Proto 2 Locomotives converted to TMCC and Smoke units

You will need to do some alterations to the smoke units and provide a method of driving the fan.  There is no Legacy option, so you're looking at using the ERR products for the conversion.  You also have to change the resistance of the MTH smoke unit, the 8 ohm resistance is way too low for TMCC to drive as it operates at higher voltage than the PS/2 smoke output.

For steamers, I use my Super-Chuffer to provide for chuffing smoke, it also provides the fan power.  You'll also have to use a chuff switch as PS/2 drives that of the tach reader, but the TMCC doesn't have that option, so it requires a discrete chuff switch.

Here is a video of a Weaver upgrade to TMCC including an MTH Proto 2 smoke unit.  I also used the Super-Chuffer board to drive the smoke unit and it works great.  Please note that the smoke is acting weird in the video since I had an overhead fan on.

The video will not play can you please post the you tube link to it.  What is a super chuffer board? Thanks much.

Here it is again.  Not sure what happened.  Information about the Super Chuffer can be found here:

henningstrains.com/JWA.html

RRaddict2 ,

  Personally, I think you are making a big mistake.

MTH PS 2 loco's are some of the finest running and smoking loco's out there.

Now, I am not necessarily a MTH fan, but all of the PS 2's that I have, except for the Pioneer Zephyr, are great runners.

Converting to TMCC at this point would be like buying a Cadillac and putting Chevy electronics in it. My opinion is that it would definitely be a step down.

Before I go any further, I should ask, " Why are you thinking about converting your PS 2's?"

If it's the operating system, I would say, right now is a great time to purchase the MTH DCS system. Plenty of great deals out there. 

Good Luck with your decision. 

Poster, I am very curious why you would want to take a locomotive with 4 chuffs per rev and go to 2 per rev?

Marty,

The ElectricRR upgrade is not limited to 2 chuff per revolution.  My video shows 4 per rev and it is an upgrade.  All my engines that I have upgraded are 4 chuffs, and I have updated Lionel TMCC to 4 chuff that were two out of the box.  All you need are 4 magnets and the chuff sensor.

Some one could say why are you putting magnets on a Premier engine?

I understand personnel preference, but taking an engine with synchronized sounds, smoke, puff, and cruise and going to TMCC (currently) an outdated product by Lionel production standards does beg the question.

Though there can be good reason, and because I want to is a reason too.

But you do have to make a lot of changes to accommodate it.  G

Magnets and switches are not a great way to go.  When guys were using reed switches, they were a pain to install and keep in place.  TMCC was a great item in it's day and is still great.  Each to his own likes/dislikes.  I am a huge Legacy fan.  Everything you want in operation, sounds (4 chuffs), and lighting.

It is a great thing that gunrunner and others are available to help work with this older system.

What are the MTH engines you are tearing up to modify?  

Got it.  Sorry you had a bad experience with DCS.  So if MTH says it is fine, have you tried to figure out why it is not working for you?  G

For BKobernus, you said : "all of the PS 2's that I have, except for the Pioneer Zephyr, are great runners."

What's wrong with the PZ? I have thought of buying one, now I have 2nd thoughts.

RAY

TMCC/ERR works well. I have used DCS. Do not care for it. Maybe he just likes the

TMCC/RS better. I do. Magnetic reed/Chuff switches I have installed multiple times.

A fiddly but not hard job. Never had one come loose (say: "Walthers Goo") or fail.

It's a friendly system; one does not "tear up" MTH locos to do it; one modifies them.

Also, I am a Basic Functions kind of guy. Don't care for Christmas Tree locos, so many of those little bulbs/LEDs get edited out, anyway. They are often inappropriate.

TMCC and variations are definitely not a "step down" from anything. Easy to live with.

So far, durable.

If PS2/3 or it's clone was offered as an approachable - and dependable - kit, as are ERR/TMCC pieces, perhaps I'd put one in an old PS1 locos.

I got a scale MTH Dreyfuss Century Hudson a while back; had no PS2 boards, but it had all the wiring, tether, Protocoupler...put a Cruise Commander in it, wired in the coupler

and headlight (skipped Railsounds). It will creep as slowly as Legacy (did a side-by-side) -

if you care to have a Creepy Hudson.

I simply bundled all the unneeded PS2 wiring out of the way. 

I just hope that ERR etc stays around for many years; I have a list of projects. 

