>If yes, you have 1/2 of signal circuit missing or blocked and using only the wiring in the walls.
Not true! The conduit should be an excellent radiator for the airborne signal as long as it is earth-grounded.
Again, please use your ohmmeter to measure between the U-ground or conduit and the wire that feeds the TMCC signal to your layout. This should be an open circuit, i.e. near infinite resistance.
Big_Boy_4005 posted:Here in the US, the metal conduit can be used as the earth ground for the circuit. There is no separate conductor inside, just a hot (black) and a neutral (white) wire. The only time a green wire is required in metal, is inside flexible conduit.
None of the house voltage that attached to the layout is hard wired to the house. Instead, there is a bank of dedicated outlets where the various systems plug into, using a properly sized cord and plug. Then the first metal box has the ground wire bonded to it, sending the ground through the entire system.
I think we can forgo that alternate outlet test, since this is the location where I want and need it to work, and it does. I did think of one additional test that I should do. That is the simultaneous base and track power up test. There remains some confusion as to whether the base needs to be powered first in order to gain control of the track.
It's 2:30 AM over here. Time for bed. Enjoy your day Nick.
is that a GFI outlet your layout is plugged into?
might make a difference.
bigdodgetrain posted:is that a GFI outlet your layout is plugged into?
might make a difference.
Nope, those are 20 A rated outlets with the funny prong style. I could only get them in the rectangular format at Menards, or maybe it was the 4 gang face plate that made me use them. The red and black is just electrical tape to mark which house phase they are on.
Dale Manquen posted:>If yes, you have 1/2 of signal circuit missing or blocked and using only the wiring in the walls.
Not true! The conduit should be an excellent radiator for the airborne signal as long as it is earth-grounded.
Again, please use your ohmmeter to measure between the U-ground or conduit and the wire that feeds the TMCC signal to your layout. This should be an open circuit, i.e. near infinite resistance.
I will Dale. That and the radio test. Since we went through this exercise a little more than three years ago, much has changed. I now have a nice digital meter that I can read and trust, and the layout has more than double the amount of live track that it had back then.
Since most of the trouble is on the main level, and a number of ground buses have been added there, I'm pretty convinced that with a little strategic cutting I may be able to clean things up. I'm leaning toward this conclusion based on the wiring on the upper level and the relatively trouble free TMCC signal there. That ground bus simply follows the track all the way around, no branches, no loops, just one very long wire. I also need to look at the wire that connects to the base, and how it enters the ground wire network.
now that you know the base is a working base. have you tried holding your hand over an engine and see if it still takes off when powered up?
another thing I don't recall anyone asking is put the base over the layout. at our club the base is in the center of the room over the layout a few inches from the celling.
bigdodgetrain posted:now that you know the base is a working base. have you tried holding your hand over an engine and see if it still takes off when powered up?
another thing I don't recall anyone asking is put the base over the layout. at our club the base is in the center of the room over the layout a few inches from the celling.
I haven't tried the hand over the engine yet, mainly because until yesterday I had that pesky electrical bridge, and I couldn't isolate just one engine to experiment. Now I can!
Moving the base to "high ground" is not really possible, because of the way the layout is designed and where the outlet is located. The TMCC base has worked well from the current location, down low, for years. They are both at the center of the room. I'm not sure how these two factors would relate to the track signal. It would seem that they are more closely related to the handheld to base communication, and I'm not having trouble with that aspect.
I'm just getting up the gumption to head downstairs and start doing these tests that everyone has suggested. I think I'm up to half a dozen right now. I don't mind doing them, they're kind of fun, and all in the name of progress, which is the name of the game. I'll stay with it until I've fixed the problem or worn out the OGR braintrust, whichever comes first.
I suggest doing some good old fashioned train running with TMCC for now. Do some switching maneuvers and have fun with what you have done so far. If nothing else, just to relax and enjoy your trains for a couple hours.....
I can't imagine what moving the base higher will do for the TMCC signal, and I seriously doubt that will make a difference. The classic reason for mounting it higher and centered is for the remote to base communications, there it makes a difference.
If I was over 15 feet away from my Legacy base it wouldn't communicate with the engines. Gunrunner suggested a larger antenna for the legacy base and now I have no problems. This is probably not your problem, but from the size of your layout it could be a problem in the future.
could it be that the legacy base being mounted vertical which turns the antenna horizontal have any effect?
my experience an antenna works best when it is vertical.
just throwing things out there.
Antenna orientation is an issue and I recommend a better antenna if you're having remote to base issues. My point is that moving the base higher will not help TMCC signal issues.
Scott T Johnson posted:This would make for a very good reality TV series. Like Goldrush on the Discovery Channel only with smart people.
I think Unsolved Mysteries was taken.
OK guys, more test results are in.
My test to prove or disprove RickO's theory (see page 1) that the base needs to be powered first. It does not, both track and base power can be turned on simultaneously and the train will remain at rest with lights on.
GRJohn's wall wart ground test. Wall wart good, measured ~.5Ω from prong to outside barrel.
Dale's track ground to earth ground test. No connection, infinite ohms.
Big Dodge, hand over engine on layout test, using regular layout power supply. Engine wakes up in command mode, at rest, lights on. With hand in place, engine obeys commands sent from Cab-1 remote. Note, the area where this test was conducted is a known TMCC signal weak spot. I expected it to need my hand to run.
