Hello Chuck:
That is why I want to get a switch to bypass the TIU.
Hello Chief:
I have the a Z-1000 that I could plug directly into the TIU. If I understand you correctly, I would just move from the fixed 1 to the variable 1 and bypass the port that powers the TIU. But I am also going to use the 14V accessory port on the Z-1000 to power some accessories. Since this tranformer will always be on, I would still need to have some sort of switch between the Z-1000 and the TIU, correct? In addition, since I wanted the flexibility of using a throttle, I want to use a refurbished TW to power the inner loop, so a dpdt switch will be needed to alternate between the other output of my Z-4000 and the TW.
Regards,
John O
I tried it out last night. I put a loco into conventional mode and just utilized the throttle on the transformer. The engine functioned as a regular conventional locomotive. However, if you shut down the power from the transformer, after a short period, the loco automatically reverts to command mode the next time the transformer is powered up.
OK, that's a good news/bad news kind of thing. Good that it doesn't get stuck, bad because it's a pain in the * to reset without powering down or going through remote control key press gyrations. I guess it would have been nice to have an actual "kill" switch on the TIU so you could just run in conventional.
God bless TCA 05-58541 Benefactor Member of the NRA, Member of the American Legion, Retired Boss Hog of Roseyville , KC&D Qualified
Hey Chuck:
While I am certainly no expert, I believe the information is in the loco. However, I also believe that subsequent to shutting down the power to the loco, the loco will revert to command mode automatically. Thus, the next time you start up your transformers, the engine will automatically be in command mode. But, it would not be the first time I was wrong...
We could try it and see what happens...
johnandjulie13 wrote:Hello Chuck:You can, via the DCS remote, tell the engine to run in conventional mode. Then, you can use the throttle handle to control the speed of the PS2 (and any other conventional engines) on the layout. However, the keystrokes to put the engine into conventional mode, and then to put it back into command mode caused me to consider having a dpdt switch to just bypass the TIU for those sessions when I want to use the transformer throttle instead of the remote.
You can, via the DCS remote, tell the engine to run in conventional mode. Then, you can use the throttle handle to control the speed of the PS2 (and any other conventional engines) on the layout. However, the keystrokes to put the engine into conventional mode, and then to put it back into command mode caused me to consider having a dpdt switch to just bypass the TIU for those sessions when I want to use the transformer throttle instead of the remote.
OK, this seems kind of crazy to me, but does any one know if this setting is stored in the loco or in the remote? AKA Am I telling my Remote/TIU to pretend this isn't a command loco or am I telling the loco to pretend it isn't a command loco? Does this setting carry over from operating session to operating session? If so, it would explain some of the odd behavior on engines I've seen at the local shop.
ChiefEagles wrote: chuck wrote: You can't run a conventional loco off of Fixed One (or Fixed Two) since these will always run at whatever volatge is input. Use to do it all the time. The transformer handle regulates the voltage thru the TIU to the track.
chuck wrote: You can't run a conventional loco off of Fixed One (or Fixed Two) since these will always run at whatever volatge is input.
You can't run a conventional loco off of Fixed One (or Fixed Two) since these will always run at whatever volatge is input.
Use to do it all the time. The transformer handle regulates the voltage thru the TIU to the track.
Ditto - you just can not control the voltage via the remote. You must use the transformer handles.
Jim H
You can't run a conventional loco off of Fixed One (or Fixed Two) since these will always run at whatever volatge is input. You can run the TIU off of an auxiliary power supply. If you do this and don't access the fixed ports AND have an external adjustable power supply (aka a variable transformer) to power the tracks, you should be OK.
I KNOW you can bypass the command environement in TMCC by simply removing the antenna wire from the command base. This will allow you to even run Command equipped loco's run under conventional control without powering down the command base (aka you can retain control of TPC's and other serial connected devices like ASC's.
One easy way to modulate speed with "the handles" while running command engines is to tell the engines in command to go high speed speed (say 70mph on DCS, many rotations on TMCC). Then change speeds with the handles. The engines will speed up and slow down as you operate the handles that change the voltage. You still need the remote for whistle, bell, and direction changes.
I run through the fixed ports on my DCS TIU and hand the remote to the kids. Then I throttle back the throttle voltage to limit the top speed.
I run only one block on my layout. I run TMCC and DCS signal controllers. For fun I will run one TMCC engine, one PS2.0 engine (or more), and one conventional engine. It takes quite a balance act to keep them apart and that is the fun of it. Of course sometimes I have to hit the emergency stop button when things get to hectic. Often my son will run the TMCC engine, and I the PS2.0 engine(s).
First, thanks for the continued feedback. Your information has been very educational. Second, how do you power down the TIU? I have two principal loops. The first is powered by Fixed 1 of the TIU and the second is powered by Fixed 2. Since the TIU gets its power from Fixed 1, isn't the TIU always going to be on? Do you just set one of the variable outputs as fixed while powering the TIU with another transformer?
Thanks,
Well, I am like you, when it comes to conventional engines, I would rather just use the transformer handles. However, I do not have a collection of conventional engines. All of my engines are TMCC or DCS. If, after I have tried out the DCS running through the TMCC command base, I find that the response from the DCS remote is too slow, I won't mind using the new Legacy remote. I have a hard enough time running two PS2 engines at the same time from one remote!
