires across the two loco's.

In the end I decided that a hard wired solution would be simplest and best, particularly as the two loco's are permanently attached as a single unit.

So I simply sheathed the wires out of the front loco in a bit of shrink tube and brought them out a hole at the back of the loco.....

I then dismantled the second loco, rewired the motor block and partially re-assembled it with the cab off. I planned to make the cab easily removable (not a feature of Stainz, as anyone who dismantles them knows).



Refitted the dummy firebox and attached the chip with hot glue ...

It was then simple to wire the chip without plugs / sockets or any wire joins (except one to one of the front light wires which was not quite long enough).....



The cab was modified with a couple of simple cuts to allow it to fit over the umbilical wire and boiler ....

The cab looks a mess under flashlight, but once fitted - not so bad...



So a quick test run after programming the CV's and all seems well.

The hardest part of the whole job was re-wiring the motor blocks. I've taken the precaution of removing the friction rubber bands from both loco's to aid slippage between the two different units.

Today I will fit a dummy cab floor over the chip to protect it from the weather!

And I must paint out the blue in the cab number as it shows only too well the heritage of the second cab!

So now you have a digital Doppelgänger. Isn't it great when a plan comes together?

KleineDicke wrote:

paul stainz holt wrote:

Its the gearbox and motor which suffers if there is disparity in the two motor speeds, not tried it though ! As far as I know the chip is unaffected.

More likely the gearbox suffers most, especially for those (and I won't name names) who like to add lots of weight to their Stainzes.

That will be me then......haha.......I have checked a few of the gearboxes of my heaviest Stainz locos (2.25 kilos each) and so far, after many miles of running there is no sign of wear Bill. (I do have 23 spare locos though )
These two are run the most and weigh the heaviest.

paul stainz holt wrote:

KleineDicke wrote:

paul stainz holt wrote:

Its the gearbox and motor which suffers if there is disparity in the two motor speeds, not tried it though ! As far as I know the chip is unaffected.

More likely the gearbox suffers most, especially for those (and I won't name names) who like to add lots of weight to their Stainzes.

That will be me then......haha.......I have checked a few of the gearboxes of my heaviest Stainz locos (2.25 kilos each) and so far, after many miles of running there is no sign of wear Bill. (I do have 23 spare locos though )
These two are run the most and weigh the heaviest.

Exactly, because you spent the time and effort to ensure your speeds matched . I suspect jettisoning the traction tires (tyres?) helps. too. Two unmatched locos coupled and running at the same voltage would likely show gearbox wear, especially if they were heavily weighted.

BTW, I find it's getting harder to find lead weight to add to locos. I used to be able to pick up discarded wheel balancing weights (free!) at my local automobile repair shop, but they are apparently pretty tightly controlling recycling of these now. More recently, I've been using fishing weights, but many of these seem to be changing over to lead-free these days.

Yes, traction tyres.....another topic of discussion.
On the Stainz locos I run (without a partner) I have taken the traction tyres off - which results in almost faultless electric pick up, and surprisingly,
the removal of the tyre makes very little difference, especially with the loco at 2.25 kilos.

On the ppaired up locos I leave the tyres on as they are electrically connected ensuring the continuity of supply to the decoders/motors.

I use roofers lead which you can buy from any builders merchant here in the UK. I use tin snips or heavy duty scissors to cut it to size and usually
stick it inside the loco with silicon sealant.