Illustration of ERR Cruise Performance

Consider the fact that (all?) modern automobile engines with overhead camshafts use belts to drive the camshafts. And the belts are good for 100k miles or more.

MELGAR

Thanks for the Video Norton.  While the Legacy Cruise was a direct result of Lou Kovach and his team, I was tasked to finalize the design and code when I joined Lionel. I quickly converted the Legacy design from PID to PDFF, which is used in the Cruise Commander Servo, and was able to lower the speed step 1 speed for Legacy.  My goal was to beat the Cruise Commander at speed step 1, and still run smooth.  In many locos  where the flywheel weight was low, the Cruise Commander ran better than the Legacy encoder approach.  If it weren’t for speed matching requirements, the Cruise Commander would arguably be the better tech to use. And it still boggles my mind that the Cruise Commander product sells so strongly 15 years after I designed it; in a world where tech moves at warp speed velocity! Never expected that when I spent tireless days working on the design...
Happy New Year.
Dr ZW.  

Jon, I’ll always admire your loops! In my work, I am well versed in PIDF in servohydraulic and servoelectric systems used in mechanical testing and simulation applications. I have never griped about the lack of Legacy upgrades because I think the ERR stuff is just as good in performance and is way easier to install.

Hey, while you’re here, any idea where can I find replacements for the IRF/IRG mosfets? 🧐😀

Hey Norm, thanks, however my talents pale relative to yours!  The MosFETs are usually available from Digikey.  If you have a full PN, I can help more.

Had a 3rd Rail Canon motor go bad (lots of amps but very little torques) and it seems to have smoked out the bridge rectifier at the very least. Funny thing is every other function works as long as a motor is not connected. A known good motor will just run full speed if connected without any type of speed command. So I’m thinking one of the mosfets shorted. Here’s some pics, got two of each of the following:

Both the IRFI9540 and the IRL1530 are available at Digikey, the CC-M uses two of each.  Both these parts are also available on eBay.  They're obsolete, so get your stock now while you can.

@SantaFeFan posted:

Hey Norm, thanks, however my talents pale relative to yours!  The MosFETs are usually available from Digikey.  If you have a full PN, I can help more.

To second what Pete said, ...thank you Jon, with out yours and the other’s hard work, we’d all have whiplash trying to enjoy our models,......you’re definitely one of the unsung heroes of this hobby!..

Pat

I’ve been dinking around on eBay and Digi-Key a bit. Also got 10 (why not) of the bridge rectifier coming as it looks to have spent a little time in a microwave. Not sure what happened to the motor. 🤔

I have only replaced one of the bridge rectifiers on the CC-M, even though I thought that would be a fairly high failure item.  Given that, I have a bunch of them in my parts box since they didn't fail at nearly the rate I expected.  I've replaced a ton of the FET's on CC-M boards, and a few on the regular Cruise Commander.

FWIW, I've had three of the Canon motors in fairly new Legacy steam go bad, and all went the same way, dead short.  Jon Z. informed me that was one of the few faults that they didn't reliably detect on the RCMC and shutdown the motor drive  And these appeared not to be detected and it cooked driver FETs on all thee of them.  I rescued one of the three RCMC boards, the other two were damaged beyond repair by the heat from the FET, or at least beyond what I could repair.

Given that track record, my opinion of the Canon motors Lionel is using is fairly low, I really haven't repaired that many Legacy steam engines, maybe 50-60.  I hope they're not failing at that rate for the entire product line!   I mean to see if I can swap out that crappy Canon for one of the Pittman motors I have, there's a motor I trust!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I have only replaced one of the bridge rectifiers on the CC-M, even though I thought that would be a fairly high failure item.  Given that, I have a bunch of them in my parts box since they didn't fail at nearly the rate I expected.  I've replaced a ton of the FET's on CC-M boards, and a few on the regular Cruise Commander.

FWIW, I've had three of the Canon motors in fairly new Legacy steam go bad, and all went the same way, dead short.  Jon Z. informed me that was one of the few faults that they didn't reliably detect on the RCMC and shutdown the motor drive  And these appeared not to be detected and it cooked driver FETs on all thee of them.  I rescued one of the three RCMC boards, the other two were damaged beyond repair by the heat from the FET, or at least beyond what I could repair.

Given that track record, my opinion of the Canon motors Lionel is using is fairly low, I really haven't repaired that many Legacy steam engines, maybe 50-60.  I hope they're not failing at that rate for the entire product line!   I mean to see if I can swap out that crappy Canon for one of the Pittman motors I have, there's a motor I trust!

