Old Lionel Allegheny ERR Cruise M upgrade problem

When installing ERR products, you generally must attach ground (outside rail) wires to all the pilot and trailing trucks and tender trucks.

Define "doesn't work".  Does it do any movement?  Is anything getting hot on the CC-M?

I've installed a ton of these, they're actually pretty darned reliable, and it's unusual but not impossible to get a bad one.  OTOH, it's pretty hard to get two in a row.

Did you try reprogramming the TMCC ID and engine type?

Thanks for the responses guys!

Roy, that's interesting! I'm positive I have a good ground to the frame and was assuming that took care of the grounding situation. I could try grounding the individual trucks to the frame too...

It's so odd it ran great for weeks and then died. That makes me think something overheated and got fried... when it died I was pulling something around 20 cars fairly slow for maybe an hour. That doesn't seem like unreasonable treatment. I regularly pull 40 with my legacy locomotives.

John, all lights come on and all sounds work. I tried reprogramming the engine ID a few times but since the audio is working it's hard to imagine its not programmed correctly. It works correctly aside from it won't move forward or backward. Also, nothing gets warm on the CC-M.

Interesting it's hard to find these controllers now a days. I think I bought the first CC-M back in March! Lol I've been so busy working this engine has sat inoperable for many months.

Edit: John I just realized I should be more specific about it not moving... during troubleshooting I took it apart and tried running the engine without the boiler. The controller is not applying any power to the motor. I watched with a volt meter.

Also I looked at the board with a magnifying glass and I don't see any damaged components. But that being said some of the solder joints on the board look subpar. This seems like it could be a defective IC on the CC-M

@kenly posted:

Thanks for the responses guys!

Roy, that's interesting! I'm positive I have a good ground to the frame and was assuming that took care of the grounding situation. I could try grounding the individual trucks to the frame too...

My answer was not clear.

I'm not talking about grounding the CCM to the frame.

I am talking about good/constant/consistent connection of the frame to the outer rails. If you look at the newer locos, you will see that most of the trucks have extra wire connections to the system ground and even wipers on the axles.

Interesting! Do you think the poor connection to the outer rails could have damaged the first CC-M? The second one never worked for one single moment once swapped though.

My first thought about poor grounding is that it would behave intermittently rather than consistently not responding. Before the first CC-M died the speed got a little inconsistent. I could definitely see the grounding causing that

Usually, intermittent outside rail connection causes the loco to stop. It can be started again. I have no idea what caused yours to fail completely.

I think it's time you have someone test the CC-M and see if it's the cruise board or something else.  The fact that one failed after a short time and the replacement doesn't work certainly leads me to believe either it's something else, or some issue is killing the CC-M boards.

Well you guys aren't going to believe it. After letting the engine sit for literally 7 months and assuming the CC-M was bad I stumbled onto the problem today. One of the critical connectors in the engine was cracked and not making contact at all. I had a similar connector laying around and slapped it in and the engine works fine. I don't know how I missed that after looking for problems so many times. So dopey! lol

So it's back to running like it did after I installed the first CC-M. My problem with that is in comparison to my Legacy engines I would describe this engine as temperamental. Sometimes it doesn't want to run very fast, sometimes it doesn't want to slow down. I swear it just doesn't like to run with more than 10 cars. Overall it just kind of acts funny. Do you think this could be fixed with the grounding upgrade? Also is it an unrealistic expectation of the CC-M to run an engine of this size with a 20 car train? Or is that asking for problems?

Thanks!

That thing should be running like a watch with a Pittman motor, and a Cruise Commander M, .....something ain’t right,.....there’s no extra ground connection that I’m aware of for installing a M, .....there’s only one extra connection to make for serial data......A Cruise Commander M should have been a darn near bolt in swap with only the need for one extra wire hookup to the serial data ,.......seems I recall you having mechanical issues, are you sure they’re all sorted out?.....the M surely won’t band aid binding, sticking or other mechanical issues,......

Pat

I have lost count of all the CC-M's I've installed, and what you describe isn't my experience.  I've pulled 50 car freights with a single Lionel scale Allegheny that has a CC-M installed, it don't break a sweat.  I won't say that the CC-M equipped locomotive is "as good as" a Legacy locomotive, but what you describe isn't normal.

Thanks for the responses guys!

Very interesting. Sounds like I still have something funky going on.

