R2LC/R2LC Boards Are No Longer Available, What Do I Do?

Malfunctioning out-of-warranty boards. Not so much a problem for Lionel.

You just need to buy new engines with working boards.

ON A LIGHTER NOTE: it's like when a bank contacts you to tell you your identity was stolen, some hacker used your identity to steal money from the bank. Then the bank tells you, you need to fill out forms to establish your identity.

Well I know who I am. My identity hasn't changed. I am still me.

further, no one stole money from me. any stolen money is totally the bank's problem.

I've watched the serial stream go by on my scope many times but never bothered to decode it.

I wonder if it's just the same commands repeated from the oft referenced "open source" serial port spec with some others interspersed for sound purposes e.g. "chuff" or "rev up".

Quite inspiring to see the technical knowledge and creativity of some folks in the hobby.  One reason I'm not terribly worried about having to have someone repair or replace electronics in my trains should that become necessary.  As a footnote, Lionel has not been particularly litigious over the decades about their electronics.  They allowed at least three companies to develop upgrade equipment for installing TMCC and sounds in locomotives not so equipped.  Some are old enough to remember the Train Brain from Ed Bender, engineer on board from Train America Studios (Bob Krivacic and Mike Reagan) and, of course ERR from Jon Zahornacky.  No lawsuits to my knowledge, so while that's ancient history, it's hard to imagine Lionel preventing Scott Mann from developing similar devices, if need be.

@Professor Chaos posted:

Only if you promise not to give me another hard time for dispensing  IP advice without pre-clearance from the moderators first...

P.C.,

The portion of my post that you cloned, above, left out something important that I had put in the post for that very reason.  See my very last sentence:

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

You have a good point, however the only thing that is substantially different is the software.  Reproducing hardware is just like reproducing electrical or mechanical parts.

Two things to consider:

1. Patents -- Mechanical, electrical, and electronic parts, and software might still be covered by one or more patents.  This could be an issue if Lionel does not wish to license any of these, but back in the day Lionel's electrical and mechanical parts were covered by patents, and still third parties sprung up to reproduce these parts.   I assume there was no legal issue when they did because the patents had already expired (17 years, and then later on 20 years).
2. Copyrights -- Software is the same as electrical and mechanical parts from a patent point of view, but quite different in that it can also be copyrighted.  Copyrights on the software in Lionel's boards did not/does not expire in 20 years. Copyrights can be renewed for a much longer period.  This would likely be the issue that would get tangled up in licensing the third party sales of reproduction boards.

If understand things correctly though there is nothing to stop a third party from writing it's own software that accomplishes the same task in a different way.  Patents prevent this, as long as they are active, but copyrights do not.

Another way to say it is that patents allow the patent holder to prevent reverse engineering, but copyrights don't.

I think that the hardware folks needed to do what is needed are largely already available.  Assuming that any applicable patents have expired are there any software engineers out there who'd like to take a stab at it and help them?  Any intellectual property attorneys to verify that the approach is feasible?

Mike

Mike

As far as ERR goes, the Mini-commander 2 does not use a separate board, could not the Cruise commander do the same?

A few questions and the reason I'm asking...The first question was if ERR boards require a radio board, which has been answered.

WARNING - tech talk here...

The second question centers around the radio board processor.  I have always seen MicroChip Technologies ICs used for this.  Can anyone confirm this on the latest radio boards?  The reason I ask is because MicroChip Technologies is upgrading a lot of their PIC processors.  The pinouts are the same and there is a few added features but the code is not the same.  You have to perform a code migration to IDE X and in spite of the tech documents on their web page its not so simple.  So even if you had the original ASM code you may have to modify it in its entirety.

So is this an opportunity to use an upgraded IC?  Or did Lionel walk away because this code migration is not worth their time?

Lou N

@Lou N posted:

A few questions and the reason I'm asking...The first question was if ERR boards require a radio board, which has been answered.

WARNING - tech talk here...

