A DCS or TMCC 'Receiver Car' for PW locos ?

All you need to do really is to locate the motor wiring and run that to the electronics car.

I am beginning to think the new 3/2 engines for example capable of running on anything.

At the Fullerton Rail Fair this past weekend, I talked to a guy who had disassembled a TIU and mounted it on-board in a #1 gauge box car (it fits on edge diagonally.) The TIU leads were connected to a power buss that ran from another car carrying batteries to the locomotive via tethers. It worked very well. It's an expensive way to operate command control, but it has quite a bit of flexibility in that you can configure several locomotives, plus you can still consist them. Unfortunately, it's not really viable for O scale.

Now, the new Proto3 boards are much smaller and don't use the tach-readers (from what I've heard.) If that's the case, you could potentially house the command circuitry in a box car and plug different engines into it via a tether. The only problem is the sound sets.

The only problem is the sound sets.

Just store the sound sets for each engine you want to use the boxcar with on a laptop. Changing a sound set doesn't take long, and you can download them from the MTH website. Of course, it will take a while for MTH to build up an inventory of PS/3 sound sets - but Steinzeit is talking about running this rig with postwar engines, so for that application one each of generic steam and diesel sets should be fine (and maybe an electric set for a GG-1 or something).

My recollection on this isn't sharp so don't take this to the bank, but isn't SMR doing something like this if you want TMCC in their trains?  You need a box car following the tender on those tiny (and beautiful) 4-4-0s to hold the boards.  Can someone clarify this?

George

My two SMR conventional engines were converted in this manner with the electronics in the trailing box car (one DCS and the other ERR cruise commander.)  Engine House Hobbies did both conversions.

I think this was discussed some time back.  It wouldn't be that hard to do, the trick would be to retain conventional operation of the locomotive when you didn't have it connected to the receiver car.

I'm not sure how you run PW locomotives with AC motors with the MTH upgrade, seems you'd need the ERR AC Commander for those models.

Note that there are several sets that already do this, I have the NYC fire car with the boxcar that has all the electronics in it.  Lionel thought of this about 15 years or so ago.

As John points out, the ERR AC Commander is the only game in town for AC motors. Besides being designed for AC motors it also has unique terminal that will allow activation of a Post War horn or whistle with a "helper" circuit to increase current drive to the fan motor. ERR can provide details of this helper circuit. I am not aware of any MTH product that will drive AC motors.

Pete

I'd like to clarify my concept, since I apparently didn't make in clear enough in the original post:

   I'm not suggesting a car that can be used with a few locomotives with internal modifications, eg, "distributed electronics", but rather a car that can be used with "any" conventional locomotive without the need for "intrusive surgery" on it -- just remove the roller pickup(s) and replace with the connecting wire.

It seems to me such a receiver car would appeal to:

  -  Someone with, say, fifty or so PW locos who would like to run them selectively on a TMCC or DCS equiped club layout.  Conversely, clubs would be able to operate guest locos.

  -  Those people who are adverse to tinkering with anything inside the loco.

  -  A way of restoring "electronically-gutted" shelf queens more economically [ and quicker / easier, too ]. 

I was envisioning that there would not be any sound or similar 'features' added by the rec. car, at least in its basic form -- it would simply act as a "conventional control translater".

Best rgds, SZ

Thats what an AC Commander would do.

Well, that's another approach, and it's certainly doable with custom electronics.  For that kind of thing, I'd probably start with one of the smaller boards like the ERR Mini-Commander with the engine code and provide some triacs to control the AC power to the locomotive.

OTOH, using the AC Commander (or DC Commander for DC motored locomotives) doesn't require much more (if any more) surgery than what you propose.  In either case you need a tether from the locomotive to the control car.  In the case of the AC Commander, you just run the wires from the motor to the control car instead of the E-Unit.  This has the advantage of bypassing the E-unit and allowing you to more positively control the direction and speed.

The other bonus of the AC (or DC) Commander is the hard part is all done for you, all you have to do is some wiring and add the tether.

I understand there are advantages to bypassing the e-unit, but that defeats what I am proposing. It does seem possible to use directional-based signals out of the onboard unit to, for example, run a bi-stable relay which would change state only when the direction command were changed [ 'break before make' contacts, obviously ].  The relay contacts in either state would furnish 'stay alive' voltage [ track ac through an adjustable resistor, say ] to the single output to keep the e-unit from changing states.  This would of course not give directional control corresponding to the command system, but it would or should eliminate having to sequence the e unit each time the loco was stopped by the throttle setting alone.

Best rgds, SZ

You say this would appeal to someone averse to tinkering with their engine's innards. But said person would still have to get past removing the rollers and providing the interface wires to the motor, which with postwar units, is about as invasive as any other solution.

Sounds like you're looking at some sort of TMCC-controlled remote transformer that a conventional locomotive could tow around for power and control inputs, similar to the old Railsound boxcars.

Yes, it would work, and be cheaper than outfitting all those locos with command boards--presumably they'd share one (or a limited number of) receiver car/s. but there's still be the time involved in putting the connector wires on all the  conventional locomotives you'd ever want to use this way.

I don't think it's been seriously considered since all the existing O-Gauge command boards (except for Train Engineer) will automatically revert to conventional if powered up without a command signal present. Also, since it's incorporating a TMCC receiver, it might cost just as much as (or more than) a TMCC command board owing to limited demand.