I thought I read in the past that you had the DCS remote commander (aka DCS "lite" that's included in starter sets) and not the actual full system.

I wouldn't want to put TMCC in a PS2 engine...that just seems like a really big mistake...

Now if it was a PS1 locomotive then I could justify it, but even then I would likely put PS2 or 3 in it. 

Everyone's mileage and preference varies.  My experience has been that PS2 with its internal battery and other quirks is less predictable and requires more fiddling at the layout level than TMCC.  Thus while I can see why someone who is mostly DCS and PS2/PS3 and is happy with that system wouldn't want to put TMCC in a PS2 loco, I find it utterly mystifying that they cannot see the alternative point of view .

There are many reasons for changing from one control system to another, and not all the people that do so are idiots.

I've done quite a few conversions from PS/2 to TMCC and I've also done them the other way.  Commonly, the people in question have a single command system and are not interested in adding another system.  While this may seem silly to many folks, the people I've dealt with were neither silly or stupid.

I appreciate that remark John.

Larry

Just stating the facts.

John, Glad you don't call your customers stupid..., but who called any one stupid in the above post?   G

I have put ECRR made TMCC and RS in steam and diesel PS1 MTH engines with great results.  The PS2 and PS3 engines I have run quite well, and I use them in conjunction with my Lionel TMCC and converted ERR engines all the time.  I also have the same Weaver 8444 engine.  The QSI original had failed and I replaced it with a PS1 system I removed from another engine.  Now, I have taken out the PS1 and put in ERR Commander and RS.  It is all a matter of preference, and the manner of control one wishes to use.  That, in itself, is one of the great things about our O gauge endeavors..

all a matter of personal choice and freedom to do so.

NO one is really arguing about the preference, but back fitting obsolete or damaged engine isn't the same as replacing equivalent to equivalent, especially when you paid for the capability once.  Especially when the train still works.

The original poster has explained why he is doing it.

I have put PS-2 in TMCC and TMCC is PS-1.  I have even put PS-3 into PS-2.  In each case it was as an upgrade in capability.  But it does make for  much more expensive engine when a command engine is converted to another command engine.  G 

"back fitting obsolete or damaged engine"

Some of us consider PS2 to be far from the best command system and distinctly inferior to TMCC in reliability and ease of use.   You and others prefer PS2 and DCS.  I and others prefer TMCC.   Try and accept and respect the opinions of others.  That's all we're asking for.

Please don't pick on me.  Clearly you are a Lionel only guy.  But you are not objective, which is clearly displayed in your post, or the way you mischaracterize PS-2.

Sticking to facts is always better then derogatory adjectives.

Probably for about the 5th time I am telling you directly most of my Fleet is Lionel TMCC. I use TMCC as my operating system.

So clearing the air on that.  My back fit obsolete was clearly about PS-1 and QSI in answer to Texas Train post.  I do clearly see PS-1 and Conventional, or Broken engines, obsolete to TMCC or PS-2.  That is all.

Please ready my AUG 11 post again.

It is you who seem to be offended by a discussion on why some folks would question why do a command control swap on expensive engines that already have operable command system. Forget that it is TMCC going into PS-2.  That is all.

The original poster gets some good info out of it, because it may be easier and more cost effective for him to sell his PS-2 and buy a TMCC or maybe an LC+ engine.    G

"Clearly you are a Lionel only guy."

Tell that to the MTH locos, rolling stock and buildings in my basement .

"But you are not objective, which is clearly displayed in your post, or the way you mischaracterize PS-2."

I obviously was misinformed.  If one thinks PS2 is superior to TMCC, one is being objective.  But if one thinks TMCC is superior to PS2 one is being biased.  I stand corrected.

I didn't say PS-2 was superior to TMCC did I?

G

No one was saying PS2 is superior to TMCC?  I would suggest that any objective observer would disagree.

"Converting to TMCC at this point would be like buying a Cadillac and putting Chevy electronics in it. My opinion is that it would definitely be a step down."

"I wouldn't want to put TMCC in a PS2 engine...that just seems like a really big mistake..."

"taking an engine with synchronized sounds, smoke, puff, and cruise and going to TMCC (currently) an outdated product"

I see all those pejorative, adjective laden comments and I think hmmm, I think they are saying PS2 is superior to TMCC, that outdated product .  These strike me as arguable and strictly opinions, which we are all surely entitled to express. And I don't think PS2 is a Cadillac product, I don't think TMCC is outdated and I don't think it's a mistake to replace PS2 with TMCC if you prefer TMCC for some reason. Why it is fine to say PS2 is better than TMCC in some folks' eyes, but not the contrary without being labeled lacking in objectivity is a mystery .