The second question centers around the radio board processor.  I have always seen MicroChip Technologies ICs used for this.  Can anyone confirm this on the latest radio boards?  The reason I ask is because MicroChip Technologies is upgrading a lot of their PIC processors.  The pinouts are the same and there is a few added features but the code is not the same.  You have to perform a code migration to IDE X and in spite of the tech documents on their web page its not so simple.  So even if you had the original ASM code you may have to modify it in its entirety.

So is this an opportunity to use an upgraded IC?  Or did Lionel walk away because this code migration is not worth their time?

Lou N

Lou, Lionel hasn't made the R2LC for a very long time.  I don't think they've made the R4LC recently either.  Scott hat to contract to make his own R4LC's, obviously under license from Lionel.

What is to be thought of a model train  company who advertises  scenes of multiple generations playing with it's long lasting equipment but halts production of the electronics to keep them running ???

@Tom Tee posted:

What is to be thought of a model train  company who advertises  scenes of multiple generations playing with it's long lasting equipment but halts production of the electronics to keep them running ???

Not much! What’s even better is the quietness coming from the Company!

@modeltrainsparts posted:

John, It appears you have both the skills and knowledge to add another distraction to the completion of your own model railroad; reconditioning of R2LC & R4LC boards. Customer sends you the board in approved (by you) packaging. If simply repairable , you do it for a flat fee (that includes your parts, labor, padded return packaging (padded shipping envelopes) and USPS 1st class mailing (via PirateShip or the like). Non rebuildable ones will returned at customer's expense or automatically become your property - I think most everyone here would trust your judgement on this. Could this be profitable for you?  (shipping/packaging<$5, parts/shop supplies $??, Your labor based on train repair rates in your area $??). This is common in my world (parts for imported cars) with starters, alternators, A/C compressors, brake calipers, FWD CV axles, some F.I. parts, etc.) all being offered as rebuilt. Just a random thought on my part.

Interesting thought.  If not John, is there anyone else? I've thought about doing this myself, but with ERR available, not sure how high demand would be. 

I would guess you could get a new CO8 board from Scott.

There are several questions I would like to ask Scott. Maybe his offering could include these type of repairs.   All good ideas.

299.00 for a R4? 299.00 for dcds universal plus others. Maybe, I’ll see what the market is willing to pay.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

P.C.,

The portion of my post that you cloned, above, left out something important that I had put in the post for that very reason.  See my very last sentence:

Mike

Your last sentence about asking for the perspective of an intellectual property attorney is the only part of your post I quoted.

Indeed I am an intellectual property attorney. But the last time I attempted to provide some accurate information on the risk of copyright infringement, it seemed to prompt a call to the moderators and my post was deleted. That makes me a little reluctant to wade back in....

But in any case, your take is pretty much correct. Patents are unlikely to be an issue, because of the age of the TMCC system. The program code embedded in the TMCC boards is copyrighted and will remain so until well after we're all dead. That means any reproduction of the program code would be copyright infringement.

Reverse-engineering the functions the R2LC and creating new code would probably not constitute reproducing or making a derivative work of the copyrighted code, and would therefore not be an act of infringement. Even if it were, then use to create a R2LC equivalent would almost certainly be deemed fair use, as would creating new products based on the published TMCC command protocol. Even some reproduction of the copyrighted code might qualify as fair use, depending on the purpose and circumstances.

But if you're the type that doesn't want to ever risk a threatening letter from the copyright holder, then your actual legal rights don't matter at all and you shouldn't do anything without permission from Lionel.  There's nothing on the planet that can stop someone from making a frivolous allegation of copyright infringement against you, even if it would be laughed out of court in seconds.

@Professor Chaos posted:

But if you're the type that doesn't want to ever risk a threatening letter from the copyright holder, then your actual legal rights don't matter at all and you shouldn't do anything without permission from Lionel.  There's nothing on the planet that can stop someone from making a frivolous allegation of copyright infringement against you, even if it would be laughed out of court in seconds.

And therein lies the rub.

Often companies look the other way (or don't notice) until you start to make anything that could qualify as a profit, and then sic their lawyers on you.

