Installing the PS3/32 Stacker in an AC6000

GRJ, first upgrade I did, back around 2004 right after kits were released, was a Weaver SD40-2.  Took some maneuvering as the shell could barely accommodate the PS2 board.  From what you say, putting PS3/2 in any narrow-bodied loco may be a problem.

On a couple of PS2 upgrades, I have had to omit the plastic mount, and used 3M heavy-duty double-sided tape to assure a solid, insulated mount. 

I've always been able to fit the PS/2 plastic mount in, but this one is too wide.  It's only 1/8", but that pushes it over the edge.  The PS/2 mount just fits into that shell.

The Weaver stuff does have narrow spaces, I remember a couple of TMCC upgrades that it was a tussle to put in, one of them I ended up standing the module on it's side to fit it in.

John,

I had a similar issue,  I had a railking CJ Blue comet and a CNJ 0-6-0 engine with bad 5v boards.  I ordered the stacker boards also and neither would fit in the tenders. No matter what way I positioned them.

hopefully this doesn't happen frequently

Boy, not fitting in the tender is pretty bad, there's usually more room there.   Would they fit without the plastic holder?

GRJ, some switcher tenders are low and tiny.  I've had instances, in both diesels and steam tenders, where height was an issue and I had to leave fof the plastic mount.

Yes, I guess the little slopeback tenders could be a real trick.

Did you try it sideways?  Interesting since there is an AC6000 PS-3 engine out.  G

I may have fit sideways, but by mounting it without the plastic, I could use the heatsink unmodified, just had to drill the hole in the correct spot.  I just tied the other end down and insulated the one little metal projection on the side of the shell.

It would be interesting to see how they mount the board in the PS/3 model.

I don't understand why they built these new boards to replace the  ps2 5 volt boards and then decided to make them bigger then the original boards were, don't sound like it was to well thought out!!

Alan

don't sound like it was to well thought out!!

I find it interesting that someone who has no inkling of what is involved in something, can be so much smarter than, and critical of, those who do.

Barry, having been involved in all phases of electronic design from initial conception to execution, I believe I do have an inkling of what is involved.  I am a bit surprised that the board and carrier are wider than many of the locomotives that it was intended to be used as a 5V replacement, that seems like poor planning to me.  If you have some insight as to why this is a good idea, I'm all ears.

John,

Were you involved in the process of crafting the PS32 board? If not, you know absolutely nothing as regards what design and cost considerations were made, and why.

It seems to me I recently read something, somewhere that might be appropriate in this circumstance...

Oh, now I remember. In fact, it's just above this post!

He wasn't talking to you, I don't think.  But in all fairness they were not designed to replace the PS-2 5V.   The PS-2 3V superseded the PS-5V and replaced it.

The PS-3 was a new generation board.  It is like asking why Lionel's new tech is not modular to backfit TMCC if they can't produce those boards anymore.

They went to more modern electronics and LEDs.

I don't disagree the backfit has it's disadvantages, but I must admit I am surprised it doesn't fit.  Upto this point they have been very good at having backward compatibility with mounting holes and such on the brackets.  G

Barry, I've been an engineer all my life, and when I design something that is intended to be compatible with an existing product, I make sure that it is, in fact, compatible with the existing product.  That's Engineering 101! 

I can't imagine there's something that absolutely dictates the exact shape of the PS32 board, if there is, by all means, tell us all.  I didn't say there weren't engineering challenges in the development, and I'm sure I don't understand them all.  However, if the product is not suitable for the intended use, that's kind of a significant shortcoming that maybe should have been addressed.

Instead of blindly defending MTH for the design, how about offering some reasonable explanation of why the design is the way it is.  Maybe there is a reason, but it's pretty hard to understand what that reason might be from this side of the fence.

George, if you hold the PS32 plastic holder up to the shell of the AC6000, or for that matter the SW-1500, there's no way it even comes close to fitting flat.  The 3V PS/2 plastic holder is about 1/8" smaller, as is the 5V board package.  That makes all the difference in these shells.  I got it in there without the holder, but I was surprised that the boards were made wider.  I am curious if they're using the same form-factor boards in the new PS/3 switchers.  If so, do they have a different mounting scheme?