The test was then repeated hands free at startup. Again train woke up in command mode.
I would do Bob Bartizek's test, but I think that the Big Dodge test proved what he was going after with his suggestion.
What have we learned? The base can control a section of the layout and an engine. Both track and command power can come on at the same time. The wall wart is good, and there is no earth ground connection to the track ground network.
bigdodgetrain posted:could it be that the legacy base being mounted vertical which turns the antenna horizontal have any effect?
my experience an antenna works best when it is vertical.
just throwing things out there.
If I'm not mistaken, that would only matter if I was using the Cab-2 remote. I still love my Cab-1's, I have 9 of them(I'm expecting company). That's why I won't let go of TMCC. The only issue I see with the way it is mounted is that the remote won't sit in the charger. For the little I plan to use the Cab-2, I can just use AA's.
Penn-Pacific posted:I suggest doing some good old fashioned train running with TMCC for now. Do some switching maneuvers and have fun with what you have done so far. If nothing else, just to relax and enjoy your trains for a couple hours.....
I actually have a way to do just that without any signal headaches. I have an LC+ engine that hasn't been on the rails yet. It is sitting by my right foot as I type, like a puppy begging for attention.
it is obvious it is a signal issue.
holding you have over the engines proves a signal issue.
many have solved it with a ground plane wire.
you might want to get Dale's adaptor http://www.trainfacts.com/trainfacts/?p=704
bigdodgetrain posted:it is obvious it is a signal issue.
holding you have over the engines proves a signal issue.
many have solved it with a ground plane wire.
you might want to get Dale's adaptor http://www.trainfacts.com/trainfacts/?p=704
I have many ground plane wires, where they won't be seen on the finished layout. Some locations will be very difficult to disguise it. I would really like to try to fix the signal. I still believe there are things that I can do to improve it. I have some engines that work everywhere, and others that only work on the upper deck.
This like trying to cure a disease, why do some get it and others not? Is it something in the engine? Why is the signal bad in spots? What do those spots have in common? Is the base weak?
The ground plane wire is an easy fix, it's like putting a band-aid on. I'm just hoping there's a way to not have to.
Wouldn't the metal conduit act like an earth ground where ever it goes on the layout? Perhaps more so than say 14/2 flex wire? (fail TMCC works)
How are the wall outlets 3rd connection (earth ground) connected to the metal outlet box.
This may sound crazy but did you try turning off the florescent lights. Perhaps a leaky or noisy ballast.
I think we had another one of these mysteries a few years where the location was just tooo dry , no rain for weeks resulting in a poor earth ground.
Big_Boy_4005 posted: I have some engines that work everywhere, and others that only work on the upper deck.This like trying to cure a disease, why do some get it and others not? Is it something in the engine? Why is the signal bad in spots? What do those spots have in common? Is the base weak?
Engines with the "weakest" antenna will be most susceptible to ground plane issues. Often times its not every loco, just one or a few.
Diesels are more likely to have a weaker antenna than steamers. Lionel uses the handrails that run the length of the boiler on steamers for the antenna, doesn't get much better than that.
Given the "mammoth" size of your layout it seems you have may a few issues contributing to your signal problem, whereas the "average "sized layout may only have one or the other.
No one has ever stated the size limitations in relation to base output. Maybe Dale knows, I don't know if Lionel factored in the possibility of one base running over half a mile of track.
Mike Reagan has already posted some new product photos on another thread. I'm guessing himself and JonZ won't get anywhere near this thread.
Get that bed n' breakfast ready for Dale!
Don't have near the layout you have but do have the same or similar problem. This is very informative.
Good luck, looking forward for positive results.
Brent
Gregg, as I've said before, the room is filled with earth ground sources. There are 3 major earth ground systems:
It is because of number 3 that it is unlikely that the fluorescent lighting is having any effect on the track signal.
The ground wire from the cord coming out of the wall socket is secured to the first box in the chain with a proper ground screw, thus grounding all the conduit and boxes in the chain.
Rick, this conversation actually started three and a half years ago with this topic. Mike replied back then and explained about the coil on the railsounds board interfering with the signal. Lionel added a shield to later versions of that board. I had Matt go through a bunch of engines, adding shields where necessary, and lengthening antennas.
I'm convinced that the bad spots are related to wiring that has been added below the main level, because engines that used to get past these spots, no longer do. Bottom line, I unknowingly screwed something up, and I want to fix it.
you grounded the chicken wire to the same ground as the base?
No, I grounded the chicken wire to earth ground via the metal boxes from the layout lighting. However there is only one earth ground, and the ground prong of the wall wart would register continuity with the chicken wire. It's OK. It's just a humongous ground plane. Some of the best signal on the layout is on the upper deck.
Elliot,
Here's what I suggest. In order to trouble shoot the problem disconnect your different sections/blocks fed by the base.
Then add them back one at a time. Testing at each stage. If you add in a section and things stop working you have found a problem.
One thing I would try is disconnect your extension cord to your layout conduit system from the wall socket.
Then run a three core earthed extension cord from that socket to your base. Run a separate extension to power your transformer(s). Then try some test runs. Got to be worth a try.
