Skip to main content

@BillYo414 posted:

Man, cmon. That's enough. You're not helping. People are actually trying to do useful things.



Do the new acronyms I'm seeing matter? @Norton @gunrunnerjohn I know what EMF is but BEMC and DCDS got me beat. Also RCMC haha I'll ignore them if they don't matter. I'm gathering they have to do with speed control.

I don’t know what they stand for but only what they do and their application. BEMC and DCDS are essentially motor controllers. RCMC are second generation Legacy with all in one capability. Receiver, motor driver, lights, couplers, two smoke drivers all on one board.

Pete

@Norton posted:

I don’t know what they stand for but only what they do and their application. BEMC and DCDS are essentially motor controllers. RCMC are second generation Legacy with all in one capability. Receiver, motor driver, lights, couplers, two smoke drivers all on one board.

Pete

Ask them - they are great guys - they will explain.

here’s a link https://ogrforum.com/...uide-is-here-for-you

Last edited by shawn
@DaveGG posted:

Pete,

Do you know if the motor could be modified on the early Legacy/Vision Line locomotives so one could use the currently available Legacy control boards?

Right now, that is what I hope to do with my 1st issue 2-10-10-2, 6-11155 that needs a new DCDS-J.  I really would like to keep the scope of repair focused and not replace everything electronic in the engine.

Dave,

Probably not, the RCDR that's still available replaces the R4LC, DCDS, and the smoke control.  I'm not sure what available solution exists to simply get all the features working and just replace the motor driver.  The closest thing would be the Legacy back-EMF DCDE, but of course that is also no longer available.

@feet posted:

I doubt you hear anything from Lionel about this. Outside of the letter that the service stations got.

I contacted them thru their FB page, silence so far.

FB is probably the worst way to contact anybody. I had messaged someone who was supposedly a big FB persona, crickets all the way. I think I messaged Lionel once about a product that they had just posted on their FB, nothing. Best the other ways if they respond even there.

I never understood how you can develop a control system that wasn't 'modular' in some way, that was 'needs' adaptable. There's more to this that the Lion isn't telling - you just don't 'dump' your technology and mark it obsolete unless there is something coming down the line to support your customer base.

I'm curious how hard would it be to develop a replacement Bluetooth board and accompanying app to drive the motors, fire couplers and incorporate a series of sounds to replace the 'obsolete' electronics.

Seeing the possibilities of R/C capabilities in O scale trains, I'm more inclined to move in that direction.

@DaveP posted:

I never understood how you can develop a control system that wasn't 'modular' in some way, that was 'needs' adaptable. There's more to this that the Lion isn't telling - you just don't 'dump' your technology and mark it obsolete unless there is something coming down the line to support your customer base.

From your lips to God's ears!

I"m afraid that I don't have quite as much faith in Lionel management right now.  I think the bean counters that run Lionel are hot in pursuit of the almighty dollar and a little thing like alienating older customers appears not to bother them.

@DaveP posted:

I'm curious how hard would it be to develop a replacement Bluetooth board and accompanying app to drive the motors, fire couplers and incorporate a series of sounds to replace the 'obsolete' electronics.

Even if you were to move in that direction, dumping all the electronic parts for anything more than about ten year old makes no sense!

Also, there are a lot of us that are not in the least bit interested in running our trains with a smartphone.

If it's about the money, wouldn't avoiding selling a diminishing supply of no longer in production parts at half price be the likely motivation?  Cannot imagine anything they are doing with these parts is going to materially affect the bottom line,  short or long term.  If they've sold the parts to another party, we'll know about it shortly.  If they are back in stock, we'll know that shortly too.  This issue is all of a week or so old.

I'd think that anything truly catastrophic planned would have Scott Mann worried since he depends on these parts for his locos. He doesn't sound worried at all, so that's a positive.

Last edited by Landsteiner


Also, there are a lot of us that are not in the least bit interested in running our trains with a smartphone.

I agree 100%, but I wonder how much of my attitude is driven by my (old) age.

I also must admit that running a LionChief train via the Bluetooth smartphone app makes operating very easy. It is well human engineered, but I don't always remember to take the the smartphone or iPad into the train room. 99.94% of my ops are either by ZW or Z4000 throttle, Cab 2 or DCS handheld remote control.

With the new wireless TIU's and CAB3's coming soon, my behaviors will be forced to evolve.

I agree with GRJ, you have to understand that in the market we are in things like customer service or things like being able to keep things running that are older don't enter their minds. Why? Very simply, there is no competition in this market, it is a small niche market where basically the model is take it or leave it (with some exceptions, one I can think of is someone like Ross Custom Switches).