Ok, Now your talking about other folks.  Since you where quoting my comments I assumed your were talking to me.  But I see the subtle redirection now.  .

You do agree that TMCC falls short compared to Legacy capability right?

Would you also agree that TMCC has far less Engine specific capability then PS-2 also?

Difference between ability to control 2 light, 2 coupler and 1 configurable feature (usually smoke) versus integrated smoke and sounds, 7 light features including operating ditch and mars, plus  LED markers and Beacon.  Plus the ability to control command functions like couplers, speed control and some light features in conventional.  List can go on.  So those are some factual items that make folks question swapping PS-2 guts for TMCC guts.

But as I said on my second post, I get the personal preference part of TMCC over DCS.  Which is not the same as TMCC versus PS-2.

As far as reliability I am not sure we have a lot of factual data on that, since neither manufacture provides it.  Just anecdotal information from what we see on this site.

I personally would give the tilt to TMCC over PS-2 5 and 3V.  But it is closer with PS-2 3V, and given the additional functions you get over TMCC with PS-2; it could be seen as worth it.   G

Objectively speaking (and I have owned both TMCC and DCS), I certainly understand RRaddict2's decision.  If he had a DCS experience similar to mine, he is:

1. Trading a complicated, sophisticated and feature-rich but problematic system for a more simple and reliable one.
2. Perhaps tired of trying to tune a system-wide antenna with inadequate tools and a book of trial-and-error cures.

I take great relief in knowing that TMCC runs reliably for me every time (without fail) I switch it on.  And that its known problems and solutions could be comfortably written on a single piece of 8.5" x 11" paper.  To me, advanced features are meaningless without reliability.

Having said that, I am happy for those DCS users who have found a way to get their systems to function most of the time.  And I wish them well.

George

"

You do agree that TMCC falls short compared to Legacy capability right?"

No, Legacy is certainly a more fully featured, evolved system, but it isn't more reliable and doesn't have any better basic functionality than TMCC.  I don't own Legacy, as a matter of fact. I know folks find it better for controlling some TMCC locos, and that's nice.  But TMCC, if not for the inability to obtain parts, holds its own well with Legacy, and as I said, I prefer it to DCS.

"Would you also agree that TMCC has far less Engine specific capability then PS-2 also?"

Nope.  Frills and minor functions don't compensate for the the internal battery maintenance and operation issues and the quirkiness of PS2.  I'd rather have a basic system that does everything I need and is rock solid in reliability than a system with a long list of "features" that is less reliable and harder to troubleshoot and operate.

Different strokes for different folks.  I fully understand why some folks convert  PS2 to TMCC.  I also fully understand why some folks convert TMCC locos to PS2 or PS3.  I don't suggest that operationally either system is fundamentally superior except in the areas of reliability and ease of use.  And on those grounds, my opinion is that TMCC is more predictable, more hassle free and easier to use, at least for me.

You changed my question to answer it.  Ok.  So this just became a reliability only argument.  And your ok with less frills and features.  Go Post War with a Power Master CAB-1.

As far as battery, with PS-2 your effectively not dealing with it for 4-7 years.  Running DCS with battery is not an issue.  Or you put in a BCR.  Are you confusing PS-1 with PS-2?

TMCC requires alkaline, which could easily require changing yearly.  While not necessary for Command operation is a unique disadvantage and can effect sound continuity even on Command layouts.  Try running a TMCC engine with out a battery in conventional.  What a disappointing effect that is with railsounds constantly restarting.

 But we agree to disagree.  G

I guess I should have chimed back in earlier. My first action was to get rid of these locomotives.  I had put them up on the forum and Ebay for less than half of what I paid and there were no takers.  I don't mind losing a little bit of money at all.  I will fool around with TMCC for a while and probably upgrade to Legacy in the future. There are a ton of people out there that enjoy their DCS and that is great, there is also hope for that handheld controller if they ever get the tablet app out.  Just for the record I have a Santa Fe ABA set from MTH that I wouldn't trade for anything in the world, it is of great quality and was my first new set in 2009.  So may peace be with everyone and enjoy your favorite systems.