Converting postwar engines to TMCC

My question is, how would you prefer to control them?  Personally I was never a fan of the CAB-1, the red knob just felt vague to me.  (I like the Legacy CAB-2 much better.)  Is your goal to have independent control of two locos on the same track, i.e., to avoid wiring electrical "blocks?"  If so, the AC commander is about your only option.

I don't know that they would run any slower, or pull any more cars with an AC Commander, than they would on a properly wired conventional layout.  There are no "cruise control" upgrades for AC motors.

If you're going to do a block system anyway, then you might be ok with Legacy Powermasters, or even just keeping them conventional.  So what's your operating preference, and what do you hope to accomplish with the upgrades?

Probably the best thing would be to try Command Control with someone you know who has it operating, and see what you think. An alternative to converting your Postwar engines is to buy some similar more modern used engines that come with TMCC already installed. The price difference between that and upgrading your existing engines (particularly if you have someone else do the installation for you) may not be that great.

Personally, I've found that Command Control adds a great deal enjoyment to operating trains. Some folks like conventional operation, but to me Command opens a wider world of operating possibilities (and fun).

I think I can offer you some relevant advice. It's just my opinion, but here goes.

I got into O Gauge by inheriting my grandfather's PW gear....5 engines, some freight cars, 2 sets of passenger cars. I kept them as is and I'm glad I did.

While AC Commander DOES offer command control, it doesn't offer slow operation speed control (called Engineer-on-Board by TAS, cruise by ERR, Odyssey by Lionel, and part of Protosound by MTH). It wasn't until I had an Odyssey engine that I really appreciated speed control, and I'd never buy another engine without it nor do another conversion without it. 

I've used Powermasters for a decade. They complement old PW transformers giving you VOLTAGE control with the CAB-1 AND also a fast-blow fuse if you use the right wiring harness which protects delicate electronics when running modern engines. Makes running PW engines more fun yet maintains the nostalgia of running those old PW engines.

The cost of upgrading a PW engine is going to be at least $200. You can get a gently used engine already equipped with TMCC for $150 - $300 (depending on your appetite for size and detail). I just sold one like that for $225. 

I own 6 modern conventional engines that have been upgraded to TMCC with TAS and ERR components.  My first two were without speed control. I regret those. Sure, I saved $20-$30, but speed control is a game changer for me. The last four have speed control (EOB, Cruise) and these are raving successes. Speed control requires the modern can motors that you can't get with PW engines and AC Commander.

Can you upgrade your PW engines? Sure. I wouldn't do it. The bang isn't worth the buck. In fact, I wouldn't do any upgrade without speed control. 

Thanks, guys, this is the kind of discussion I was looking for. The reason I was thinking of converting my old engines to TMCC was simply that once I had all my engines running command, the block wiring would become basically an anachronism (though being able to depower a block, especially sidings, of course would still be valuable). I wasn't expecting the old PW units to operate like a modern one with speed control, rather it simply was for convenience sake, that  if I had multiple engines running I wouldn't have to set the blocks for the two train routes and then address the powermaster on the A or B channel. I have some units, like the Erie Lackawanna ie "Green Monster' MU  units that don 't have a modern equivalent, but they are I believe running can motors so they can be easily converted.  For now it sounds like my best bet might be when running my old engines for the fun of it, I use the powermaster on an block basis, I doubt quite honestly I would want to run these old guys on the same block channel as a command equipped engine come to think of it, and it isn't like my layout is huge anyway, so prob will run maybe 2 engines at most. 

I'll present an opposing view.  I upgraded my Lionel Phantom by adding an extra motor.  With only one motor in front it was hopeless, it couldn't even pull it's 4 cars well!  In the process, I installed the AC Commander.  I get great low speed performance with it, better than I could have imagined it would be when I did the conversion.  The thread Improving the Lionel Phantom Locomotive details what I did to the Phantom.

If you have any you especially like, I can't see why not convert a couple to TMCC using the AC Commander, it'll be as good as they can run, I'll tell you that much.  One thing that won't change is the power consumption, the Phantom locomotive with two AC motors can easily go over 2 amps running with a light load, my dual can motored diesels don't even come close to cracking one amp in the same circumstances.