The reason they didn't make them modular is pretty simple, that would have cost more to design. The boards used in legacy and TMCC were pretty much custom, in the sense that the actual control circuitry were things like ASICS (I assume), which are custom made for the application (application specific integrated circuit). Anything an ASIC can do could be done in something like a microprocessor running code (like a small computer). Design a board with off the shelf components and with 'universal' processors loading the application in code, and it would be modular..but that initial design to figure out how to do it is a lot more expensive, I guarantee, than "hard coding it" they way they did.

I'll give you an analogy, there is a tool some of the older engineers/cs people will remember, a thing called a Karnaugh map. Digital circuits are really nothing more than boolean algebra coded into circuits, it is a string of operations that translate into "And" , "Or", "Nand", "XOR" functions. When you derived a circuit using boolean algebra, it could be long and clunky (to be honest, not even sure they bother using boolean algebra to figure out the logic). When they were still using (god help us) vacuum tubes or even transisters or early gates on a chip,  a Karnaugh map allows you to simplify your boolean algebraic expression, which in turn means using less gates. When the lag time on gates was measured in milliseconds or more, every gate removed made it faster, so it was an invaluable tool.  The time consumed doing a Karnaugh map reduction was not insignificant, but it was worth it with performance.

However, by the time i learned about Karnaugh maps, they were obsolete, even more so today. You get a circuit that works, you don't worry about propagation delay or cost of gates, not with picosecond response times and who knows how many gates on a chip, you get what works on paper, you build it. (and yes, there are limits, and things like the size of the motherboard matter, but still, given chip density, that isn't an issue likely). The reason they don't bother is the engineering time to do the 'chip bumming', pure and simple.

Likewise, to build modular boards, rather than building a board as quickly as possible using custom stuff , would be a lot more engineering time to get it to work, and they aren't going to do it.

Personally, if Lionel is going to do that, then maybe for the older boards make them public domain with the disclaimer that third parties building them are not in any way, shape or form supported by Lionel. Once you have the specs opened up, it is likely third party firms could do it. There is a caveat to that though, there would need to be enough market for replacement older legacy and TMCC boards to make it worthwhile for them to look at modular engineering (the good news? once they figure out the basic elements, it is likely they could handle a wide range of board replacement I would guess; again,not an expert on these specific things). The other thing Lionel could do is what they did with TMCC with ERR and so forth, and license it to a third party firm, let them have the hassle of handling replacement boards for older (and maybe newer engines out of warrantee).

The real question that I haven't seen an answer to is just how many engines die, and at what point? GRJ and the guys that do repair have some knowledge, but are these like appliances, that the odds of a board frying and not being able to get a part is high, or are they like TV sets that keep running and we throw them out because we want the latest and greatest ? Put it this way, I tend to keep my TV's, none of them are that new, most are pushing like 10 years at this point, and none of them has died. On the other hand, appliances like refrigerators, washers , microwaves and the like seem to die quite often and you find you can't get the parts. If there is enough demand then a third party model could work.

@bigkid posted:

The reason they didn't make them modular is pretty simple, that would have cost more to design. The boards used in legacy and TMCC were pretty much custom, in the sense that the actual control circuitry were things like ASICS (I assume), which are custom made for the application (application specific integrated circuit). Anything an ASIC can do could be done in something like a microprocessor running code (like a small computer). Design a board with off the shelf components and with 'universal' processors loading the application in code, and it would be modular..but that initial design to figure out how to do it is a lot more expensive, I guarantee, than "hard coding it" they way they did.

Actually, the R2LC & R4LC are uP based, there are no ASIC chips on them that I'm aware of.  The DCDS is also uP based.  The RS4 & RS5 and RS5.5 boards had OTP parts, again no volume produced masked parts.  The RS6 boards are FLASH based and programmable.

This thread has given me a renewed curiosity with O scale DCC but I'll give it time and see what Lionel says, I'm not in a hurry.



Even if you were to move in that direction, dumping all the electronic parts for anything more than about ten year old makes no sense!

Also, there are a lot of us that are not in the least bit interested in running our trains with a smartphone.

What about storage and warehouse space? If there is only a small number of boards of each type and they are kept in separate, organized boxes on shelves, then maybe Lionel would rather free up the space for other parts. I'll speculate that since all warranty repairs have been centralized Lionel's service center recently, maybe they want extra space to stock current parts for the additional repairs they know they'll be performing.

And I'm on the young side but I would rather have a remote also. I'd rather keep my phone free if I need to take a call, read a text, take photos or video of the trains as they operate, etc. Phone battery is also an issue for longer running sessions. If I can't pick up another Cab-2 when my current one dies, then I imagine I'll probably go to the Cab-1L.

@Landsteiner posted:

If it's about the money, wouldn't avoiding selling a diminishing supply of no longer in production parts at half price be the likely motivation?  Cannot imagine anything they are doing with these parts is going to materially affect the bottom line,  short or long term.  If they've sold the parts to another party, we'll know about it shortly.  If they are back in stock, we'll know that shortly too.  This issue is all of a week or so old.

