ERR Cruise Commander M - install problem - won't move

Newt posted:

Hi, I installed the Cuise Commander M in a Lionel GP-9 (6-18879). The engine came equipped with the following features:

- Command Equipped

- Electrocouplers

- Railsounds

- Crewtalk, Towercom, Directional Lighting, Stobe Light

- Magne-Traction

- Pullmor Motor

The engine was made about 1999.

The installation was routine, as this was my fourth installation of ERR products. I programmed the engine with code 5. All of the above features work perfectly, but the engine won't move. It just sits there.  The diesel sounds rev up, but the engine won't move. Is there a compatibility problem between the CCM and the Pullmor motor? Could the CCM be defective? I' m using the Legacy Control system. Any help would be greatly appreciated. 

Isn’t the CCM for DC motors, the Pullmor is AC.

From the ERR selection guide you may need an AC Commander:

AC COMMANDER KIT
The AC Commander kit is for locomotives with AC Motors, also known as Pullmor Motors (motors with visible brushes).  This upgrade provides Command and Conventional Mode operation.  Additional outputs are supplied for front light, rear light, and electro-couplers.  Output multipurpose output for smoke, cab light, or strobe light, selected by "feature code" provided.

CRUISE COMMANDER "M" (modular) KIT
The Cruise Commander kit is for locomotives with DC "Can" Motors, that already contain TMCC electronics using the genuine Lionel modular electronics.  These locomotives have a separate motor driver board known as the DCDR, which is replaced by the Cruise "M".

as others have already stated, Cruise M is a driver for DC can motors...there is no cruise option available (as I know of) for AC motors....

There is no cruise for AC motors, at least nothing commercially available.  The CC-M will not work for an AC motor, it's no surprise it won't move!

Has anyone tried the bridge rectifier conversion circuit that makes AC pulmor motors look like DC can motors to work with the CC-M?  I did this with bluetooth control boards designed to work with can motors and got good results. Just a suggestion.

BOB WALKER posted:

Has anyone tried the bridge rectifier conversion circuit that makes AC pulmor motors look like DC can motors to work with the CC-M?  I did this with bluetooth control boards designed to work with can motors and got good results. Just a suggestion.

If you could get that to work, my concern would be longevity, AC motors have different load characteristics than DC motors...might be flirting with letting the magic smoke out of the M.....and once the magic smoke is out....you aint putting it back in..

How would you get it to reverse?

The conversion circuit makes AC universal motor rotation respond to DC polarity just like a can motor. The circuit reverses the polarity of the current flow between the field and the armature.

BOB WALKER posted:

The conversion circuit makes AC universal motor rotation respond to DC polarity just like a can motor. The circuit reverses the polarity of the current flow between the field and the armature.

 

Pullmors are series connected. They will run on DC but to reverse them you have to reverse the polarity of EITHER the field or the armature. Not both together.

The Cruise Ms don't have the capability to do this.

Pete

Norton posted:

BOB WALKER posted:

The conversion circuit makes AC universal motor rotation respond to DC polarity just like a can motor. The circuit reverses the polarity of the current flow between the field and the armature.

 

Pullmors are series connected. They will run on DC but to reverse them you have to reverse the polarity of EITHER the field or the armature. Not both together.

The Cruise Ms don't have the capability to do this.

Pete

it might work Pete, once it goes into nuclear fission, and melts the M into a pile of poo!...

steam is code 4 and not 5.  try aaux1 4 and see if it runs

DC reversal of universal motors.   After you wire this up try it with a DC power source DC transformer, battery etc. before you even think about trying it with any PWM motor driver. This is how we reversed O scale universal motors before good magnets were cheap enough for toys.  Motors wired this way will draw more current for a given power output than a comparable DC permanent magnet motor as your having to power the field as well as the rotor. I have run a pullmor motored loco on a test stand with an DC-LCRU and a DCDR out of a 18952 AT&SF ALCO  and it responded OK but it was drawing 3A on blocks without a load.  So if you try it watch your current draw.  I have been curious as to whether cruise control based on back emf would work with the bridge in the way. I sort of doubt it but who knows. Anyway here is the "circuit" .    j

Nope. I tried that back in 2007. Jon tried something like that, too.  Apparently the field collapses too quickly to generate sufficient back EMF to make the CCM  work properly.

BTW, most folks that I have seen rectify the brushes rather than the field when converting a series wound universal motor to a DC motor.