Been there done that, ....my Legacy ESE’s Cannon started clicking very loudly and I knew what was coming next, ....I hit the red panic button and averted disaster, .....to the bench it went, and out went the Cannon and in went a Pittman, .....not a hard swap at all with reasonable tools,....I carefully dissected the Cannon to find the fault, ....one of the brush arms had popped out of the plastic tang, and was stuck up in between the magnet and the armature, .....still running, still making contact on the commutator, ....split seconds away from a dead short,.....it’s in the landfill, where it belongs,.....

Pat

Always meant to rip one of those apart and see what happened,  I assumed it was crappy brush construction, that's about the only place you could get a dead short like that.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Always meant to rip one of those apart and see what happened,  I assumed it was crappy brush construction, that's about the only place you could get a dead short like that.

The tell-tale is a very audible baseball card in the bicycle spoke sound,.....and I had the volume all the way up,....my first thought was part of the encoder or bracket  had dropped into the flywheel. When  I spun the flywheel by hand, the carnage was obvious,.....I guess by the time they hit your bench John, it was too late, and the deed was done,.....😬

Pat

Yep, when I got them the RCMC was toast and the motor had a dead short.  Given that outcome, I didn't bother to do any more diagnosing, just put another motor in.  Sadly, I put another Canon in, so I expect to see at least one of these in the future.

Performance at 1 scale mph is cool. Especially if you do a lot of switching.

But I typically only bring in my train for a landing once during an operating session.Maintaining speed around curves and up and down hills at 25 MPH is far more important to me.

Just wondering if there is a way to measure that? Or is the 1 MPH performance test indicative of how things work at 25 mph?

@ChiTown Steve posted:

Performance at 1 scale mph is cool. Especially if you do a lot of switching.

But I typically only bring in my train for a landing once during an operating session.Maintaining speed around curves and up and down hills at 25 MPH is far more important to me.

Just wondering if there is a way to measure that? Or is the 1 MPH performance test indicative of how things work at 25 mph?

Not to tread on Pete’s thread, but I’d like to answer this one for you,....when we’re doing mod work of any kind, the first and foremost thing is to have as smooth performing chassis before any electronics package is added, .....if we achieve smooth, flawless operation on test rollers, then any package installed, usually with cruise, is now just icing on the cake.....generally speaking, when we’re modding or altering these locomotives, we can run them on straight DC power for testing purposes, ...tuning, testing, tweaking,.....then, when it becomes package time, we have a proven performer, and we’re not looking for any cruise control to mask hidden issues, .....so yes, the 1mph test is indicative of what’s going to happen throughout the throttle range.....I myself go a little overkill and before any cruise package goes in, I’ll actually install a cheap bridge rectifier, and put the locomotive on the layout, at the head of a train, and test it in a real world setting,.....then, if I’m satisfied with the operation in conventional, it can then get its package, .....

Pat

Melgar, some (all?) Honda/Acura four cylinder motors use timing chains rather than belts.  I imagine there are a number of other manufacturers that use chains too.  Chains are more expensive, but you never have to worry about them breaking and damaging your motor.

John

For back-EMF cruise, low speed performance is the hardest to achieve, so generally if it runs really well at low switching speeds, it'll probably do pretty well at cruising speeds.  First reason is what Pat alludes to, the low speed performance is far more likely to be influenced by small variations in drive train issues.  I've had stuff that wouldn't run smoothly until about 10 scale MPH, but at faster speeds, it ran fine.  That's almost always issues with some sort of binding in the drive train or issues with the motor.  However, I don't remember any issues at speed with something that runs really well at slow speeds.

Note that I'm talking about back-EMF speed control in general and the ERR Cruise products in particular.

@Steam Crazy posted:

Melgar, some (all?) Honda/Acura four cylinder motors use timing chains rather than belts.  I imagine there are a number of other manufacturers that use chains too.  Chains are more expensive, but you never have to worry about them breaking and damaging your motor.

John

Just about every auto mfr. has gotten away from rubber timing belt technology......chain technology has come full circle, and as the automakers strive to have the best maintenance free systems available, chains are where it’s at. Most automakers boast timing system good for life of vehicle .....any of in this business knows that’s of course a lie, but timing belts aka the “rubber band” require more frequent replacement intervals,.....some makers still use timing belts, but there’s definitely a shift to chain technology,.....

Pat

@Steam Crazy posted:

Melgar, some (all?) Honda/Acura four cylinder motors use timing chains rather than belts.  I imagine there are a number of other manufacturers that use chains too.  Chains are more expensive, but you never have to worry about them breaking and damaging your motor.