Pat, yeah you're right, the CC-M was a very easy install. Very fast and simple. I thought I was going to get a near legacy engine for 1/4 the price and a few hours of work. But this thing has been a nightmare from the beginning. Honestly it could still be binding, I wouldn't rule anything out! If I could miss a broken connector after looking for problems 5 times then anything is possible. I'll have a good look at it again tonight.

John, that's very good to know. Something else I noticed which happened when the first CC-M died is the speed control on the legacy remote doesn't correspond to what the locomotive actually does. These are supposed to run in R100 mode correct? When the speed bar is full on the legacy remote the engine is clearly running at 50% actual maximum speed. Like it thinks there's 200 speed steps, or something funny. Could this be a failing R2LC?

Will, this is what I’d do if I were in your shoes, ....I’d get my hands on a cheap simple bridge rectifier, and carefully bypass all the electronics unplug the CCM, and everything that has to do with Command Control, so you don’t burn that stuff up, and temporarily wire in a bridge rectifier .....it’s super simple 4 wires ,....this would let you run that loco conventionally with a descent AC power pack like a 1033, ZW, whatever, ....this would let you sort out mechanical issues before hooking up expensive electronics,......a rectifier is simple, AC in DC out, if it runs backwards, swaps he motor leads, ....I’m not the electrical wizard, I’m the driveline guy, and this sounds like the driveline problems coming back to haunt you,.....John might have a another way you could test that thing too, so don’t take what I got to say as gospel just yet, .....you could try rotating the flywheel by hand, and see if you feel a bad spot, or binding, but if you don’t know what your feeling for, it can get hard to diagnose stuff that way, I don’t know your skill set, so don’t think I’m picking on you please, .....just offering the simplest things I can think of to help diag your issue,...

Pat

Pat is actually on target.  You need to insure that there are NO driveline issues first before you start troubleshooting electronics.  My very first test is suspend all the wheels, and spinning the flywheel through several complete revs of the drivers.  I do that in each direction.  There should be no significant binding detected in either direction.  If you have an articulated model, make sure to suspend both sets of driven wheels so the drive shaft is in it's natural position if on the tracks.

Next, I connect my bench supply and start out at the lowest voltage that I can get the motor to rotate.  I watch carefully to see if there's any hesitation at any point in the driver revs.  Then I reverse the polarity and do it backwards.

You can also put the bridge rectifier between the motor and track power and do an actual track test, sometimes that will show up stuff that doesn't show up with the wheels suspended on the bench.

If all those tests come out with no findings, then I consider what might be happening with the electronics.

As for R100, remember that CAB1 and R100 mode run with relative speed steps.  That means the locomotive sees a command to increase speed one notch for each step from the big red wheel.  If you spin the wheel fast, some of those commands get lost and that results in the R100 graph getting to the top long before the engine electronics have actually stepped up to full speed.  The R100 is nice in that it gives you the keypad icons and the graph, but the graph is only semi-accurate if you increase and decrease speed quite slowly.  One quick spin of the wheel and the graph and actual engine speed no longer have any set relationship.  I think you'll find if you keep spinning the knob, it'll keep increasing in speed, even though the graph is at the top.

TMCC & LEGACY mode on the CAB2 are absolute speed step operating modes.  That means that if the TMCC or Legacy speed graph is at half throttle, the locomotive will be running at half throttle.

To illustrate the difference, take a TMCC locomotive and put it on the tracks.  In TMCC operating mode, set the throttle to half throttle.  Power up the track.  Now just slightly turn the throttle until the speed graph goes to the next step, the engine will immediately speed up to half speed to match the throttle graph.

Change the operating mode to R100 and run the throttle graph up half way.  Power up the track again.  Slightly move the throttle until the speed graph just clicks up one or two steps.  Note that the engine (with cruise) will barely start to move.  Without cruise it probably won't move, but the motors will have a slight voltage from the DCDR, just not enough to get moving.

Thanks for the responses guys!

Pat, that's a great idea! I think it's time to find out if the mechanical problems are solved as well. Back when I had the other thread I discovered stiff spots when rotating the flywheel by hand and was able to find 3 different problems causing the binding. Pretty crazy it was 3 separate problems right? I didn't have time tonight to even look at it unfortunately, but I think with the big snow storm brewing up here I'll have some time in the next day or so to take it apart again. I'll definitely try the bridge rectifier if I need to. I have a feeling I'm going to find that one of the original binding problems is unresolved. There was one in particular that was tricky to remedy and I remember thinking it might come back to haunt me.