If you have PW engines you are partial and want to convert them to TMCC, go for it.  The ERR AC commander will not give you cruise as on a can motor but it does give you the option of 100 speed steps on the AC motor; like GRJ said above the motor control  with an AC commander is very impressive; not cruise but my experience has been very smooth speed control.  Do the F3 to learn on; ERR makes a great kit; Falcon70

I have been extremely happy with the Legacy PowerMasters and wouldn't dream of mangling a nice original PW engine. You can get a new PowerMaster for the price of one single AC Commander and it will work with all your conventional engines whereas you will need an AC commander for every engine you wish to run...

Do it. It makes old postwar stuff much more enjoyable to run when it's command equipped, especially if the rest of your locomotives are command equipped.

https://ogrforum.com/...81#82382494858497581

If your F3 has dual motors and is in good mechanical condition (not worn out) it'll run pretty well.  Regarding John's "Phantom"--  adding the second motor probably made more difference than the AC commander.  The second motor added weight, and now all of it is on driven wheels.  They're still three-pole motors with a significant ripple in the torque output (which frustrated commercial attempts at "cruise control.")  But they have a lot of hysteresis and the worm gears are back-drivable.  So by adding a second motor you're effectively doubling the number of power pulses per inch.

The 671 isn't going to run like a modern engine no matter what you do.  Another fellow on the Forum did what you're proposing, and went a step further.  He sent his 736 to Timko to have a can motor installed.  Performance didn't improve over the baseline results published in another O gauge magazine several years ago.  YMMV.

Well Ted, while the second motor made a big difference, so did the AC Commander.  I initially ran the dual motored rig with the old LCRU2 just hanging on the side, not nearly as smooth or as good low speed control with the LCRU2 vs the AC Commander.

We have the ZW-L and Legacy system. 

Here's my view:

For my scale Legacy/can motor locos - Yes, I want full Command capability as I am running multiple locos on the same track loop (passing sidings, double heading, yard work, etc.) and it's all happening at slow, prototypical speeds. For this walk around control is a must.

For my postwar style (Pulmor) locos - At one time, I thought I wanted to upgrade all to TMCC. However, I realized that would be overkill.

I run with each on their own loop. I really never have the desire to have two postwar locos share the same track block.

I run them at relatively fast postwar speeds - juggling multiple fast locos, on the same loop, with the CAB-2 would be rough.

The ZW-L's handles are great (way more robust than the previous ZW-C) and thus, running conventionally, with it, is enjoyable.

If I want to run the postwar stuff remotely, I do using the ZW-L's four built in powermasters and the CAB-2. That's enough remote control for a postwar style layout.

I have been finding Lionel PWC items just as effective at  creating this an there is little to no work. On item important to have the look i want i have swapped shells.

My 2 cents worth is do it. Back in the early `90's when i finished laying track and had pre-wired everything for block control, TMCC appeared and an aftermarket product from a company called Digital Dynamics offered TMCC conversion kits.  I tried the plain LCRU in a MPC GP9 and became hooked on TMCC. When ERR offered the AC and DC commanders a few years later I converted everything over (and then subsequently the DC motors to Cruise Commander). The flexibility of control even to the TMCC upgraded old Pullmor motored Lionel locos is the big plus, AND they do seem to run smoother than the herky jerkyness of the E unit equipped locos.  As far as "mangling" a postwar engine goes; remember these are only toys and with few exceptions post war Lionel isn't worth much anymore anyway.

Edmund Schwartzel 060518 posted:

I have been finding Lionel PWC items just as effective at  creating this an there is little to no work. On item important to have the look i want i have swapped shells.

I've done this quite a few times as well, on Geeps and F units, using PWC and other Lionel engines that were factory-equipped with TMCC/RailSounds, electrocouplers, directional lighting, etc. Drop the shell you want onto a newer chassis with the updated electronics. The only thing I've found that takes a little time is constructing a baffle for the speakers on F unit B units that have the RailSounds. Otherwise, transplanting the TMCC antenna - extremely simple - is about the only thing required.