Au Contraire!  Timing chains do break and also get loose and jump a tooth.  They last longer than timing belts, design life is frequently the life of the motor, but they're not bulletproof!

I must admit, I marvel that a rubber timing belt can last for 60,000-80,000 miles, I'm not sure I'd trust them that long!

As it turns out, all of the cars we own have timing chains designed to last for the life of the motor.  That doesn't mean they won't fail at some point in time.

@harmonyards posted:

Not to tread on Pete’s thread, but I’d like to answer this one for you,....when we’re doing mod work of any kind, the first and foremost thing is to have as smooth performing chassis before any electronics package is added, .....if we achieve smooth, flawless operation on test rollers, then any package installed, usually with cruise, is now just icing on the cake.....

Pat

That makes total sense. Thanks for your answer.

John, thanks for answering my question above.

I think the big advantage of belts is that they are quieter than chains. One big downside is if you increase the horsepower of your engine you may go past what the belt chain sustain. Ask me how I know this. 😢

Well, the HP of my engine when I get the car is what it retains for it's lifetime, so that's not an issue for me.

@ChiTown Steve posted:

John, thanks for answering my question above.

I think the big advantage of belts is that they are quieter than chains. One big downside is if you increase the horsepower of your engine you may go past what the belt chain sustain. Ask me how I know this. 😢

Not anymore, again, chain technology with nylon guides, hydraulic tensioners ( some still mechanical spring)  and all roller links, are virtually silent.....I’m my world of high horsepower engines, aftermarket chain technology can hold together 1000+ HP engines,.....buuuuuut,....if there is a failure, that’s usually total catastrophic carnage,....on a biblical scale,....😉

Pat

John, I probably shouldn’t have used the word “never” to describe timing chain reliability, because - as we model railroaders know - anything can break, no matter how well it’s designed!  And Steve, it sounds like you did something like bolting a turbo on without strengthening any of the internal engine components!

John

We’re getting way off course of the OP’s thread intention,....at least Steam Crazy ( John ) attempted to right the ship,.....we’d better get back to the subject at hand before the cops get us!...☺️

Pat

Wow, lots of thread drift here, mosfets, cam chains, junkyard motors!!

My main reason for doing this was to compare minimum speeds of a Legacy engine to one equiped with ERR Cruise. I just happened to have another 3rd Rail engine on the layout that had an ERR upgrade to use.

Today I measured the wheel diameter of one of my 3rd Rail Mohawks and the 2-8-0 pictured above to further compare actual scale speed. The Mohawk measures 1.440" and the 2-8-0 is 1.183". Those at home can compare my results to your own. I used 10 seconds per wheel revolution for the Mohawk and 6.4 seconds per rev for the Consolidation.

I calculated 1.23 scale miles/hr for the Mohawk, 1.6 miles/hr for the Consolidation.

Legacy is still the champ but ERR is a close second.

BTW Steve, this is just a tool for testing performance. I don't run my trains at 1 step either and don't think the protoypes did either except for that split second as they were accelerating to cruising speed.

Pete

@SantaFeFan posted:

And it still boggles my mind that the Cruise Commander product sells so strongly 15 years after I designed it; in a world where tech moves at warp speed velocity! Never expected that when I spent tireless days working on the design...

I'm guessing the reason it still sells so well it it works so well.  Doubtless that's a product of the tireless days spent working on the design!

Pete, for comparison results, I’m assuming the 3rd Rail Mohawk you’re testing is the belt dive 25:1 gear box?....same as the one master builder Bruk is building on another thread?.....I’ll test my Mohawk builds and post data, these Mohawks would be ex-Pulmor equipped platforms now sporting large Pittmans and ERR CC’s ......stock OE gear boxes of 16:1 driver diameters of 1.449 ( 1.45 ) ......I know you know all of this, but I’m posting the initial notes for those that would like to know the comparison values,.....for the record, Lionel item #’s 6-18009, & 6-18064 ...those item #’s will also encompass Lionel’s CSS, ( Chessie Steam Special) and the Reading T1, both of which share identical platforms,.....also note, although these are highly modified engines, they retain stock gearboxes, although I do actually go in and “ tune” the gear box up for optimum performance, ....it’s all about amps in the dirt where they belong!..

Pat

Pat, The Mohawk I measured is the same as the one Bruk has though mine is still bone stock which I am pretty sure means it has TAS EOB. Runs well so is very far down on my list of future projects.

