Hi, I don't now where it all started but it could be as far back as 1984 when the digital world started with model trains by Märklin. I never could find an article whereas it was recommended not to use the overhead system (I use Sommerfeldt) for a power supply., Why it was recommended I've go now idea.
I can understand to run locos with their pantographs up can on occasions be a problem but in my case with my overhead system I've sorted out most of the problems so all of my electric locos can run uninterrupted.
one thing is for sure to handle trains with an overhead system present takes a bit to get used to it and removing or adding trains can also be sometimes difficult but apart from that, I haven't had any problems within the last 35 years.

Although I must admit with newer locos and newer authentic pantographs I sometimes find it difficult to understand why some locos with their smaller wipers (SBB) and the existence of 4 pantographs, each pantograph needs a different overhead wire position and I haven't worked out why. for instance if I have both pantographs up front & rear (which is very unlikely), the front one may be in its right position but the back one comes off the wire.
You would think if the tolerance of the wire is ok for the front pantograph it would be same scenario for the back one.
It would take some time to correct the whole overhead wiring (curved tracks) to avoid these differences.

Going back to the original topic I've never seen big layouts having a working overhead system but an overhead system exists and I never had the opportunity why this is the case. , is it the cost by having to replace pantographs after so many working hours ? and sometimes you do get answers which in my opinion hasn't got any basis for not using it properly.
It looks to me someone started the Myth and it has continued to this day without anybody questioning the facts or factors, why ?

I can understand someone has a layout and doesn't like an overhead system and has only diesel or steam locos running but when you've got electric locos why not run them prototypical and why talk about the details of a loco but not include the obvious thing it should run with its pantographs up.

Suppose the world of model trains has many faces and options how to conduct your layout and the movement of trains and one thing is always on the card: compromises.
Any one who has an overhead system installed will tell you its not cheap and our priorities sometimes are getting more locos and rolling stock than looking at Authenticity.

what are your thoughts on this for both options: having an overhead system or not having one ?
and by the way its not only for digital locos but also for Analog: the benefit being you could have an extra power supply.

John

I never liked the look of the old Märklin catenary, way too bulky and rough. As a kid there was no possibility of affording them and I never had any electric locos so it was not an issue.

When I first started a serious highly detailed layout (now with electrics) I decided that Sommerfeld was the way to go, they have a special 'profi' range that had very thin wires, and I installed it along a branch line. It was a lot of work (no problem) and it looked pretty good. I went the extra step of painting it dark green to make it blend in and look thinner too.

That attempt can be seen here: Sommerfeld catenary

Then the issues started, any small bump of the carefully erected wires could bend the wires. Once a wire is bent, no amount of fideling can get the kink out so that it looks like it did before. The finer the wire, the worse this issue is. The thicker the wire the less realistic it looks.

I looked at lots of prototype images of electrified tracks and train on such tracks. Most of the time one cannot see the overhead wires they are so fine. What you do see is all the poles.

I decided to go the route of putting up just the poles and masts and am very happy with that decision. The suggestion of doing this is often met with horror in train fora but I have noticed more and more people adopting the idea.

Additional advantages are:

• less cost
  
• no snagging of the overhead and destruction of pantographs
  
• One can still access trains under the 'wires' without hindrance
  
• Good visual realism

If one does elect to have the wires, then one has the choice of running power in them or not.
My thoughts there (and my original intention when I had them) is, why make your life a misery?

Reasons:

• They add no functionality if you are already running digital locos. In the analog days it allowed a second loco to run on the same track which was a big win.
  
• You also have to provide overhead power in hidden areas.
  
• Hidden areas! - these are often difficult to access, with very little vertical height, adding wires or electrical feeds in there is a nightmare.
  
• Double electrical circuits, connections and failures.

The only valid bit of realism that the provide is:

• the occasional spark
  
• pantographs move up and down

Those advantages don't come anywhere near the expense time and frustration of erecting them in my book.

Dale, the only comment I like to add to your valued input is I do benefit from the overhead system, instead of being restricted to AC locos I can also purchase DC locos which are cheaper to purchase, have additional driving axles and therefore can extend the number of rubber tyres on a particular loco., the downside sometimes occurs buying electric locos the pantograph is no longer suitable for an overhead operation.
My other observation is also the motor has a far greater performance rate compared with the weight of the loco, meaning a smaller motor would do the job according to the weight, I hope no one reads this as manufacturers have already started reducing the amount of metal in a loco., some of these examples I've experience in a Roco DB BR 232 diesel loco whereas before it was packed with metal and now has a reduced amount causing the loco almost loosing 100g

John.

As an analogista (new word?) I find the catenary system important. OK so I live in a different world to you digital types but I find the old M track system, clipped to the track, quite robust and fairly easy to set up.

I will admit that parts of it aren't great to look at but that's the way it is. As mentioned already it allows the running of another train on the same track but it can also be used to control lighting in carriages (lighting from track, power from catenary) etc etc.

I like to have my layout in the semi dark and the sparking from the pantographs is fun. I am thinking of ways of making this a bit more consistent (which seems like a step in the wrong direction!).

I´m installing overhead wires.