I've transplanted a different RS-3 shell on a LC+ RS-3 chassis as well. Takes a little more work than the TMCC swaps, but not that difficult. I'm currently in the process of transplanting a Geep shell onto a LC+ rectifier chassis (got a great deal on the rectifier). It'll take a little surgery, more than the RS-3, but it doesn't look terribly difficult.

I've converted a bunch of PW stuff, and a couple of tinplate items as well to command.  They're your trains, so you get to decide what to do with them.  All this talk about mangling a PW engine is  somewhat ridiculous.  If it loses value, it's your loss, not anyone else's loss.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

All this talk about mangling a PW engine is  somewhat ridiculous.  If it loses value, it's your loss, not anyone else's loss.

While anyone can do what they want with what they own, it is a travesty to see something that should and could be appreciated for what it is get mangled up and can't condone such recommendations or actions.

Unless it's mint in the original box, most Postwar pieces are as common as dirt, and priced accordingly.  As new product continues to enter the marketplace (including visual clones, like the LC+ Berkshire), the Postwar originals become less and less relevant.  This trend is accelerating as the generation that grew up with Postwar passes on and releases their collections for resale. 

I'm in favor of anything that restores these venerable trains to relevance, and pushes them toward operational parity with modern-era stuff.  For me personally, that doesn't include adding rubber tires or those tiny Timko motors.  But installing an AC commander is a 100% reversible modification.  No mangling involved!

What Postwar is worth anything now days anyhow? When is the last time you got what you paid for a Postwar engine? Be real.

Adding TMCC to improve an engine is what makes trains fun.

bmoran4 posted:

gunrunnerjohn posted:

All this talk about mangling a PW engine is  somewhat ridiculous.  If it loses value, it's your loss, not anyone else's loss.

While anyone can do what they want with what they own, it is a travesty to see something that should and could be appreciated for what it is get mangled up and can't condone such recommendations or actions.

I appreciate the sentiment behind this,but to be honest it is foreign to me. I am a runner,not a collector,and to me the post war trains are not sacred objets d'art, but rather something to have fun with.  The days of post war trains being collectors items outside some rarities is long gone, and if putting command control in them makes them more fun to run,why not? Same way people weathering trains or modifying them is fine. People have been converting lionel trains from 3 rail to 2 for a long time, Frank Ellison used outside third rail. There are people who so that with cars,where people update 60s cars w disk brakes and the fuel injection,when these are cars meant to be driven, not exactly Ferraris.

My original question was more about what people's experiences were with converting,if it was practical, pros and cons. Most of my engines are conventional and most of them likely don't have modern versions, so might be worth converting when the time is right.

bmoran4 posted:

gunrunnerjohn posted:

All this talk about mangling a PW engine is  somewhat ridiculous.  If it loses value, it's your loss, not anyone else's loss.

While anyone can do what they want with what they own, it is a travesty to see something that should and could be appreciated for what it is get mangled up and can't condone such recommendations or actions.

I wasn’t aware we needed your blessing to do such a vile act......Pat

You can always get a/couple of TPC 300/400 (track power control ) that way you can run your conventional trains in in command and still be able to run command engines. I presently have 2 TPC 300's and one TPC 400. I'm not sure if I'm going to use all 3 or not, but I do know I will use at least one. and these can be used with TMCC or the Legacy set up. 

I have modified one F3 unit with AC Commander and I like it very much, however I've discovered that while running it on the small carpet central it ran great but now that my layout is expanding it struggles to get down the track in its current state.  I'll need to put traction tires on it to pull 8 PW cars, 5 aluminum passenger cars, 2 B units and 1 non powered A unit.  For the rest of my PW's, I believe I have 10, I might have to add additional engines and traction tires in addition to AC Commanders.  It was fun to rebuild the first one, 10 more to go - MARSHELANGELO

Just a word of caution if you're planning to upgrade any early Pulmor equipped PW engines. The AC Commander board may not be able to supply enough power to these motors. Last year I decided to upgrade one of my early (1950 vintage) 736 engines. The install went well but when initially tested on the layout, the engine stalled in the first curved section of track! A quick search on the OGR forums revealed the problem was with the early PW armature and it's power hungry nature.