Pete

@harmonyards posted:

Pete, for comparison results, I’m assuming the 3rd Rail Mohawk you’re testing is the belt dive 25:1 gear box?....same as the one master builder Bruk is building on another thread?.....I’ll test my Mohawk builds and post data, these Mohawks would be ex-Pulmor equipped platforms now sporting large Pittmans and ERR CC’s ......stock OE gear boxes of 16:1 driver diameters of 1.449 ( 1.45 ) ......I know you know all of this, but I’m posting the initial notes for those that would like to know the comparison values,.....for the record, Lionel item #’s 6-18009, & 6-18064 ...those item #’s will also encompass Lionel’s CSS, ( Chessie Steam Special) and the Reading T1, both of which share identical platforms,.....also note, although these are highly modified engines, they retain stock gearboxes, although I do actually go in and “ tune” the gear box up for optimum performance, ....it’s all about amps in the dirt where they belong!..

Pat

I’ve performed the same test as Pete did, using the camera frame counter as the guide, and backed up the numbers with a stop watch for S&G’s .....so when the Pittman powered Lionel Mohawk spun on the rollers, we’re at 9.33 seconds to make one full revolution.....the math works out to 1.33 SMPH, ....speed step one, R100 mode in the legacy remote,....after discussing this with Pete, I contribute half of this performance due to the CC, and the other half goes to the giant Pittman,....which this particular model of motor is in fact a lumbering giant....So Legacy still edges out, and is clearly the control winner, ....but in layman’s terms, Legacy only gets ERR by a bumper,....literally!.....I’ll post up pics and the video later on, ....

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

Not anymore, again, chain technology with nylon guides, hydraulic tensioners ( some still mechanical spring)  and all roller links, are virtually silent.....I’m my world of high horsepower engines, aftermarket chain technology can hold together 1000+ HP engines,.....buuuuuut,....if there is a failure, that’s usually total catastrophic carnage,....on a biblical scale,....😉

Pat

Because of chain parts "floating around"?

Or piston to valve and valve to valve interference?

Are the new Legacy motors interchangeable with the older, better ones?

@BobbyD posted:

Because of chain parts "floating around"?

Or piston to valve and valve to valve interference?

Are the new Legacy motors interchangeable with the older, better ones?

1. If a chain breaks, it goes into an angry knot, and tries to evacuate the engine. Things on the inside liberating themselves to the outside, usually is ugly.

2. if a chain breaks, yes, piston to valve clearance becomes no clearance ( on some engines) I’ve never heard of valve to valve interference

3. Not sure what you’re asking, there’s not a “ Legacy” motor per say, there’s the legacy system that drives the motor, but the motor is still just a 12V DC can motor. maybe re-read your exact question, and ask again??....

Pat

Pretty sure you can replace a Canon with a Pittman but it might not be a bolt on swap. New mounting holes might be needed plus in the case of Legacy moving the tach sensor itself may need new holes or flywheel may need to be drilled out or sleeved.

Pete

Ah, ...I see what Bobby D is asking now, and the answer is yes, ....I’ve replaced a failed Cannon motor from a Legacy ESE with a Pittman,....as Pete mentioned, it’s not a direct simple bolt in swap, but nothing crazy elaborate either.....

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

Ah, ...I see what Bobby D is asking now, and the answer is yes, ....I’ve replaced a failed Cannon motor from a Legacy ESE with a Pittman,....as Pete mentioned, it’s not a direct simple bolt in swap, but nothing crazy elaborate either.....

Pat

Yes, was wondering if it was just remove and replace. How much $$ did Lionel save by switching from the Pittman to the Cannon?

Have seen a few multi-valve dual overhead camshaft engines run the valves together due to overlap when the chain broke. Never had any rotating parts leave an engine due to a timing chain.

@BobbyD posted:

Yes, was wondering if it was just remove and replace. How much $$ did Lionel save by switching from the Pittman to the Cannon?

Have seen a few multi-valve dual overhead camshaft engines run the valves together due to overlap when the chain broke.

They saved a lot. Pittman actually Ametec now, priced themselves out of the market. Their motors go for triple digits today almost as much as a starter set engine.

Pete

Yep, sadly Pittman obviously didn't want to be in this market any longer.  That's a real shame because they're a great motor, far better quality than anything that is currently used in either MTH or Lionel locomotives!

We used to be able to call Mr.Charlie himself, ( the original owner ) and order onsey twoseys at a time, ....Mr.Charlie was at the time, an avid O scale trolley guy,...sometimes he himself would even answer the phone, .....always interested in what we were working on, not just trying to sell motors,.......those days are long gone, .....now Ametek the parent company of Pittman, is way more interested in the medical field, and robotics, then us silly old railroaders .....😉

Pat