Skip to main content

By now, everyone as digested the news that Lionel declared obsolete many electronic boards and removed stock from the parts site, that includes the R2LC and R4LC TMCC/Legacy receiver boards.  What do you do now.

Many of the failures of the R2LC/R4LC are actually not that difficult to fix, since the boards are no longer stocked, now's a good time to consider that fact and look at reviving some of the "broken" ones laying around.

A major source of failures is the five triacs that control the lights, couplers, and smoke.  These are not difficult to replace with a decent soldering iron and reasonable soldering skills.  The parts are also pretty cheap.

Another less common failure that is similar in complexity to repair is the 5V regulator, again not difficult to replace.

Finally, occasionally the capacitors will be pulled loose by rough handling, the most common one is on the lower left of the graphic below.  Those are equally easy to replace.

Below is a graphic that depicts the locations of the afore mentioned parts and the part numbers.

Lionel R2LC Triac Positions

My technique for replacing these is fairly simple.

I first grab the part with needle-nose pliers and carefully flex it back and forth keeping the movement right at the bottom of the part.  When the part breaks off, I have the three leads hanging down.

Next, I turn the board over and trim any excess lead on the back side for the parts flush with the board.

Next, I clip a set of forceps on one of the leads and let them hang there with the board in my PanaVise.  On the revers side that is facing up, I use a spot of solder on the iron to heat the joint and melt the solder, the lead should fall out from the weight of the forceps, but you can give it a gentle tug if it doesn't.

Do this for all the leads.

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

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

Make sure there are no solder splashes on either side of the board when you've cleared the hole, and you're ready to install the new part.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Lionel R2LC Triac Positions
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

These are fairly easy issues to diagnose and fix. I’ve always wanted figure out why some R2LCs seem to be less responsive to commands in command mode or some seem to have a more robust serial line. I have a few duds kicking around that could probably be brought back up to snuff I suppose. These were simply swapped out and chucked into my e-scrap bin.

These are fairly easy issues to diagnose and fix. I’ve always wanted figure out why some R2LCs seem to be less responsive to commands in command mode or some seem to have a more robust serial line. I have a few duds kicking around that could probably be brought back up to snuff I suppose. These were simply swapped out and chucked into my e-scrap bin.

No doubt, they can be fixed.  My goal was to point out to the less informed that it's easy to bring some of them back to life.

I also have some that have poor reception, but I really don't have an idea of what might be dying on them.

and, you may need one of these rigs...

5 Diopter

I use a 5x Diopter (2.25x) and,  I still need 3x readers on top of it.

I have a similar model, though I ripped that annoying flapper off as it kept getting in the way.  My switch is in a different place, but otherwise it looks identical.  after a few years, mine developed a open circuit right at the top hinge to the ring, I had to take it all apart to fix the power cable.  Given that it gets used every day, usually multiple times, that's probably not unexpected.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • mceclip0

GRJ......and others thanks for the information. DigiKey order in process. I have the light and proper soldering equipment already. I have several non working boards. One new right out of the package from last years sale. Another R4LC that was under water along with a AC Commander and Sound Commander. After a good cleaning those two boards worked fine! I'm thinking the caps on the R4LC need to be replaced.

Richard

@jim sutter posted:

gunrunnerjohn,

You are probably the smartest person on this forum when it comes to repairing all this new stuff. Myself, I don't know the first thing about it.

Don't feel so bad Jim. John just is in soaking up all that stuff like the sponge he is for that particular thing. If you want to know useless information about movies, I could probably fill that role to a degree, lol.

Also, John excels like most of us do with the curiosity of how things work. Since electronics is his forte, just seems natural to him. Gotta love that.

By now, everyone as digested the news that Lionel declared obsolete many electronic boards and removed stock from the parts site, that includes the R2LC and R4LC TMCC/Legacy receiver boards.  What do you do now.

Many of the failures of the R2LC/R4LC are actually not that difficult to fix, since the boards are no longer stocked, now's a good time to consider that fact and look at reviving some of the "broken" ones laying around.

A major source of failures is the five triacs that control the lights, couplers, and smoke.  These are not difficult to replace with a decent soldering iron and reasonable soldering skills.  The parts are also pretty cheap.

Another less common failure that is similar in complexity to repair is the 5V regulator, again not difficult to replace.

Finally, occasionally the capacitors will be pulled loose by rough handling, the most common one is on the lower left of the graphic below.  Those are equally easy to replace.

Below is a graphic that depicts the locations of the afore mentioned parts and the part numbers.

Lionel R2LC Triac Positions

My technique for replacing these is fairly simple.

I first grab the part with needle-nose pliers and carefully flex it back and forth keeping the movement right at the bottom of the part.  When the part breaks off, I have the three leads hanging down.