Fortunately, I had a modern Pulmor armature in the parts bin and was able to swap it into the vintage motor. The engine now runs nicely but is limited to six or seven car consists and has a maximum speed limit that no amount of Cab1 throttle wheel turning will increase. My guess is that the Commander board just can't supply sufficient power to the motor. 

On the other hand, I had previously upgraded two MPC era (1977-78) single Pulmor equipped GP9's which are MUed with tether and these run great with command! YMMV.

If anybody is interested, I have a TAS 15amp AC Saw board available. No problem handling dual Pullmor motors.

@marshelangelo Please don't groove your Postwar wheels!  Instead, I would swap truck blocks with an MPC-era F3 (Pennsylvania Tuscan or Brunswick green, New Haven, or Burlington.)  These were dual-motor F3s made 1978-1980 that had grooved wheels with rubber tires from the factory.  I believe MPC re-introduced magne-traction on the Southern Pacifics circa 1982.  A dual-motored F3 has plenty of pulling power.  I would make sure that your track is clean, and put a single drop of oil on each of your car axles.  Or you can do what the real RR's did, and add a second powered loco.

@rickoshay I own an early 736 myself.  I also have the Bob Hannon book on Lionel motors.  There's nothing special about the 681-100 motor in a 1950 Berkshire that would prevent using the AC commander.  The motor should draw about 2 amps under full load, and the loco should run fast enough to leave the rails at full throttle!  I'm glad swapping armatures helped, but your original motor field and the mechanical aspects of your chassis (worm wheel, axle bearings, side rods, etc.) are suspect.  Maybe time for the bread clip mod!

rtraincollector posted:

You can always get a/couple of TPC 300/400 (track power control ) that way you can run your conventional trains in in command and still be able to run command engines. I presently have 2 TPC 300's and one TPC 400. I'm not sure if I'm going to use all 3 or not, but I do know I will use at least one. and these can be used with TMCC or the Legacy set up. 

That's a lame bandaid to having command capability on each engine.  If you're going to resort to a TPC, why not just run the trains with the transformer handles?  The only thing you gain is you can run one train on that track using the remote.  The big benefit of command operation is you can freely run trains in any mix anywhere on the layout at the same time.

We're really talking apples and oranges here.

I'm not saying we should force people that want to keep their PW stuff 100% original to convert to command.  My point is when I own the locomotive, I get to decide it's fate.  I don't want somebody that has the opinion that I shouldn't be allowed to upgrade my locomotive in my face about it.  I also don't want to push a command upgrade on anyone that is of the opinion he wants to keep his PW locomotive 100% stock.  We still live in a free country where we get to choose.  I choose the command upgrade!

I have many PW engines, steam and diesel (over 40) and have kept most original.  I have converted some F3 engines to ERR AC Commander, and glad I did.  And, true, any conversion done properly, is reversible without mangling the original engine.  Some I had the shells (really rough PW condition) repainted into road names not offered and did the ERR upgrade, also made dummies into powered engines.  With ERR TMCC you can set the two to run as a consist and pull all the cars you desire... I do.  So, bottom line..... do what you wish and enjoy them, along with the learning and enjoyment of converting, if you so desire.  It is a hobby we all enjoy for our own reasons and for benefits we derive from it.  For what it is worth, I have two PW F3s Len painted in Burlington for me, and I pull ten 21in K-Line alum CZ cars, two 18in alum CZ baggage on my layout, with 3% grades, no problem.  Powered with PW dual Pulmor motors each, I love the growl and with ERR AC Comm, can do so at low speed and enjoy all the more. 

Jesse   TCA  12-68275

gunrunnerjohn posted:

I'm not saying we should force people that want to keep their PW stuff 100% original to convert to command.  My point is when I own the locomotive, I get to decide it's fate.  I don't want somebody that has the opinion that I shouldn't be allowed to upgrade my locomotive in my face about it.  I also don't want to push a command upgrade on anyone that is of the opinion he wants to keep his PW locomotive 100% stock.  We still live in a free country where we get to choose.  I choose the command upgrade!

