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.

@rplst8 posted:

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.

KitchenAid

Pat

@rplst8 posted:

Yes, and funny this one was mentioned because we bought a KitchenAid dishwasher about a year ago and the frame is made of plastic and the door leaks onto the floor when opened after a wash cycle.

The best one was when they started making kitchenmaid mixers with plastic gears….I remember factory refurbs being all over the place.

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

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.

Wasn’t the issue with these the availability of surface Mount . Or was the the radio receiver - I remember ordering a couple of hundred of something from china.

@rplst8 posted:

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.

Lol - like the first time I saw one of Lionel’s easy hookup accessories. I mean really…can you get any cheaper looking switch?

@JohnActon posted:

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

I agree!

@Lou N posted:

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

I see John posted the number. I have no recent ERR Cruise Commanders that came with R4LCs  but have found, by accident that all Lionel “Legacy” R4LCs can be used in TMCC applications if you program them with the correct feature code. AUX1 1 or 2 for Legacy, AUX1 4-8 for TMCC. Maybe one reason they offed them to their new destination, yet to be announced.

Pete

@rplst8 posted:

Lionel, to support hobbyists?  Lionel to garner goodwill?    In my opinion.

They no longer have to...no real competition...MTH, Weaver, Williams, Right-a-Way kind of kept them on their toes in years past.  With MTH redeveloping, Bachman doing what Bachman does, Atlas slowing down and Sunset far above Lionel,  Lionel can do what ever they want to.  Lots of orange Kool-Aid.

Whenever there is any question of what anyone is doing in any business decisions, simply follow the dollar.  No love to be lost.  Loco Louie said it best when he quoted certain others.

In my experience the main way a company can make the big dollars is to sell new product. 

@Tom Tee posted:

Lionel, to support hobbyists?  Lionel to garner goodwill?    In my opinion.

They no longer have to...no real competition...MTH, Weaver, Williams, Right-a-Way kind of kept them on their toes in years past.  With MTH redeveloping, Bachman doing what Bachman does, Atlas slowing down and Sunset far above Lionel,  Lionel can do what ever they want to.  Lots of orange Kool-Aid.

Whenever there is any question of what anyone is doing in any business decisions, simply follow the dollar.  No love to be lost.  Loco Louie said it best when he quoted certain others.

In my experience the main way a company can make the big dollars is to sell new product.

“In my experience the main way a company can make the big dollars is to sell new product.”  That all depends…..on the economy - and the new products being produced. Frankly, why does every manufacturer rehash existing products typically when the economy gets bad….MTH? As a example….in these situations it imperative for the manufacturer to keep the hobby alive. Providing parts for older loco’s.

I had a few atlantics…You couldn’t even get a smoke unit gasket..years ago.

@rplst8 posted:

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.

Yet, you expect a 100-year-old low volume toy manufacturer in a decaying (no offense) market to magically be immune from all the market realities you just listed….all the while they should just give away what little remaining technology they have “for the benefit of the hobby.” Gulp.  They’re not “doing a fine job of ruining their own reputation”, they’re trying to survive.

As an aside, your analysis of the US appliance market is also way off base. There is still lots of US made stuff under the traditional brands - Whirlpool, Maytag, Kitchenaid, Jennair, GE, etc. - admittedly under brand consolidation, but still US designed and built.

Yet, you expect a 100-year-old low volume toy manufacturer in a decaying (no offense) market to magically be immune from all the market realities you just listed….all the while they should just give away what little remaining technology they have “for the benefit of the hobby.” Gulp.  They’re not “doing a fine job of ruining their own reputation”, they’re trying to survive.

As an aside, your analysis of the US appliance market is also way off base. There is still lots of US made stuff under the traditional brands - Whirlpool, Maytag, Kitchenaid, Jennair, GE, etc. - admittedly under brand consolidation, but still US designed and built.

And it might not all be decaying because of attrition….It might have to do with marketing. Your assuming they can’t make money selling parts. Do you know how many parts I didn’t order because they didn’t have them?

I’m starting to feel - like I’m buying overpriced light bright stuff - from our biggest O gauge train maker.

Last edited by shawn
@shawn posted:

And it might not all be decaying because of attrition….It might have to do with marketing. Your assuming they can’t make money selling parts. Do you know how many parts I didn’t order because they didn’t have them? Then this new mess of a web site? You can’t even find anything…hopefully they hired a outside company for that fiasco.

