Legacy/TMCC Base Interference - Ideas, Suggestions Please

Get rid of the second command base!  Only ONE command base on a layout.  You will experience constant issues having two command bases in the picture.

I operate with the old TMCC base and a Legacy base at the same time by using the "Y" cable that came with the Legacy base. See Page 8 of the Legacy CAB2/Base manual. I have attached a copy of the page. Just leave the end of the "Y" cable Page 8 connected to a computer unattached (BTW - the end of the "Y" cable Page 8 shows connected to a computer is the end of the can be connected to a PDI module such as the Lionel WIFI module)

Edit -  I should have pointed out that, as the manual states, only connect the signal wire to layout ground from the Legacy base - do not connect the signal wire on the TMCC base to anything.

PH1975

As mentioned you should only have one base connected to the track.  Here is the situation based on my read of what you want to do.

Connect the BASE-1L track connection to both loops.  Connect only the serial output of the BASE-1 to the serial input of the BASE-1L - this is one thing the Y cable does.  With this arrangement the BASE-1L will control all the trains, etc. across both loops.  The BASE-1 will only serve to receive commands from the CAB-1 and then relay them over to the BASE-1L to talk to the track.

This means both loops are one layout even if they are physically independent.  As such the loops share one set of engine numbers, etc.  So, all engine numbers must be unique even if run on different loops.

It also means the CAB-1 and CAB-1L will both be able to control engines on either loop.  Keep this in mind when running with two people.

@MED posted:

I operate with the old TMCC base and a Legacy base at the same time by using the "Y" cable that came with the Legacy base.

He's using the BASE1L/CAB1L set, that will NOT link to the old TMCC command base.

gunrunnerjohn - That's interesting.  I recently bought the BASE-1L/CAB-1L set but haven't deployed it yet.  The BASE-1L has a computer connector.  However this is not mentioned in the manual.  The box says "Single serial port for system expansion."

Are you saying the BASE-1L will not accept a serial command from a device like an action recorder?  I would expect the BASE-1L to be a drop in replacement for the original command base.

The BASE1L doesn't support daisy-chaining to the old TMCC Base.  That's been stated more than once by Lionel, I haven't personally tried it.  It made sense to me at the time, and since I had no need to do that anyway, I never looked any farther.

Also, I doubt the original BASE1 will lash up to another BASE1, so the BASE1L would still quality as a drop-in replacement, right?

Wow, that's disappointing.  I wonder who made that decision.  I have the Layout Control System software which uses the serial port.

... searching ...

Just looked at the Layout Control System software documentation.  It states you can use it with a BASE-1L by using the LCS Ser2 module.

"Q: If I just have the Base 1-L and not the Legacy base, can I access all Legacy functionality with this software?

 A: Yes. However, you must have either the LCS SER2 or the LCS WiFi module.  The Base 1-L cannot receive Legacy commands directly through its DB-9 serial port.  They must go through either a LCS SER2 or a LCS WiFi module."

This is academic to me at the moment because of other priorities.

Just saw your second sentence.  I think you could chain and arbitrary number of BASE1's through the serial ports.   They'd all be putting out the same track signal.  But since you can only connect one to the track there is not practical reason to do this.

If you want to know how my mind works - before I retired I administered a server based application and used remote access software to manage the servers at multiple sites around the world.  Of course I had to connect to one of the local servers and remoted from that server into a server in Singapore.  Then I remoted from that server back to my desktop and watched the "two mirror" effect on my monitor, the images refreshing with the delay from of going to Singapore and back.

The point is Cam, it's not what is possible, it's what Lionel programmed in.

True.

Anyway, back to the problem at hand.   I think PH1975 could disconnect the BASE-1 from the track, connect BASE-1L to both loops.  Then, add an LCS power cable, and LCS SER2 to the BASE-1L.  Then connect the serial port on the BASE-1 to the LCS SER2 with another DB9 cable.  That would allow the CAB-1 commands to get to the BASE-1L via the BASE-1.

The SER2 has an input pin on the terminal strip.  There is also a DB9 connector on the SER2 with a diagram for using that to connect to a TIU.