If Lionel is not going to produce these parts anymore, one thing that could alleviate this concern is either a public statement that people are free to develop their own aftermarket products for TMCC and early Legacy parts OR to release the source code with a open source license. My recommendation would be to use the GNU GPLv3 license, so that everyone can benefit from any future enhancements to the source code.

@Professor Chaos posted:

But if you're the type that doesn't want to ever risk a threatening letter from the copyright holder, then your actual legal rights don't matter at all and you shouldn't do anything without permission from Lionel.  There's nothing on the planet that can stop someone from making a frivolous allegation of copyright infringement against you, even if it would be laughed out of court in seconds.

And Lionel has lots more money for lawyers than any of us!

@shawn posted:

299.00 for a R4? 299.00 for dcds universal plus others. Maybe, I’ll see what the market is willing to pay.

Pretty sure when the price of the repair parts exceeds the price of a new locomotive that the market will dry up.

@Landsteiner posted:

Quite inspiring to see the technical knowledge and creativity of some folks in the hobby.  One reason I'm not terribly worried about having to have someone repair or replace electronics in my trains should that become necessary.  As a footnote, Lionel has not been particularly litigious over the decades about their electronics.  They allowed at least three companies to develop upgrade equipment for installing TMCC and sounds in locomotives not so equipped.  Some are old enough to remember the Train Brain from Ed Bender, engineer on board from Train America Studios (Bob Krivacic and Mike Reagan) and, of course ERR from Jon Zahornacky.  No lawsuits to my knowledge, so while that's ancient history, it's hard to imagine Lionel preventing Scott Mann from developing similar devices, if need be.

No lawsuits because they had to use Lionel R2LCs and Lionel Audio Boards. I suspect licenses were required as well, though Lou and others can confirm.

The 64 dollar question in my mind is since Lionel has declared that technology as obsolete, therefore declaring the trains that use it as obsolete will they allow anyone else to offer replacements without the need for licensing?

Pete

@rplst8 posted:

And therein lies the rub.

Often companies look the other way (or don't notice) until you start to make anything that could qualify as a profit, and then sic their lawyers on you.

If Lionel is not going to produce these parts anymore, one thing that could alleviate this concern is either a public statement that people are free to develop their own aftermarket products for TMCC and early Legacy parts OR to release the source code with a open source license. My recommendation would be to use the GNU GPLv3 license, so that everyone can benefit from any future enhancements to the source code.

Honest questions: Why would Lionel ever do that?  Why would they ever give away their technology for nothing in return?  

Aftermarket programs often involve quality control requirements on the part of the OEM since the aftermarket product interacts with the OEM product/system. Why would Lionel want the headache of policing an aftermarket program on an antiquated system they are choosing to no longer support?

I, too, am an IP lawyer and agree with the very well articulated analysis from Chaos.  Like him, I also find it unlikely that Lionel - a relatively small company with limited resources - would spend any meaningful effort to enforce their remaining IP rights, if any, in regard to technologies they are choosing to abandon, especially if the competitive product is fairly/properly reverse engineered. I also find it unlikely that they’ll denounce any remaining rights in the form of some omnibus license - their current designs may still have evolutions of the original source code.

To me, the barrier to producing replacement products is likely more commercial than legal. If there was still good money to be made producing them, Lionel would probably do so and they could certainly do so less expensively than someone starting from scratch.

My $0.02 worth and it may not be worth $0.02…..

@Tom Tee posted:

What is to be thought of a model train  company who advertises  scenes of multiple generations playing with it's long lasting equipment but halts production of the electronics to keep them running ???

Not much. It's all about the money.  I wonder what Jousha Lionel Cowen would think of the way his company is being run today?

Lionel seems to be applying the rapid obsolescence of computers mentality to the train world.  Their apparent silent indifference is a real turn off.

They may want to examine recent reviews of obsolete collectables, items loosing interest by the next generation.  The shrinking interest in Lionel trains is right near the top (er bottom) of the list.  The article leads off with a photo of an old man hovering over some Lionel trains.

They could at last appear to care.  Maybe blame supply side issues...maybe due to dwindling demand they just do not care.

Don't know,  but their lack of sensitivity seems like nothing positive.

