Lionel 6-12982 342 culvert loader conventional 1998

joe woods posted:

I purchased the lionel 6-12982 culvert loader last year as new in box.Once I received it I bench tested it and made a few adjustments to get it to work correctly about 90% of the time.now the trolley does not move when power is applied 16V,but the lights blink 9-10 times and stop.I have contacted lionel and they referred me to Brasseur trains who told me that the parts needed are not available,so I guess this accessorary is useful only as a static display.My questions for anyone 1.are the command control models any better than this one as far as correct operation and reliability goes and 2.can a command controlled unit be operated conventionally with a switch .Even though my layout is Legacy/DCS operated I would prefer to use it conventionally so Small kids can operate this accessory. 

For the last part, no.  They are TMCC reliant for operation.

I would not suspect the TMCC ones are any "better".  While the TMCC implementation is there, the underlying circuitry (like drive electronics for the motors) is likely similar.  The mechanicals (motor itself, rubber wheels used to interface to the beam, etc) are pretty much identical.

-Dave

The unreliability of the loader and unloader reissue models is the reason I just purchased the post-war versions. 

As for your issue.   I'm not sure exactly what the problem is, but I know they have circuit boards for sale on eBay.

The TMCC version is even more unreliable than the conventional version. They only made the TMCC version once. I would get the newer Bethlehem Steel version, they seem to work OK. 

It seems that good luck, not necessarily "gee whiz" technology, may be an important factor in operating the Lionel Culvert Unloader. I bought one (the remake with a sensor circuit) via e-Bay, and it had the same problem as yours; it would light up with flashing lights on its two towers, but its "house" light wouldn't come on and the mechanism wouldn't work.  I discovered it would cost more have it repaired at an Authorized Service Center versus buying another one at e-Bay, so I bought the same device (listed as NEW). Happily, it worked perfectly right out of the box.  It's still in action today.

Thankfully, the matching unit (the Culvert Loader) always worked fine.

I didn't have the heart to throw the first unit away, so I offered it for sale at a rock-bottom price with an explanation of its problem -- with the hope that another hobbyist with better repair skills than mine could fix it.  

Mike Mottler    LCCA 12394
(ritrainguy)

Chuck Sartor posted:

The TMCC version is even more unreliable than the conventional version. They only made the TMCC version once. I would get the newer Bethlehem Steel version, they seem to work OK. 

While I obviously respect your observations from all the repairs that cross your bench,I suspect (but memory could be wrong) there is another reason that was the only offering of TMCC models.

Back in 1998, the ONLY TMCC accessory/switch controller available from Lionel was the SC-1 (and I'm not sure if IC Controls had hit the scene yet -  they may have, but they were not part of Lionel way back then of course).  I seem to recall seeing information (I forget if it's the manual, or maybe even in the catalog/one sheet that advertised these) stating that the accessory draws too much current for the SC-1 to handle without damaging it. 

IIRC, the delta in the pricing for these was right around $100 for TMCC vs. conventional.

Obviously people could buy a new SC-1 for less than $100 (though that may have been MSRP, it's been a while).  Or if they already had an SC-1 with an unused slot, they may have thought they could use the conventional one with it.

Later releases happened after the SC-2 came out (which supposedly is beefier than the SC-1 in terms of current handling, right?), and probably after the other IC Controls based controllers were in the Lionel line as well.

Since Lionel now had viable controllers to use as TMCC interfaces to the conventional units, the TMCC versions were no longer needed as an offering.

All just IMO.    It also could be they never offered the TMCC ones again because they were dogs.

-Dave

Another stupid mistake they made in the horrible Munroe (sp?) era was you had to program the culvert loader and unloader as a locomotive!, instead of a accessory! It wouldn't accept a accessory TMCC program. Same with the backshop.

One thing the new releases don't have the postwar version does that adds to the visual is the sliding counterweight. It gives the unloader a heavy 1930's industrial feel to it.