RoyBoy posted:

Nope. I tried that back in 2007. Jon tried something like that, too.  Apparently the field collapses too quickly to generate sufficient back EMF to make the CCM  work properly.

BTW, most folks that I have seen rectify the brushes rather than the field when converting a series wound universal motor to a DC motor.

Roy, the scheme in my sketch rectifies both the field and the armature, though rectifying is not quite what is going on. The diodes within the bridge are routing since you are sending DC through it.   Where I put the + and - signs I should have made both connections +/-  and -/+ as the DC supply reverses polarity depending on what direction you want the motor to run.  If you start at either connection and follow the arrows (diodes) you will see that the polarity of the field always stays the same when you reverse the polarity on the leads.  However the polarity on the brushes reverses when you swap the leads. Elements within the bridge are at play for both the rotor and the stator regardless of which direction it is running.    I have run both a Lionel 3 pole pullmor in an 18000 PRR B6 and a 7 pole K&D in a 18009 NYC Mohawk both on the bench and wired as in my diagram hooked up to a TMCC  DCDR  H bridge and they both run fine just pulled more current than I am happy with. Though as long as your triacs are heat sinked adequately and you don't load things down to stall point I think it would be OK.  Seems the triacs on motor drivers I have looked up were rated at 8A though I cannot state with any certainty that all TMCC driver boards use 8A triacs.  I don't have time to hook the scheme today but will soon and I'll film it.   j

Remember that the 8A rating of that part is only with what amounts to an infinite heatsink.  In short, that's the absolute maximum current it can handle internally, but usually heatsinking significantly reduces the maximum continuous current.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Remember that the 8A rating of that part is only with what amounts to an infinite heatsink.  In short, that's the absolute maximum current it can handle internally, but usually heatsinking significantly reduces the maximum continuous current.

in layman's term, this is where the magic smoke hides......just waiting to come out!..

RoyBoy posted:

Nope. I tried that back in 2007. Jon tried something like that, too.  Apparently the field collapses too quickly to generate sufficient back EMF to make the CCM  work properly.

BTW, most folks that I have seen rectify the brushes rather than the field when converting a series wound universal motor to a DC motor.

What if the DCDR was swapped with a DCDRS instead of the CC-M, and we installed an armature extension with a flywheel, tach tape and sensor, instead of relying on back-EMF?

Then, in theory, wouldn’t adding one of the DC reversal circuits into the mix have a chance to provide AC motor cruise, perhaps on a single pullmor loco, without exploding in flames?

Another reminder, the Pullmor is series connected. All of the ERR and Lionel drivers simply reverse polarity to the motor leads. To apply that to a Pullmor you would have to wire it in parallel and feed a constant DC to the field. That will more the double the current draw. BTDT. Also the Pullmor only has a three pole armature. Jon Z has stated cruise is iffy with only three poles. You really need at least 5 poles.

Pete

Jon Z. actually tinkered with cruise for the Pullmor and decided the performance didn't warrant continuing with the project.  He specifically mentioned the lack of low speed cruise performance, I believe the field current wasn't sufficient for decent performance.

Personally, I think this is a losing route.  If you really like the locomotive, do a can motor conversion and run it with a Cruise Commander.

Frank Timko of timkorepairdepot.com makes can motor conversions that bolt right into Lionel motor trucks. They are relatively inexpensive, around $45 per motor as I recall. Since the original poster has already sprung for a Cruise Commander, this slight additional charge will do the trick and turn the loco into a nicely running machine.

A couple of thoughts about why John's idea is relevant... (1) There are no can motor conversions available for the most common 4- and 6-wheel parallel plate motors (i.e., spur-gear drive steam locos.)  (2) The Timko motors are small Mabuchi 385's and most likely make less starting torque than the Pullmor motor they are replacing.  When installed in a Turbine or Berkshire they stick pretty far out of the cab.  A flywheel is required to make them coast like a Pullmor.

Like Lionel, Marklin has a long history of using universal "pancake" style motors and spur-gear drive.  Beginning in the 1990s, they offered a cruise control upgrade kit for their older locos.  Google "Marklin 5 star high efficiency propulsion."  Along with the cruise control circuitry, the kit featured a new 5-pole armature, and (I think) a permanent magnet to replace the field coil.  So yes, they were converting to a DC motor.