Nick
I'd like to second the idea of testing with an extension cord right from the wall outlet, just to eliminate the possibility that there is something wrong in the conduit under the layout.
I do not know if it will have any effect or not, but it sounds like you ran only two conductors through the conduit, leaving the metal tube to carry the earth ground. It is possible that there is some sort of coating on the conduit or that it is made of some cheap alloy, that has a high resistance, and thus doesn't provide a solid ground throughout. I generally see three conductor wire used, even inside conduit with a green/bare copper wire connected inside each and every junction box. Again, just tossing ideas out there.
JGL
Big_Boy_4005 posted:No, I grounded the chicken wire to earth ground via the metal boxes from the layout lighting. However there is only one earth ground, and the ground prong of the wall wart would register continuity with the chicken wire. It's OK. It's just a humongous ground plane. Some of the best signal on the layout is on the upper deck.
Seems like the signal would be better on the lower level under the wire.
Given all you've said about the layout, I still think the ground isn't the issue, but rather the large amount of track offers a significant capacitance to the ground from the outside rails. This has the tendency to attenuate the TMCC signal.
Elliot,
At this point I do believe you need some of Dale's magic, can't wait till he brings his testing equipment over to your layout and lets you know what is really going on. This has definitely been an informative thread on your big TMCC/Legcy layout!
PCRR/Dave
gunrunnerjohn posted:Given all you've said about the layout, I still think the ground isn't the issue, but rather the large amount of track offers a significant capacitance to the ground from the outside rails. This has the tendency to attenuate the TMCC signal.
Have we ascertained the voltage level of the Legacy base output...even though it works ok for a small layout or one 40 inch of track?
I went back but could not find what size is your layout?
bigdodgetrain posted:I went back but could not find what size is your layout?
This will probably help:
A little train nut humor . Everyone go to Big boys house and hold our hands over the engines as they run.... Fixed. (ok Fail )
BTW Nice layout and problem to have.
Gregg posted:A little train nut humor . Everyone go to Big boys house and hold our hands over the engines as they run.... Fixed. (ok Fail )
It would give new meaning to the term "operating crew".
Let's address this morning's comments and ideas.
Nick, the systematic re-powering of the layout sections was actually next on my list. What happens when the base sees more layout and more trains? The extension cord test may not be possible due to the lack of cords of sufficient length. I'm not sure that would prove anything new, since I have now established some level of signal on the layout using the conduit based system. Losing that system is not really an option.
JGL, These photos actually prove that that is not an issue. The ground is good, and the conduit system is working correctly. If it wasn't, only one light would come on.
That is not the case.
There is also the matter of all my ground planes being tied to the conduit in one way or another. They are all working. Also, thank you for pointing Big Dodge in the right direction.
That said, it is probably best to just give the layout's vital statistics here, as they could be important to this discussion.
Chuck, I would have thought that too, but the evidence doesn't seem to support that theory. I'm guessing that the decks are too far apart for the chicken wire below the upper to help signal on the lower. Dale's meter should be in today's mail, but it hasn't come yet. Mail comes shortly. I'll let you know the results.
John, I agree. I just want to exhaust these other possibilities before embarking on that amplifier. I do believe that is where we will end up. And pray that that ends it.
Dave, at this point, Dale is invited, but no plans to visit have been made. I just bought his signal strength meter. That's why this forum is so great. We can have this discussion, and even though it is specifically about my layout, the information shared may be useful to others and open to all.
One final thought, and this would be a little embarrassing if were true. The wire I used to connect the layout to the bases has a ring lug crimped onto it. I did this because the spade lug I was using, kept coming loose from the post on the TMCC base. When I went to connect it to the Legacy base, I had to drill out the ring to accept the larger post. However, the design of the Legacy post expects you to insert the wire into a hole through it. What if the ring didn't make contact with the post?
In my most recent successful tests, I clipped a test lead to the ring and the post, and things worked. <shrugs shoulders>
Big_Boy_4005 posted:Gregg posted:A little train nut humor . Everyone go to Big boys house and hold our hands over the engines as they run.... Fixed. (ok Fail )
It would give new meaning to the term "operating crew".
Let's address this morning's comments and ideas.
Nick, the systematic re-powering of the layout sections was actually next on my list. What happens when the base sees more layout and more trains? The extension cord test may not be possible due to the lack of cords of sufficient length. I'm not sure that would prove anything new, since I have now established some level of signal on the layout using the conduit based system. Losing that system is not really an option.
JGL, These photos actually prove that that is not an issue. The ground is good, and the conduit system is working correctly. If it wasn't, only one light would come on.
That is not the case.
There is also the matter of all my ground planes being tied to the conduit in one way or another. They are all working. Also, thank you for pointing Big Dodge in the right direction.
That said, it is probably best to just give the layout's vital statistics here, as they could be important to this discussion.
- The room is 1900 square feet
- The layout with all 3 levels is about 2200 square feet (yes it's bigger than the room)
- There are over 3000 feet of track
- There are just over 300 switches
Chuck, I would have thought that too, but the evidence doesn't seem to support that theory. I'm guessing that the decks are too far apart for the chicken wire below the upper to help signal on the lower. Dale's meter should be in today's mail, but it hasn't come yet. Mail comes shortly. I'll let you know the results.