It is for looks only, and not powered.
I use the cheap Hobbexx system, with some additionalk older Märklin masts/posts and some Aneste wires.
It´s a little rough looking, but at least I run my wires straight, and they are not as thick as the old M. ones.
(Including the black wash, I paint my posts 5(!) times -in order to make them as detailed looking as Viessmann and Sommerfeldt)

Around 80% of my visible trackage is with overhead wires, but of course I save on hidden areas, which is around 50% of the whole layout.

To have a complete overhead system and see the pantos bounce up and down is a life-long dream come true, and I would never consider Dale´s apporach.
-And I think it is not only the panto-movement, but also the mechanical beauty of seeing the "cobweb" of overhead wires covering the dense station areas.
I dont share the argument that the protoype wire can´t be seen. I always see it. -but then again; I always LOOK FOR IT! If I dont see it in a video or photo, I am more likely to think that the resolution is too low, or the picture too blurred...

So, as always; To each his own! I hope the trouble wont be as nightmarrish as some people here predict... ;-)

does this mean he is an Analogista strategist.

And away she goes! Oy!

But I do realize that the video is rather an extreme example, just that mental thing again

And as to the prototype, not that it matters really to us (or does it?), IIRC reading somewhere (where oh where??) there is a certain amount of built-in "side-to-side" of the cat wires, the logic being that this allows the panto wiper to wear more evenly (i. e. not dead-laser-straight). Granted some of Mother M's pantos are pretty sturdy, but is single point-wear not as much of, or even an issue, model-wise, because we do not usually have miles and miles of straight line running (much as we would love it!)?

Thanks to all for this great subject from an analogista who has no current panto-equipped loks, but may in the future...hence my beginner questions

Jimmy

Somewhere I read an account of the SNCF record breaking runs with BB9211 etc. From memory so correct me if I'm wrong.

There's a description of pantographs starting to melt at high speeds and the engineer trying to reduce the upward pressure on the pantograph as much as possible without creating arcing.

Older Marklin pantographs and the spares for them is another topic laden with expense...

kiwiAlan and Michael4,

Thanks! I was thinking that was the case, but just was not sure enough of my brain cells and whether they were "arcing from the panto to the wire" so to speak (to keep sort of on topic ) I do like Dale's points also, .

Jimmy

I'm with Dale on this, in looking at trains and rail lines, unless I'm specifically looking for it, the actual overhead wires just don't show up in the list of things I see ... its there but its background noise for sure. If I look for it, then sure, I see it in real life, but I'm almost never looking for it. So having 50-60% of the overhead system in place is a great solution - you get the bits everyone sees as a traveler, the posts and masts, without the substantial workload of installing and maintaining the actual wires hanging from the support arms, the catenary.

An alternative approach I've seen many use is to run the pantographs 1-2mm below the catenary, so they never contact. Using either locos that let you set the height of the pantograph, or a monofilament line to keep the max height limited (Gerhards moba uses that approach: ), or a solution like the PantoFixer that clips into the mechanical elements that limit the range of the pantograph ( ). That reduces the risk and the wear and tear, but adds to the workload of installing the catenary system as you then have to be much more precise in the installation of the catenary wires, to ensure they are always above the set height of the train pickups. (you cannot have substantial up/down variance in the height).

I'm not sure which way I'll go yet, but I'm definitely planning to at least install the masts/posts and support arms. Which will be years down the road. And after that I'll see if I've got the gumption and energy to install the actual catenary. (and yes I'm considering the need to pick up or release the pantographs in longer hidden areas like helixes).

In the end there is no right or wrong way to do this - its a personal taste question - of what do you focus on and what is important to you in the scale of prototypical realism, space, and the work and money you are willing or capable to invest in it. As over-dimensioned odd the Märklin catenary system with its stamped catenary wires is, it allows you curve the catenary in the curves, which is unprototypical, but lets you keep a more consistent spacing between the masts in the always unprototypical curves we all have. Each solution has some benefits.

Hi, personally I like using the old Märklin overhead system. If you set it up properly, it runs for ages without fault. And if you wish to do something with your track. You can just unclip it and put it back when your done. I have used it with sommerfeldt sncb prototype overhead poles. I can still unclip the wires if I want. They are larger but much more robust and cheaper, if you are willing to look on eBay and at a show like Utrecht! I bought a lot very cheaply. Plus also, I could run dc electrics off the wires if I can adjust the axles to run on k track, and non digital Marklin. see here- my SNCB overhead section.

I was looking for this topic for some time now.
I ran my electric locomotives with the pathographs down but I always thought it wasn't correct.
I had never found a way to limit the height of the pantographs, but I will try the "Pantofixer".
A simple solution to avoid future obstruction problems between the pantograph, the wire and the catenary posts.

Nope!
You cannot have flawless operation with the model railway specially catenary power with analog power.
Do not use digital as power!

It is certainly possible to use catenary power in operation. We do this on our ETE modules with Sommerfeldt catenary masts and wires etc.
I understand MiWuLa’s problems and the modules do not run with this intensity. Also, because they’re modules we use German standards as to the zig zag of the wire. Swiss standards are too narrow, so Swiss pans cannot be used. It’s interesting to note than for a time the Re 460 model was offered with wide pans. But in general, modern pantographs are too sharp edged to be used in the modular environment. But it is possible with a lot of tweaking.

ETE modules have been in use well over 30 years.