---PCJ

Not only for post war stuff, this would be wonderful for those of use who have lots of Williams and modern tinplate. Because the style of and livery of the trains will vary enormously, I envisage a pre-made module, with output terminal strip, for wiring to pickup roller, and motor control. This module could then be fitted into a boxcar, baggage car, or what ever you want to use. I think that considerations for lighting, sound etc only complicate the idea. You could have a few of them prefitted to whatever sort of roster you have.

Like I said, anything's possible.

Clearly, I don't see the reasoning for trying to keep the E-Unit under command control, frankly that idea doesn't resonate with me at all.  However, that's why there's chocolate and vanilla, flavors for everyone.

My vision of this would be to have a tether on the locomotive, say the 10 conductor MTH tether that's readily available.  You could either put a dummy plug with internal jumpering to connect the E-Unit (or electronic reverse unit) to the motor(s), or connect the tether to the control car to allow full command/control.  I'm guessing with 10 wires available, you could actually control the smoke and/or headlight at least as well.  Two wires for power and frame, three (or two) wires for the motor (AC or DC), and three more for the E-Unit connection.  That leaves a couple of wires for whatever else you might want to do.  For DC motors, you end up with four spare wires.

By simply pulling the plug and putting the dummy jumper plug in, you'd have the standard conventional operation.

Not sure if I've been clear here:  The single electrical attachment point is at a roller location;  no internal modification desired or necessary.  Keeping the "body shell" on the existing loco at all times is the goal;  NO internal mods allowed.

Gunrunner, we have quite different visions:  All you're suggesting is remote locating the electronic board.  I see this only of value if one has a lot of locos, and the electronic boards are in short supply -- but that'll never happen, will it.....

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the problems associated in running the wiring from the roller location to the plug for the RC*.  I think that's solvable, by, in part, draping the wire through handrails, etc, or over the tender top.  Unsightly ?  Just identify the RC as "Test Car 200" and it's obviously the instrumentation cable !

Best, SZ

*That maybe because I haven't explained it well, or the concept is difficult to grasp, or both.

Edited to add:  The ERR stuff works only with TMCC = Lionel.  What about a DCS RC ?

I'm having trouble visualizing what you're suggesting.  Just connecting to the roller is not going to give you control, you need to break the connection between the roller and the rest of the locomotive internals!  If you don't do that, I can't imagine how this can work.

In reviewing what you originally posted, taking the rollers off is sometimes a real challenge, especially without removing the shell!

Have at it, I'll drop out of this thread now, I don't understand why most folks would want this with a wire draped over their handrails...

Steinzeit, this is one of those things that sound good but just isn't practical. Let's look at it. First you are talking about mostly post war engines. That means AC motors so let's forget the DC ones. To reverse the direction of an AC motor you need to reverse the polarity of the armature or field windings. This is what the E-unit does. OK, you say "leave the E-unit in there". So now all you are doing is disconnecting the center rail pickup from the pickup rollers and connecting it to some circuit that will Vary the voltage and Cycle the power to cycle the E-unit. That can be done, in fact it already is available if you don't want it to follow the engine around, It's called a TPC. However what you want is something to go with the engine. You could probably make something using an ERR AC comander but you would have no more control than you would have with the transformer. To obtain more control you need to bypass the E-unit and run the motor control wires back to the electronics, I count 4 wires minimum.

Al

Yep, just look at a lot of the Lionel PW locomotives, sometimes it's a challenge to get the rollers off even if you take the shell off!

 1.  Nope, not looking for 'more control', just basic old-fashioned PW throttle / direction control.  You could add 'cruise' with a tach reader or similar [ Forum member 'Hot Water' would use radar ], + the usual bells and whistles, on the Receiver Car if desired.  The ERR AC Commander sounds like a good place to start for PW and TMCC, it would just need some additional circuitry downstream.  I guess since there's no "DCS Aftermarket" stuff, we'd have to use DCS receivers to pilot a higher output device.

2.  OK, so we don't remove the rollers:

   Instead of removing them, we have a clip-on plate of insulated material -- maybe 1/8" Masonite or Lexan [ TM's ] -- with beveled ends.*  This slides on the centre rail, and comes in two lengths:  One for single rollers, a longer one for the twin rollers.

Now the input wire is fastened to the clip on the roller [ or rear roller set ], and we don't need to remove anything !  [ Gunrunner, when I get my notice of the Patent Pending I'll have you to thank ! ]

*Remember a few years ago on the Forum there was a fellow -- it wasn't me, honest -- who was proposing clip-on "skates" or a "ski", a la Maerklin HO, to adapt rollers for stud rail operation ?    I'm proposing something similar here, just insulated.

Best regards, SZ

I do think, incidently, that it would be possible to run the wiring in a more hidden manner than draped over the top;  for example, for a diesel, maybe an 18 or less ga for the connection to the truck, and then solid #12 say back to the rear of the unit, and then a smaller ga flex for the final connection over to the RC.  You get the idea.  If there were standardized M/F connectors on the ends a 'library' of different lenghts would be available for most applications.  The locos / tenders might end up with some spots of adhesive residue underneath after conversion back, though.

It just appears to me that you're going to a whole lot of trouble for a very limited gain.  For anyone that's already running command/control, it's hard to believe a significant percentage of them would be happy with a rig like this. I just don't see the demand.

I could be wrong, but I'll keep thinking my way.