Electroliner
I made a small one-prong connector that fits on the end of the cross-bar of the Pittman Poles to connect with the Marklin "wire"'s two-hole connection. So one side of the electrical connection goes to the wire from the pole itself.
This makes the catenary look fairly lightweight and not very heavy looking; while still being very strong.
Thanks Alan..I will definitely check that out..
I would like over head wires for the look, not for power. But I only have a GG1 and an EP-5. Scale size isn't important to me, just something that looks nice and allows the pantographs rub against them.
Sinclair: If you want catenary to look right for a GG1 and other Eastern electric locos, probably your best bet is to use the MTH catenary that was made a few years ago. I bought several boxes of the stuff but never used it because it really is too heavy for the Milwaukee Road type of catenary. The "road" used wooden line poles with a rather simple catenary overhead. But with your "G" and EP-5, wooden poles would look rather silly because they used steel beams for poles and cross bars in that territory.
The MTH stuff is very tall and looks heavy duty, much the way most of the Pennsy overhead looked. So I simply put mine away and, until Don McQuaid wrote that article in OGR last summer, I had forgotten about the catenary. Had enuff problems just getting the layout to work right. So, If you have an interest in my MTH catenary, send me a e-mail off list and we could negotiate something.
Paul Fischer
Anytime you see a catenary system on a layout you know that the builder has spent a good deal of time and effort doing so.
It doesn't matter whether it's a manufactured MTH system or a House Duddy system or a custom built system.
Electrifying the wire is another level of effort that most lookers just cannot appreciate.
So it's very clear to me why a "low-cost" easy to set-up working system for O-gauge is not available.
Pittman's copper wire was too flexible, MTH is close but a bit too bulky and expensive, Duddy's is expensive as well. I have seen real nice custom cats on layouts but they are not mass-produced.
So a combination of Pittman and Marklin is a workable compromise; both elements can be found on eBay.
When I had a home layout I was using modified MTH catenary. The poles are way too tall so I cut them down to a more realistic height. I buried the bases around a cutout in Homasote. Since most catenary is multiple tracks I removed the aluminum cross supports that the wire hangs from and replaced them with longer plastruct ABS H beams of the same size. This allowed me to span two or three tracks and the mounts that hang the wire just slipped on. The Plastruct flexed a little too much and I was going to try Brass H beams to replace them but the layout didn't last that long.
AlanRail above stated it perfectly...and may very well be the reason why non of the large manufacturers have recently produced the catenary components because of the production cost as compared to the amount of orders that would be received due to resulting retail/sales cost.
I use the MTH system and am very happy with the over all appearance...even though it is not perfect. As Ben stated, there are things one can do to modify and improve certain elements of the MTH system but out of the box, it works perfectly and is very adjustable. The height of the MTH poles, which scales out to be 50 feet, seem to be close to some the drawings I have seen on the web but one could shorten them as Ben did if so desired.
As far as the Pittman poles, I was fortunate enough to find about 50 of them a few years ago and I paid about $2.00 each for them. I got a mixture of double cross bar and single cross bar poles. While I haven't done so yet, I have found a way to use either the MTH or Marklin wire with the hangers that are provided with the Pittman poles and no modifications have to be made. I will post pictures tonight as I have to take some and I am on a quick lunch break before a couple of important telephone conferences with potential advertisers....
Alan
On the other hand, having is spark occasionally would be seriously cool!
Lee... I agree. I remember in the late 40's, early 50's, growing up in Washington, D.C., Dad and I would go for a ride to a road that overlooked the Ivy City yards at Washington Terminal. There was motive power of many different roads everywhere. But what I really remember was the GG1's pulling FAST on an outbound streamliner with an occasional flash of spark on the wire. In the late evening, after the sun had dropped below the surrounding buildings, it was spectacular!
Recently, while examining some of the new Evans Design nano-LED's it occurred to me that these very bright (cool white and even blue) spots of light powered by an adjustable random flash generator circuit, would be just the ticket for simulating this characteristic! Put the nano-LED on the pantograph shoe, dim the room lights, and enjoy the show! Just need some of our geeky EE's to show us the way!