I’m starting to feel - like I’m buying overpriced light bright stuff - from our biggest O gauge train maker.

@shawn posted:

And it might not all be decaying because of attrition….It might have to do with marketing. Your assuming they can’t make money selling parts. Do you know how many parts I didn’t order because they didn’t have them?

Politely, I’m not assuming they can’t make money selling parts. This whole thread is about the fact they are selling off what parts they do - or don’t - have. They aren’t not selling parts because they could print money selling parts!

Do you know how many parts I didn’t order because they didn’t have them?


FWIW, last year, I spent over $2k in parts,  this year, I spent $600

The 3 orders last year.  First order was the big one, then order 2 was parts I forgot, then 3 was the parts I wanted and found while looking some more.

Discounts:- $278.15
Sub-Total:$278.15
Tax:$16.69
Shipping:$15.00
The total price of $309.84 is subject to part availability.Total:$309.84
Discounts:- $374.18
Sub-Total:$374.18
Tax:$22.45
Shipping:$15.00
The total price of $411.63 is subject to part availability.Total:

$411.63



Discounts:- $1250.09
Sub-Total:$1250.09
Tax:$75.01
Shipping:$15.00
The total price of $1340.10 is subject to part availability.Total:$1340.10

Hi Folks,

To give you all a little background, we entered in a licensing agreement in 2018 with Lionel to be the sole, worldwide producer and seller of ERR components, including R4LCs. We independently procure these boards from a manufacturer designated by Lionel. We have stocked up on many of these boards (Cruise Commanders, AC Commanders, Mini Commanders, Railsounds Boards and R4LCs) in anticipation of chip obsolescence which is taking place now. The life of the product line will be limited, which is why we urge customers to stock up on what we sell so they have supply for their future needs.  These are not Legacy level boards, only TMCC.

If you want to stock up...

http://www.electricrr.com

For clarity, we are not an electrical engineering company or team. We have no experience in using the ERR components to upgrade other manufacturer's models besides 3rd Rail / Sunset Models, but our Dealer Network is experienced in this, and you can search the list on our web site above to find one that suits your needs. We do use the OEM versions of the Cruise Commander, R4LC and Railsounds Commanders in all our 3 Rail Locomotives.  I might be interested in offering some limited repairs of R2LC as it's seems pretty simple. But I think the R4LC is backwards compatible for the most part as a replacement for the R2LCs.

Last edited by sdmann

I appreciate your info Scott on the TMCC ERR products.  It makes sense that TMCC products will eventually see end of life with part obsolescence.  I doubt anyone is going to redesign a TMCC board using current components.  Yes, I'm sure it could be done, but is there any value in doing so.  With forum members like Bruk/Gunrunner John/HarmondYards etc... new options are always available to keep the fleet running.  Since RCMC boards are available, engines can be converted to legacy.

It still does not make any sense to pull the old boards from stock.  As others have stated, Lionel is still stocking all the mechanical parts for older locs.  If someone else is buying the supply, its only good if Lionel gives them access to the code to program the boards.  Odyssey boards are generic for many locs.  According to Mike Reagan, the difference was the programming so the speed steps are correct.  When I was fixing my TMCC GG-1, Mike had me try the motor board in another loc.  He said it would work but the speed steps would be off.  It helped me diagnose the problem.  The same goes for the radio boards.  Some accessories require specific code.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Lionel is dumping all the old tech (boards, chip burners, etc) so they can stay focused on the current rcmc boards.  By off loading the old boards to a third party, it frees up space and also time in supporting the old stuff.  It would just be nice to know what Lionel's plan is.  Just pulling the stock just leads to conspiracy theories on what is going on.

@Joe Fermani posted:


The only thing that makes sense to me is that Lionel is dumping all the old tech (boards, chip burners, etc) so they can stay focused on the current rcmc boards.  By off loading the old boards to a third party, it frees up space and also time in supporting the old stuff.  It would just be nice to know what Lionel's plan is.  Just pulling the stock just leads to conspiracy theories on what is going on.

Exactly Joe.  Well stated.

Well - that’s that - not a peep from Lionel! Time to sell off everything except a few early pieces.  I’m going to keep all conventional and some early tmcc with AC motored engines. Some DC engines with basic electronics….All the rest of the newer “  obsolete”technology ” is going to be parted with. Any electronics or interfaces.
except - a zw-l and zwc..

i never considered Lionel “throw” away. I’m going to stay in the hobby. But, on a different level.  I’m going back to the past……where I didn’t get “screwed”.

