DOA MTH GP-9 help needed.....

Try powering up to 10 volts or less.  Let it idle for a few seconds until you hear the air chuff.  Then hit the direction button.  That should solve your problem.

Bob

To expand a little on PRR6200 post, raise the voltage all the way up on the throttle then back down to around 10 volts as he said, till you hear the air sound. Then take the throttle down to 0 and then back up again, or the reverse button on your transformer. If that doesn't work try a postwar transformer, as some of the very early QSI reverse units don't play well with electronic transformers like your Z500. You are not getting three clanks in a row, are you?

Just for the sake of playing safe, I would get a new akaline or...  a bcr or proper rechargeble battery to rule out that aspect.  FWIW.

I was thinking it might have something to do with the battery if a regular Rayovac 9v is being used. I know some of my early PS1 locomotive I had to replace the battery with a rechargeable 9v/200mAh Ni-MH batteryand then perform the reset function to get them running again. 

OK....first THANKS! It's running! Can you guys tell me what I was doing wrong?? Before retirement I was a Sr System Analyst for major bank but these trains baffle me at times!  I was putting the loco on the track, turning the transformer to about a third and hitting the direction button....that was when I got the air chuff and two dings....help me learn about these fancy engines!!! THX!!!

BTW I will get a proper battery/BCR.....anything but a plug and play operation???

When you first power up a PS-1 engine it is in a reset state and in order to get it to move for the first time, it needs to see 10volts or less when you hit the direction button. If the engine that you received has a regular 9V alkaline battery rather than a rechargeable one, then you need to install a rechargeable 9V battery rated at a minimum of 8.4V or a BCR battery eliminator.

Eric Hofberg

TCA, LCCA

MTH ASC Tech 

Dave, the BCR is plug and go play...however the deal is when you 1st fire the engine of coise up you let it sit for about 1 min, then the BCR is fully charged.

Another thing-  if the current battery is in question, when you shut the engine down the sounds should last a few seconds...the faster it goes quiet, the lower your battery voltage.

Adding to the midweek Haiku-

you play on the bay

it may be to your dismay

figure there's more to do

...hey, caruso started it!...actually, I may just drop that one off in his post{I surprise myself sometimes}...yeah, yeah, yeah- I know, your goinna haiku me for that...   

Once I got 'Trained' on how to run these fancy locos it's working now.....but it does not warm me any to more electronics in my toy trains!

FWIW, the early QSI/PS1 electronics are somewhat persnickety in that way, but the PS/2 & PS/3 don't suffer those types of idiosyncrasies. 

There is also the issues with older ps1 engines not working with the z-500/750 or 1000.  Some are better run with postwar transformers.  I know there are posts on this topic on here

Thanks for the help folks....It's working and I think I've learned the 'dance' to make it run. Now anyone know how these PS-1/QSI locos play with MRC Dual Power transformers???  Another can of worms???

Dave, Isn't the MRC a pure sine wave?  It should run great on that.

Just remember that the QSI was giving you command control conventionally.  So to use the bell and whistle to command the engine, they needed a reset state.  Voltager above 10V gives you that reset state.   Once you come out of reset it responds normally regardless of the voltage.

Newer systems 97 thru 2000 handle chopped wave forms better.  Early stuff was made to operate on the Pure Sine wave which was about 98% of the transformers back then.

When you power up a PS-1 or QSI engine, let it start up with 2 dings.  At that point lower voltage to less then 10V.   You should have no problems (as long as the battery is good).

Glad you got it going, wouldn't want that thrown in the garbage can:-)  G

Thanks GGG for the info....I like to understand what is going on and why. I'll need to get the MRC pack out and test it.....just not on my test bench right now THX!

Dave, I too have been frustrated at times with the seemingly arbitrary performance of   PS-1 engines.  But a cople of years ago I tried using an MRC Pure Power Dual transformer, and much to my amazement the PS-1 engines seemed to work fine.  (This is in conventional mode.)

Now having said that, a couple of months ago I bought a PS-1 E8 set that is giving me trouble.  Maybe it needs a new battery.  But all my other PS-1's are now functional for me thanks to MRC.

- Mike

Dave, 

My Dad use the MRC transformer as his main power source and never had any problem running his older PS1 equiped locomotive.  

I have 3 former MTH PS1 locos. I removed the crappy PS1 electronics and installed TMCC parts from ERR. They are now my most reliable engines.

Do yourself a favor and order a new B&O GP-7 PS-3 for $260.00

All PS-1's have now become junk and make good candidates for dummy conversions!