John, I agree. I just want to exhaust these other possibilities before embarking on that amplifier. I do believe that is where we will end up. And pray that that ends it.
Dave, at this point, Dale is invited, but no plans to visit have been made. I just bought his signal strength meter. That's why this forum is so great. We can have this discussion, and even though it is specifically about my layout, the information shared may be useful to others and open to all.
One final thought, and this would be a little embarrassing if were true. The wire I used to connect the layout to the bases has a ring lug crimped onto it. I did this because the spade lug I was using, kept coming loose from the post on the TMCC base. When I went to connect it to the Legacy base, I had to drill out the ring to accept the larger post. However, the design of the Legacy post expects you to insert the wire into a hole through it. What if the ring didn't make contact with the post?
In my most recent successful tests, I clipped a test lead to the ring and the post, and things worked. <shrugs shoulders>
I've seen 6 way posts with too much plastic height surrounding the metal base. Which prevented the ring from touching the metal base.
Yeah Chuck, between that and the plastic nut that goes on it, there was a chance it just wasn't making contact. When I drilled out the ring to make it fit the Legacy base post, I tried to pick the closest size that would be big enough. Hard to imagine that it wasn't touching somewhere, but it's possible. If some of these other tests pan out, I'll clip the ring off, tin the wire, and use the hole in the post as designed for the final connection.
Elliot, I hope it's a simple fix.
Wow 300 switches, 3000 feet of track!
I think you will need us all to come over and help.
I may need a bit of notice as since they got rid of Concorde the flight time is a bit excessive.
Nick
OK guys, Dale's meter showed up yesterday. I just tried it out. The numbers on the TMCC base look pretty good. The Legacy base seemed to have nothing. I can't imagine how I got it to work at all, based on those numbers.
As I mentioned recently, I was wondering if the the ring lug used to connect the layout wasn't making contact with the post on the Legacy base. I'm now convinced that this is not the case, however, there may still be an issue with the post and an intermittent connection to the electronics inside.
The entire post was coming unscrewed from the base. I fiddled with it, trying to get it screwed on tight, and as I did, I noticed some near normal values flash by on the meter. When I finally got it screwed in all the way, the readings were back to near zero. I finally think this thing is ready for a "vacation" at Lionel.
In the meantime, I have no problem getting by on TMCC. I've been doing that forever, no big deal. Even with just TMCC, the track signal debugging can proceed.
Here's a question: When the TMCC and Legacy bases are both in use via the "Y" cable, is it possible that only the TMCC base is doing the work and the signal is just passing through? This might explain some of the results if that was possible. If it's not, then the Legacy base was working at some capacity, but far from full. Or, maybe I just got lucky and hit a sweet spot during the test.
I did one other test, an earth ground network quality test. I just measured the resistance of the conduit over about a 100' length. It measured .3Ω. That's probably close enough to zero to say that any ground plane wires tied to it will have about the same potential. Ie, it's a 100' terminal strip and I can tie to it anywhere with confidence.
This is what the terminal looks like inside my Legacy Base. If the ring lug is disconnected from the board or the terminal's shank, you won't have a good signal.
Assuming your Y cable is correctly built and labeled, the TMCC Base passes the normal serial-output signal from the CAB-1 to the Legacy Base on one of the Legacy Base's 4 I/O channels. The processor in the Legacy Base incorporates that information with any data that is coming from the CAB-2 and anything else on the other three I/O channels and generates a composite "Track" signal.
Thanks for the peek inside Dale. This seems like a fairly simple thing to check, but I'm not sure if that would void the warranty (if I even still have one after all this time). I'm thinking it's worth a look before I send it away.
The TMCC base read 1570 no load, and 633 layout connected. I assume those values are OK.
That's interesting. It means that as previously observed, the Legacy base was working at some level, as demonstrated in the second video with the test track and the Cab-1 controlling the engine, and later with the engine on the layout in the final configuration.
Elliot,
Lionel have been really good when it comes to warantee on Legacy sets. They appear to have extended the warantee indefinitely.
Makes sense as if your controllers broken you won't be buying new engines.
Nick
If you take it apart, leave it upside down and you won't have to fiddle with the stuff that falls out. But put some sticky tape on the little button on the bottom so it won't fall into the works. I think the post is a double nut, first tighten the post to the case and then tighten the nut to hold the ring for conduction.
So far the warranty for the Legacy base and Cab2 seems to be lifetime but you need your invoice copy and you have to send the base and Cab2 in together. Since your base is 3 years old, there is an update for the charging circuit that needs to be done as well.
Chuck, that being the case, with charger update, maybe it's just better to let them do everything. An invoice may be hard to come by, I picked it up NEW off the bay. However, I believe I registered it. So if I did, they should have it on record.
While they're at it, will they load the latest software? If not, I'm planning on moving my computer to the center of the room next to the bases, so I can plug in the bases and the C/MRI. I can load it.
I don't know if they will update the software...maybe if you include the request in your warranty communications...and put a note taped to the unit outlining what the problem and request an update.
Elliot,
My Legacy base is a Cab 1L. One of the features is the ability to adjust the signal operating frequency in case there is a competing signal in the area like WiFi. From your Dale-o-meter measurements it sounds like a defect but I was wondering if something like frequency adjustment is part of your Legacy base.