The hobby is about to get a lot cheaper……Goodbye Lionel. I’m canceling my pre- orders. I will not deal with Lionel until there is a change in Management. Which, I presume to be part of the issue?

I’m talking 150 to 200 engines.  I’m looking about disabling them for parts…to sell. I have to figure it out…









Last edited by shawn
@shawn posted:

Well - that’s that - not a peep from Lionel! Time to sell off everything except a few early pieces.  I’m going to keep all conventional and some early tmcc with AC motored engines. Some DC engines with basic electronics….All the rest of the newer “  obsolete”technology ” is going to be parted with. Any electronics or interfaces.
except - a zoo amd zwc..

i never considered Lionel “throw” away. I’m going to stay in the hobby. But, on a different level.  I’m going back to the past……where I didn’t get “screwed”.

The hobby is about to get a lot cheaper……Goodbye Lionel. I’m canceling my pre- orders. I will not deal with Lionel until there is a change in Management. Which, I presume to be part of the issue?

I think we got it.  I understand your frustration but you must have said this at least 4 or more times in this thread.  I think everyone knows where you stand.

John,

what are you going to do with the disappearance of these boards. Doesn’t- it throw cold water on your business? Or, will you have to reinvent the wheel.

I’m also hearing from one of my dealers. He can no longer get a discount on parts. As, the warranty method has changed. I’m not sure this is true…But, would certainly be a double screw job.

@shawn posted:

John,

what are you going to do with the disappearance of these boards. Doesn’t- it throw cold water on your business? Or, will you have to reinvent the wheel.

I’m also hearing from one of my dealers. He can no longer get a discount on parts. As, the warranty method has changed. I’m not sure this is true…But, would certainly be a double screw job.

Four pages and it still hasn’t sunk in that any TMCC locomotive can be made to run again with ERR parts. John is an ERR dealer. I doubt he is on his way to the poor house. The wheel has already been reinvented.

Pete

@shawn posted:

Well - that’s that - not a peep from Lionel! Time to sell off everything except a few early pieces.  I’m going to keep all conventional and some early tmcc with AC motored engines. Some DC engines with basic electronics….All the rest of the newer “  obsolete”technology ” is going to be parted with. Any electronics or interfaces.
except - a zw-l and zwc..

i never considered Lionel “throw” away. I’m going to stay in the hobby. But, on a different level.  I’m going back to the past……where I didn’t get “screwed”.

The hobby is about to get a lot cheaper……Goodbye Lionel. I’m canceling my pre- orders. I will not deal with Lionel until there is a change in Management. Which, I presume to be part of the issue?

I’m talking 150 to 200 engines.  I’m looking about disabling them for parts…to sell. I have to figure it out…









Shawn I don't know how much you've pre-ordered but what about the dealer you have pre-orders with?  They may get stuck with product that might not sell. Do what you have to but I'd think about this,

@sdmann posted:

Hi Folks,

To give you all a little background, we entered in a licensing agreement in 2018 with Lionel to be the sole, worldwide producer and seller of ERR components, including R4LCs. We independently procure these boards from a manufacturer designated by Lionel. We have stocked up on many of these boards (Cruise Commanders, AC Commanders, Mini Commanders, Railsounds Boards and R4LCs) in anticipation of chip obsolescence which is taking place now.

Thanks for chiming in Scott, I was hoping you'd drop by.

@feet posted:

Shawn I don't know how much you've pre-ordered but what about the dealer you have pre-orders with?  They may get stuck with product that might not sell. Do what you have to but I'd think about this,

I think my dealers about had it too. I certainly won’t have a issue assisting him with some form of economic recovery.

Last edited by shawn
@shawn posted:

Well - that’s that - not a peep from Lionel! Time to sell off everything except a few early pieces.  I’m going to keep all conventional and some early tmcc with AC motored engines. Some DC engines with basic electronics….All the rest of the newer “  obsolete”technology ” is going to be parted with. Any electronics or interfaces.
except - a zw-l and zwc..

i never considered Lionel “throw” away. I’m going to stay in the hobby. But, on a different level.  I’m going back to the past……where I didn’t get “screwed”.

The hobby is about to get a lot cheaper……Goodbye Lionel. I’m canceling my pre- orders. I will not deal with Lionel until there is a change in Management. Which, I presume to be part of the issue?