Of course, this has nothing to do with the bulk of the responses on this thread....a credible, easy-to-install, inexpensive catenary system. But the simulation of a high-voltage/current spark occasionally while your favorite juice jack is flying down the straight, or wending its way through complex yard trackwork/switches, would be awesome.....IMHO, of course. I suppose one could even program the feature to operate with a key stroke, button push, on a hand-held so you could control the flash yourself.
FWIW, always. Something to break the ordinary?
KD
The issues are that any catenary would need to work with both MTH and LNL engines; also work with engines that have rasing and lowering pantographs; so the MTH fixed wire, like the Marklin wire, is better than a mere wire.
Ordinarily, in scale structures: items modelled with wood, plastic or metal is much much stronger in a scale size than it would need to be. Not so with a catenary wire. Modelling a catenary wire is an instance where scale vs. strength is an issue. A scale wire is too flexible so the Marklin/MTH solution is workable.
This is the Pittman solution circa 1960s, the wire and c;lips were too flexible:
Taking the poles above and fitting them with a Marklin connector allows the Marklin or MTH wire to be affixed.
the connector is a Plastruct tube fit over the crossbar; the lower pin is a dummy made of Plastruct and a brass solid bar the same diameter as the crossbar. The triangular piece is a spacer between the two tubes to align with the holes on the Marklin catenary wires. A brass or plastic cap ( not shown) is used to lock the wire in place.
I added the diagonal wire coming from the pole to the cross bar for looks.
But on the other hand, I think the invisible ones are acceptable. I fact, I liked some of the invisible ones I haven't seen. They were beautifully rendered and quite detailed.
"Sounds to us like Lees been to Colorado!"
Jerry
If you want to do Milwaukee type overhead, it's very simple and cheap. Dig up my step by step article and go to it. Don
Prototype mainline catenary has support spacing of 200'-300' between "poles". That's 4'-6' spacing in O. That's a lot of real estate.
OK....I was able to take a few pictures of an "experiment" using the Pittman poles, which came single and double arms, and MTH catenary wire. All one has to do is to slide off the wire hanger that Pittman supplied with the pole, turn it 180 degrees so that it is essentially upside down and then insert the top hole of the wires like a sandwich "inside" of the wire hanger. Then...just slide it back on. It goes on pretty tight this way with little or no movement once it is on the arm. I used wire from a twist tie and wrapped it around the bottom holes of the adjoining wires to snug them together. Keep in mind this is just a quick experiment to see if one could use the parts available without having to bash something together. I think it turned out half way decent but I am sure others here would improve on the idea. Here are a few pictures....
Alan
Alan, I've never seen a couch railroad before. Much less a electric couch railroad. Your braking new ground. Or I should say braking new cushion. 
Don
Don...that is because I am a couch potato!!... Actually, I had mounted the three poles on a short piece of display shelf I had and was trying to find a place to photograph the darned thing and couldn't find a good place to do so. I need to get some sort of material that I can use as a background for picture taking sessions....
By the way, I really liked you article and frankly you made the whole process so enjoyable!!....thanks!
Alan
Alan,
Great layout..!!!
Alan
Nice approach I may steal it!!
Not sure I'd trust that copper clip though to maintain its location on the crossbar as pantographs are pushing against the MTH Marklin wire-frame style.
Also maybe a micro nut and bolt instead of the wire-tie. Or maybe the wire tie is better for some flexibility.
All in all I think that's a much less bulky look than the MTH ones.
thanks
Prototype mainline catenary has support spacing of 200'-300' between "poles". That's 4'-6' spacing in O. That's a lot of real estate.
That is quite the distance between poles. I do have another question, were the poles always on the same side, or did some alternate sides with every pole? And no one has had wear issues on the locomotives sliding against the wires?
Thanks Alan....you may be right about the copper clip. Right now it is almost unmovable but perhaps over time it may loosen up.