S
Scott, the frequency adjustment you speak of has nothing to do with the track signal. The TMCC/Legacy track signal frequency is fixed at 455khz, and it not changeable. The frequency adjustment for Legacy or the BASE1L is for the remote to base communications, that happens in the 2.4ghz frequency band.
I had the Legacy Base signal output lug nut come loose on the inside of the base. Of course it happened near the beginning of a club meet. My engines on a storage track in the back room took off like mad. Took me a few minuets to figure out what was going on. Took the bottom off the base and tightened it up adding a lock washer. Never a problem before and not a problem since. Easy fix but under heavy duress.
Dan
That's encouraging to hear Dan. Since the charger issue isn't a real priority for me, and I forgot to contact Lionel today, maybe this is something I can do myself and not send it in. I'm sure I have the right lock washer in my mini hardware store. I was sort of dreading sending it anyway.
How about a home made Signal tester? Something like a coffee table about 4 feet long,2 feet wide, Maybe a foot or so high with a wire zig- zagged on the bottom with a wire lead and an alligator clip to clip on the earth ground. . Something really light that you could move around very easily and clip on to the wall outlet's earth ground. . Nothing fancy perhaps even made from a card board box.
Just place it over the engine instead of your hand.
Well, the real "signal tester" has been made, it's an R2LC with a meter on the unused signal strength pin of the receiver. Here's one rendition of such a car, I think this is the one that the NJ-HR guys use.
Question...What the difference between the Legacy base and TMCC base track wise? (not remote to base ) Same type of signal?
GRJ, measuring the AC voltage form the signal pin will give you your signal strength? What would a strong signal be?
Yeah John, I need one of those too. I've even got a donor board in mind. I have that discussion marked so I can go back to it. Pin 13 converts the signal strength to voltage, then read the meter?
Let's see if I can get this base fixed today, put that thing to rest once and for all.
Finally, this has been a fantastic discussion of TMCC and Legacy. I know I've learned a lot, and dispelled a few myths along the way with all the tests. As I've said repeatedly, the upper deck signal isn't a problem. The lower deck signal used to be better, but now it is spotty. So, what changed? Answer, the chicken wire or maybe just the whole upper deck in general.
We are dealing with AM radio here, and we all know what happens when we go under a bridge or into a tunnel in our car. Even though the the chicken wire is connected to earth ground, it is not enhancing the signal, it is killing it in spots, and most of those spots are fairly deep under the upper deck. I'm just going to have to reintroduce the signal in the form of some ground plane wires.
Thoughts on my latest theory? Let me hear 'em guys!
Matt Makens posted:GRJ, measuring the AC voltage form the signal pin will give you your signal strength? What would a strong signal be?
I think its value comes as more of a comparison tool, testing levels of bad locations against those of known good ones. Absolute values probably depend on your base's output and can vary.
I am far from being an expert on this. One thought, How about contacting someone at NJ High Railers or another big 3 rail club maybe out your neck of the woods? Someone must have a solution for a large layout and signal issues.
Well, Ive said it before, if I was building a layout that large 3 rail or not, I would have used DCC. It is proven to run layouts that large.
George, there are no 3 rail clubs in this area. I'm aware of the NJ club and their successes in this arena and have the contact info for them. The solutions are definitely out there, it's really more a matter of choosing the right ones and implementing them. Deep down, I'm not worried. I'm confident that I can make this work. I will succeed where Tommy Z could not and switched to DCS as a result. Not an option!
Matt Makens posted:Well, Ive said it before, if I was building a layout that large 3 rail or not, I would have used DCC. It is proven to run layouts that large.
Convert all those engines? You've got to be kidding. I've come too far to turn back now. Maybe on my next layout. Or better yet on yours.
Big_Boy_4005 posted:Matt Makens posted:Well, Ive said it before, if I was building a layout that large 3 rail or not, I would have used DCC. It is proven to run layouts that large.
Convert all those engines? You've got to be kidding. I've come too far to turn back now. Maybe on my next layout.
DCC is great but that would be insane if you have 50-100 engines+ to convert. DCS might be the way to go. Also how about contacting Mike Reagan at Lionel or a tech guy at Lionel, USA.
The car comes from the NJ-HR club, and they used it to sort out their signal issues. I recall them saying when the signal was in the 40's, everything was great. When the signal dropped down past about 30 and lower, the wheels started to fall off. Bob De Guarde or Chris Lord at the NJ-HR are the folks to talk to, they were intimately involved in sorting out the signal issues there.
No George, DCS is a non-starter in my world. Again, it would mean convert the fleet, but beyond that, it doesn't do what I want to do. I have always hated its proprietary system since it was first introduced, and swore never to buy it. In spite of how nice MTH engines look, unless I can get them cheaply enough and convert them, you won't find them in my world.
To do what I want to do, I NEED THE CODES to run the trains. TMCC has always been open, and now Legacy is too. JMRI has the TMCC codes already incorporated into it, just like the DCC codes. I'm not sure if they've gotten Legacy in, but for what I'm doing simple speed control is the only function I need. My end goal is to have the computer be able to run mainline trains in a live action simulation. Nothing pre-programmed, just reacting to signals as if a human was controlling the train.