I’m talking 150 to 200 engines.  I’m looking about disabling them for parts…to sell. I have to figure it out…









I’d sure hate to be anywheres near you if we ever got invaded, ….you’d surrender before the first boot hit the ground,…good god, stop with the doomsday bologna, ….everyone is attempting to figure out what we can do and solve the problem….again, here we go with the same parade…..PLEASE!…stop muddying up what should be a USEFUL thread……sit back, relax and observe, or offer up useful solutions…..

Pat

@BillYo414 posted:

I also like your jig for testing. How long did it take you to come up with that?

It actually evolved over time.  I just kept adding features as I needed them.  Truthfully, if I knew then what it would become, I'd have planned it better.  I started out just sticking the motherboard on the board with some basic parts to check out boards.  I just kept adding features to test additional stuff.

@rplst8 posted:

Speed Queen is a subsidiary of McGraw-Edison, which is a subsidiary of Cooper, which is owned by Eaton, which is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

Speed Queen makes its own appliances though and isn't rebadged x.   These days there are a few appliance manufacturers and they simply do what GM used t do, slap a label on a car to make it brand X (with some minor differences).  GE for example is Haier (Chinese company). So basically you are buying the same appliance under a different label. Bosch is associated with Thermador and another company called Gaggenau; the difference is that with high end appliances the quality is better and the machines tend to be very different. Whirlpool own like 8 or 9 different brands. Jenn Air used to be high price and high quality, these days it is just high price IMO.

What would be really awesome is if Lionel made their original code open source, with some sort of source control. This is done in the software industry all the time, and it allows among other things improvements and bug fixes that are under source control. That doesn't mean third party products would be good, you always take your chances with third party firms, but at least we would have it.

In a sense the auto industry does this, it is why you can get parts for 25 year old cars easily (or more).

One thing I agree with those worried, if the cost of keeping old boards is such that they don't want to do it, then allowing third party firms to have access to them would make sense. They wouldn't even have to release the source code, they could simply not bother defending their patents.  I think the argument that third party parts would ruin their reputation is a bit specious, if Lionel basically washes their hands of the parts for those engines then it would take an idiot to blame Lionel if it fails *shrug*. And the thing is the marketplace would take over, if you buy boards from some fly by night firm in China and they don't work, word gets out *shrug*. Ideally Lionel and MTH given their business models would license their older stuff to someone like Scott at 3rd rail (I say like Scott, simply bc I don't think a single small company could handle that). The other thing with open source is chip availability would become less of an issue, third party firms could replace custom ASICS with something that is more universal, allowing being able to more easily use off the shelf components and re-doing them if a particular part becomes obsolete.

@BillYo414 posted:

@gunrunnerjohn great thread! I learned a lot from the constructive posters. Sorry to see so many people having a crisis over a handy tip you decided to share.

I also like your jig for testing. How long did it take you to come up with that?

For the benefit of those who want to build something similar, MIke Reagan made a bunch of test jigs that those who went to his service school could purchase. I inherited one and can tell you he used the motherboard below as the basis. LEDS were wired to lights and coupler pins as well as the feature (usually smoke) pin of the R2LC. In addition LEDs  went to the motor direction pins as well as serial out. A speaker is wired to the audio board.

There are schematics of those boards on the TMCC forum as well as the web. Not that hard to build and that board is still in stock.

942F6BFA-18D4-4E76-852A-6650C88F2C26

Pete

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 942F6BFA-18D4-4E76-852A-6650C88F2C26
Last edited by Norton
@Norton posted:

Four pages and it still hasn’t sunk in that any TMCC locomotive can be made to run again with ERR parts. John is an ERR dealer. I doubt he is on his way to the poor house. The wheel has already been reinvented.

Pete

TMCC doesn't concern me. ERR to the rescue on those, from what I'm hearing. What is of concern is repair of early Legacy engines, with those boards no longer available. For example, I'm concerned about the future of my No. 11127 Legacy GS-4 Daylight. As I understand it, worse case scenario it can be converted to TMCC using ERR parts, but that will yield a lower level of performance. And what about loss of its Legacy sound?

Last edited by breezinup
@breezinup posted:

TMCC doesn't concern me. ERR to the rescue on those, from what I'm hearing. What is of concern is repair of early Legacy engines, with those boards no longer available. For example, I'm concerned about the future of my No. 11127 Legacy GS-4 Daylight. As I understand it, worse case scenario it can be converted to TMCC using ERR parts, but that will yield a lower level of performance. And what about loss of its Legacy sound?

