Can I use two separate ZW handles to power 2 Daisy Chained TPC 400s?

You can, but you won't gain any additional power. If you are going to have both TPCs using the same input voltage, you could just daisy chain the power wiring too. If you are wanting to run them with different input voltages, then yes, run one off one handle and the other off another one. This could be handy if you are going to have young or inexperienced users running on one track and wish to limit the maximum speed.

As far as anything else, I seem to recall needing to run a wire from U on the ZW to the command base U. It's possible I'm thinking of my Powermasters though...

Hope this helps,

J White

Bad idea!  If the handles are not on the exact same winding of the transformer, you will be generating very high currents in the one or two windings that are shorted by connection of the outputs to the same place!  It's never a good idea to parallel variable transformers, and the ZW or KW with one core with multiple roller outputs makes it a VERY bad idea!

As J White points out, you also won't gain any power, the ZW is capable of delivering all it's rated power from one handle.  The PW-ZW is really only about a 200 watt transformer in any case, they're rated on input power, not output power.

Thanks guys. Once again it's better to ask here than guess. 

Mike

What do you mean by daisy chain?  To me this means you plug one TPC to feed the other?  Also Which ZW?  A postwar or modern ZW-C?  If you want more power, get a ZW-C with 4 bricks (or just 4 bricks).  Send two bricks to first TPC for 1 loop, and the other two to the second TPC for the 2 loop.  G

G, connecting one TPC to the next and it's a PW ZW. 

Thanks

Mike

It would not do any thing beneficial.  Like putting 2 valves in series in a water line.  If each is rated to pass 20gpm, your still only getting 20gpm in series, maybe less.  Parallel increases flow.  The 400 can take 2 180W sources plugged in.  This would give you 360W output (less losses).  That is the way to increase power to each loop.  So putting the A and D into a TPC and taking voltage up to the same value would work, but your still limited by the ZW output rating.   G

An important difference here if we're talking about connecting two ZW handles in parallel George!  See my previous comments, that's a major NO-NO!  You'll be shorting one or two turns in the transformer through the two outputs.  Best case is it cooks the rollers and you have to replace them.  However, it's pretty likely to overheat the couple of coils and burn away the insulation and ruin the transformer.  Since the short doesn't go through the common at all, the circuit breaker, isn't in the path and so the transformer just sits there and cooks itself to death.

John, Were did you come up with that?  I was talking brick originally, and if you go up to max on ZW your really not on a coil, your on the metal surface.  Regardless, sharing a load with matched voltage should not be an issue.  I would have to look at a ZW closer to see if unbalanced load would actually cause the circulating current you state or just an imbalanced load.   G

GGG posted:

...I would have to look at a ZW closer to see if unbalanced load would actually cause the circulating current you state or just an imbalanced load.   G

To see this effect, set the "A" handle at 6 volts and "B" at 17-18 volts on your ZW(or VW, Z, V, KW).  Now connect the A & B binding posts and watch the fireworks.

Actually, DON'T do this. But this should illustrate the potential for damage when this fault current is exploited. AND, there is no breaker between the secondary roller taps on these transformers.

If you NEVER get one off the end terminal, you would probably be OK.  However, if either handle is slightly off, it's a major issue!

I'll point out the B & C handles because it's easier to see, but the A & D handles do the same thing, they just go through the reverse and whistle switch circuit.

Look in the red box, if those two handles aren't on the SAME winding, you have created a direct short across the coils. 

ADCX Rob posted:

GGG posted:

...I would have to look at a ZW closer to see if unbalanced load would actually cause the circulating current you state or just an imbalanced load.   G

To see this effect, set the "A" handle at 6 volts and "B" at 17-18 volts on your ZW(or VW, Z, V, KW).  Now connect the A & B binding posts and watch the fireworks.

Actually, DON'T do this. But this should illustrate the potential for damage when this fault current is exploited. AND, there is no breaker between the secondary roller taps on these transformers.

Ok, but not what is being discussed.  If you connect the A to the U via a load, and the same with the B to U with a load, and then connect B to A the circuit analysis is completely different.  This is effectively what happens when a train passes from one block into the next and crosses the insulated section.  It bridges the 2 temporarily.  Additionally John is talking about a secondary winding short which I do not believe occurs.   G

gunrunnerjohn posted:

If you NEVER get one off the end terminal, you would probably be OK.  However, if either handle is slightly off, it's a major issue!

I'll point out the B & C handles because it's easier to see, but the A & D handles do the same thing, they just go through the reverse and whistle switch circuit.

Look in the red box, if those two handles aren't on the SAME winding, you have created a direct short across the coils. 

John,  I still do not believe that is a direct short across a few windings of the secondary winding.  The current flow is through the path of least resistance trying to get "home" or back to ground.  The current flowing out the winding through the B roller to the B terminal goes through the track load to U.  If C was in parallel at the same potential half the current load goes through roller b and half through C to the center rail.  IF C is bumped back in voltage some then the terminal becomes an additional load and probably see some circulating current, but the current is not trying to get back to B it is trying to get to U.  

I do agree that there is no benefit to doing this with a PW ZW and in fact there is more potential harm than benefit.  The Single secondary winding is the limiting factor anyway,  G

We'll agree to disagree on this point.