Lionel Powerhouse

The newest version of these has an added circuit to ensure that power does not flow until it's properly connected to an appropriate three-pin connector.

There is a mechanical work around, i.e a 'cheat', but it involves using the connectors that you've now cut off.

See this post:

          180 Brick (2/9/2022) | gunrunnerjohn

Good luck.  This may not be easy to undo.

Mike

Did you happen to cut it at an angle? Meaning, can you tell which wires went to which spots on the end you cut off?

The switch simply connects the "safety" lead to one of the output leads.  Without having one to look at, I can't comment on which one.

If you still have the connectors you cut off, there is a rib on one side of the cord, match that up with the chopped connector and see which two wires are connected when you push the safety switch in.

So there’s no way to make it work without the connector? The guy at my local train store told me to cut the ends off and do it with ring terminals. I can’t get ahold of anyone today due to storm and wanted to work on table.

@chall77 posted:

So there’s no way to make it work without the connector? The guy at my local train store told me to cut the ends off and do it with ring terminals. I can’t get ahold of anyone today due to storm and wanted to work on table.

Did you read my reply right above your reply?

I’m not following on what you mean by which two wires are connected? When the pin is pushed In?

Will I be able to wire with ring terminals or do I need the plug back on?

Yes, you can use ring terminals.  Connected, as in continuity between two of the wires!  The push-in pin in the 3rd connector hole is a switch that had to be pressed to enable the power output.  You're just enabling it all the time by connecting two of the wires to the one ring terminal and the hot wire to the other.  You just need to look at the connector you cut off to determine which wire was the switch wire, it will connect to the middle wire in the flat cable.

Awesome, that made total sense. Thank you

I find the easiest (but admittedly more expensive) way to transition from the PowerHouse to ring/spade terminals or a coaxial power connector is to use a Molex connector that is compatible with the existing PowerHouse one. There are many different types of Molex connectors. The PowerHouse uses 0.093" pins. These will work:

https://www.amazon.com/Molex-C...anging/dp/B0753WNRDB

The mating Molex connector will look like this when wired:

The top pin is not connected to a wire but needs to be in place to activate the PH power-on switch.

The middle pin is "hot" and goes to the center rail.

The bottom pin is common.

The advantage of using this connector is that it allows me to quickly detach the PowerHouse from my layout for reuse on a test jig.

I think that ship has sailed Bruce, he already chopped the connectors off.

FWIW, I do the same thing with the PH180, I don't hack the connectors off.

I have 3 bricks the somebody cut the molex connectors off of. So you are saying the item listed above will allow me to reconnect the wires to this molex and I’m good to go? I presume I’ll need some slick tools to crimp and insert the wires into the molex???

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Yes, you can use ring terminals.  Connected, as in continuity between two of the wires!  The push-in pin in the 3rd connector hole is a switch that had to be pressed to enable the power output.  You're just enabling it all the time by connecting two of the wires to the one ring terminal and the hot wire to the other.  You just need to look at the connector you cut off to determine which wire was the switch wire, it will connect to the middle wire in the flat cable.

Here is a picture from a link posted above.  It shows the "switch wire" is the one at the pointed end of the Molex connector.  But first you need to match the ridges on the 2 cut ends of the wires as GRJ noted earlier.

I am somewhat surprised that Lionel felt the need to add this safety feature since the PH-180 breaker is so fast that it would be impossible to start a fire by shorting out the 2 terminals. OTOH, maybe the concern is a toddler sucking the connector -  not lethal but probably unpleasant.

This does bring back memories of my American Flyer layout in the 1960s.  I don't recall what transformer I had (maybe 1 1/2B?), but I do recall laying a pin across the track, turning up the power until it was red hot, and melting plastic parts on it. So much for UL listing in the 60s.  Fortunately, no fires were started.

Bob

@RRDOC posted:

I am somewhat surprised that Lionel felt the need to add this safety feature since the PH-180 breaker is so fast that it would be impossible to start a fire by shorting out the 2 terminals. OTOH, maybe the concern is a toddler sucking the connector -  not lethal but probably unpleasant.

Bob,

I hear ya, but ...

Impossible, unless there's also a secondary failure (in the breaker circuit for instance) at the same time.

I'll give Lionel the benefit of the doubt.

As far as cutting off a safety device, it's an action that would sit well with neither a fire investigator, nor your insurance company, if your house burned down, even if the modification didn't directly start the fire.

For the sake of any newbies who are following this please don't minimize the importance of Lionel's intentions here.  They're not just covering their butts.

By the way UL regularly increases safety requirements over time as new things are learned.  It's their job.

Mike

@RRDOC posted:

I am somewhat surprised that Lionel felt the need to add this safety feature since the PH-180 breaker is so fast that it would be impossible to start a fire by shorting out the 2 terminals. OTOH, maybe the concern is a toddler sucking the connector -  not lethal but probably unpleasant.

I'd bet money that the interlock was a UL requirement, not a Lionel choice.