Pretty sure a RCDR and BEMC will work at the expense of running with other Legacy engines.

The boards will reappear at some point. When they do then pick up some spares.

Pete

@breezinup posted:

TMCC doesn't concern me. ERR to the rescue on those, from what I'm hearing. What is of concern is repair of early Legacy engines, with those boards no longer available. For example, I'm concerned about the future of my No. 11127 Legacy GS-4 Daylight. As I understand it, worse case scenario it can be converted to TMCC using ERR parts, but that will yield a lower level of performance. And what about loss of its Legacy sound?

That's a real concern, and one that I share.  I still have some Legacy R4LC boards that I'm saving for any upcoming repairs.  I also have a few of the Legacy back-EMF motor drivers.  Though they are not the same as the tach controlled DCDS, they do work with Legacy.  I also have the RS 5.0 boards that are used in many of the Legacy models, including the GS-4 from 2008.  If the RS chips die, you're out of luck, but the boards are still around.

Yet, you expect a 100-year-old low volume toy manufacturer in a decaying (no offense) market to magically be immune from all the market realities you just listed….all the while they should just give away what little remaining technology they have “for the benefit of the hobby.” Gulp.  They’re not “doing a fine job of ruining their own reputation”, they’re trying to survive.

As an aside, your analysis of the US appliance market is also way off base. There is still lots of US made stuff under the traditional brands - Whirlpool, Maytag, Kitchenaid, Jennair, GE, etc. - admittedly under brand consolidation, but still US designed and built.

Jennair and GE are owned by Haier, a chinese company, and they are doing cross brand labelling big time. The whirlpool brands are made here, but they are basically the same appliance rebranded in a lot of cases, especially at the low and mid price points. Don't believe me? Look on an appliance part website.



"all the while they should just give away what little remaining technology they have “for the benefit of the hobby"

You are missing the point, the technology we are talking about is stuff made like 10 years ago or more, tmcc and early legacy,that apparently Lionel is no longer supporting (IE you can't get the boards). If they 'gave that away' they would not be losing revenue, since they aren't supporting it any more it seems like. If you are not getting revenue from something,you aren't supporting it, why not open it up? No one is expecting Lionel to 'give away' visionline technology, or anything they still support. Car makers basically support car parts for 7 years, then to make sure people can get parts allow third party makers to sell parts they no longer have (and they do it I believe license free). 

@BillYo414 posted:

@gunrunnerjohn @Norton seems like some of the best tools come from experience and filling a role like this. I wouldn't mind building one of these for myself. Thanks!

No magic here, but if you spend a little time deciding what capabilities you want it to have up front, it'll probably be a lot neater package.  I'm currently thinking of a similar rig for testing RCMC boards.

No magic here, but if you spend a little time deciding what capabilities you want it to have up front, it'll probably be a lot neater package.  I'm currently thinking of a similar rig for testing RCMC boards.

I'm still mastering the basics. I feel pretty comfortable diagnosing why lights don't work and replacing a capacitor/resistor if I easily find the replacement. I'm sure I'll get to the point where I know what I would want in terms of testing eventually.

I hope you'll post your rig if you go through with the build!

@BillYo414 posted:

So far I need to figure out what R2LC and R4LC, MB, and RCMC stand for. I can make some guesses but what are these acronyms?

The LCRU (Liontech Control Receiver Unit) was the first TMCC board.

I truthfully don't know exactly what R2LC is the acronym for, I never really cared.  Ditto with RCMC, though you can probably guess, the R is probably Radio and MC is likely Motor Control since they added that to the single board.  I'm sure somewhere it's been written down, but I never bothered to look for it.  Lots of acronyms are so widely used that knowing the exact long name really serves no point, at least for me.

@shawn posted:

Actually - I will either part with them at a premium price. Or, burn them in effigy! If it’s the one way I’ll let everyone here know first.

if it’s the second way. I will post a video!

I’ve just about had it with technology - phoenix missile system, ADCAP, Trident worked on all of them in my electrical Engineering days. Then off to the computer and Integration business.

I think I’ve hit technology burnout. Everything over the last 30 is sitting in a garbage dump someplace.

Time to get back to simplistic things….or at least cheaper ones

3E1B0335-223C-49E2-8E77-3F3CADB29CF9@Landsteiner posted:

"I will either part with them at a premium price."

"Earth to Shawn"......