John, thanks for the advice! I'll follow your testing progression in search of a problem. I'll start by spinning the flywheel by hand and make sure the stiff spots are still gone. I have a bench power supply suitable for this so I'll move onto the suspended wheel test after that and then to the bridge rectifier after. The binding problem I'm suspicious still exists only used to occur under certain conditions so I may very well need to pull a long train to find it. All that being said I'm still suspicious I have some sort of electronic problem. Not that I'm super experienced with working on engines but all the engines I own have had some sort of binding over the years, even the fancy Legacy engines. And it's always been a once per revolution grab with a very obvious stiff spot when rotating the flywheel. I can't imagine what would cause a smooth, even drag for 30 feet at a time then go away.

Have either of you guys seen an engine act in that way? Such an odd behavior.

That's very interesting about the relative speed steps vs absolute speed steps. I read a while back that R100 mode uses relative speed steps but I didn't really understand what that meant. Thanks for the explanation!

Have either of you guys seen an engine act in that way? Such an odd behavior.

certainly have, ...fixed many a locomotive where somebody threw a bunch of electronics at them only to find out they still ran like crap,....any Cruise system, be it ERR, Legacy, PS2/3 whatever, can only mask so much.......and if the issue is something preventing the motor from running smoothly, then nothing is accomplished but attempting to put a band aid over a known issue,.....brass locomotives usually put up the biggest fight, ....they’re quirky by nature,...

Pat

Like Pat says, smooth mechanical running is paramount!  Cruise can cover small ills, but sometimes they're too big to cover up.

Thanks for the responses guys!

So I ran it on the bench today with my power supply and it ran perfectly. I also felt the flywheel for stiff spots and found nothing. I was going to move onto the bridge rectifier, but when I had it on the track I noticed that while sitting still the whistle would cut in and out as if the engine was losing connection to the track. The cab light was also flickering fairly badly. Wheels, rollers and track are all very clean. Upon further investigation of the locomotive I found that Roy was right, this engine has no extra grounding from the frame to the outer rail. Lionel just assumed the frame was making contact with the outer rails through the drivers. Interesting because after looking at 2 of my Legacy steamers I found both have copper feelers pushing directly on idler axles. So I went and added a wire from the undercarriage to the rear trailing truck. Then added a copper feeler to one of the axles. I'll tell you what its not perfect, but it's wayyyy better than it was. The thing actually responds to commands now! I'm going to add another feeler to a different axle on the trailing truck tomorrow. It'll be interesting to see how much difference that will make. The chuffing cuts out often while running so I think I'm still having connection problems of some sort. I stuck my current probe around my transformer wires and have been watching the current draw from the engine and its very consistent which makes me happy. Looks like I don't have any binding problems as of now

GRJ - It MUST be because we're getting close to Christmas and you're in a charitable mood - but you're giving away all of your 'trade secrets.'    

@kenly posted:

Thanks for the responses guys!

Interesting because after looking at 2 of my Legacy steamers I found both have copper feelers pushing directly on idler axles. So I went and added a wire from the undercarriage to the rear trailing truck. Then added a copper feeler to one of the axles.

I hate that we have to modify these engines, sometimes when they are brand new. I wonder what the manufacturer thinks? Do they just skip the basics and say ship it? or Hey it works, good enough?

Power pick-up should be basic manufacturing toy trains 101!

You can't have heavy power draw for smoke, if you don't have good power pick-up solved. Urrggg.

FWIW, on many of the locomotives with the wireless tether, I add a single-wire tether to bring center roller power from the tender, primarily for locomotives with only two rollers.  If you have four rollers, and indeed my 6-28028 does, you could use that tether for wheels from the tender.

Yeah I've gotten a lot of great information on here! Thanks everyone!

Joe, yeah it's amazing Lionel let this engine leave the factory like this. Even with the old electronics it must have suffered greatly from this problem. I added a feeler to another axle today as planned, and it's behaving even better now. A vast improvement over stock.

John, that's a good idea. This is the 6-28028 as well, and it has 4 pick up rollers on the engine. But the tender only has 2 and is definitely dropping power. I think the whole rig would benefit from having the center rollers connected as well as the frames wired together. That being said, I'm a bit confused why this engine's tender is dropping power so badly though... the Legacy engines only have 2 rollers on the tenders, and no direct axle grounding like the engines do. I believe this is because they used bronze bushings on the tender. I've never bothered to use a battery to keep the sound alive in any of my engines before. Maybe that's worth a try. I'll have to look at that tomorrow and add wires as needed.

