Command control add-on car?

quote:

and have a simple motor control tether/harness to plug into a non-command engine/locomotive?

 

Who's going to make the harness and the plugs on the loco(s)?  The largest current draw is usually your motors so you need a heavy gauge harness unless you have a relay/control board in each loco.  I don't think you can do speed control under this scenario.  Steam engines have trailing dummy cars, tenders.  Are you going to run the tether through them?  Are you going to be satisfied with generic sounds?  I think it's easier to just install the command boards in the loco and be done with it.

It sounds like a great idea, but here is the problem I believe. If the engine is conventional you already have an E unit that would have to be worked around, plus the time of installing the harness into the engine. You're really already halfway there in terms of a full install. Yes it's more expensive to go the entire way with the install, but in the long run, keeping resale value in mind, full install might be the best way to go.

My two SMR engines have electronics in the trailing boxcar via tether.  The unit with the motor in the tender was converted to Proto 2 and the unit with the motor in the engine has the antenna in the wood tender and the ERR cruise commander in the trailing box car. I could have just had the mini commander in the tender without using the box car; however, I wanted cruise control so that ended up in the box car.  I have both SMR engines on the same loop.  I would think that you could have the electronics in the trailing boxcar and use the tether to connect to multiple engines.  I would do that if I ever purchased a third SMR engine and would only run two at the same time. Knowing the way I run my trains, I would want to run all three simultaneously so it would not work for me.

I have a Lionel John Bull set. The loco has no electronic reverse. I intend to install an ERR TMCC set into a coach with a tether to the "tender", where the motor is.

 

You'd have to wire the motor and probably the smoke unit and the headlight through the tether if you wanted to do that and have full control.  It's certainly possible, I have several steamers that have the entire TMCC package in the tender, no reason the same stuff couldn't be mounted in a boxcar.  AAMOF, the NYC Fire Car is just such a commercial lashup, all the electronics are in the boxcar that it drags around.

 

Of course you can. The comments about "heavy harness" and "no cruise" are way off-base.
The little wires on a factory wire-type tether (Lionel wireless tether architecture is a different animal) handle all the current there is - because the reversing unit (with or without TMCC, PS2, cruise, etc.) is in the tender, and the motor is in the loco. All the motor juice goes through the tether.

Tethers are available from ERR, as is everything else.

But, I feel that it would be more trouble that it sound like at first blush.

Well, if you have time on your hands and would like a command/control fleet from all your conventional locomotives, it could be cost effective.  Even if you had four or five different boxcars and/or passenger cars that were the electronics hauler, it would be a lot cheaper than converting 30 locomotives.

 

It ends up costing me a bit more than $200 and labor to convert a conventional locomotive over to command/control, probably more like $250 if you figure in incidentals.  It's about $50 less if you don't want cruise control, which obviously isn't available for AC locomotives.  Converting 30 of them would be $5000-7000 compared to at the most $1500 to have five electronics cars and rewire the locomotives.

I think I put about $400-500 into my Williams 773, including the cost of the engine, cruise commander, railsounds commander (and return shipping for one board that was fried), wire and some quick connectors to add a tether so I could control the headlight with the TMCC board.

 

It would definitely be cheaper to put the electronics in a separate car.  I've been toying with the idea of doing it for my Lionel docksider, but I'm not sure I want to get into the tethers again.  Running two wires from the tender to the loco on my hudson for headlight power was the hardest job I did, besides fitting the stuff into the tender.

I suggested this numerous time for the scale 44 tonner to add a boxcar with the electronics and sound in it, if no 44 tonner by the time I retire in 2.11.26 days I will build my own for the brass 44 tonner.

John

What is 2.11.26 days?  Is that Klingon notation?

The tether is just another part of the puzzle.  I admit that making them look good is sometimes a bit of a trick. 

Mine doesn't look good, but it works (most of the time).  I'm happy with that

You have to install some kind of plug/socket in each locomotive you want to do this to and then some kind of over over ride to allow the internal e-unit to work when you aren't using it in command mode.  On some loco's you may need two plug/sockets for some of the engines since they may be double ended.  Also, what happens when you want to create an MU?

I was thinking about that Chuck.  You would need a bit of wiring if you wanted to also run in conventional mode without the TMCC tender.  It's possible, but as you say, this would start to be a real chore.

 

I see this idea as more useful for someone that wants to run command but has a conventional fleet.  Instead of converting them all, you rewire them with a tether and not try to make them run conventional after the conversion.

It becomes more an issue of whether they really want command or just walk around throttle capability.  Someone that's into CC is already aware of the costs/issues and has decided to put up with them.  

 

The technology to pull this off exists, e.g. the fire fighting set (which is way cool to see/hear) but the costs and complexity are potentially pretty high.

Well, the straight conversion to TMCC if you don't want a fallback to conventional is just like doing any other conversion, that wouldn't be bad. For steam conversions, you have to add a tether anyway if one isn't already there.

 

It gets more complicated when you want to be able to switch them back to conventional running.  I'm guessing that most diesel locomotives would be pretty easy, it's the steamers that get complicated.

 

If you just want walk-around throttle capability, a CAB1 and some PowerMasters are probably the low cost option. 

Lots of good responses and info here fellas - Thanks. I gather that Mike is bringing back the Z4000 remote next year which was a good walk-around system too.