When it comes to talking directly to Lionel about my signal issues, the NJ club has already done that legwork. Chris Lord has graciously shared their findings here on the forum. I have read that material a few times, and again have the topic marked so I can go back to it. You won't find me participating in a wide range of topics here, but if it has to do with TMCC signal, I'm all over it, even if I'm just listening.
All that time converting all those engines as opposed to spending dozens of hours trouble shooting the issue, dozens more hours researching the solution and then dozens more hours implementing the solution that may or may not work.
FROM THE WEBMASTER:
PERSONAL AND UNCALLED FOR STATEMENT EDITED OUT. Matt, keep your personal opinions about Elliot to yourself. This is not the place...
That was a factual statement, not a personal opinion
No offense Matt, but suggesting a wholesale conversion to DCC is a pretty lame suggestion. 
Besides Big boy 005 is eventually going to get to the bottom of it. .
Maybe not today but shortly.
Elliot, With all the great work I see in your layout, I'd like to see you pull that base apart, tighten that nut and hopefully put this to rest. I did this for a friend after reading about this on the forum and it fixed his signal problem. I then sent the system in because the pulsing blue light quit and Lionel fixed it for free with no questions asked and no receipt. Watch for the loose parts though. I'd like to see you get all you can out of that beautiful layout!
gunrunnerjohn posted:No offense Matt, but suggesting a wholesale conversion to DCC is a pretty lame suggestion.
I got the impression after reading Matt's first post was that he was saying from the outset he would have used DCC. I agree with that but suggesting to convert 50+ locomotives is definitely out there in my humble opinion. No offense Matt. At this point Elliot has to stay the course and hopefully he can get the system to work. I had similar problems when I had a 3 rail layout in the early 2000s. It was very frustrating. DCC has its cons too but if you have power you have the signal. That's what I like best about DCC.
Good luck Elliot. I wish you the best in figuring this thing out.
gunrunnerjohn posted:The car comes from the NJ-HR club, and they used it to sort out their signal issues. I recall them saying when the signal was in the 40's, everything was great. When the signal dropped down past about 30 and lower, the wheels started to fall off. Bob De Guarde or Chris Lord at the NJ-HR are the folks to talk to, they were intimately involved in sorting out the signal issues there.
40 millivolts ac?
Thanks John. As you probably know Matt and I go back a ways, as he had been helping me with the layout. I don't really recall him suggesting DCC, but he probably did, and it just went in one ear and out the other. It tends to register better in writing, as in "send me a memo". You're right, it's not particularly constructive or on topic for this discussion.
For the record, I'm in my mid 50's, my health isn't the greatest, but I am financially stable. There are even more reasons that I don't do traditional work, but those are enough. There was a time when I did work for a living, but those days are behind me. I consider this layout my work, and after a 6 year hiatus, I am trying to reestablish some kind of a work ethic.
One thing I would like to point out here is, that I owned almost every one of those locomotives before I even met Matt. His suggestion no matter when he made it, was already after the fact.
Some of us grew up with Lionel. That in itself is enough reason. While it may present itself to be a difficult approach to large layouts, that can also be more interesting. A lot of what I like about model trains is the getting ready to run them more than running them.
I was unaware that you planned to use computer control, Elliot, and am very interested to see what you'll be doing. I fully agree that the inability to talk to DCS from the outside world is a major drawback in the system. I think one could probably get in through the back door now, with the wifi control module, but I'm not sure how much of that protocol is open to third parties at this time either. As for DCC, it seems a fairly good system from what little I know, but I don't see much point in converting everything to DCC from TMCC. Since it seems that the TMCC base works pretty well, I think the legacy problems will get sorted out eventually.
As far as signal issues with TMCC, I think such a large and complex layout is bringing up things that were simply not tested for in the design of the system. I wonder if the folks that are a bit more knowledgable about the system could input on the possibility of designing a signal amplifier, not just for the track side output but that boosts the ground plane side as well? The idea that GRJ suggested that the amount of track causing capacitance issues seems plausible to me and I wonder if this could be overcome by boosting the output stage of the Legacy base?
JGL
take that thing apart and see if it is loose Love the layout wish I had the space for it 2200 sq ft sweet!!!!
I believe the signal is DC on the output. From the data sheet, Meter Drive Output (pin 13)
Looks like for stronger signals it can be up in the 2-3 VDC range.
GRJ, isn't that Meter Drive voltage after converting the RSSI current output to a voltage with a 51K resistor load in parallel with a .1 uF capacitor?
Correct Dale, my point was simply that it was a DC measurement when you look at it. Their sample application does have the resistor and cap.
The base is working. What would normally take most of you guys 15-20 minutes, took me more than an hour, but I got it. Yes the nut was totally loose. Of course as I was putting it back together, one of the wires broke on the charger switch, so I soldered that back on. Thanks for the hint about the button. That saved me some headaches.
Dale, the numbers are in: 1982 no load and 976 with the layout connected. I think we have a winner!!!!
With this resolved, I can move on to track debugging which should be a little more academic. I know that if I place a wire above the track, it will work. The trick is to get the signal without making it ugly. And no, I don't run electrics so please don't say catenary.