A micro nut/bolt would be ideal to keep things together and tight. My problem with nuts and bolts on our models is that they are usually way too large thus the reason why I used a wire-tie. Also, a friend last night pointed out that the wire-tie needed to be wrapped horizontally instead of vertically since in its current position, it creates the possibility of a pantograph or trolley pole to get hung up.
Alan
were the poles always on the same side, or did some alternate sides with every pole? And no one has had wear issues on the locomotives sliding against the wires?
The equipment for mainline med/high speed usually spans the tracks. In the case where there are only poles on one side they might switch because of clearance issues but they wouldn't be alternating poles.
There is a lot of stuff that's needed for catenary to work besides the insulators and main wires. There are tensioning weights, crossovers for wire termination, block terminators, etc.
By wear issues do you mean on the prototype or the models? On the prototype they require replacement of the trolley wires on a regular basis. It's complicated an expensive. On a toy train layout I would suspect that the main wear will be on the pantographs?
Alan
Pittman made double sided poles too; so you could run on either side of the pole.
If you are gong to electrify the pole. Note that that is the opposite behavior of the "actual" pole as any current is insulated by the insulators. Not that I care!
Try microfasteners.com really small N&Bs but they have scale-looking bolts and nuts.
Alan- you are having no issue with the wire-frame buckling sideways on upward pressure; that why I added the extra support in my connector.
Alan...I already have in place catenary using the Pittman single and double armed poles. Since I am using a single track along side a city street in that area, I will use the other side of the pole to carry perhaps phone wires or other power wires just to do something different.
By the way, I am glad we are conversing now. I know I was a "little" too intense about our original FLW disagreement and took the whole thing too seriously...for that I apologize.
Alan
Accepted . . . back at you, me , too!
Sinclair: Line poles for simple catenary could be on either side of the railroad on straight track. Generally they were located where they had the most clearance or were the easiest to install. However, they were not indiscriminately placed on either side as the track continued. They would have tended to be only on one side or the other.
Curves are something else. Since catenary on curves naturally pulls to the inside of the curve, line poles were virtually always placed on the outside of the curve. Then, between the poles there were cables that pulled the wire outwards to be centered above the track as much as possible. These were called "pull-offs" and they generally went from the trolley wire or the messenger wire above it, out to another line that went from one line pole to the next. Depending on the severity of the curve there could be as many as ten or more of these pull-offs between two line poles.
Generally this topic centers on pantograph catenary operation. Trolley poles, like on streetcars or interurbans have special requirements. Because the "contact shoe" on a pantograph is quite wide, perhaps as much as 18" wide, it is less critical to have the wire centered directly over the center of the track. Trolley poles are more demanding and can be dewired if the trolley wire has too many kinks in it or if it is located too far off center. Model trolley pole catenary installations are rather difficult to do, require lots of attention and upkeep. The true trolley affectionados wouldn't have it any other way!
Paul Fischer
Paul Fischer
I mean on the models. I'm not interested in powering them via the overheads, but if it's always rubbing, does it wear out the pantographs? Would a light oil on teh pantographs keep wear to a min?
My last two layouts had Marklin overhead and I have never worn out a pantograph. Remember, the wire is not always directly over the center rail. On curves it can go from one side of the collector to the other side so the contact point varies. That is not a big problem. I have never had to replace a pantograph. Even if you did for some reason it's not hard or expensive to do. Don
Here are a few pictures of a special GG-1 under the wire....
Alan
Just having caught up to this thread's continuation, I found a lot of useful material and yet I cannot help but think that the Pittman poles are a elegantly simple concept that with some tweaking could be a less expensive option beyond making everything from scratch..On my wish list is for this product to be revived..but that and ten cents will get me nowhere.
This is VERY interesting!!....
Click on the "original listing" option and then view the pictures the seller had posted. Note the Lionel inquiry as well as Mr. Pittman's response....
Alan
Alan
That is very interesting but note the wire is not the straight copper wire that WAS supplied with his sheet systems. These are Pittman "Erect-A-Frogs". I have several boxes of these frogs, that I got in an eBay auction of a bunch of poles in envelopes. There is also a Pittman X- wire for cross-over runs.