The idea of a 5-pole armature for Pullmor motors was proposed at least 25 years ago.  I think it's a great idea, still waiting!  Even without cruise it would greatly improve operation of our old favorites.  Maybe Neil Young will read this thread and help jump-start the cost of the tooling!

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Remember that the 8A rating of that part is only with what amounts to an infinite heatsink.  In short, that's the absolute maximum current it can handle internally, but usually heatsinking significantly reduces the maximum continuous current.

John,  this is the very reason I did not go beyond running the pullmor locos on the bench however they will run and reverse with a DCDR  as long as you use the bridge wiring scheme I posted earlier.  As for Cruise I expressed my doubts about back emf cruise working but I along with GREGR am curious whether using a flywheel sensor to control cruise will work, on a seven pole K&D motor ( threw that in the mix I think GREGR is thinking Pullmor). A few days ago I questioned running four can motors off a TAS SAW board and was asking about a 16A version of their SAW and Cruise boards I am still wondering if the triacs are the only change on these boards. I have 6 of these TAS SAW and Cruise boards and would like to use one on a pair of MTH Centipedes.   I am running a pair of 18953 NYC Alcos, the four large can motors in them are  500 series Mabuchi motors I added some extra copper fins to the heat sink and put a 4A polyfuse between the motors and the DCDR.  I tried wiring the motors in each loco in series with the two pair wired parallel then I swapped the connections around and now all four motors are parallel. I wanted to compare running characteristics with the motors wired both ways and I think I like it better with all four motors parallel.  The heat sink does get hot but so far pulling 12 streamline cars I have not tripped the 4A poly fuse. Perhaps the 8A triacs are enough though I would feel better knowing they were 12-15A.  The net static resistance of the four motors when all are parallel is under 1 ohm and the DCDR seems to be keeping up, so I guess it will keep up with one Pullmor motor though universal motors are so different than PM motors that static resistance alone does not tell the whole story.  After Christmas I may pull my Mohawk apart and swap the LCRU2 for the DCDR and give it a track test.  j

I still have my AC motor prototype with Cruise.  I simply put a switching power supply on the field coil, and energized it all the time.  I was able to attach the brushes to a Cruise commander, and run the loco.  Low speeds tended to oscillate; the back EMF was too low to sense from the armature.  Also the Field coil got HOT.   I did not have time to delve deeper into the possibilities.  As I recall Ernie at TAS told me that the EOB used a PVC pipe section with a tach tape under the brush plate and servo'd from that.  I think it ran very good, the conversion was hard to do however.  And then there is this experiment...

Cool Jon, the Legacy Pullmor!

SantaFeFan posted:

I still have my AC motor prototype with Cruise.  I simply put a switching power supply on the field coil, and energized it all the time.  I was able to attach the brushes to a Cruise commander, and run the loco.  Low speeds tended to oscillate; the back EMF was too low to sense from the armature.  Also the Field coil got HOT.   I did not have time to delve deeper into the possibilities.  As I recall Ernie at TAS told me that the EOB used a PVC pipe section with a tach tape under the brush plate and servo'd from that.  I think it ran very good, the conversion was hard to do however.  And then there is this experiment...

Jon, what kind of current draw were you seeing ?  From your description I am thinking you were running it in Shunt as opposed to serial which all the pullmor motors I have seen were wired.  I was running the voltage up and down watching current draw and at a steady 12vdc I was seeing about 2.5A with no load on the motor other than the friction of the gears and wheels.  If I moved the voltage up at the rate I would accelerate a passenger train I would see between 3 and 4A till the motor caught up with the throttle.  Glad you mentioned the tach tape I had been thinking about how I was going to put a tach tape on a pullmor and came up with the idea that the large gap between the armature and the field would allow gluing a tape made from heavy mylar or acetate around the pole segments would work. Mount the reader in the open end of the field.

If you had gone into production would you have chained your field power supply to your PWM so it was not always at full power ?  The main reason I worry about current draw is not the motor driver that can be accounted for in it's design but rather in wheel to rail arcing that can mess up a ton of stuff.  Thanks for hopping in really glad to see your pullmor with flywheel reader.   j

SantaFeFan posted:

I still have my AC motor prototype with Cruise.  I simply put a switching power supply on the field coil, and energized it all the time.  I was able to attach the brushes to a Cruise commander, and run the loco.  Low speeds tended to oscillate; the back EMF was too low to sense from the armature.  Also the Field coil got HOT.   I did not have time to delve deeper into the possibilities.  As I recall Ernie at TAS told me that the EOB used a PVC pipe section with a tach tape under the brush plate and servo'd from that.  I think it ran very good, the conversion was hard to do however.  And then there is this experiment...