Chuck, I totally agree that the challenge is part of the fun here. On my left forearm I have a tattoo that says " NOTHING IS EASY". If it was everyone would do it. There is a real sense of accomplishment when we can make things work, and maybe more so when we test the theoretical limits of an engineered product.
There will be more challenges with this railroad, I have no doubt of that.
gunrunnerjohn posted:I believe the signal is DC on the output. From the data sheet, Meter Drive Output (pin 13)
Looks like for stronger signals it can be up in the 2-3 VDC range.
I thought that pin 13 was a front light...
Big_Boy_4005 posted:Great news!!
The base is working. What would normally take most of you guys 15-20 minutes, took me more than an hour, but I got it. Yes the nut was totally loose. Of course as I was putting it back together, one of the wires broke on the charger switch, so I soldered that back on. Thanks for the hint about the button. That saved me some headaches.
Dale, the numbers are in: 1982 no load and 976 with the layout connected. I think we have a winner!!!!
With this resolved, I can move on to track debugging which should be a little more academic. I know that if I place a wire above the track, it will work. The trick is to get the signal without making it ugly. And no, I don't run electrics so please don't say catenary.
Chuck, I totally agree that the challenge is part of the fun here. On my left forearm I have a tattoo that says " NOTHING IS EASY". If it was everyone would do it. There is a real sense of accomplishment when we can make things work, and maybe more so when we test the theoretical limits of an engineered product.
There will be more challenges with this railroad, I have no doubt of that.
Telephone or power poles for the ground wire?
Pin 13 on the receiver IC chip, not the R2LC board connector.
I've thought of poles, I'm not sure what kind of lateral reach the signal would have, ie how many tracks can one wire cover.
I just added this structure yesterday. It runs right down the middle of a trouble spot. It will be very easy to add a wire here. The trick with poles is keeping them out of the way, so they aren't getting snagged.
Dale Manquen posted:Pin 13 on the receiver IC chip, not the R2LC board connector.
Ok thanks. Pin 13 to 51K and .1uF in parallel to com. Then bring it out with an unused vacant pin on the R2LC. Should be a fun signal strength car to make.
Elliot, wonderful news. The drama has been resolved, at least partially.
Big_Boy_4005 posted:I've thought of poles, I'm not sure what kind of lateral reach the signal would have, ie how many tracks can one wire cover.
I just added this structure yesterday. It runs right down the middle of a trouble spot. It will be very easy to add a wire here. The trick with poles is keeping them out of the way, so they aren't getting snagged.
Before you do a lot of work, I would try a wire along the top of the wall on the right...just to see.
Now you're reading my mind Chuck. That wall is right down the middle of 6 parallel tracks. The foam bluff, yet to be built, will cover it perfectly. It will be a good test. See if one wire will reach all 6 tracks. Fingers crossed.
One ground wire covers quite a wide space as rule. It's likely that one wire sort of centered on the tracks will do the trick.
gunrunnerjohn posted:One ground wire covers quite a wide space as rule. It's likely that one wire sort of centered on the tracks will do the trick.
Excellent John! One down about ten to go. I'll try to be creative about it.
Personally, I don't think the situation is as bleak as others would portray it.
Mike Reagans TMCC/ Legacy signal video recommends running the ground wire along the tracks, between parallel tracks. Go to 12:40 on this video https://youtu.be/UQ-hiIvPxVs
Earlier in the video it discusses the signal interference of over and under trackage
I'm under the impression your chicken wire keeps the lower level from interfering with the upper, but it doesn't solve the parallel tracks ground plane issue.
I'm no expert, just "cobbling together" information I've gathered from other sources.
Love your layout.
Good Luck, John
I new it was the base. Great find. And now you can get back to the layout!
NYC,SUBWAY TRANSIT SIGNAL posted:Love your layout.
Good Luck, John
Thank you John. I do love the NYC subways. Last time we were there, we did some serious riding. What I'm modeling is Minnesota local.
Rick, I have those wires throughout both hidden yards, as well as along some of the mainline on the lower level. I need to revisit those, because some seem less effective than others.
I have seen Mike's video many times, just not recently. I think I've found that a wire placed higher rather than lower, works better. One of the things that that was supposed to combat was conflicting signals from parallel tracks of different lengths. I really don't have situations like that, because every section of the layout shares the same ground wire, so there is only a single signal on all parallel tracks. It seems like it's more about the antennas finding the airborne component, which is why the higher wires seem more effective.
I'll keep working on it.
Very glad you got the legacy base sorted out, Elliot. This has really been a great thread with lots of knowledgable people sharing their experience and wisdom. Thoroughly enjoyable to follow along. I'm looking forward to seeing how the signal issues are solved.
For clarification, you have chicken wire laid out under the plywood on the upper level, and that level is working without issue, but on the lower level, up to this point you have only the conduit of the 120VAC lines acting as a ground plane source? I understand that an overhead wire is probably the best solution to provide the strongest signal, but have you tried perhaps stapling some chicken wire to the underside of the layout in the trouble areas? (or perhaps using spray glue and aluminum foil?) My brain is thinking if it works in one level, it may provide enough signal in others. Then again, it may be that with six parallel tracks the track signal side will wash out the ground plane side with it radiating from below. Again, just tossing out ideas to which more experienced folks may already know the answers.