The "fact" is that it doesn't fit into the locomotive Barry, I thought that was clear.

As far as "not defending" anything, it's sure hard to tell that's not the case.  You can't imagine how the board could be any other shape, which simply indicates how little you know of PCB design.  I seriously doubt that anyone that was actually involved in the design thinks that it would be impossible to make it a different form factor.  My point is I'd like to actually know what drove the design decision to make it the size it was.  From your comments, it's clear that you have nothing to offer as far as why that might be the case.

Maybe you could do something constructive instead of all the sarcastic comments here and simply ask the technical staff why the board carrier doesn't fit into many of the locomotives that it would logically be used in.  I'm guessing you'd much rather impress us with your wit  here rather than have a useful exchange of information.

Are the PS3 upgrade kits, both steam and diesel, also wider than were the PS2 kits?

I'm staying away from these duellers on this one, but after a few squeeze jobs, I wonder what constraints forced the board to be wider.  But of course, as GGG has told me a few times, I wonder too much, so I won't make it a federal case.

John,

You can't imagine how the board could be any other shape, which simply indicates how little you know of PCB design.

When did I say that? On the contrary, you stated:

I can't imagine there's something that absolutely dictates the exact shape of the PS32 board

In response, I stated:

Maybe that's the problem - that you lack imagination.

You say that I:

... can't imagine how the board could be any other shape

Again, I never said that.

You say:

indicates how little you know of PCB design.

Once more, I never claimed to know anything about PC design.

In fact, I made no statements for or against MTH's design. You are simply "making things up."

My point is I'd like to actually know what drove the design decision to make it the size it was.

Then ask MTH. Don't criticize what you don't understand.

From your comments, it's clear that you have nothing to offer as far as why that might be the case.

That's absolutely correct. I never claimed to have anything to offer, except that you and others are criticizing something of which you have no insider information.

Maybe you could do something constructive instead of all the sarcastic comments here and simply ask the technical staff why the board carrier doesn't fit into many of the locomotives that it would logically be used in.

Because, I don't care about it at all. I simply think that you're criticizing something, the details of which, you have no knowledge.

I'm guessing you'd much rather impress us with your wit  here rather than have a useful exchange of information.

No, I'm just responding to your ridiculous comments and attributing to me statements that I never made. Further, the only "information" that I'd like to share with you is that I find your defense of your boorish comments quite boring. However, if you're impressed with my "wit", I'm very happy for you.

Just kindly stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.

John, I understand what you were working with on the narrow body.  Having done several P2/3 conversions, I usually end up not using the heat sink bracket that is intended for use.  I purchased a few lengths of soft aluminum flat stock and end up designing my own bracket.  I just finished a 5 volt PRR Q-2 for Vince.  That engine had the board in the engine.  It was a challenge at best.  All ended well.  I am going to tackle my GG-1 locomotives with 5 volt boards.  That should be a bit better than the board in the boiler locomotives.

I do like the system and it is very cool to go from PS-2 5V to PS-3.

Some people seem to take an awful lot of offense to folks simply questioning why a particular manufacturer has this or that issue.  These folks seem to default to degrading the experience and knowledge of the questioning party, unless they have a book to hustle off with the needed information, in that case they reference the pages of said book as opposed to simply answering the question.  

Moving along,  Lets be honest here... when it comes to who I would trust to make an informed observation as to what can and can not be done on a PCB, I'll take GRJ's opinion over anyone else on this forum, with the possible exception of personal experience.  (There are a few others I highly respect when it comes to knowledges in electronics as well.  Both Dales, and George probably rounding out the list)

Is there a reason the board is larger?  as with most of the little, odd, things I've seen in these products, most likely someone was lazy, or did not care about the issue.  

John:

Do you know if MTH is going to be offering a Proto-3 upgrade kit for H.O. scale? I'm having a bizarre idea for a conversion.

