Skip to main content

I have a Railking 0-8-0 and have run into an issue that I hope is easy to answer. I want to convert this from DCS to TMCC using ERR Cruise Light and sound. I have done other conversions with ERR boards in the past without any issues, but for some reason "I can't see the tree for the forest" on this one.

Easy Part:

I removed all the electronics from the tender. Installed a Cruise Lite with the R2LC. Connected rear coupler, rear light and motor to the Cruise Lite. Tested the connections. Engine runs as it should and coupler and light works. GREAT start.

 

Another easy part:

Traced all the connections from the engine to the rear circuit board and tether cable. ID'ed the headlight, smoke unit, fan, cab light and coupler. Got all that written down and diagrammed. 

 

Hard Part:

On the rear circuit board, there is what appears to be a resistor that is connected to the common??? side for the head light, cab light, coupler, and smoke unit. Both fan wires go directly to connections on the rear circuit board, no common???

 

I noticed that the cab light and coupler connections on the rear circuit board appear to be common to each other as well as to the resister on the same board. Also, the frame is totally isolated from any connections on the circuit board including the resistor. So no ground or common come from the drivers. This engine does NOT have rollers, only on the tender.

 

I have yet to get the front coupler to operate. I have been able to connect the front and cab light and they go out when changing direction of the engine.

 

I am confused as to where I can find ground from the engine, other than from the resister???, but there is no connection from this to the tether.

 

If anyone is familiar with the set up of this engine and can give me some help, I would appreciate it.

 

I can send photos or drawings if that would help, but hopefully someone has already done this conversion and can help me see better.

 

I have confirmed that the Cruise Lite and R2LC are working correctly, no defects.

 

RAY

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I have no idea what the "rear circuit board" is, perhaps you could post pictures to show us what you're seeing.

 

For an engine (or tender) with no rollers, I ALWAYS run a ground between them.  Of course, since each are rolling on the track, they also have a common ground, but I like a noise-free one.

 

You have a 10-pin tether if you're using the one that came with the DCS locomotive, plenty of pins for everything you need.

 

(2) Power & Ground

(2) Motor

(1) Light

(1) Smoke

(1) Chuff

(1) Coupler

 

That leaves several spares. 

 

I use the #22 wires for power/ground/motor, and the smaller gauge wires for the other stuff.  You might consider doubling up one wire for the smoke power.

 

 

Dennis,

 

It's not that I dislike DCS or MTH, I have several DCS engines, PS2, and really like them a lot.

 

This particular engine has a hokey whistle and bell. Plus I am modifying some of the accessories on the engine and tender, adding a scale bell - facing it in the correct direction - a scale whistle instead of a piece of bent rod, replacing the rear light with a cuckoo clock light which is what my railroad used. And upgrading several other details.

 

I do run both DCS and TMCC. In my opinion, both offer special features and controls that enhance overall operation. I personally find the Cab 2 much easier to operate and more accurate. The MTH remote offers some special features that TMCC/Legacy does not.

 

What I don't like about the MTH remote is the thumb wheel.

 

So, to enjoy both I have both systems. I do understand why each is proprietary and each believes their's better than the others. 

 

John - Alex, 

As for the "rear circuit board", perhaps the wrong words to use. It is the board at the rear of the engine that the tether plugs into. And all the wiring for the head lights, fan, smoke, motor, optical reader, coupler connect to this board. I actually have 10 wires in the tether.

 

I will attach photos of the "board" and the inside of the engine later tomorrow.

 

RAY

Depending on the model the rear PCB is the tether connection.  You can wire this how you want to, but it may have 2 diodes underneath that generate Positive voltage off the motor leads for PS-2.

 

TMCC is AC ground.  MTH is not.  So you need to wire the engine side based on how you wired the tender.

 

The wht/yel/blk/red are the thicker gauge wires so use them for Motor and AC power transfer.

 

For the coupler and lights you only need one wire from the ERR board via the harness, the other can go to chassis ground.  Or, if you want, pick the black wire on the PCB as chassis ground and wire it there.   G

I recommend you start by using your meter to ring out each lead and determine where it comes on the tether connector.  That way you can know for sure what wire goes where between the locomotive and tender.

 

A little trick I use when using the replacement tether for TMCC installations is to use the excess wire I cut off from the tether on the tender side to extend the locomotive side wiring.  That makes the color of the wires on each end identical and makes tracing them between the tender and the locomotive easy.

 

As George says, there are those two diodes for many tether connector boards.  If they're present, I'd remove them and just wire to the pin where they connect, there's no use for the diodes in the TMCC environment.

Originally Posted by Dennis:

What's not to like?

.....

Dennis

 

Many folks like DCS, which is great, but there are many stories of complications (including at a club I belonged to, where there were a number of problems), whereas Legacy seems relatively simple in comparison. It's been problem-free for me, and easy to operate. Many of the stories I've heard of setting up DCS and trying to correct problems have been so complicated it made my eyes cross. How many pages is Barry's book on operating DCS - over 250?!!

 

Some will say run both, get both systems. That's fine for certain operators, and I'm glad they like doing that, but my personal situation is that I don't want complications when operating trains, and don't want to have to worry about or invest the time necessary for setting up, operating, and troubleshooting two different systems, not to mention the considerable expense of buying both systems to begin with.

 

Just my take, and "what's not to like," just from my perspective. 

