ERR Cruise for Pullmor motors?

I am pretty sure there is still no AC cruise. The AC commander will allow finer steps than a transformer though. Also by being able to put a full 18 volts on the track the engine is less affected by local high resistance sections of track.

Pete

Thanks. I was fairly sure if they'd done cruise for Pullmors there would have been some commentary on it.

Is it an improvement on TMCC-equipped Pullmors, though, like PWC or other AC TMCC engines? I'd think it would have improved electronics and allow better slow-speed operation than older TMCC units.

I may call them next week and inquire about that. I have a number of older TMCC Pullmor F-3s and Geeps that I'd be interested in upgrading if there's a significant improvement (although with the Pullmors broken in, they're not too bad at running fairly slowly as they are).

No such animal.  Jon Z. talked about his experiments some time back, but he could never get something that was good enough to make into a product.  Apparently, the different magnetic characteristics of the AC excited field didn't lend itself to sensing the back-EMF well.  You'd have to ask him for the technical details, I just know it didn't happen.

The AC Commander did make a huge difference for my dual-motored Phantom upgrade.  When I swapped out the old Lionel TMCC electronics for the AC Commander, the difference was night and day!  It really has good low speed performance that it never had with the 32 step LCRU.

BTW, the motors on my Phantom were WELL broken in, the second one I added was a really old motor that was just a chassis by the time I got it.

I have put the ERR Cruise Commander, AC version, in about 7 different engines and 1 in a post war Flyer Pacific.  The slower speeds are very dramatic.  The standard TMCC has 32 speed steps, the ERR has 100 steps, so you can really get a much gentler start..

Marty

I have installed ERR Cruise Commander in many of my engines, AC and can DC.  The improvement in slow speed and smooth starts is very well worth the cost and efforts to do so.

Uhh... you didn't install the Cruise Commander in an AC motored locomotive.  Well, you may have installed it, but it sure didn't work!

It looks like two folks have done it!

Not with the standard Cruise Commander, at least I can't imagine how that worked.

Surely it's just a mistake of applying the wrong name to the ERR AC Commander....not an AC cruise commander? 

Bruce

i installed an AC Commander board on an MPC era dual motored F3 and set it to 100 speed steps and it does creep and while it does not have cruise in it the locomotive does almost perform like it does. I have run it for many shows with no issues save the occasional rest since it does get hot pulling an A and B dummy and 9 aluminum cars. 

Correct, I'm sure that's what it is.

I did not state it gave the AC motored EOB capabilities.  Perhaps it is a misnomer in what it is called.  But, the improvement in slow speed running and smooth starts is very nice, quite realistic when performed correctly.  For any questions you have, Ken is the guy you want send you inquiries to at ERR.

Jesse

Jesse, nobody said you did.  The correct name is the AC Commander, that's the only difference.  The two Cruise Commander versions are strictly for DC motors.

When you send your queries to ERR, Ken will most certainly see them, he's a one-man show right now there, Andrew is gone.

If you want to really know how all of this stuff works at the technical level, Jon Z. at Lionel is the many to talk to.

The problem with the PullMor motors is the number of poles of the armature.  The armature has only 3 poles, and so the torque peak to valley is 2:1.  It is difficult to get smooth operation with this much variation in the torque.  The back EMF also has this ripple.  

Thanks to those who commented on your experiences. Sounds like slow speed operation is markedly improved, so I'll try dropping an AC Commander into one of my TMCC Pullmor F-3s. I don't need a 5 mph crawl on a streamliner passenger train, but a little smoother low speed operation would be great. 

On one of my F-3 sets I have two powered A TMCC units (used a swapped chassis) so I guess it will take an AC Commander in each unit.

Correct, you'll need two AC Commanders for that set.

The other and more difficult problem to solve is the fact that field is wired in series with the armature. Changes in armature current changes the field strength. With the DC can motors used in trains the permanent magnet means there is only one variable instead of two to deal with. You could wire the armature in parallel with the armature but you would draw big currents from the track, large enough to trip many smaller transformer breakers.

Pete

Pete, I seem to remember that Jon Z. mentioned the field as the primary issue in making the cruise work well.  Apparently, at cruising speeds it worked pretty well, but slow speeds didn't work well enough to consider making it a product.

It doesn't have to be this way.  Certainly it is simpler design and worked for the mechanical E unit, and was also used with the H Bridge ACDR, but if you were starting from scratch you could certainly control field separately.  Though your stuck with the values on the Lionel motor.  I imagine the complexity might make it cost prohibitive too.  G

G, I agree its a solvable problem but consider that both Jon Z and Erniexxxx (forum name ????) former TAS engineer tried and decided it wasn't worth it.

Pete

I don't doubt some thing "could" be done to make a passable cruise package.  OTOH, the ROI is probably not there to justify the engineering effort.  Also, as noted previously, you're stuck with the existing motor design, that probably complicates the effort.  If you were going to replace the motor, it would make far more sense to just use a can motor and the excellent existing cruise technology.