That is so cool to see, and imagine what if...

Thanks for sharing!

JohnActon posted:

SantaFeFan posted:

I still have my AC motor prototype with Cruise.  I simply put a switching power supply on the field coil, and energized it all the time.  I was able to attach the brushes to a Cruise commander, and run the loco.  Low speeds tended to oscillate; the back EMF was too low to sense from the armature.  Also the Field coil got HOT.   I did not have time to delve deeper into the possibilities.  As I recall Ernie at TAS told me that the EOB used a PVC pipe section with a tach tape under the brush plate and servo'd from that.  I think it ran very good, the conversion was hard to do however.  

Jon, what kind of current draw were you seeing ?  From your description I am thinking you were running it in Shunt as opposed to serial which all the pullmor motors I have seen were wired.  I was running the voltage up and down watching current draw and at a steady 12vdc I was seeing about 2.5A with no load on the motor other than the friction of the gears and wheels.  If I moved the voltage up at the rate I would accelerate a passenger train I would see between 3 and 4A till the motor caught up with the throttle.

He pretty much had to use shunt connections, he couldn't have the field reversing with the armature or it wouldn't reverse.  Remember, he was driving it with the Cruise Commander.  Without more switching, it would be hard to run in serial.  Might be an interesting experiment to use a DPDT relay to change directions on the field as the armature changes so that you could accomplish reverse.  However, the other issue he mentioned was the lack of low speed performance.

This is the bridge conversion circuit I used to run a pulmor AC motor with a bluetooth control board which puts out DC. It ran perfectly and behaved just like a more recent can motor loco with respect to speed and direction control. No problems were encountered with motor current.

Bob, did you leave out some wires to the bluerail board? If not where does the AC come from that is feeding the field?

Pete

Pete, current has to be flowing through the field in that picture to power the armature, so I suspect that's how it worked.  Don't know how well it worked, that's another matter.

I understand that John but not sure how it can be AC when the bluerail board is being fed regulated DC. 

Its an interesting concept but it appears to replace TMCC control with Bluetooth. Still no cruise though.

Pete

JohnActon posted:

SantaFeFan posted:

I still have my AC motor prototype with Cruise.  I simply put a switching power supply on the field coil, and energized it all the time.  I was able to attach the brushes to a Cruise commander, and run the loco.  Low speeds tended to oscillate; the back EMF was too low to sense from the armature.  Also the Field coil got HOT.   I did not have time to delve deeper into the possibilities.  As I recall Ernie at TAS told me that the EOB used a PVC pipe section with a tach tape under the brush plate and servo'd from that.  I think it ran very good, the conversion was hard to do however.  And then there is this experiment...

Jon, what kind of current draw were you seeing ?  From your description I am thinking you were running it in Shunt as opposed to serial which all the pullmor motors I have seen were wired.  I was running the voltage up and down watching current draw and at a steady 12vdc I was seeing about 2.5A with no load on the motor other than the friction of the gears and wheels.  If I moved the voltage up at the rate I would accelerate a passenger train I would see between 3 and 4A till the motor caught up with the throttle.  Glad you mentioned the tach tape I had been thinking about how I was going to put a tach tape on a pullmor and came up with the idea that the large gap between the armature and the field would allow gluing a tape made from heavy mylar or acetate around the pole segments would work. Mount the reader in the open end of the field.

If you had gone into production would you have chained your field power supply to your PWM so it was not always at full power ?  The main reason I worry about current draw is not the motor driver that can be accounted for in it's design but rather in wheel to rail arcing that can mess up a ton of stuff.  Thanks for hopping in really glad to see your pullmor with flywheel reader.   j

No choice but to use shunt connectivity. The field has to stay energized to let the spinning armature generate back EMF.  If the field is in series, then no output to servo against!!  I am acutely aware of the ramifications of powering the motor in this way.  The solution is s DC can motor!

 Jon

Norton posted:

I understand that John but not sure how it can be AC when the bluerail board is being fed regulated DC. 

Its an interesting concept but it appears to replace TMCC control with Bluetooth. Still no cruise though.

