I measured the coil resistance of several different point motors. The Hornby R8243 was 1.7 ohms, Peco PL11 (similar size) was 3.9 ohms, and Peco PL10 (double bobbin to go under point) was 4.3 ohms. So, it looks like the R8243 is going to be the most demanding from a CDU. Thinking "Outside the box", or in this case, inside:- Channels 1 to 3 have identical circuitry, fed from the same power source. It is unlikely that a user would switch a series of points without a short delay between each one. On my Samsung tablet, I am lucky to be able to get reliable finger movement in under 2 seconds between channels. So, following the water tank analogy, we have 3 identical (2200uF) water tanks, each fed via the same-bore (140mA) pipes, but, at any one time, we only take water from one. If we linked the outlet pipes together, we would have 3 times the available water. With the HM6010, this can be achieved by using a link wire between the 3 "C" sockets. I tried this, and it made a big difference to an R8243 point motor. This will not work for channel 4, as it uses a different capacitor charging circuit. Note:- a "3C" supply will increase the power dissipation in the switching MOSFETs in the "A" and "B" channels, and these are likely to be damaged if the point motor wires short together - guess how I know? However, with care, they should be fine with a normal point solenoid load. The waveform, below, shows the 3-channel switching waveforms (400ms ON, 400ms OFF, 400ms ON, OFF) The equivalent for channel 4 is:- I am sure that the above would NOT be endorsed by Hornby, but I found that linking just 2 channels made all the difference when holding an R8243 point motor adjacent to an unmodified R8073 point, and 3 more so.