Dave45681 posted:

Chuck Sartor posted:

The TMCC version is even more unreliable than the conventional version. They only made the TMCC version once. I would get the newer Bethlehem Steel version, they seem to work OK. 

While I obviously respect your observations from all the repairs that cross your bench,I suspect (but memory could be wrong) there is another reason that was the only offering of TMCC models.

Back in 1998, the ONLY TMCC accessory/switch controller available from Lionel was the SC-1 (and I'm not sure if IC Controls had hit the scene yet -  they may have, but they were not part of Lionel way back then of course).  I seem to recall seeing information (I forget if it's the manual, or maybe even in the catalog/one sheet that advertised these) stating that the accessory draws too much current for the SC-1 to handle without damaging it.

Except the TMCC version does not require the SC-1, only the Command Base. The conventional version does need a SC-1, SC-2, or ASC if you wanted to operate from the CAB-1.

ADCX Rob posted:

........................

Except the TMCC version does not require the SC-1, only the Command Base. The conventional version does need a SC-1, SC-2, or ASC if you wanted to operate from the CAB-1.

I guess I worded my response poorly. I fully get that the TMCC version did not require the SC-1(my point was $ for conventional version plus $ for SC-1 was less than $ for TMCC version).   And the SC-2 did not exist at that time.  ASC may have existed (not sure), but was definitely still IC Controls back then, not yet absorbed by Lionel.

That was my whole point, that the SC-1 was not capable of running the conventional version, hence the offering of the TMCC version for those trying to run their whole layout in TMCC mode at that time.  Pairing an SC-1 with the conventional version to run it from the CAB-1 was (I'm pretty sure) said to not work (or maybe it would work, but eventually damage something - I never tried it to prove it! )

-Dave

I suppose TMCC-equipped accessories may give a jolt of satisfaction to the techno-gene of hobbyists enamored with technology, but there's no substitute for the "gee whiz" excitement from the young visitors to your layout when they push control buttons and operate accessories the "old fashioned" way.

MikeMottler   LCCA 12394
mottlerm@gmail.com

Which leads to this question: To my knowledge there has never been in the TMCC/Legacy era any accessory that uses the accessory button on the hand held. That has been a 'dead' button with no purpose.

Would it be possible to circumvent all of the electronics and simply make the Culvert Loader operate strictly in a conventional manner ?

Chuck Sartor posted:

Which leads to this question: To my knowledge there has never been in the TMCC/Legacy era any accessory that uses the accessory button on the hand held. That has been a 'dead' button with no purpose.

That was how you programmed accessories hooked up via an SC-1.  I know that's how I used to operate a switch tower, water tower, and even a bascule bridge, I think.

SC-2 I think was similar (but I think had more flexibility in use of each set of terminals as to whether it could be a switch or accessory), and I never had an ASC, so others will have to suggest if those used the ACC button to address accessories, or maybe used ENG.

-Dave

Dan Padova posted:

Would it be possible to circumvent all of the electronics and simply make the Culvert Loader operate strictly in a conventional manner ?

I think the answer is no due to the functionality relying on the circuit boards for operation.  It's not just a cyclical motion like the PW that will run through the motions and then repeat as long as the button is held.  The motors need to know when to stop and reverse (limit switches on each end of the beam - feeding back into the electronics for logic that then directs the motor drivers which polarity to apply to the motor), and there is also the infra red sensing that is built into the logic.  (and for the unloader it's even more complicated, since there are 2 different motors, they need to both be operated in the proper sequence to get the unloading to work right)

The sensing may be easy to defeat (make it think a car is always there), but the logic that tells the motors when to go and which direction  to go is not (at least not without designing your own circuit to do the same thing).

It's not as simple as just stripping it down to 2 wires that are opened or closed like a push button.  The point is even the conventional one has a lot of logic electronics in it.  You couldn't gut that one easily to make it a simple button either.

Now, if you could get your hands on a set of electronics for the conventional one, that may be able to replace the TMCC electronics to convert a TMCC one to conventional.

-Dave