Next, I turn the board over and trim any excess lead on the back side for the parts flush with the board.

Next, I clip a set of forceps on one of the leads and let them hang there with the board in my PanaVise.  On the revers side that is facing up, I use a spot of solder on the iron to heat the joint and melt the solder, the lead should fall out from the weight of the forceps, but you can give it a gentle tug if it doesn't.

Do this for all the leads.

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

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

Make sure there are no solder splashes on either side of the board when you've cleared the hole, and you're ready to install the new part.

Good suggestion - going forward some might want to get a good vacuum solder sucker. The other good thing. While everyone was buying trains the last few years. I slowed down. I was basically just buying parts…

Lots of them. I have boxes of pcb boards box’s. I mean 5 milk crates of parts.

The used train market prices are going to get decimated.  Who, with knowledge is going to buy a engine where parts aren’t available - to keep the engine originally intact.

I might start dissembling my roster 150 legacy engines.They might be worth more in parts.

Since Lionel is choosing not to produce the R2LC or R4LC boards anymore, to support the large existing customer base, it would be great if they made the design files available so that at least us common-folks could debug & fix them more intelligently, vs having to reverse engineer them.  Or, at least release a document that shows step-by-step how to convert an engine with a R2LC/R4LC over to the newer RCMC.

For desoldering, I've had very good luck with the Hakko FR-301.  It's on the pricey side, so probably not worth it if you are doing rework only once in a blue moon.  However, I replace chips quite often and it's my go-to device for pin-through-hole components.  For surface mount chips with many leads, I use SRA Fast Chip.  You flow some of it on top of the existing solder joints and it changes the chemistry of the solder to lower the melting point.  I've been able to pull 208-pin PQFP devices with it.  The only catch is all the solder remnants must be cleaned up so that the final solder joint is not weaker.

@romiller49 posted:

So with the R2LC and R4LC’s gone how can Scott Mann continue to supply the ERR products line?. I’m assuming Lionel still controls that product even though he’s the dealer.

Scott made a bunch of R4LC-C08 boards for his production, he's working his way through them.  As long as he can get parts, I'm "assuming" he'd keep making them as stocks run low.

@jim sutter posted:

MPC and post war trains looking better and better.

Jim (and others),

With all due respect let's look at this objectively:

  1. Does Lionel presently make the electrical and mechanical parts that keep Postwar stuff going?
  2. Do they still have them in inventory?
  3. How often do Postwar owners have to go to a third-party for replacements because Lionel considers them obsolete?
  4. How many third-party parts sources are there?
  5. Are their prices lower, the same as, or higher than Lionel's?

Before the recent announcement third-party electronics parts sources weren't needed.  Now that they are let's wait a little while before writing off all command control, to see if any pop up.  Let them get organized and up to speed.

Hobbies are supposed to exist to allow people to slow down and relax.  If that's the case why is it that so many of us hobbyists on this forum have so little patience?

Mike

Last edited by Mellow Hudson Mike

Jim (and others),

With all due respect let's look at this objectively:

  1. Does Lionel presently make the electrical and mechanical parts that keep Postwar stuff going?
  2. Do they still have them in inventory?
  3. How often do Postwar owners have to go to a third-party for replacements because Lionel considers them obsolete?
  4. How many third-party parts sources are there?
  5. Are their prices lower, the same as, or higher than Lionel's?

Before the recent announcement third-party electronics parts sources weren't needed.  Now that they are let's wait a little while before writing off all command control, to see if any pop up.  Let them get organized and up to speed.

I'm anxious, like many here, to see what 3rd party options pop up. That said, reproducing mechanical parts and reproducing command-control and sound electronics is quite something else. I suspect that many people who have the know-how would be worried about getting sued to oblivion by the big L if they tried and made any mis-steps... even with the vast majority of the TMCC protocol long out of patent protection.

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

It might be worth documenting all of the output functions and performance vs. operator input in both the command and conventional environments and then doing so for all the identifiable hardware and firmware revs of these boards over the years.

There are more outputs these devices have other than the simple outputs in the OP. There is the PWM output and then there is also the serial comm output for instance. Also I remember the early R2LCs had a speed triggered smoke boost feature that disappeared at some point (maybe still there but I haven’t checked in years).

It might be neat to identify a test point to measure the signal strength into the receiver for the dreaded ‘weak signal/blinky headlight syndrome’ so one may change be able to swap a failing/underperforming/out of tolerance component to restore full robust response.

@rplst8 posted:

I'm anxious, like many here, to see what 3rd party options pop up. That said, reproducing mechanical parts and reproducing command-control and sound electronics is quite something else. I suspect that many people who have the know-how would be worried about getting sued to oblivion by the big L if they tried and made any mis-steps... even with the vast majority of the TMCC protocol long out of patent protection.