Anyway, I am still looking forward to seeing the new Legacy system.
Good news for me! I found a copy of issue 218 of OGR. In it, they had a piece on the new TMCC II system. The article says: "The original TMCC codes can still be accessed by the MTH Digital Command System (DCS) through a TMCC OR LEGACY Command Base..." So, the TIU can still be connected to the new command base.
I should be able to use one remote if I want to, or use both the DCS and Legacy remotes for their respective engines. I am eagerly looking forward to TMCC II being released.
Chuck and Chief:
Thank you for the feedback. Do you run conventional engines at the same time you are running TMCC engines? If so, are they on different blocks? How do you like it? Both myself and my three year old son love using the throttles on the transformers. My plan was to put in a dpdt switch to bypass the TIU so that any engine on the track could be run conventionally via transformer throttle. I will have two isolated loops that will allow for two trains to be run simultaneously. I could then switch the dpdt to the other position to resume command control. I don't envision wanting to run conventional engines (I don't own any currently) along with either TMCC or PS2 engines.
Thanks again,
ChiefEagles wrote:I run TMCC engines and PS2 engines on the same track[s] all the time. I use the DCS remote to run PS2's and the CAB1 to run the TMCC's. I use to use the DCS remote to run TMCC but found that was NOT the way to go. Also found that a CAB1 & TPC is the best way to run conventionals.
Neil and Chuck:
Thank you for the information. I will wait for TMCC II to be released and see how it actually works.
If you don't mind using two remotes, don't bother with the interconnecting cable. The systems will play nice and not interfere with each other as they use completely different signaling technologies. If you wire for DCS (aka paired wires, star patterns) and have a good earth ground for TMCC, you don't need to worry about isolation dip switches.
DCS emulation only allows you to control TMCC ENG's. No TRack/TRain, no SWitch, not ACCessories, no RouTE's. You can wire up the layout with parallel controller for Switch/Accessories and program all of this into both systems if you have the time, patience, and funds to so. Or pick one of the systems for layout control and use the other strictly to control locomotives. The serial communictaion cable that links a DCS TIU to a Lionel Command Base is pretty lame anyway as it blocks echo's of commands normally used to control former IC Control devices like the TPC, ASC, ARC, BPC, etc.
Assuming that I will be able to connect the new legacy command base to my TIU, will I be able to use the Cab-2 to access all TMCC II functions? From a wiring perspective, this would make things much simpler. I do not mind using multiple remotes for different engines. I just don't want to have a bunch of dpdt switches going two the TIU and to the command base and be forced to only run one company's engines at a time.
Agree, although the current patent system awards patents for absurd claims that are patently (pun intended) unpatentable in principle. The system is overwhelmed with non-innovative and obvious claims.
One reason for many of these patent filings is that they can be used to threaten/manipulate competitors, particularly weaker and/or smaller competitors. These threatened actions, as you point out, can and do suffice to deter legitimate competition/innovation, even when the claim or complaint is illegitimate. That's true in areas other than patent law, of course, and represents a weakness of the current civil justice system in many experts' view (see Philip Howard's "The Death of Common Sense" for some examples).
"I honestly believe that if it weren't for MTH locking down PS-2 that Lionel wouldn't have locked down TMCC-II."
Agree entirely. And look at the availability of software written for TMCC compared with MTH's threatening legal action against the SJC Bulldog for even mentioning he had developed a program to work with DCS. And the fact that a rich array of reasonably priced add-ons such as Train America's stuff, Digital Dynamics and the Electric RR Co. are available for TMCC but nothing of the sort for DCS. Indeed, when Lionel found Ed Bender of Digital Dynamics had cloned the TMCC system they licensed him rather than sued him. And when Jon Z. made cool stuff for TMCC, they hired him to work on their products rather than threatening a lawsuit or writing threatening letters. A difference in attitude that tells you everything you need to know about the companies involved, their values, and which explains the blizzard of MTH lawsuits that passes for their bizarre concept of justice. A plague on the idiocy of the current patent and intellectual property system which has permitted the stupidity and venality that has swamped this industry. And don't get me started on patenting genes or natural phenomena which has been allowed by the current system ;).
nblum wrote: ...until a possible future in which both companies agree to cross-license their systems so that their developers can incorporate true full inter-operability...
...
until a possible future in which both companies agree to cross-license their systems so that their developers can incorporate true full inter-operability
Doubt me? Which company permitted third parties access to their codes so they could build and sell add-on boards?I honestly believe that if it weren't for MTH locking down PS-2 that Lionel wouldn't have locked down TMCC-II.
nblum wrote: I think operating TMCC II locos with DCS will remain feasible, but increasingly limited and cumbersome until a possible future in which both companies agree to cross-license their systems so that their developers can incorporate true full inter-operability. We'll know more when the TMCC II system is actually in consumer hands, presumably sometime in the next few months.
I think operating TMCC II locos with DCS will remain feasible, but increasingly limited and cumbersome until a possible future in which both companies agree to cross-license their systems so that their developers can incorporate true full inter-operability. We'll know more when the TMCC II system is actually in consumer hands, presumably sometime in the next few months.
And not practical. You lose the features. TMCCII engines will operate better with the new controler.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month