JGL
Nice job Elliot. Glad you got the main problem sorted
Nick
Thank you Nick. Patience and persistence are the words of the day. There were those who just said send it in. I'm glad I toughed it out a bit. If you look back on page 4, near the middle, that's where the diagnosis came together. After that, the surgery was easy. This has been a fun topic, getting a lot of people involved, and thinking out in the open.
This isn't the end of the story though. There's a lot more to be done to get everything running smoothly. I just ordered a cheap AM radio off eBay to do one of Dale's tests. Should be here next week.
Thanks JGL. I was actually thinking about adding some ground plane material under there to see if it helped. The nice part about the upper deck was it was built in during construction. Retrofitting is a pain, because all the wires and Tortoises are in the way now.
Have you ever seen a picture of the small helix? Best signal anywhere on the layout, because I lined it with foil, and built the ground plane in. The big helix was recently retrofitted with a single wire all the way up. It works pretty well too now.
Now that the legacy base is fixed, I think I'll change the topic title one last time, to something we can run with...
RickO posted:Mike Reagans TMCC/ Legacy signal video recommends running the ground wire along the tracks, between parallel tracks. Go to 12:40 on this video https://youtu.be/UQ-hiIvPxVs
Earlier in the video it discusses the signal interference of over and under trackage
I'm under the impression your chicken wire keeps the lower level from interfering with the upper, but it doesn't solve the parallel tracks ground plane issue.
I'm no expert, just "cobbling together" information I've gathered from other sources.
RickO,
I learned in another thread where a club was losing signal in one curve, that the elevated wire is the more effective method. There were some notes from Jon Z., perhaps posted by NJ Hi-Railers in working out their signal issues. If I find that, I'll post the link.
One thing of note with a large layout. If you have too much "antenna" area and get excessive coupling between the track signal and the ground signal, that could result in a lower amplitude signal from the base due to excessive loading. I suspect if you measure the capacitance between the outside rail and the ground plane, you might be surprised how large a value it'll be. Obviously, this measurement would be with the command base disconnected.
gunrunnerjohn posted:One thing of note with a large layout. If you have too much "antenna" area and get excessive coupling between the track signal and the ground signal, that could result in a lower amplitude signal from the base due to excessive loading. I suspect if you measure the capacitance between the outside rail and the ground plane, you might be surprised how large a value it'll be. Obviously, this measurement would be with the command base disconnected.
My exact thoughts this AM. First of all the use of the term "ground plane". It's just a wire (connected to the house ground wire), in the air, over the track the engine is running on. The use of a large surface area like the chicken wire or large area metal foil seems like, as GRJ points out, a large capacitance between the track and the in the air ground wire. Which would reduce the amplitude of the signal.
I have asked Elliot to disconnect some of the earth-ground mesh to see how much the signal amplitude increases so that we can better understand the loading effects.
I suspect that the chicken wire is so close to the upper track that the effective radiation downward from the mesh is weakened. More testing to come....
Sounds like a plan Dale. I'm sure you're on top of this, it'll be interesting to see what effect it has.
Big_Boy_4005 posted:"Thank you Nick. Patience and persistence are the words of the day. There were those who just said send it in. I'm glad I toughed it out a bit. If you look back on page 4, near the middle, that's where the diagnosis came together. After that, the surgery was easy. This has been a fun topic, getting a lot of people involved, and thinking out in the open."
Now that the legacy base is fixed, I think I'll change the topic title one last time, to something we can run with...
Adventures in TMCC & Legacy
Curious, would this have been solved much sooner if a known good Legacy base was substituted since the TMCC base functioned? Nice layout and construction thread.
Elliott, I am very happy to hear you got it resolved.
BobbyD posted:Big_Boy_4005 posted:"Thank you Nick. Patience and persistence are the words of the day. There were those who just said send it in. I'm glad I toughed it out a bit. If you look back on page 4, near the middle, that's where the diagnosis came together. After that, the surgery was easy. This has been a fun topic, getting a lot of people involved, and thinking out in the open."
Now that the legacy base is fixed, I think I'll change the topic title one last time, to something we can run with...
Adventures in TMCC & Legacy
Curious, would this have been solved much sooner if a known good Legacy base was substituted since the TMCC base functioned? Nice layout and construction thread.
While this makes sense and I do agree. Sometimes it's just not that easy. I have my Legacy set away for repair at the moment. My issue was LCS operations so different from Elliot's problem. It could have been quickly diagnosed with a spare Legacy set. However I only know of around 6 Legacy sets in the whole UK! Arranging to borrow one would have been a bit tricky.
I guess I could spend $300 and have a spare sitting in a drawer. But I have a spare TMCC base for a backup.
I would like to see a diagnostic utility built in to the LSU software. So you attach your base to the serial/USB lead and your PC and it automatically checks everything is within operating limits. Might need some sort of special lead so it could check the output on the terminal so it could diagnose an issue like Elliot had.
Nick
Elliot,
Put a frame up high with chicken wire in the middle of Train Room..
That should help improve a better signal throughout the entire Train Room
Your have to hard-wire to the chicken wire. but i think you was doing that already.
Please let us know how you make out.
Good luck, John
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