I love how when specifically querying about the pros and cons of command control and the reasons behind using a PowerMaster, 

bigkid posted:

I am considering whether it is worth trying to convert the postwar engines [...] as well as a couple of modern examples of pullmor motor engines, to TMCC via the ERR A/C commander. I have gotten a lot of mixed advice, some told me it was better to leave them running conventional and if I wanted remote access, use a powermaster,that it wouldn't work right, yet I know that folks [do] those kind of conversions all the time and others are running that way, so I can't figure out why they would say that.

one gets accused of being "in your face" to offer up and backup an honest and factual viewpoint:

bmoran4 posted:

I have been extremely happy with the Legacy PowerMasters and wouldn't dream of mangling a nice original PW engine. You can get a new PowerMaster for the price of one single AC Commander and it will work with all your conventional engines whereas you will need an AC commander for every engine you wish to run...

And at no point did I say that the owner wasn't free to do what they wanted - I explicitly stated the opposite, but apparently a few can't read :

harmonyards posted:

bmoran4 posted:

gunrunnerjohn posted:

All this talk about mangling a PW engine is  somewhat ridiculous.  If it loses value, it's your loss, not anyone else's loss.

While anyone can do what they want with what they own, it is a travesty to see something that should and could be appreciated for what it is get mangled up and can't condone such recommendations or actions.

I wasn’t aware we needed your blessing to do such a vile act......Pat

You guys make it sound like we are talking about Abortion instead of the hobby of Toy Trains...

marshelangelo posted:

I have modified one F3 unit with AC Commander and I like it very much, however I've discovered that while running it on the small carpet central it ran great but now that my layout is expanding it struggles to get down the track in its current state.  I'll need to put traction tires on it to pull 8 PW cars, 5 aluminum passenger cars, 2 B units and 1 non powered A unit.  For the rest of my PW's, I believe I have 10, I might have to add additional engines and traction tires in addition to AC Commanders.  It was fun to rebuild the first one, 10 more to go - MARSHELANGELO

I'd check to make sure the motors are operating correctly. Here's my postwar 2343 with an ERR AC Commander set to 100 speed steps pulling 2 dummy F3Bs, a dummy F3A, and 6 aluminum passenger cars. It isn't struggling at all. In fact it's at about half speed, so around speed step 50. When I filmed the 2343 tonight it had been running for about 2 hours straight. It'll pull 10 aluminim cars, in addition to the 3 dummy units without issue, if I wanted to. 

(BMORAN4) You guys make it sound like we are talking about Abortion instead of the hobby of Toy Trains...

read your own reply man, you’re the fella that said the act of adding aftermarket electronics was “ mangling” ........I’m not looking to start a fight, but added enhancements to any locomotives, or accessories will only make the experience better for SOME, not all....if someone has to mangle a device to install a package, then they probably shouldn’t touch it period.....Pat

harmonyards posted:

(BMORAN4) You guys make it sound like we are talking about Abortion instead of the hobby of Toy Trains...

read your own reply man, you’re the fella that said the act of adding aftermarket electronics was “ mangling” ........I’m not looking to start a fight, but added enhancements to any locomotives, or accessories will only make the experience better for SOME, not all....if someone has to mangle a device to install a package, then they probably shouldn’t touch it period.....Pat

Not to mention there are more beaters out there just waiting for some love than mint in the original box museum pieces. I started adding TMCC to all my conventional locos about three years ago and so far have completed over thirty and I'm not sorry about one of them.              Their my toys and I mangle them with gusto even an occasional museum piece.                       j

Mangling an 18009 NYC 4-8-2 to mount a K&D 7 pole motor. Original Pullmor motor will still mount properly despite the channel that K&D motor mounts in.

rickoshay posted:

Just a word of caution if you're planning to upgrade any early Pulmor equipped PW engines. The AC Commander board may not be able to supply enough power to these motors. Last year I decided to upgrade one of my early (1950 vintage) 736 engines. The install went well but when initially tested on the layout, the engine stalled in the first curved section of track! A quick search on the OGR forums revealed the problem was with the early PW armature and it's power hungry nature.

