Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The difference is the frequency as others have said but another reason is the Track Power Controllers receive there commands from the Legacy or Trainmaster base in serial data form by wire. The Powermaster receives its commands directly from the Cab1 by radio frequency so basically it would be like trying to tune in a radio station on your landline phone. You can run a conventional locomotive with the cab1 in conventional mode with a Powermaster only. A Trainmaster base is not needed. They are good for Christmas layouts that only run conventional.
Ron
Thanks guys, I understood the basics of it and know of the freq difference.

I just didn't realize the PM "Only" receives commands from the CAB-1. I was thinking in the Command enviroment the PM would receive TMCC signals like the ZW does.

That led me to think the Bridge was only needed if trying to control a PM with a CAB-2 "Only".

Ron, Wire to TPC also fills in a blank for me. Thanks again, G
The Powermaster Bridge is just a cab1 without the buttons and with a serial input. It is attached to the serial data stream from the legacy base. It then takes the commands from the legacy base that would control a TPC for conventional control (speed, direction, whistle, bell) and sends them out on the same radio frequency that the cab1 uses (27mhz). The powermaster thinks it is getting it's instructions from a cab1.
Ron
quote:
Originally posted by MartyE:
quote:
Originally posted by GGG:
Very interesting, so if Lionel can make the Bridge which replicate the CAB-1 for $59, I wonder why Lionel can't make the CAB-1 still.......... Red Face G


It's not replicating a Cab 1. It is a frequency converter. Basically re-modulating the commands onto the frequency of the powermaster.
Marty, let's get real here. Smile Surely, it's not a technical challenge to create the circuitry to do this! This isn't a technical issue, it's a corporate decision.
Marty I don't have a powermaster bridge so I'm not exactly sure how it works so let me ask a question. Doesn't it take the commands off the cable which is basically a serial data stream and then add them to the proper modulation frequency and send it out rf? If so what else is missing to make a cab1, a keyboard tied to a rom chip with the commands in it and the serial data generator? I know this is simplistic and there is a lot more to it but it seems to me that the bridge is a very close cousin to the cab1.
Ron
Ron, you also need the red wheel with the optosensors, encoder disk and mask. Nothing in itself is expensive (except for the tooling), but when you add up a few circuit boards, wiring, components, battery holder, etc. and multiply by at least 4 to get a selling price, there isn't much incentive to make the product.
I agree Dale but the comment I made was that I am agreeing with GGG and Gunrunnerjohn that the decision to drop the cab1 from production was a corporate one and not a parts availability one. For someone to create a new cab1 from scratch would be cost prohibitive and possibly not profitable BUT on the other hand Lionel has everything needed in there war chest. I agree that some parts aren't available anymore but the keyboard isn't a problem, the radio circuitry isn't a problem (take it out of the bridge) and the legacy throttle is no problem to move over to the cab1. Don't get me wrong I like Legacy very much but I also still use my cab1.
Ron
Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Ste 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×