Bob,
As always your remarks are interesting and cogent. My comments about consistency only refer to going from the spec for the load (the lamps in this case) to the spec for the output of the transformer. To me It matters not whether we use amps, as in 0**.15 amps for the lamps and 5 amps for the power source or 115 milliamps for the lamps and 5,000 milliamps for the power source – they are equivalent statements as you well know but some members may not. I just think that we ought to use one or the other scheme, and not both, in any given post. That way, the operator can easily calculate how many items can be conected safely onto a given power source, without constantly having to convert the units. Or so it seems to me. [It might amuse you to know that when I use the decimal point I embolden it (.** vs .) and use the leading zero – when I remember to.]
Your points about European conventions and the NEC standards are certainly well taken.
Lionel’s early (post-war, at least) convention was to distinguish between transformers with only a single throttle, such as the 1033, from those with two or more, such as the ZW, was to use a low-lettered post as common on the former group, and posts marked “U” for common in the latter ones. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this old Lionel convention confused the development of the CW series and resulted in the bass-ackwards wiring/labeling of the output terminals during the first three years of production.
I notice that the voltage conversion factors for the CW’s that we collaborated on several years ago are still in use. You may recall that I took the readings off an early version CW with my handy $10 Sears analog voltmeter. I’d love to see someone update those numbers with a post-revision CW and a good quality, well-cali