I'd think that anything truly catastrophic planned would have Scott Mann worried since he depends on these parts for his locos. He doesn't sound worried at all, so that's a positive.

I don't think Scott is worried because as he said in his post, he's got enough stock of the ERR parts to last him a while.

ERR parts don't help anyone with a Legacy loco that had RS6 board go bad, and while a CC-M can replace a DCDS you lose speed step matching with other locomotives.

For any locomotive that needed a RailSounds power board, that has now turned into a more expensive repair. Though that part is probably the most repairable by hand.

@rplst8 posted:

ERR parts don't help anyone with a Legacy loco that had RS6 board go bad, and while a CC-M can replace a DCDS you lose speed step matching with other locomotives.

The ERR CC-M does not replace a Legacy DCDS, it only responds to the 8-bit serial data, the Legacy DCDS wants to see 9-bit serial data.

I can stick a CC-M on my test rig with a Legacy R4LC, and no reaction to any commands for the motor driver.

Actually, the R2LC & R4LC are uP based, there are no ASIC chips on them that I'm aware of.  The DCDS is also uP based.  The RS4 & RS5 and RS5.5 boards had OTP parts, again no volume produced masked parts.  The RS6 boards are FLASH based and programmable.

Thanks GRJ, goes to show you what happens when you make assumptions. OTP and uP rely on programming rather than hard coding logic in an ASIC, so in theory would be easier to go to a totally uP based solution (using let's say arduino). Doesn't matter really, unless Lionel decides from a business standpoint  making the older code public domain and someone figures it would be viable, little is likely to change.

The ERR CC-M does not replace a Legacy DCDS, it only responds to the 8-bit serial data, the Legacy DCDS wants to see 9-bit serial data.

I can stick a CC-M on my test rig with a Legacy R4LC, and no reaction to any commands for the motor driver.

John, it has worked in my tests, that said I think I had to press L or M on the CAB-1L to put it in 32 or 100 speed step mode.

@rplst8 posted:

John, it has worked in my tests, that said I think I had to press L or M on the CAB-1L to put it in 32 or 100 speed step mode.

Fails here every time, I just did it again.  Remember, this is with the R4LC programmed as a Legacy locomotive (AUX1/1 or AUX1/2).  You can program the Legacy R4LC to replace a TMCC R2LC if you use AUX1/4 through AUX1/8, but then it acts just like an R2LC.  Also, if you use a TMCC CAB1, or the CAB1L, you'll be still talking in TMCC mode, that apparently works.  The object of the exercise is to replace the Legacy motor drive and still be able to use Legacy mode from the CAB2 & Legacy command system.

Test setup.

R4LC programmed as a Legacy Steam. (AUX1/1 after setting the TMCC ID).

Using the Legacy CAB2 with the engine type set to Legacy.

I tried with the ERR CCM (current generic version) and the TMCC back-EMF driver from Lionel.  In all cases, I cracked the throttle and immediately went to full speed.  Classic behavior as the CC-M doesn't see the serial data, and a runaway is the result.

I then tested with the Legacy back-EMF driver from Lionel, works just fine as the Legacy code recognizes the 9-bit serial data.

Again, this is a test of Legacy functionality.

@bigkid posted:


The real question that I haven't seen an answer to is just how many engines die, and at what point? GRJ and the guys that do repair have some knowledge, but are these like appliances, that the odds of a board frying and not being able to get a part is high, or are they like TV sets that keep running and we throw them out because we want the latest and greatest ? Put it this way, I tend to keep my TV's, none of them are that new, most are pushing like 10 years at this point, and none of them has died.

Bingo bango. Unless you have a MTH locomotive with PS2 5V boards your 10-20 year old TMCC/PS2 3V locomotives are going to run longer than everyone seems to think possible. I've got 20-25 year old TMCC locomotives that run like new, and 18 year old PS2 3V locomotives that do the same. I run stuff for hours on end with no failures. Most failures I've seen of electronics are from someone running a modern locomotive with a postwar era transformer without added circuit protection. The old thermal breakers in postwar transformers can't react fast enough to derailments and the boards get fried.  Good circuit protection and most of the boards in these locomotives will outlast their owner, except PS2 5V .

Edit: There are two exceptions for TMCC: K-Line cruise boards and TAS EOB boards. Those up and die all on their own, but they are not factory Lionel TMCC electronics. Those are dead nuts reliable.

Last edited by Lou1985
@Lou1985 posted:

I've got 20-25 year old TMCC locomotives that run like new, and 18 year old PS2 3V locomotives that do the same. I run stuff for hours on end with no failures. Most failures I've seen of electronics are from someone running a modern locomotive with a postwar era transformer without added circuit protection. The old thermal breakers in postwar transformers can't react fast enough to derailments and the boards get fried. 