Pete

There's no issue in feeding the field with DC, but you're right, that can't be AC.  I figured the field was powered, so it should work.

Wow, I knew you all would help, but this is way more info/ideas/suggestions than I could of imagined. Thank you very much for your help and schooling!!! I have to admit, my electrical skills are rather basic and a lot of this was over my head. I'm very intrigued about the Bridge Rectifier and the DC Motor Conversion ideas. The Bridge Rectifiers I've seen put out 12V DC. Is this the correct amount of voltage? The maximum input and output rating is 1A. Is that enough? Can anyone recommend a specific Bridge Rectifier? Any installation tips would be appreciated. Thanks again guys!!

SantaFeFan posted:

JohnActon posted:

SantaFeFan posted:

I still have my AC motor prototype with Cruise.  I simply put a switching power supply on the field coil, and energized it all the time.  I was able to attach the brushes to a Cruise commander, and run the loco.  Low speeds tended to oscillate; the back EMF was too low to sense from the armature.  Also the Field coil got HOT.   I did not have time to delve deeper into the possibilities.  As I recall Ernie at TAS told me that the EOB used a PVC pipe section with a tach tape under the brush plate and servo'd from that.  I think it ran very good, the conversion was hard to do however.  And then there is this experiment...

Jon, what kind of current draw were you seeing ?  From your description I am thinking you were running it in Shunt as opposed to serial which all the pullmor motors I have seen were wired.  I was running the voltage up and down watching current draw and at a steady 12vdc I was seeing about 2.5A with no load on the motor other than the friction of the gears and wheels.  If I moved the voltage up at the rate I would accelerate a passenger train I would see between 3 and 4A till the motor caught up with the throttle.  Glad you mentioned the tach tape I had been thinking about how I was going to put a tach tape on a pullmor and came up with the idea that the large gap between the armature and the field would allow gluing a tape made from heavy mylar or acetate around the pole segments would work. Mount the reader in the open end of the field.

If you had gone into production would you have chained your field power supply to your PWM so it was not always at full power ?  The main reason I worry about current draw is not the motor driver that can be accounted for in it's design but rather in wheel to rail arcing that can mess up a ton of stuff.  Thanks for hopping in really glad to see your pullmor with flywheel reader.   j

No choice but to use shunt connectivity. The field has to stay energized to let the spinning armature generate back EMF.  If the field is in series, then no output to servo against!!  I am acutely aware of the ramifications of powering the motor in this way.  The solution is s DC can motor!

 Jon

Got it !  And the field is always energized on a PM motor.  Sometimes the obvious has to slap me two or three times.  j

Newt posted:

Wow, I knew you all would help, but this is way more info/ideas/suggestions than I could of imagined. Thank you very much for your help and schooling!!! I have to admit, my electrical skills are rather basic and a lot of this was over my head. I'm very intrigued about the Bridge Rectifier and the DC Motor Conversion ideas. The Bridge Rectifiers I've seen put out 12V DC. Is this the correct amount of voltage? The maximum input and output rating is 1A. Is that enough? Can anyone recommend a specific Bridge Rectifier? Any installation tips would be appreciated. Thanks again guys!!

Newt, I am using a 10A bridge it has a 1000v peak inverse voltage rating but anything with more than 50piv will do fine. here is a link to it $3.30 for ten of them.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/5-10P...p2057872.m2749.l2649

Your question set off a discussion that has needed to happen for some time.  Thanks for the question.   j

I do not know if cruise would work or not, but way back when I used a basic 103 DC Motor e unit for a starter set engine with bridge rectifiers to keep the field or the brush current constant in one direction and the E unit switches the other.  Did this to a starter ATSF Diesel with one pullmore motor.  Runs fine and has been on the layout for a decade.  If I remember right I tried both field and brushes and did not see much difference.  The engine did lose some top end, but is still fast enough to derail.  G

Norton posted:

I understand that John but not sure how it can be AC when the bluerail board is being fed regulated DC. 

Its an interesting concept but it appears to replace TMCC control with Bluetooth. Still no cruise though.

Pete

Ditto.

Is there an AC input to the board that is just not shown? 

The bluetooth circuit I posted is complete and has been tested. Universal motors are called that because they will work powered by AC or DC. DC output from the decoder board flows through the field. The bridge circuit reverses the relationship of current flow between the field and the armature depending on the polarity and this controls the motor rotation. One extra payoff is that universal motors seem to run better on DC.