George, the reason on the size was not a special design.  The basis for the PS32 system is using the existing PS3 diesel board with the stacker  board to receive the existing PS2 5 volt wiring.  I am a fan of the system as it lets us go from a PS2 5 volt system directly to PS3.  The plastic mount that holds the PS2 and PS3 boards has the same footprint and is a tad wider.  Height is OK.  

Right now MTH is finishing the S gauge board and  that is much smaller.  Who knows if that board will become a player in future upgrades.

Matt, that is not going to happen.  The S gauge board may become a player.  I can tell you the S gauge board will be the board used in the O gauge 44 ton locomotive.  BTW Matt, it was great to meet you at York.  We hope to see you again.  

Well time to set Defcon I.    Seems MTH has no problem placing the PS-3 board in the newer engines.  Let's please remember that the Upgrade kit was never a fits all product.  It was never sold as the repair kit for all engines.  It was more like a universal kit so some assembly required.  Consumers made the upgrade kit a repair kit.

Again, it was not "designed" to be the PS-2 5V replacement.  It was modified to become that.

The PS-3 diesel board is a single board now, not a double board like PS-2.  It has more features and functions.  So having never been an electronic board designer, I can still IMAGINE that more stuff put on less real-estate may require a wider or longer board.

Longer is bad too.  Many applications would require angling boards and such.  Or it wouldn't fit unless smoke was removed.  The wider board for a PS-3 is not an issue as you can angle a side up or put it on it's side, since the height is less than the width.

So I imagine that the 1/8 growth in width, was considered acceptable.  I am sure with current tech they could have shrunk it, but what would price have done?

As they looked for the replacement for PS-2 3V the daughter board concept makes the PS-3 a PS-32 and it is more boxy, with uniform height.

The alternative is go PS-3 and swap all the lights to LEDs with a new harness with the 40 pin.

What I take exception too and sure I am defending MTH, is the immediate negative assumptions and mischaracterizations of what was behind the scenes.  I think that is what Barry is talking about.

Look at some Lionel engines.  There are models that can not fit the new RCMC type Legacy, so the R4LC is still used, or they go with mini commander like board and separate motor driver and smoke board.

So let's give it some time.

But go look at a PS-2 3 or 5V power supply board and look at all the area lost when that board is removed (top and bottom).  So the PS-3 board grew 1/8" wider to absorb it.  BUT hey let's just call the MTH Techs lazy or ignorant.     G

Yeah. This helps a lot. What's the purpose of this post? What is the question??

Honest?????

This whole post is BS.

You got a version that's too big so you complain here???

Hey Matt, I want to upgrade my broken Big L track mobile to PS3!!

George & Joe,

What I take exception too and sure I am defending MTH, is the immediate negative assumptions and mischaracterizations of what was behind the scenes.  I think that is what Barry is talking about.

Yeah. This helps a lot. What's the purpose of this post? What is the question??

Honest?????

This whole post is BS.

You got a version that's too big so you complain here???

Thank you both. At last someone "gets it."

George E. Leggett,

unless they have a book to hustle off with the needed information, in that case they reference the pages of said book as opposed to simply answering the question.

Are you writing a novel? Because that is complete fiction.

My standard process is to quote a page number from the book and to also include the text of the actual quote from the book.

By the way, the book is an MTH product (item #60-1279), and MTH is a sponsor of the OGR Forum and also of OGR magazine. So let's please not be denigrating OGR's revenue providers.

WOW!  If I were considering using one of these boards, there is information in the original post and among some of the replies that would be of value.  Unfortunately, once “Repair Technician” fired the first shot, this thread has spiraled downward into a full firefight and is probably headed for the deep abyss when the moderators hit the delete key.  Not the first time good information has been lost in these forums because of situations like this.  Thanks “GGG” and “Marty Fitzhenry” for your comments to attempt to clear up some of the misunderstandings and get this thread back on course.

Let’s all take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard for a while!

Larry