Originally Posted by breezinup:
Originally Posted by Dennis:

What's not to like?

.....

Dennis

 

Many folks like DCS, which is great, but there are many stories of complications (including at a club I belonged to, where there were a number of problems), whereas Legacy seems relatively simple in comparison. It's been problem-free for me, and easy to operate. Many of the stories I've heard of setting up DCS and trying to correct problems have been so complicated it made my eyes cross. How many pages is Barry's book on operating DCS - over 250?!!

 

Some will say run both, get both systems. That's fine for certain operators, and I'm glad they like doing that, but my personal situation is that I don't want complications when operating trains, and don't want to have to worry about or invest the time necessary for setting up, operating, and troubleshooting two different systems, not to mention the considerable expense of buying both systems to begin with.

 

Just my take, and "what's not to like," just from my perspective. 

Very well said, I run both systems. But i have to say I find Legacy/TMCC much much easier than DCS.

 

Alex

"" I saw a man pursuing the horizon;
Round and round they sped.
I was disturbed at this;
I accosted the man.
“It is futile,” I said,
“You can never —”

“You lie,” he cried,
And ran on. ""

"I saw a man pursuing the horizon"
BY STEPHEN CRANE

 

One would think, by the general atmosphere that this forum tries to portray, we would support someone in whatever project they choose to try out.  I see much appreciation and thanking of some of the individuals that help everyone with their insights into electronics or kit bashing or whatever creative expertise, but always with the bashing of one system vs. another.  Can't we be supportive of whatever system someone wants to use? I wish I had the experience to offer actual useful information to the original poster, but I don't... I do like to read what insights others can offer, however, that one day I may be able to help someone out.  

 

We now return to our regularly scheduled control system bashing.  

Originally Posted by JohnGaltLine:

......but always with the bashing of one system vs. another.  Can't we be supportive of whatever system someone wants to use?  

 

We now return to our regularly scheduled control system bashing.  

Not sure what you're looking at. I see no bashing at all in the comments above. People are just calmly sharing the experiences they've had with each system. Personally, if I were deciding among systems, this is exactly the kind of information I'd like to have.

Originally Posted by breezinup:
Originally Posted by JohnGaltLine:

......but always with the bashing of one system vs. another.  Can't we be supportive of whatever system someone wants to use?  

 

We now return to our regularly scheduled control system bashing.  

Not sure what you're looking at. I see no bashing at all in the comments above. People are just calmly sharing the experiences they've had with each system. Personally, if I were deciding among systems, this is exactly the kind of information I'd like to have.

I suppose 'bashing' in regard to this particular thread is a bit harsh of a word.  In this case it is more the general tone of "that's dumb, why would you ever want to do that."  In any case, I think the point I was making was that we should support whatever someone is trying to do, and offer guidance in that direction if that is what someone asks.  The OP's first post made it pretty clear they were already decided on the conversion, in point of fact, that they had already completed much of it.  

Originally Posted by breezinup:
 

Not sure what you're looking at. I see no bashing at all in the comments above. People are just calmly sharing the experiences they've had with each system. Personally, if I were deciding among systems, this is exactly the kind of information I'd like to have.

He has already made his choice, so leave it at that and let him get his requested information from those that actually want to help. 

Last edited by John23

I agree with the above.  If he wants TMCC, he gets TMCC, what's so difficult about that?  I've had people bring me stuff to convert in either direction.  Perfectly working PS/2 stuff to convert to TMCC, and perfectly working TMCC stuff to convert to PS/2.  I don't question their motives, I just do the work.  It's not my place to decide what's best for others.  They have their reasons, and usually they're pretty good reasons.  I will occasionally question the decision if it's obvious that they don't understand the alternatives, but I don't see this as an issue here.  I think the OP knows exactly what he's getting.

 

 

John and all,

 

It's done, except for the dressing of the wires in the tender, a new tender light and a few other minor details.

 

Everything works the way it should, except I have yet to put the smoke stack through a real test. Not really worried about that at this point.

 

So when I get it all dressed up I'll attach some photos. 

 

A big THANK YOU to John, and others, for your help and suggestions.

 

RAY

 

Well, the reason I asked why you would want to change a DCS engine to TMCC is because both DCS and TMCC run on my layout simultaneously, on the same track even, seamlessly.  Since that is my experience, it seemed like a fair question and maybe some problem he had could be analyzed by the experts on here to help the writer resolve it.

.....

Dennis

Dennis,

 

My layout is DCS with a Legacy base. I have several DCS engines, PS2 as well as TMCC and Legacy. 

 

The reason to made the change was because I just wanted to. I was doing some upgrades to it to make it more to scale and to better represent my railroad, CB&Q. I wanted to improve the sound system, especially the whistle. 

 

Yes, I know I could have changed the DCS sound system, but I wanted the experience to  make the conversion to TMCC using the ERR Cruise Lite, this was my first Cruise Lite project.

 

So it was a learning experience for me more than any other reason. I have converted a PS1 diesel and a PS1 steamer using ERR Cruise and loved the results. Also did a K-Line F3. 

 

My local club, that I run on, is TMCC based. Running MTH in conventional is not all that exciting.

 

I find ERR to be very Customer Supportive.

 

Anyway, those are my reasons. By the way, I have no intention of converting my other PS2's to TMCC.

 

RAY

Add Reply

Post

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

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