Imagine having to replace the boards in all your engines every five years - just like we do replacing our phones and computers. Yikes!  Sorry fellas the days of having a dumb engine are long gone as is the fantasy our engines will be able to run after 50 years just like our beloved post-war engines. Seems to me the rational thing to do is treat engines as disposable items or future shelf queens. Rather hard to think about after plunking down $2000 plus for an engine. I am not defending Lionel - all the manufacturers are in the same position - electronic components fail and become outdated.

@Rider Sandman posted:

Honest questions: Why would Lionel ever do that?  Why would they ever give away their technology for nothing in return?  

Aftermarket programs often involve quality control requirements on the part of the OEM since the aftermarket product interacts with the OEM product/system. Why would Lionel want the headache of policing an aftermarket program on an antiquated system they are choosing to no longer support?

...

I also find it unlikely that they’ll denounce any remaining rights in the form of some omnibus license - their current designs may still have evolutions of the original source code.

I think this sums it up well.  It would be nice if Lionel open-sourced the code for obsolete products (and there's nothing to lose in asking for it). But you rarely see that happen with obsolete products - can anyone think of some examples where it's happened?

It's some headache and risk for the company (especially if an open-source project starts competing with current products). So the business calculus is whether any benefit from hobbyist goodwill outweighs those costs and risks.

The better idea is to stop “opening” your wallet. I sure you could love one year without buying anything. I’m sure they will get the message then!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Pretty sure when the price of the repair parts exceeds the price of a new locomotive that the market will dry up.

Geez, at 299.00 - Just in receivers - I would pull in 400,000.00…Plus , what does this do for your little business…..basically puts a big dent in it. Or at least makes it tougher.

"The better idea is to stop “opening” your wallet. I sure you could love one year without buying anything. I’m sure they will get the message then!"

You may be overestimating the number of customers affected by (and thus concerned about) this decision.  More a question of good will for the very small number of advanced hobbyists who are affected.  My suggestion is to write a polite email to Howard Hitchcock or one his senior staff suggesting a fix or two,  and asking for the plan going forward.  My guess is we will hear something in due course.   I'm sure they will also hear from their dealers with repair facilities.  A little patience is warranted.  It's still their slow season .

@Landsteiner posted:

"The better idea is to stop “opening” your wallet. I sure you could love one year without buying anything. I’m sure they will get the message then!"

You may be overestimating the number of customers affected by (and thus concerned about) this decision.  More a question of good will for the very small number of advanced hobbyists who are affected.  My suggestion is to write a polite email to Howard Hitchcock or one his senior staff suggesting a fix or two,  and asking for the plan going forward.  My guess is we will hear something in due course.   I'm sure they will also hear from their dealers with repair facilities.  A little patience is warranted.  It's still their slow season .

And maybe not -  I’m sure the higher end guys drive some of the lower end sales. But, people can only “feel” “screwed” by a company so many times. Considering, the current inflation environment…imho - they are going to be in trouble fast. Frankly, I think there’s  more to this decision than either of us know. I’m a  Wall Streeter…Lots going on…. Look at the fed ex announcement on cut backs….. Maybe, the “investors” are running for the hills?
Also, I was never a big fan of the newer rcmc boards needing to be programmed by Lionel.

I stopped watching football -

I stopped watching baseball.

it’s very easy to get a good clip of people walking….

I just printed GunRunner's instructions for repairing these boards. Thanks John. 

Can a 4LC08 board replace any 2LC board and any 4LC board prior to the 4LC08 board?

@romiller49 posted:

Can a 4LC08 board replace any 2LC board and any 4LC board prior to the 4LC08 board?

Except for some very limited cases.

One example, the R2LC C07 was specifically coded to fire the light triacs (headlight, tailight) with different polarity specific to the C420 engines that had LEDs for headlights.

The backshop I think is also a special one.

And, things like the TMCC culvert loader and unloader- although, I think honestly, they can be generic C08. They probably were C06

C06 boards anyway were the version with the tuning slug- and over time could go out of tune.

So for the most part, yes, C08 be it R2LC or R4LC covers a decent swath of the TMCC replacement landscape.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Next, waiting for the raised eyebrows and rolling eyes...