Now that this thing is finally working well I think it's time I finally install the chuff upgrades I bought about 9 months ago! I searched the forum for this question but came back with nothing... Have you guys had any luck with using a magnetic reed switch for a simple articulated steamer like this? It should have 8 chuffs per revolution to be realistic. But I'm not convinced that's going to work well with this ancient steamer as the old railsounds aren't set up to deal with that many chuffs per revolution. You know how the Legacy steamers switch from individual chuffs to a semi-constant roar at high speed? John you have this exact engine, did you do an 8 chuff per revolution and does it sound ok? Thanks!

@kenly posted:

John, that's a good idea. This is the 6-28028 as well, and it has 4 pick up rollers on the engine. But the tender only has 2 and is definitely dropping power. I think the whole rig would benefit from having the center rollers connected as well as the frames wired together. That being said, I'm a bit confused why this engine's tender is dropping power so badly though... the Legacy engines only have 2 rollers on the tenders, and no direct axle grounding like the engines do. I believe this is because they used bronze bushings on the tender. I've never bothered to use a battery to keep the sound alive in any of my engines before. Maybe that's worth a try. I'll have to look at that tomorrow and add wires as needed.

I've sold a lot of my YLB - RailSounds Battery Replacement (RS-Lite)  & the YLB - RailSounds Battery Replacement units to folks that own Legacy and TMCC steam because the sound drops out.  Neither are immune to the issue.

Thanks John! Looks like a good permanent solution without adding wires between the engine and tender. You've been very helpful!!

Let us know how you make out.

So I hard wired the engine to the tender for both ground and pick up rollers. I did this in a temporary manner for testing as I didn't have any appropriate connectors laying around for between the engine and tender. I also threw the battery in the tender just for fun... and I still have an audio dropping problem. I'm definitely mot losing power anymore, so I'm guessing it's something to do with the ancient IR tether. Man this engine quite the fighter! Might be time to drop this hot potato and buy a Legacy one! lol

At least it runs really nice now!

I yanked out the original TMCC system on an old Sunset Allegheny and put in PS2. I didn't know much about that stock system back then. I had to hold my hand over the engine for signal and it sounded horrible starting out, with a lot of excess humming.

I took it to the NJHR's club and at that time, we couldn't run it there. So out it went.

Looking back it may have been needing some attention and maybe that system could have worked?

As soon as the MTH PS2 went in, the engine performed well. The tach on the PS2 seemed to cure any need for settings adjustments, handling the motor perfectly.

I don't think I added any power pick-ups to that engine? I could go look.

From then on, I got used to the idea that many engines would need adjustments. I got better at it and soon I was buying used engines that needed work. If I had the money or a better income, I wouldn't have had to do so much I believe. It didn't help that I wanted more engines than most people have.

I still have the stock TMCC system in a Sunset PRR M1 engine. I got ideas on tuning it here on this forum and it works as is. I haven't touched that engine inside. So maybe it's a hit or miss thing?

That engine has some cool features and sounds. It may not be up to date with the best tech. I enjoy running it at Christmas around the tree.

It should be that difficult to get the IR tether working properly, they're actually quite forgiving.

Joe, Yeah that the first TMCC controller that used triacs for motor control was garbage. PS2 with the tach must have been a night and day upgrade! Interesting how you got into working on these models. I used to have more time and wanted to keep the cost down and used to do the same thing more. I have so much going on with work right now I'm at the point I just want my trains to work! lol

I'm actually quite impressed with the CC-M. I was blaming the lack of decent speed control on the CC-M's use of back EMF instead of a tach like the legacy controllers do. But it turns out the engine was constantly losing contact with the outer rails. So silly. No hot components after pulling a long train too!  Someone smart designed the CC-M!

John, That's what I thought about the tether too. It's so simple I can't imagine what's wrong. Only 2 wires are involved and neither are loose or damaged anywhere in engine or tender. This thing is something like 20 years old... maybe I'll just replace the IR tether.

The CC-M works surprisingly well.  Note that I believe Jon Z. not only used the back EMF, but at low speeds actually counted the commutator pulses for better low end control.  I know it is an excellent performer, and I'm very happy with the many locomotives I have the back-EMF installed in, Cruise Commander and CC-M.

That's very cool! I didn't know the CC-M did that! I see why it runs so well. You're an incredible resource John! Thanks for all your help!