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

Two things to consider:

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



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

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

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

Mike

Last edited by Mellow Hudson Mike

It might be worth documenting all of the output functions and performance vs. operator input in both the command and conventional environments and then doing so for all the identifiable hardware and firmware revs of these boards over the years.

Mike Reagan did a post about this and I captured it as it has useful information.

R2LC Version Differences from Mike Reagan.txt

Attachments

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

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

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

I believe you are correct, but I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.  In any case, I suspect there won't be many takers to take on the task of creating an R2LC clone, I don't see the return on investment here.

The FM receiver chip is another issue, it's been obsolete for years.

Yeah not much info there at all.

It's the best that I've found.  Truthfully, if you were to characterize the R2LC-C08 well, that works in almost all situations.  Stuff like the Aquarium car special version seems like a lost cause, how many of them could you ever sell?  I've actually used the C08 version universally for years, so that's the one I'd want to emulate.

Nobody has ever really measured and documented all the inputs and outputs that I can recall. It might be helpful to better understand these devices in the hopes of fixing a few every now and again. Seeing what the PWM is doing along with the discrete inputs and outputs is fairly simple to measure and document. Decoding the serial line would be a little more interesting. For instance - what does the chuff input from pin 17 spit out to the serial line when triggered?

I have no real interest in emulating the R2LC for commercial purposes, that could be a challenge for someone else of a more entrepreneurial spirit.

Last edited by Norm Charbonneau

Nobody has ever really measured and documented all the inputs and outputs that I can recall. It might be helpful to better understand these devices in the hopes of fixing a few every now and again. Seeing what the PWM is doing along with the discrete inputs and outputs is fairly simple to measure and document. Decoding the serial line would be a little more interesting. For instance - what does the chuff input from pin 17 spit out to the serial line when triggered?

I've never seen any mysterious behavior of the PWM outputs, they're operation seems very straight-forward.  Ditto for the lights, couplers, and smoke, at least for the C08 version.  I've looked at the serial bitstream and can see the change with the chuff, but I never actually setup the scope to properly decode the whole bit stream.  Usually, I'm just looking to see if it's getting to the serial data if I'm having a problem with chuff getting to the tender.  It would be an interesting experiment, just never find the time.  The bit rate is interesting, it's about 3K, a nice round number that doesn't match any standard.   I'm guessing there's a good reason for that, probably matching up to some processor capability.

Clearly, the serial data is probably the biggest documentation task.

Truthfully, I'd be happy with the hardware design documentation, even a complete schematic would be great!

I have no real interest in emulating the R2LC for commercial purposes, that could be a challenge for someone else of a more entrepreneurial spirit.

I'll be a spectator for this one as well.

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

You just need to buy new engines with working boards.





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

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

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

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

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

P.C.,

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

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

Two things to consider:

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



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

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

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

Mike

Mike

Last edited by Mellow Hudson Mike

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

WARNING - tech talk here...

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

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

Lou N

@Lou N posted:

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

WARNING - tech talk here...

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

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

Lou N

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

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

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

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

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

P.C.,

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

Mike

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

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



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

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

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

Last edited by Professor Chaos


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

And therein lies the rub.

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

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

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

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

@Landsteiner posted:

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

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

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

Pete

@rplst8 posted:

And therein lies the rub.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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



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

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

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

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

@Landsteiner posted:

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

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

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

I stopped watching football -

I stopped watching baseball.

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

Last edited by shawn
@romiller49 posted:

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

Except for some very limited cases.

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

The backshop I think is also a special one.

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

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

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


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

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

I use a beading needle.

John

Last edited by Craftech
@Tom Tee posted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by shawn

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

@shawn posted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by shawn

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

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

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

Rider,

Thank for the post, no argument perceived.

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Tom Tee
@shawn posted:

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

malar

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

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

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

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

Last edited by gunrunnerjohn

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

John, what did they do with the parts?  Agreed, that seems arbitrary.

Lionel if your listening.  I am likely not your best customer but for over twenty years have bought one new top of your line steam loco each year. Most are in their original packaging never run as, like many here, I have enough locomotives that I could have stopped buying new twenty years ago. What I would like to hear from you is a pledge that as technology moves along you would make available kits to upgrade our old locomotives, to current standards, as long as you remain in the toy train business. I can well understand that at some point economics make it impossible to produce old tech boards.  Seems plausible to me that producing enough extra boards to cover upgrade demands would actually lower your per unit cost for current production boards.   j

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

  1. To support hobbyists
  2. To garner goodwill from customers
  3. To foster innovation

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

Who said anything about policing or supporting it? Open source software licenses have no warranty and typically indemnify the author from liability.

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

Nothing says they have to release the enhancements as well. If you don’t think they’d pursue legal options, why not help out their customers?