I hold the board in my hand and from the back, carefully heat the hole again until the solder melts.  With a quick sharp rap on the bench, I clear the hole.  I find this technique works way better than trying to do with with desoldering braid or a solder sucker, both of which I do have.

I use a beading needle.

John

@feet posted:

I just printed GunRunner's instructions for repairing these boards. Thanks John.

One day all in the garage?

@Tom Tee posted:

Lionel seems to be applying the rapid obsolescence of computers mentality to the train world.  Their apparent silent indifference is a real turn off.

Tom, not to be argumentative, but TMCC dates to 1994. I don’t believe there is a “rapid obsolescence” scheme here.  Microsoft, a company with infinite resources compared to Lionel, stopped supporting Windows 95 years ago.  

These systems are just getting very old and the chipsets to build old boards are extremely expensive in normal times, let alone in times of global shortages.  This is exactly why the DCS and CABII handheld remotes are on the endangered species list.

Just look around at all the new vehicles stacked up everywhere waiting on chips so they can be completed and sold…what would it cost to tool and build low volume 30-year-old model train boards at a time when every major manufacturer of nearly every type of product is begging for chips for their current stuff?

@Rider Sandman posted:

Tom, not to be argumentative, but TMCC dates to 1994. I don’t believe there is a “rapid obsolescence” scheme here.  Microsoft, a company with infinite resources compared to Lionel, stopped supporting Windows 95 years ago.  

These systems are just getting very old and the chipsets to build old boards are extremely expensive in normal times, let alone in times of global shortages.  This is exactly why the DCS and CABII handheld remotes are on the endangered species list.

Just look around at all the new vehicles stacked up everywhere waiting on chips so they can be completed and sold…what would it cost to tool and build low volume 30-year-old model train boards at a time when every major manufacturer of nearly every type of product is begging for chips for their current stuff?

There ya go! Ditto Tom! Right to the point! They may **** us off to the point if no return. Rider - this hobby is a bit different then the purchase of a new car. We’ve come to expect we can fix and restore stuff - from way back when - like a 68 Charger - with aftermarket stuff available.

chip sets are expensive? Lol - it’s not a silver zeon or I9 being used here!

Forgive me, as I am not smart as the posters here and I'm not being sarcastic. But, aren't there ERR alternatives that can be used?

I wonder if Lionel will address this here and/or on other forums. 
Talked to a service station today (who also is a collector) and he didn't order anything from it b/c he doesn't like where Lionel is going.  He was just working on an engine, not too long ago, that had a bad board (not sure which one it was) and Lionel told him that they didn't have it either.  The engine was made in 2020!  Lionel told him to try Brasseur Trains in MI.

@shawn posted:

chip sets are expensive? Lol - it not a silver  zeon or I9 being used here!

Which has literally zero to do with why old chipsets are so expensive. Despite being high tech, modern processors are built in high volume and consumed into many modern products. Tooling up a 30-year-old ASIC to make a few thousand copies of it creates a part that costs multiples of what one of the processors you mentioned does. It literally has nothing to do with the sophistication of the device.

I started my career as a powertrain engineer. The engine controls we built in the 90s were absolute dinosaurs compared to today’s units. Yet, I could buy modern devices for a fraction of what it would cost me to retool and build a 90s era engine control. Like the Lionel boards at play in this discussion, the cost of producing those ancient ASICs has nothing to do with their sophistication relative to current technology. This is true in every industry.  The fact our hobby has a DIY tradition of keeping old things running doesn’t allow it to escape this reality.

Lionel absolutely could produce these boards if they wanted to, but then there’d be a different thread exclaiming shock at the $800 cost of the boards…..

@Rider Sandman posted:

Which has literally zero to do with why old chipsets are so expensive. Despite being high tech, modern processors are built in high volume and consumed into many modern products. Tooling up a 30-year-old ASIC to make a few thousand copies of it creates a part that costs multiples of what one of the processors you mentioned does. It literally has nothing to do with the sophistication of the device.