Landsteiner the parts - everything will be parts in the next few weeks. 150 almost all Legacy engines will be parts.  Starting with 20 SD70’s. Look at it this way. If someone is willing to spend 150 bucks including shipping for a cruise M and r4 upgrade. Non - legacy.  I guess I can sell either of those boards that work in legacy for 150 or over?

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 3E1B0335-223C-49E2-8E77-3F3CADB29CF9
Last edited by shawn
@shawn posted:

Actually - I will either part with them at a premium price. Or, burn them in effigy! If it’s the one way I’ll let everyone here know first.

if it’s the second way. I will post a video!

I’ve just about had it with technology - phoenix missile system, ADCAP, Trident worked on all of them in my electrical Engineering days. Then off to the computer and Integration business.

I think I’ve hit technology burnout. Everything over the last 30 is sitting in a garbage dump someplace.

Time to get back to simplistic things….or at least cheaper ones

Good grief, now you're quoting your messages!  Personally, I think your blood pressure must be at record levels, I suggest a long break from modern model trains.  Dig out the old pre-war stuff and play with that.

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.

Weren’t there know reports of funky radio receiver chips?

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'll be a spectator for this one as well.

Are there any Lionel authorized service centers anymore . I thought everything new needed to go back to Lionel?

This thread has provoked considerable emotions.

Hasn't Lionel always made an effort to make it's new products backwards compatible?   (pre-war to post-war coupler adapters, new trucks, and electronic upgrades (until the recent news).

Is it possible that we will be pleasantly surprised this Christmas?

Is this just part of the worldwide supply issue?

Or am I a dreamer who has drunk the Lionel kool-aid for 50 years?

@shawn posted:

I believe even receivers need to pass fcc compliance? Been a long time - do that could be a issue ?

The document by TI "ISM-Band and Short Range Device Regulatory Compliance Overview" here states that "Receivers do not need a certification, but the vendor has to state in a Declaration of Conformity (DOC) that each device complies with the spurious emission requirements of unintentional radiators according to section 15.209.

@Windy City posted:

This thread has provoked considerable emotions.

Hasn't Lionel always made an effort to make it's new products backwards compatible?   (pre-war to post-war coupler adapters, new trucks, and electronic upgrades (until the recent news).

Is it possible that we will be pleasantly surprised this Christmas?

Is this just part of the worldwide supply issue?

Or am I a dreamer who has drunk the Lionel kool-aid for 50 years?

Sadly, I think you've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

I seriously doubt this will turn around by Christmas.  I believe the parts are going to a 3rd party, and I suspect they plan on selling them retail.

You could say the new products are "backward compatible", but that doesn't solve the problem of not being able to get parts for the older models.

The document by TI "ISM-Band and Short Range Device Regulatory Compliance Overview" here states that "Receivers do not need a certification, but the vendor has to state in a Declaration of Conformity (DOC) that each device complies with the spurious emission requirements of unintentional radiators according to section 15.209.

Ok - so that didn’t change - that’s a plus! Only for certain frequency ranges? It applies?

@Windy City posted:

This thread has provoked considerable emotions.

Hasn't Lionel always made an effort to make it's new products backwards compatible?   (pre-war to post-war coupler adapters, new trucks, and electronic upgrades (until the recent news).

Is it possible that we will be pleasantly surprised this Christmas?

Is this just part of the worldwide supply issue?

Or am I a dreamer who has drunk the Lionel kool-aid for 50 years?

Or is the grinch visiting North Carolina?

@Joe Fermani posted:

I appreciate your info Scott on the TMCC ERR products.  It makes sense that TMCC products will eventually see end of life with part obsolescence.  I doubt anyone is going to redesign a TMCC board using current components.  Yes, I'm sure it could be done, but is there any value in doing so.  With forum members like Bruk/Gunrunner John/HarmondYards etc... new options are always available to keep the fleet running.  Since RCMC boards are available, engines can be converted to legacy.

It still does not make any sense to pull the old boards from stock.  As others have stated, Lionel is still stocking all the mechanical parts for older locs.  If someone else is buying the supply, its only good if Lionel gives them access to the code to program the boards.  Odyssey boards are generic for many locs.  According to Mike Reagan, the difference was the programming so the speed steps are correct.  When I was fixing my TMCC GG-1, Mike had me try the motor board in another loc.  He said it would work but the speed steps would be off.  It helped me diagnose the problem.  The same goes for the radio boards.  Some accessories require specific code.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Lionel is dumping all the old tech (boards, chip burners, etc) so they can stay focused on the current rcmc boards.  By off loading the old boards to a third party, it frees up space and also time in supporting the old stuff.  It would just be nice to know what Lionel's plan is.  Just pulling the stock just leads to conspiracy theories on what is going on.