I guess, my point was the field is not that "difficult" to handle.  It is low resistance because it is in series.  If moved to parallel a voltage step down could be used to provide constant field.

Though I am in agreement that this is a difficult endeavor.

I am more in servoguys camp that 3 poles and the size of the pole gaps have more to do with a difficult cruise implementation.

Even the DC stuff has issues with low pole motors or those with segment gaps that cause noticeable cogging.

Hence higher end motors designed specifically for Low Cog operation.  Such as Pittman.  G

I was running it for over 3 hours and one day was 5 hours with no rest. I think any pullmor would warm up on that especially with the load it was pulling.

Timely topic. I was running my postwar celebration Virginian FM Train Master.  It has TMCC, dual pullmor motors, railsound, and electrocouplers.  I like the sounds and the electrocouplers, but not how difficult it is to control in slow speeds with the Cab-1.  I was thinking it might be a good candidate for an AC commander upgrade.  But, will I be able to use the existing railsound and eletrocouplers if I upgrade it? I was thinking an upgrade wouldn't do much for me since it's already has TMCC, but this thread is changing my mind.  I can see spending the money on AC commander, but not a new sound upgrade also.

Yes, you should be able to use the same stuff.  There may be a bit of work involved in replacing the motherboard for a sound one, though I believe you could hotwire the serial data to the sound boards.

What's the exact Lionel stock number for your engine?

Don't most if not all PWC engnes have modular electronics? R2LC and ACDR? I can believe an AC Commander will out perform an LCRU but not sure it would significantly improve on an ACDR. 100 steps will give finer control vs 32 but for a given speed why would one be smoother than the other given they are both running at the same speed?

Pete

 The engine model # is 6-18370 of the Vriginian diesel freight celebration series set (6-31740).  It came as part of a package deal from a private sale "buy all or nothing".  It wasn't my favorite of the batch, but it grew on me over time and I now like putting it around the Christmas tree each year.

I would think so Pete, but I always like to check to make sure.

Pete, since the LCRU and ACDR both give you 32 steps and use similar triacs for drivers, why do you think the ACDR would be substantially better?  I know that the AC Commander ran rings around the LCRU equipped engine, and the ACDR equipped ones I've had here for repair sure didn't impress me with their smoothness or low speed operation like the AC Commander upgrade did.

I don't doubt some thing "could" be done to make a passable cruise package.  OTOH, the ROI is probably not there to justify the engineering effort.  Also, as noted previously, you're stuck with the existing motor design, that probably complicates the effort.  If you were going to replace the motor, it would make far more sense to just use a can motor and the excellent existing cruise technology.

I guess, my point was the field is not that "difficult" to handle.  It is low resistance because it is in series.  If moved to parallel a voltage step down could be used to provide constant field.  Though I am in agreement that this is a difficult endeavor. I am more in servoguys camp that 3 poles and the size of the pole gaps have more to do with a difficult cruise implementation.  Even the DC stuff has issues with low pole motors or those with segment gaps that cause noticeable cogging.  Hence higher end motors designed specifically for Low Cog operation.  Such as Pittman.  G

In the late 1990s Marklin felt there was enough ROI to undertake such a project.  They developed a kit to retro-fit existing locos with their "High-Efficiency 5 star Electronic Propulsion System."  If I recall, it was a 5-pole armature (to replace the original 3-pole armature) and a circuit for closed-loop feedback speed control.  I'm not sure if the field was kept in series or excited separately.  I don't recall an optical sensor so I believe it read back-EMF.

Based on this thread, I presume the 5-pole armature was an expensive but necessary part of the refit to eliminate that nasty torque ripple.

It's important to note that the motor design Marklin used up to that time was very similar to Lionel's: an open frame series motor with a wound field, driving a train of spur gears.  (Think of a postwar 2046 steamer shrunken to HO size.)  The SHAPE and implementation of the motor is the biggest problem- you just CAN'T stick a can motor in a 2056.  The shape and orientation are all wrong.  The original motor has a flat "pancake" armature and spur gear drive train, which descended from Standard Gauge, or perhaps even clockwork mechanisms.  It's working within the limitations of that physical envelope that's the biggest challenge.

However... a guy in the Silver or Blue hall at York sells custom 5-pole armatures for American Flyer steam locos, and he makes these himself.  If someone would offer a similar 5-pole armature as a retro-fit for some of the more common Postwar motor types we would be halfway there.  I would pay handsomely to have a Postwar 2056, 2026, etc., run like a modern can-motored loco; even for a 30% improvement over stock.  On a commercial scale, it might be necessary to sell the upgrade as a remanufactured chassis with a "trade-in" program.

You might also find it interesting that eventually, for their new production, Marklin migrated to a brushless electronically commutated motor and worm gear drive system they dubbed the 'Softdrive Sinus', which was VERY similar in concept to Lionel's original Odyssey motor.  I guess now we know who stole that engineering sample from the Lionel tent at York ;-)

I have a couple of '90s era Lionel TMCC equipped (LCRU) AC motored steam engines. To me they don't run any better under TMCC than with a transformer. Just a different knob to turn. They are not worth the cost to replace the motor and electronics to get them to run like a DC motored engine.