All the pieces seem to be there but I haven't tried any of this.

@penn station posted:

True.

Anyway, back to the problem at hand.   I think PH1975 could disconnect the BASE-1 from the track, connect BASE-1L to both loops.  Then, add an LCS power cable, and LCS SER2 to the BASE-1L.  Then connect the serial port on the BASE-1 to the LCS SER2 with another DB9 cable.  That would allow the CAB-1 commands to get to the BASE-1L via the BASE-1.

I'm at a total loss why he just wouldn't buy another CAB1L remote and dispense with the BASE1 totally.  You have him buying all sorts of stuff and stringing it together, and there's still no certainty it'll even work, unless you've actually worked out the details.  I kinda' believed Lionel when they said it wouldn't work.

Why make this a convoluted mess?  Here's the remote at ModelTrainStuff for $112.99, and he doesn't have to cable the world together just to get an obsolete command base to function.

Here's one from a place I never heard of, but a good price and shipped free.

You are absolutely correct.  The cost of the items I mentioned is not trivial and the complexity would go away with just "1L" components.  You saw the forest while I was looking at the trees. 

Another point is the CAB-1 and BASE-1 would not be easy to replace if one or the other fails.

@penn station posted:

Another point is the CAB-1 and BASE-1 would not be easy to replace if one or the other fails.

That's just one more nail in the coffin.

I sold virtually all my CAB1/BASE1 stuff, I have a couple of CAB1L, the base as a spare, and my Legacy system.  I like the CAB1L with the Legacy as a handier remote for simple running.

He mentioned that there are no connections, track or wire, between the loops.  Could that be a factor? Should he connect together the grounds from each loop?

Jan

Yes, all the outside tracks should be connected together for a TMCC/Legacy layout.  That's pretty standard practice anyway, so it's not anything new.

When he was trying to use two bases, then you can't connect the two together, but they manage to interfere with each other I suspect anyway!  I've run TMCC stuff on my workbench using a Legacy system that was connected to the tracks about six feet away!  The signal does get around...

Thanks to everyone who commented on a conundrum that I've been trying to solve - on and off again - for almost a year now.  I really appreciate it.

So if I understand correctly the most salient points are: (i) remove the Base1 altogether, (ii) acquire another CAB-1L (6-37155), and (iii) run another wire (from the U terminal of the Base-1L) to the outside/ground rail (via #2 on a lock on) of my inner oval (TR2)?

With this arrangement the Base-1L will control all of the trains across both loops.  This means both loops are one layout - even though they are physically independent.  Consequently all engine numbers must be unique even if run on different loops.  The last point is important in my case because up until now - because my layout is so small - I just left all of my engines IDs as #1, but this is not a big deal as it's a simple procedure to reprogram an engine's ID number.

In summary, it's my understanding that if I make the aforementioned changes I should be able to achieve my objective - to run either my TMCC or Legacy equipped engines on each track simultaneously - using one CAB-1L for TR1 and the other CAB-1L for TR2 (so that my grandson and I can each control a track).

Thinking this through, the only thing I'm wondering about is if I want to run one of my 'Conventional' locomotives on one track, and a TMCC or Legacy equipped engine on the other simultaneously.  However, in this case I think I'd just have to remember to switch either the respective TPC400 (for TR1) or the PM (for TR2) from Command to Conventional mode, as I've been doing from time to time already.  Is that correct fellas?

Please let me know if I've missed or misunderstood anything and thanks again for all your assistance.

I believe you've got it.

I think you have it licked, one command base, common outside rails, and all will be well.  Yes, every running locomotive will want a unique TMCC ID.

I erroneously made this comment in another thread - my brain is muddled by heat and humidity we've been having in Mass.

It is a good idea to phase your transformers/power sources even though your loops are independent.  The control signal wire will connect the commons of the two loops so you could have up to 40V or so between the center rail of one loop and the center rail of the other.  Search for Phasing Transformers for discussions of this on the forum.  This issue will not prevent operation of your existing setup but is a good idea in case you connect the loops with track in the future.