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

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

I dunno, it’s never been as easy as it is now to prototype electronics and have them made overseas. It’s a maker economy and as we’ve seen there are many people on this forum who are extremely capable.

Being free of legal liabilities would likely entice more activity in that regard.

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

Microsoft has open sourced some of their older software.

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

The benefits are many.

  • Increased “things” that can be controlled with their controllers
  • Friendly ecosystem that is welcoming to new users, rather than being “vendor locked”
  • Lionel could benefit from bug fixes to the code and new features that are authored by contributors
@Norton posted:

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

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

Pete

TAS was the first TMCC licensee.  After the UCUB we made the SAW board for the licensees that followed.  Yes a lot of it was Lionel components.  We created some new features installed on the mother board and then Lionel changed the Licensing agreement to say that new features were not allowed.  We had Neil Young encouraging us to create new features and Lionel sending cease and desist orders.  Crazy times.

Lou N

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

Okay so here's my question....

Do you or anybody else have an ERR radio board?  If you do, tell me the processor chip number.

Lou N

@romiller49 posted:

OK, since we are all learning something here, is there any way to check an R2LC or R4LC board without attaching it to the mother board?

Not easily.  You can "skywire" it, but for a full test you really need to exercise stuff like the PWM and serial data.

I made a test fixture to test all the modular boards, TMCC and early Legacy.  I use it a lot.  For folks without such a tool or similar, do what I used to do.  Poke the suspect board into a TMCC engine and program it and see if it works.

JWA TMCC Test Fixture

@Lou N posted:

Do you or anybody else have an ERR radio board?  If you do, tell me the processor chip number.

It's a PIC16F648A, In stock at Mouser.  Also, Microchip Direct has them as well.

The R2LC-04 I looked at has the PIC16F84-04, it was obviously a fairly old one.  That one is also in stock at Mouser.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • JWA TMCC Test Fixture
Last edited by gunrunnerjohn
@rplst8 posted:
  1. To support hobbyists
  2. To garner goodwill from customers
  3. To foster innovation

Who said anything about policing or supporting it? Open source software licenses have no warranty and typically indemnify the author from liability.

Nothing says they have to release the enhancements as well. If you don’t think they’d pursue legal options, why not help out their customers?

I dunno, it’s never been as easy as it is now to prototype electronics and have them made overseas. It’s a maker economy and as we’ve seen there are many people on this forum who are extremely capable.

Being free of legal liabilities would likely entice more activity in that regard.

Without going through point by point, which of your thoughts directly financially benefit Lionel?  Not soft/feel good, but actual financial benefits?

Aftermarket competitors are not easy. I worked with an appliance manufacturer who went easy on third-party knockoffs of the water filters for their lower-end refrigerators.  They thought it was a “right” thing to do to support the folks who were buying at that price point. The knockoff filters were complete junk and built on the cheap. They leaked everywhere and ruined kitchen floors.  Many recovered field failures of the filter were built without gaskets. All the customer reviews related to leaky ice makers blamed the refrigerator as being poorly built. Simply wiping your hands of “liability” doesn’t absolve an OEM in the court of public opinion. If it’s going onto your product or into your system, you **** well better make sure it’s built well because the customer doesn’t know who the no name name knockoff is, but they do know the OEM.

Without going through point by point, which of your thoughts directly financially benefit Lionel?  Not soft/feel good, but actual financial benefits?

Aftermarket competitors are not easy. I worked with an appliance manufacturer who went easy on third-party knockoffs of the water filters for their lower-end refrigerators.  They thought it was a “right” thing to do to support the folks who were buying at that price point. The knockoff filters were complete junk and built on the cheap. They leaked everywhere and ruined kitchen floors.  Many recovered field failures of the filter were built without gaskets. All the customer reviews related to leaky ice makers blamed the refrigerator as being poorly built. Simply wiping your hands of “liability” doesn’t absolve an OEM in the court of public opinion. If it’s going onto your product or into your system, you **** well better make sure it’s built well because the customer doesn’t know who the no name name knockoff is, but they do know the OEM.

Lionel is doing a fine job of ruining their own reputation, so I don’t think they have much to worry about.

You can buy knock off parts (filters, batteries, cartridges, accessories, etc.) for thousands of products (appliances included) already on Amazon or a hundred other places. If ruined reputations were really a problem, I think the market place would show it.

instead, companies remain shortsighted, and concerned only about the bottom line, rather than the long term prospects of their business. They find ways to cheapen every aspect of their products to save pennies per unit, turning them into cheap, unrepairable throwaway garbage, that clog landfills and use up scarce resources.

Name a single US appliance manufacturer that isn’t a shell of what it once was 40 years ago, now often just renting their name out to a third party who actually makes the goods.

Add Reply

Post
This forum is sponsored by Lionel, LLC

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.
×
×