I cant understand why people still bother with them?

As a conventional operator I buy them used,they are great buys priced about the same as new Williams but with better detail. They have good running gear. If the electronics go on a diesel just use 2 diodes for uni-directional operation. Add a CV headlamp LED and you are set. If it has a smoke unit half wave it with a single diode to each motor (opposite polarity) and run off track power.  For sound I install Lionel RS4 and a good speaker. Fidelity wise sound is better than anything MTH made at that time or even today. 

Modified as described they will most likely run longer and sound better than any new PS 2 or 3 locos and cost about a third of the price. 

Dale H

I’ve been an electronics tech on consumer products since 1977.

Even for me, it’s not worth all the effort by today’s standards.

The new PS-3’s will out last them and are far surpeior feature and sound wise.

Like I said, they make better dummies.

I also am a retired electronic technician and started in the field in 1968. I respectfully disagree with your professional assessment.  The speakers MTH uses,at least on the ones I have (over 100 of their engines), are simply incapable of producing the range of sound needed to seriously reproduce the sounds a real engine makes. No serious audio engineer would use it. I also worked in high end audio field for a number of years. The board design in MTH diesels does not even allow room for a decent speaker with a good magnet. It is akin to a car design allowing enough room under the hood to fit a lawn mower engine in.

The mechanical running gear in PS3 is basically the same as PS1 except that it accommodates a tach strip on the flywheel. 2, 6 amp diodes running the motors will outlast the $200 electronic board MTH uses to drive it. Early MTH 2 boards are basically throw away junk electronics and not repairable. The verdict is out on PS3 but MTH has a poor track record and poor record of product support. In fact there is no evidence that PS3 is more robust than PS1 except that certain models do not have the scramble problem.

Dale H

I run conventional and for the less than $100 I paid for what is a 'used' but almost never run loco it's in my budget range. And if I had to I'd do just what I did with my MTH GP-30....a WbB DCU....thats fine...runs like a top! MTH detail with WbB rugged electronics.

I don't like 'fancy' electronics in my trains so I'm not going to PS-3 for sure! The new GP-7 at $260 is not a bad deal but I should be able to get about 3 locos on the used market....even if they need work. Thanks for all the input!!! I'll check out my MRC pack after my train ride on 765 this weekend!

Ahhh the wonders of "Clink-Clank-Clunk". Great electronics but totaly blown away buy TMCC and by the time DCS hit the market they all became great buys for "brain surgeons" in training.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKzQkS-WVhQ

Dale H

Hi Dale, I can't see the video from work. I'll watch it when I get home.

Well, they failed steal "clunk" from me but I found it strangely entertaining  none the less.

I see you points guys and I mostly agree. I run the old conventional Lionel and Williams too but I really don’t need sound on then to enhance the enjoyment.

They are what they are, toys.

As for the newer stuff, I’m don’t expect to get Crown audio with Altec voice of the theatre analog sound out a compressed digital device.

When several trains are going around at once, the quality of sound you are expecting to achieve will go un noticed, so what’s the point of all this perfection?

I used the MTH reset IC on their 1^st subway set years ago and it still runs great.

Clink & clunks, wonder what Einstine designed that mess?

After that, I stayed away from PS-1 stuff.

Personally, I think convincing rail sounds shoud be in every car as Lionel is starting to do with the Vision Line cars.

Actually a sound system could be made to go through a home stereo system or perhaps a stereo or quad system where speakers were mounted on the 4 corners of the layout for directional sound. It could sound like a real train coming through your living room instead of a 1950s Chatty Cathy doll.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-sYQ8_2v_Q

The only limiting factor is what the train manufacturers offer us, the technology itself exists and has for some time now. The proprietary systems are what stands in the way of progress like this.

Dale H

You guys are a tough crowd.  Lets think what was available in mid 80s to early 90s when QSI invented their junky crap at the request of Lionel and MTH and others.

A DC 103 reverse unit using TIPS31/32 transistors to control switching or a mechanical e-unit for AC motors.  Plus you got either a horn or a whistle board.  What excitement that was.  You could only control one train on the track at a time unless you used an elaborate track relay system.  First speed step was fast.