I started my career as a powertrain engineer. The engine controls we built in the 90s were absolute dinosaurs compared to today’s units. Yet, I could buy modern devices for a fraction of what it would cost me to retool and build a 90s era engine control. Like the Lionel boards at play in this discussion, the cost of producing those ancient ASICs has nothing to do with their sophistication relative to current technology. This is true in every industry.  The fact our hobby has a DIY tradition of keeping old things running doesn’t allow it to escape this reality.

Lionel absolutely could produce these boards if they wanted to, but then there’d be a different thread exclaiming shock at the $800 cost of the boards…..

All Malarky - Lol - I designed some boards a few years ago for controls. Low volume didn’t even come near that price. I had Ed bender design some boards for another job of mine - didn’t come near that price.

@Rider Sandman posted:

Tom, not to be argumentative, but TMCC dates to 1994. I don’t believe there is a “rapid obsolescence” scheme here.  Microsoft, a company with infinite resources compared to Lionel, stopped supporting Windows 95 years ago.  

These systems are just getting very old and the chipsets to build old boards are extremely expensive in normal times, let alone in times of global shortages.  This is exactly why the DCS and CABII handheld remotes are on the endangered species list.

Just look around at all the new vehicles stacked up everywhere waiting on chips so they can be completed and sold…what would it cost to tool and build low volume 30-year-old model train boards at a time when every major manufacturer of nearly every type of product is begging for chips for their current stuff?

Rider,

Thank for the post, no argument perceived.

IMO,Lionel's kick in the face exceeds more than old TMCC.

The problem is that trains sold new in 1994 (unlike computers sold in 1994) can still be running strong now and in decades to come.  I have 50+ year old brass imports with can motors in them that still run strong.

After converting a new pair of H-4 Lionel 2-6-6-2 locos to 2 rail I ditched the boards.  I am in the process of installing new boards for battery R/C  in an H-8 with lights and sound control.  The H-4s are next.

I am not married to anything.  There are too many options out there.

@shawn posted:

All Malarky - Lol - I designed some board ms a few years ago for controls. Low volume didn’t even come near that price.

malar

I’ll try again. I don’t doubt you pieced together a design a few years ago for a control (of something). While your circuit board layout was undoubtedly custom, everything else was probably then-current chips and components that were wholesale/generic devices widely available to you and anyone else at the time. Your only design constraint was building something that worked for what you wanted it to do using parts that were widely and inexpensively available at the time you built your control. Even though it would be more expensive today than it was a few years ago due to chip shortages, you could absolutely still do so again.  I’m certainly not arguing to the contrary.

That is completely different than having to produce ASICs and other custom parts for a board design that was frozen 30 years ago. Those devices simply don’t exist in their exact configurations “off the shelf” anywhere in the market at any price.  Instead, the 30-year-old ASIC, processor, etc has to be retooled and custom built.  Custom built circuit boards are not overly expensive, but custom built devices to populate them are (especially of ancient designs).  My point is, building a custom control isn’t cost prohibitive, building it to a design that requires 30-year-old parts is.

Of course, Lionel (or anyone else - perhaps you given your experience with controls) could avoid the parts availability/obsolescence problem by completely redesigning the board to accommodate modern wholesale components (keeping the current form factor and pinouts, of course). However, that, too, has a design cost which I’m willing to assume exceeds what Lionel thought consumers would pay for a board to run a 20-30-year-old train.

I think a ton of people are REALLY missing the point!  It's not that anyone (or at least me), expected Lionel to design or manufacture anything!  My gripe is that they arbitrarily pulled all the TMCC and older Legacy electronic modules and disposed of them for what doesn't appear any good reason!  Since they kept FAR more mechanical parts for those same models, the cost of inventorying the existing stock doesn't seem to have been a major factor.  They were slowly going out of stock as their supplies ran out, and I'm OK with that, I realize they aren't going to tool up and manufacture more of the old stuff.  However simply yanking all the parts and disposing them makes no sense.  Worse, they didn't give Service Stations a heads-up so they could perhaps lay in some stock to support repairs for some period of time.

Frankly, I hope Lionel goes down the tubes! Might be time for new owners. If any