Hello sforugby,

I did not attempt to use a transition catenary.
With my C track layout I continued the standard Märklin catenary through the tunnel area, which is about 2.5 metres (8 feet) of curved R4 and R5 track.
But I took extra precaution inside the tunnel by using shorter catenary sections than Märklin specification on the curved track.
That made it stronger and not so likely to get shifted.

The Märklin catenary is extremely robust and I have never had any problems running pantographs up for 14 years now.
I do have to make occasional adjustments to a few mast outriggers to suit a new loco.
This is where the pantos are not quite level crossways on the loco, and they can foul the outrigger.
Kimball

Thanks for the video Roland. Just a little note that an air stapler doesn't fit in every nook you may be building,so a smaller hand stapler is handy as well.

Hello all. I'm logging on to the forum after a long absence, and am enjoying reading through these thoughtful postings. It's wonderful to see the care taken with them.

And since this is about catenary, I'm wondering if others have noticed (as I did) the disclaimer in the new C-track catenary about extended use. (Sorry, I don't have an example with me, but the disclaimer appeared on a little slip of paper with the products, I think.) It made me think that possibly the new catenary is limited to "decorative" applications (a term I found in this topic's postings).

But the loyal, "get power from the catenary" afficionados would protest, me thinks!

I haven't tried to new catenary yet (still using the old M-track sections that have been so reliable over the years). Should I be scared?

On a happy note, I noticed while riding DB last year that the catenary zig zags back and forth over the track. This seems to be how Maerklin suggests using the new catenary; I assume that each mast has two hanging locations? I suppose that on the prototype, pantograph wear is distributed over a wider swath of contact on the wiper.

Thanks everyone!
Paul