I can be as nostalgic as the next guy and have a bit of real Post War but If I want engines that run like a modern engine Williams has provided me most of them. Just add cruise which I have. Rather than lift up the shell and replace the mechanisms I just repaint to match. Running down the track pulling a string of post war cars its hard to tell the difference.

Lionel's 726.

Williams 726.

In addition Williams diesels 624, 6250, 2321, 2373, plus GG1s and Budd cars have been converted.

A 736 copy is on the sell/trade forum created in the same spirit.

Pete

Actually Ted, a brushless motor isn't much like Lionel's Odyssey anything IMO.  AFAIK, Lionel has never used a brushless motor, I've never seen one in the hundreds of locomotives I've worked on or owned from any manufacturer.

Truthfully, I'd like to see the brushless motor in model train applications, but I don't know anyone using them.  I used them fairly extensively in aerospace, but we had a more unlimited budget.

As far as "can't put a can motor in a a 2056", I suspect you can put a can motor in almost anything you desire.  Can motors come in all shapes and sizes, it's hard to imagine a place that you couldn't fit one if you wanted to.  Just because the model train industry has standardized on a few specific models of can motors, that's not indicative of the whole universe of motor products.

I have a number of MPC and Modern Lionel diesels that run fine for me conventionally off Power Masters or via TMCC Command.  Many are mechanical E-Unit though I have a few electronic and the TMCC are early LCRU RS 2.5, though I have had or have the Modular versions too.

Obviously no cruise, and you can't crawl like a cruise engine can that uses a tach or Back Emf, but they run fine at slow speeds for me.

Part of having good slow speed performance is a tuned motor (brushes, commutator cleanliness and thrust settings) and good running gears properly lubricated.

While I could see cruise on a Diesel, is it really prototypical for Steam?  Constantly changing variables requiring the engineer to intervene.  Your the engineer, use that throttle!  G

When you're running a couple of trains on each loop at a modular show, and people are constantly coming up and talking to you as you run, cruise on steamers turns out to be a valuable asset.

Actually Ted, a brushless motor isn't much like Lionel's Odyssey anything IMO.  AFAIK, Lionel has never used a brushless motor

Not to quibble but the original Odyssey motor concept that Lionel demonstrated at a number of venues 16 yrs ago was a brushless motor remarkably similar in form and function to Marklin's Softdrive Sinus.  In a well-known anecdote, an engineering sample was stolen from the Lionel tent at York.  It was never placed into production by Lionel.  After a year or so of testing their own designs, Lionel decided to use readily available can motors with feedback speed control provided by a hall effect sensor.  They marketed this as the "Odyssey System," which is what you've seen under the hood countless times.

I was under the mistaken impression that we were talking about real products.  I don't claim to know everything Lionel may have tinkered with in the lab, but there are no production brushless motors running around in Lionel or MTH locomotives.  AFAIK, that statement extends to Williams, Atlas, Weaver, etc.

If you know different, I'm all ears.

I'm looking forward to getting the AC Commander. This has been an interesting thread. One thing that I find I have to keep in mind is that improved slow-speed operation and cruise control aren't the same thing. However, I will be curious to see if the AC Commander, although it is not a cruise control, offers any improvement over older TMCC units in maintaining given speeds. 

Not quite the sentiment you express in this thread

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/what-new-item-would-you-like-to-see-in-legacy-locomotives?reply=32824732628920954#32824732628920954 

but hey, anyone has the right to change their mind. 

I am a big proponent for the use of either asynchronous (induction) or synchronous motors. They are 85+% efficient vs the 60% of a RS385 can motor (which is about the best efficiency can motors can get) .  For synchronous motors there are outrunner motors or inrunner motors. Outrunner motors have the rotor on the outside and the stator on the inside. Inrunner motors have the rotor on the inside and the stator on the outside. 

There are a couple of prototypes of the Odyssey motor out there. The Odyssey motor is either a synchronous or induction motor, but I am not sure what type it is. The C-sine motor Marklin developed is a synchronous motor. 

Gosh, I don't know, it seems I said pretty much the same thing.  Are you reading a totally different thread and confusing yourself?

I like brushless motors, and I previously stated, and still believe today, that they'd be great in model trains.  However the reality is they're simply not in use in any of the O-gauge products.  What part makes you think I'm changing my mind? 

Perhaps you should document where you're getting your information about stuff like the Odyssey motor.  The Odyssey I know of in Lionel products is a speed control system that uses a bog standard brushed can motor.  I've never seen an induction motor in any model train.  I don't swear that they've never been used, but if they have, they're sure not common, and none of the current generation products have anything like that.

If you'd supply actual references, I'd be all ears.  You seem to be postulating about what might be, not what actually exists. 

Here ya go, the Odyssey Motor which was either an asynchronous or synchronous motor.