Fortunately, I had a modern Pulmor armature in the parts bin and was able to swap it into the vintage motor. The engine now runs nicely but is limited to six or seven car consists and has a maximum speed limit that no amount of Cab1 throttle wheel turning will increase. My guess is that the Commander board just can't supply sufficient power to the motor. 

On the other hand, I had previously upgraded two MPC era (1977-78) single Pulmor equipped GP9's which are MUed with tether and these run great with command! YMMV.

>>My guess is that the Commander board just can't supply sufficient power to the motor. 

The AC Commander can supply a solid 6-7 amps, and 10-12 amps peak.  It could be the transformer is the weak link.

Everyone has a bit different feeling on this topic, here is mine. I have a PW collection that I have run conventional for awhile. I cheated a bit by adding a early TMCC horn and prime mover boxcar or whistle,chuff tender and running a Cab 1 in conventional mode. That gave me a taste of sound and walk around control (other hobby is RC airplanes) OK for annual Christmas layout but I am planning a more scale layout. Most of the postwar I will not change in any way. Over the last year or so I have acquired TMCC K-line,Lionel and Weaver diesels and steamers at surprisingly low cost. Most were mint in the box. I have also recently started working with ERR and Lionel replacement boards (think annual 50% sale at Lionel) First project was a LTI 785 NYC Hudson with ERR AC commander and sound. I bought the 785 in like new condition and stripped it down and converted it without any qualms. Just losing the E-unit buzz was a big improvement and at 100 steps is smooth enough for me. Current project is a PW 1950 NYC 2344 F-3 that I bought as a "repair or parts" AA 2343 SF. New NYC Century cabs fell into my hands recently, as did nos boards for the power unit and the correct RS-3 sound system for the dummy A. The cabs were decorated but needed all add on pieces which I ordered. The volume knob which is a top fan was a little hard to find but I finally found two. Interestingly the donor F-3's were wear gloves nasty, but upon tear down showed little signs of use. Previous owner believed in lots of grease and oil. Total cost is under $200.00 for everything. Now I will have the NYC F-3 to run with my Santa Fe and could not swing when I was a kid.

I know that the new old stock Lionel boards are not going to give me ERR performance but part of the fun is to do it as economical as possible. The Century shells are stunning with all the details in place. I also have learned a bit about TMCC and Lionel's parts site. I like it!

Richard 

SantaFeFan posted:

rickoshay posted:

Just a word of caution if you're planning to upgrade any early Pulmor equipped PW engines. The AC Commander board may not be able to supply enough power to these motors. Last year I decided to upgrade one of my early (1950 vintage) 736 engines. The install went well but when initially tested on the layout, the engine stalled in the first curved section of track! A quick search on the OGR forums revealed the problem was with the early PW armature and it's power hungry nature.

Fortunately, I had a modern Pulmor armature in the parts bin and was able to swap it into the vintage motor. The engine now runs nicely but is limited to six or seven car consists and has a maximum speed limit that no amount of Cab1 throttle wheel turning will increase. My guess is that the Commander board just can't supply sufficient power to the motor. 

On the other hand, I had previously upgraded two MPC era (1977-78) single Pulmor equipped GP9's which are MUed with tether and these run great with command! YMMV.

>>My guess is that the Commander board just can't supply sufficient power to the motor. 

The AC Commander can supply a solid 6-7 amps, and 10-12 amps peak.  It could be the transformer is the weak link.

Jon, thank you for this information. I don't think the transformer (Z4000) is the issue as all other command engines work fine on either of my two mainline loops. I did note that the transformer's amp gauge is indicating 2.6 amps for the 736 while pulling six postwar 6446 hoppers with coal loads plus an MTH lighted caboose. Full throttle speed is good but there's no way the engine will derail in a curve at this speed.

This engine ran great in conventional and is in very good mechanical condition (rebuilt motor with new armature bushings/ball bearings, new worm wheel, and axle bushings good!).

So is there a simple way to test the Commander board's output?

2.6 amps is no sweat for the AC Commander, I've seen that much with my dual Pulmore motored Phantom locomotive with five cars.  And yes, I could easily derail it on O72 curves with full throttle, it flies around the track!

My "guess" would be the wiring between the transformer and the track.