Alan...duly noted. The real reason why I posted were the documents. Reading the two letters Lionel and Pittman wrote one another, it looks as if either Lionel was considering a catenary system or (and more likely apparently) they were referring customers to the Pittman system. Looks like Mr. Pittman quoted a price of $55.00 per thousand for the poles with a minimum of 10,000 order. With the poles being made of copper, that would be a wonderful price today!!!...
Alan
Now that we've got this old subject up and kicking around, I do have a question for some of you guys that are ahead of me in construction of catenary. What do you use for overhead in tunnels? You can't see it in there but you would want to connect on each end of the tunnel with your overhead. In tunnels that I've seen, there is often a pan made of wood above the wire, which the wire brackets hang from. Now, these "pans" were primarily used with trolley pole operation and I suspect that they were designed to keep a loose pole from banging on the ceiling and damaging either the hangers or the pole itself. Probably not so necessary with pantographs.
My thought was to mount an HO gauge rail upside down in the tunnel and connect it to the Marklin catenary at each portal. Could probably hang this rail from the various support pieces for the tunnel itself. On most of my tunnels, there is limited access to most of the track inside. Wonder if anyone else has used this or just what has worked the best for hidden track.
Paul Fischer
If you take a look at the Model Railroading by LIONEL Pocket Books or Paperbacks LIONEL describes a way to handle pantographs in Tunnels page 58 in the both the 1950, 57 Ed. Lionel also describes a catenary system as well; that looks very much like the Pittman System, on page 64 and 162 of the 1950 Ed. (pages 64 and 173 on the 1957 Ed.)
As the copyright on the book still exists I cannot re-print it.
A copy is of Model Railroading is here:
My last two layouts had Marklin overhead and I have never worn out a pantograph. Remember, the wire is not always directly over the center rail. On curves it can go from one side of the collector to the other side so the contact point varies. That is not a big problem. I have never had to replace a pantograph. Even if you did for some reason it's not hard or expensive to do. Don
Thanks Don. Now I guess I need to find a copy of the mag with your article in it. Which one was it? And does anyone have an extra copy?
I also know of someone local who can cast them.
Who is your local supplier of insulators? I obtained a sheet of the 3D printed insulators and they may be more prototypical, however they are noticably smaller than Ed Duddys. I have 4,000 of Ed's and will need many more before I am finished. Possibly another 4,000.
I believe that John is referring to me and I have made a few thousand for other folks in the past when I'm working on pouring resin for other projects.
OK...worked all day yesterday to convert my Pittman poles over to MTH catenary wire. As others have said and as Don has illustrated in his article in OGR and pictures above, there are several ways to do this but the results are pleasing. I used a combination of single and double arm poles. Using the method I posted in pictures earlier in the thread results in a very sturdy wire arrangement so no further bracing of the wire attachment at the arm was needed. I added a wire on the opposite arms just to add interest...perhaps this could be considered a phone wire or other type of electrical wire..?? Anyway, here are some pictures taken in just the daylight coming through the clerestory windows...If you will right click on a picture and then click on "open link in new window", you will get a very large detailed view that you can enlarge even more!
Alan
Alan
real nice work. So no further lateral support is needed if the bottom of the MTH/Marklin wire is connected as you showed in your earlier photos. That makes the connect much much easier. By comparison, so much slender-er than the MTH poles.
I have about 140 poles not counting the T-ees; I am looking at how many I will really need. How many poles are you using and how long is the total run?
thanks
Sinclair, send me a E-mail and I will send you the M.Word version. Don
Don....that is very nice of you!
Sinclair....sure would like you to become a subscriber...
Alan....I am have one more phone call and then I will go upstairs and get back to you here.
Alan
Don, thanks.
Alan, I'm sure you would, but my train budget is so small right now, I'd rather spend it on trains. But like I said elsewhere, if you guys do an article that has detailed step by step with detailed source info on converting passenger cars, cabooses, and locomotives to LED lighting, I'll subscribe for at least a year in thanks.
But really, OGR is on the top of my list when I start getting mags again.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