I've suspected this. I'm no expert such as yourself Lou but it always seems to be certain folks with multiple failures.

The common denominator,  the(cool) old affordable postwar transfomer.

@Lou1985 posted:

Edit: There are two exceptions for TMCC: K-Line cruise boards and TAS EOB boards. Those up and die all on their own, but they are not factory Lionel TMCC electronics. Those are dead nuts reliable.

Amen to that, brother. I had a late model K-Line cruise slave board blow an electrolytic capacitor and catch on fire, shorting the track in the process. My TPC 400 popped the breaker, but the loco died under the attic eaves and it took two days before I could move enough boxes and crawl on my hands and knees to extract the loco. The house stunk for a week and the loco stunk for over a month out in the car port.

Before I got to the loco, I had to stand by with a fire extinguisher to make sure it would not light up the attic and hope the extinguisher could shoot that far. The loco could just barely be seen from the ladder to the attic.

What a mess, and it ran so well before dying, too.  It was the latest K-Line model of cruise that actually worked and had the slave board in the trailing unit

Last edited by RoyBoy

Fails here every time, I just did it again.  Remember, this is with the R4LC programmed as a Legacy locomotive (AUX1/1 or AUX1/2).  You can program the Legacy R4LC to replace a TMCC R2LC if you use AUX1/4 through AUX1/8, but then it acts just like an R2LC.  Also, if you use a TMCC CAB1, or the CAB1L, you'll be still talking in TMCC mode, that apparently works.  The object of the exercise is to replace the Legacy motor drive and still be able to use Legacy mode from the CAB2 & Legacy command system.

Test setup.

R4LC programmed as a Legacy Steam. (AUX1/1 after setting the TMCC ID).

Using the Legacy CAB2 with the engine type set to Legacy.

I tried with the ERR CCM (current generic version) and the TMCC back-EMF driver from Lionel.  In all cases, I cracked the throttle and immediately went to full speed.  Classic behavior as the CC-M doesn't see the serial data, and a runaway is the result.

I then tested with the Legacy back-EMF driver from Lionel, works just fine as the Legacy code recognizes the 9-bit serial data.

Again, this is a test of Legacy functionality.

I suspect you’re right. I was using a CAB-1L.

So I guess the answer is… “it sort of works.”

Last edited by rplst8
@rplst8 posted:

I suspect you’re right. I was using a CAB-1L.

So I guess the answer is… “it sort of works.”

If you treat it like a TMCC locomotive, it may work.  However, if you want Legacy functionality, it doesn't work.  However, even with the BASE1L/CAB1L on my bench, if the R4LC was programmed as a Legacy engine with AUX1/1 or AUX1/2, it still exhibited runaway.  Also, if you don't program it as a Legacy, but rather with TMCC codes, AUX1/4 and above, then you have other issues.  For one, I'm sure any expanded Legacy options won't work, things like the swinging bell, the extra smoke features like blowdown, dynamo, etc.  Those add-on boards expect to see 9-bit Legacy code.

@RickO posted:

I've suspected this. I'm no expert such as yourself Lou but it always seems to be certain folks with multiple failures.

The common denominator,  the(cool) old affordable postwar transfomer.

To be honest in most cases it's operator error that kills the bulk of electronics. It's extremely rare, especially so for Lionel factory TMCC era electronics, to just fail on their own accord. I've even seen some R2LCs where the smoke triac was overloaded so badly the triac unsoldered itself from the board and fell off. I soldered on a new triac and the R2LC was good as new.

I certainly hope they didn't just toss them in a grinder!  It's hard to believe that's what happened, my guess is they sold off the inventory to add to cash flow, the bean counters are firmly in control at Lionel.  They seem to be totally focused on the bottom line.

I would not be surprised if they sold them to a electronics recycler which probably scrapped them.

I agree most modern command control electronics are more robust than people think. I have only had 1 RCMC failure in the last 10 years, and even that one seen some abuse

The best investment I made to protect my electronics is using a Lionel 6-22983 180 Watt Powerhouse Power Supply. It clears so fast that I almost never blow fuses in my TIU anymore

@feet posted:

I would not be surprised if they sold them to a electronics recycler which probably scrapped them.

They would certainly get far less money for them from a recycler.  The only reason to recycle them and not sell them to a 3rd party would be to deliberately keep them off the market and hasten the demise of older locomotives.  I would certainly hope that Lionel isn't that callous!

Any insights at recent York on the true motivation for Lionel to discontinue the sale of Legacy boards?

I have a bad DCDS on one of my locos and it sure feels to me right now that Lionel is trying to make my only option a newly manufactured locomotive.  They prefer that my 2009 model is not repaired. 

Add Reply

Post
This forum is sponsored by Lionel, LLC
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×