So QSI builds a bottom board using relays and diodes rated a 6A with slower start up speed and directional lighting and MARS and LED capability.  A top board for sounds to include bell and whistle or horn, command activated coupler not required to be on an activation track, syncronized sounds and some playback functions, remote controlled lock out and volume control all done with a simple whistle and button bell.  Oh, and they added a battery for continuity of sounds and low an behold you could actually command activate or deactivate engines to run over a hundred conventional engines on a single track, turning them on and off one at a time or in groups (lashups) all with only a bell and whistle button and your good old PW transformer.  You could activate engines on the same track connect them up and then operate them as a group.  Not physically have to pick them up to do that.

Sure TMCC and DCS came along and made it obsolete, but significant design features and the logic of the system where copied and put into TMCC and DCS.  In todays world of patents, QSI would have patented the logic of what they did, and Lionel and MTH would have been paying royalties to use it.  Kind of like patenting the idea of syncronized smoke and cruise control.  Remember guys, this was mid 80s and early 90s. 

So from a technical stand point it was way out in front.  I think it gets its bad wrap because MTH had to rely on it too long while they were getting the PS2 and DCS rung out.  Lionel had made significant advances with TMCC and RS by that point.  Radio command control was the future, not conventional command control. 

Lets give the guy who created brakes for cars that were drum brakes crap because he didn't invent disc brakes with ABS right from the beginning.  Off the box:-)   G

Yes, George, why is that?  Drum brakes were so inferior, you'd have thought he'd have come up with the disk concept right up front!

I agree what GGG said. I have mth F3A chessie engine with PS1 . I bought used in 2003 and had to get a reset chip put in it and BCR cost me 58.00 to fix this engine but this engine has run great for me and still runs great to this day.  

Hi G, no one is knocking QSI for what they failed to do. They made a great cutting edge product for the day. But the fact remains TMCC and DCS made that technology passe almost overnight.

Could MTH of developed the QSI system to compete with TMCC is a question that we have bounced around from when the first rumor of DCS hit these page. Personally I don't think so, QSI would have to overhaul their system in order to do what Mike wonted of DCS and from what I understand they where in the process of doing just that.

Why MTH took the path they did is history now and is neather here nor there a reflection of QSI's product, Clink- clank- clunk just saw it's day.

I have many of those engines and I like running them from time to time because all of the above positives are true, but it is simply antiquated hardware / software as a command control sytem goes, nothing more nothing less.

...I don't mind drums x4 so much as lockheed full manual VS bendix self centering/adjusting{I'll take the later!}

...On a waaaay left field comment- speaking of why didn't they...why didn't they just make tracks two rail and swap the AC polarity from rail to rail{2 rail}, instead of the DC powered solenoid..which you have to hand it to someone for coming up with that idea...nope- I won't say he should've come up with an electronic one instead... 

AC polarity?  New electrical concept?

Hard to say where the QSI system would have went had it been able to develop. The clink clank clunk system was cumbersome but could have been improved. There was room in the system for expansion.  Perhaps a box with a speed dialer type pulsed system. Might have been easy to use and user friendly. QSI had a better system at the time but MTH would not buy it and sued to keep it off the market.  The later systems did not have the scramble problem and even the MTH version could have been fixed with board revision. QSI , from what I understand has a pretty good system for HO.

Dale H

Well, the QSI system is still conventional operation, which suffers from the disadvantages of that mode of operation.  Command offers some clear advantages that you're just not going to get with conventional controls.

Not really a handheld could have been made which would command a receiver wirelessly which would pulse the trains. 

Dale H

Sure...ya just switch the wires...yup. I is{N'T} a lectricle geeni,us.

Hi Bob, they did just that and they called it American Flyer.

The big plus with the two outer rails being the return is all the cool accessories you can operate with it. Not to mention it really helps engines to pass through switches. Reverse loops via a switch are much more simpler with three rail as well.

I could go on and on but I think the above where the big three reasons.

Mario,  I do think some were knocking via the description that made it sound like it was junk from the beginning. JMHO.

As far as continuting forward with it I do think the design model of the hardware was going to limit that.  Components were mostly throughhole so it was too large, it was analog based without PWM for motor control/cruise control.  It did have input output ports and the top board was mostly SMD with a microprocessor.  So I can understand why you would have to go back to the drawing board with a revised board.  If you are doing that you probably starting from scratch since your adding many more features.

It is interesting that Lionel used the PLCC chip as their sound model, and MTH went with reloadable memory.

Maybe where QSI could have made some more O gauge money is with a conventional board with cruise, directional lighting, syncronized sound and smoke and swappable sounds.

Bachman/Williams, Weaver and others could possible use that to gain a greater market share in their spot.  Locosounds is the closest, but still no remote coupler. G