Space and time? Lol - you make it sound like a parts person is being kept from design work?

Last edited by shawn

I really don't know more details, Google will find you an answer with a little work.

Lol - I forget the year - I did my last design work. Designing the phoenix missile launcher when the navy went from 4 to 6 missiles on the F series fighters. Soon switch careers after that- forgot so much stuff. Hard to believe that might be the 80’s. Lol I don’t even think tmcc was around to 91?

Last edited by shawn
@Joe Fermani posted:
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Lionel is dumping all the old tech (boards, chip burners, etc) so they can stay focused on the current rcmc boards.  By off loading the old boards to a third party, it frees up space and also time in supporting the old stuff.  It would just be nice to know what Lionel's plan is.  Just pulling the stock just leads to conspiracy theories on what is going on.

Other than selling the old boards, they provided no support for old TMCC and early Legacy boards that I'm aware of.  As far as freeing up space, the few boards that comprise the electronics of most engines is far dwarfed by the multitude of mechanical parts that are still available.  I'm not buying either of those reasons.

It is a good thing that the rocket hit the asteroid yesterday. From some of the posts it sounds like the end of the world.  Too many are willing to destroy their collection because of a poor decision or communication by Lionel. I think we need to hear what Lionel has to offer for a potential solution.  If none comes along, I will find a way to make my layout work.  I would hate to stop doing things with my trains.  They provide me with too much enjoyment.

Marty

@martind posted:

It is a good thing that the rocket hit the asteroid yesterday. From some of the posts it sounds like the end of the world.  Too many are willing to destroy their collection because of a poor decision or communication by Lionel. I think we need to hear what Lionel has to offer for a potential solution.  If none comes along, I will find a way to make my layout work.  I would hate to stop doing things with my trains.  They provide me with too much enjoyment.

Marty

Marty - Non - if this stuff is reliable enough - You can throw MTH into that mix - A draw full of defective boards!!! Of a certain vintage. Why have paper weights.

@shawn posted:

Marty - Non - if this stuff is reliable enough - You can throw MTH into that mix - A draw full of defective boards!!! Of a certain vintage. Why have paper weights. When, I can recoup some if my investment. I do agree with the enjoyment factor. Running and REPAIR is a big thing to some of us. So, much for the repair end lol….

I always worried about the circuit boards…..going away….I should have stayed out of the newer stuff. Even, the rcmc stuff is total bs. lionel needs to program…lol. There goes a used replacement from another engine? I sort of knew we were imho on a path to getting screwed with the first announcement.

john was right! My blood pressure is through the roof! A big barn fire might be coming ! Like I said - video might follow! I haven’t watched the Yankees since the kneeling BS.

My Lionel days are over until the head of Lionel is history! Quiet as a mouse out in the woods…….that I base on Lionel’s recent business decisions.

Last edited by shawn

The overreaction here is ridiculous. Just because exact replacement electronics aren't available doesn't mean that your locomotives, equipped with those electronics, are going to stop working tomorrow. They could last 10 years or longer from now. Just run your trains. If they break then worry about fixing them. Most people probably don't even run their stuff long enough to actually get it to a point of failure, so their equipment will probably outlast them.

@Lou1985 posted:

The overreaction here is ridiculous. Just because exact replacement electronics aren't available doesn't mean that your locomotives, equipped with those electronics, are going to stop working tomorrow. They could last 10 years or longer from now. Just run your trains. If they break then worry about fixing them. Most people probably don't even run their stuff long enough to actually get it to a point of failure, so their equipment will probably outlast them.

I beg to differ in most cases……the QA has been dismal. Check some of the (review sites) Things can fail even repairing a smoke unit.. pinching  wires etc.  I will keep everything - I think will be reliable. All the rest will be disposed of one way or another. New purchases from Lionel are over.

I will pick and choose what to keep using OGR as my guide in some cases. Reading stories of stripped gears and other horrors will help in determining things to keep. I’ll buy parts online when people are selling them. Instead of buying anything new. If I don’t have that part in my vast parts inventory.

This way I can play with what I keep,. Until, I’m pushing up the daisies like John said..

Last edited by shawn
@Lou1985 posted:

The overreaction here is ridiculous.......Just run your trains.

Agree. The knee-jerk reaction to sound the doom and gloom sirens seems waaay premature.  Perhaps partially human nature, although some on this Forum seem particularly prone to it, deriving a certain amount of satisfaction in sounding alarms and running up the surrender flag. It's likely this issue will resolve itself in some way, but it will take a little time for things to get sorted out.

@breezinup posted:

Agree. The knee-jerk reaction to sound the doom and gloom sirens seems waaay premature.  Perhaps partially human nature, although some on this Forum seem particularly prone to it, deriving a certain amount of satisfaction in sounding alarms and running up the surrender flag. It's likely this issue will resolve itself in some way, but it will take a little time for things to get sorted out.

Well some of us have a lot of money invested in this stuff. Overreaction maybe but I'm getting on in years and a little time is precious to me. I do hope this gets resolved, maybe Legacy upgrade kits.

@feet posted:

Well some of us have a lot of money invested in this stuff. Overreaction maybe but I'm getting on in years and a little time is precious to me. I do hope this gets resolved, maybe Legacy upgrade kits.

Well, concern and overreaction are two different things. Concern is understandable. But in most respects, this situation fits the old adage of crossing a bridge before you get there. In this case, before there is ever going to be a problem, there's a requirement that a person's engine first has to break and the breakage has to be due specifically to failure of a particular board. For most folks, this initial requirement will never be met.

A person may be worried that a tornado will hit his house, but that doesn't mean he should worry himself silly about it, and maybe get rid of his house. It's probably not going to happen.

Last edited by breezinup
@breezinup posted:

Well, concern and overreaction are two different things. Concern is understandable. But in most respects, this situation fits the old adage of crossing a bridge before you get there. In this case, before there is ever going to be a problem, there's a requirement that a person's engine first has to break, and the breakage has to be due specifically to failure of a particular board. For most folks, this initial requirement will never be met.

Of course planning ahead for repair folks is more immediate, I'm sure within a very short time I'll have a requirement for at least one of the boards that disappeared.  Wait... I already have an engine here needing a Legacy DCDS, OOPS!

Just one note on the reaction to this, it may be because people have a lot of experience with this kind of thing with modern appliances. You buy a washer, refrigerator, whatever, 5 years down the road it stops working, and then you find out that the board that failed or whatever is not available. When you have expensive items that to replace would be even more expensive to buy new, and it isn't a good feeling...and I suspect this has something to do with this. I will add that at the very least it is pretty bad from a customer service perspective to have something like this and not explain what is going on.

Of course planning ahead for repair folks is more immediate, I'm sure within a very short time I'll have a requirement for at least one of the boards that disappeared.  Wait... I already have an engine here needing a Legacy DCDS, OOPS!

I'm sure that's true, but of course a repair person with a constant flow of large numbers of engines is in a completely different situation from an individual operator with a limited number of engines that theoretically may be affected. A car dealership or repair garage is going to see a lot more cars needing repair than an individual who owns two cars. I was addressing the position of individual operators.

Last edited by breezinup

Of course planning ahead for repair folks is more immediate, I'm sure within a very short time I'll have a requirement for at least one of the boards that disappeared.  Wait... I already have an engine here needing a Legacy DCDS, OOPS!

AND - You have to have the proper code in the DCDS-J, which you can't load yourself.  So as a repair person, you can't just stock a few and configure them properly.  We've had to order as needed.

Jim

@Norton posted:

Have you tried a Legacy DCDE? I know they are NLA now.

Pete

Pete,

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

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

Last edited by DaveGG
@DaveGG posted:

Pete,

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

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

I haven’t tried one yet Dave but I would think a BEMC board would work. They are a newer Back EMF board like a Cruise M. The downside is because they don’t use the tach sensor they don’t run with other Legacy engines that do. As long as you don’t doublehead that should not be a problem. RCMC might work too but you have to know which one to get based on gear ratio plus rewiring would be very time consuming.

If I were you you I would just hold tight until the next vendor is announced. No idea why it hasn’t been done yet.

Pete

@shawn posted:

Because there is not going to be?

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



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

Last edited by BillYo414
@BillYo414 posted:

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



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

Bill - You know what’s great about this Country! Capitalism - My parts of my trains might soon be worth more then the train….besides - why give anyone false hope…we will see what happens..

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.
×
×