# Help - Time to Upgrade - Transformer / Command and Control



## mattily (Dec 6, 2011)

Hi all,

First time poster here. I am looking for advice in upgrading my layout... here's the detail:

Over the past 7 years I've been building up my collection... comes out and goes under the tree each year. The layout has grown in size and accessories, and I have a collection of different types of locomotives. Here are some key highlights:

- track layout is essentially 2 interlocking ovals (all standard o gauge tracks - the 3 rail metal ones)
- 4 powered switches 6-14062/3 
- 1 electric gateman
- 3 other powered accessories (light up bridge, dog chasing the postman, etc)
- 1 utility/coupling track
- 1 transformer/controller (Lionel 6-14198 80 Watt Transfrmr/Cntrlr)

Engines include: 
- 2350 New Haven EP-5 Pwd. Electric Locomotive
- Hudson New York City Locomotive 6-28044
- Rail King RTR Subway Train Set 30-4122-1
- Thomas the Train Engine
- Various other cars

The bad news:
- I've noticed some of the trains slowing down and even stopping around my layout
- with 2 dogs and 2 small kids, it is sometimes challenging to keep the area neat, wires connected, etc 

The good news: 
- the wife has commented about all the wires and having to sit on the floor next to the couches to run the trains (the door is open for an upgrade!)

My questions:
- I suspect I may need a more powerful transformer (maybe a ZW) to go with this - I am only using 1 lockon to drive power to the track... will a 2nd lockon help?
- how do I upgrade into the 20/21st century with a hand held remote? I've seen the "legacy" comand and control modules at train shows - is this the best bet?
- I understand that many of the new locomotives are being built optimize the control experience, but I also have mostly older engines that I would want to make sure still works
- are the comand/control centers capable of controlling my switches as well (and eliminate more wires?)

Any help/advice is appreciated!


----------



## Dave Sams (Nov 24, 2010)

You need more lockons! At least one on each oval depending upon the size of the oval. All of the friction connections you have is certain to create some loss of juice.


This won't help your wire situation, but it will make the trains run better.

Can't help on the controls. I'm an old schooler.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

If you're going the Lionel route, the Legacy #990 set is the way to go, it will run all the prior generation TMCC stuff as well as the new Legacy stuff. You can, if you have a mind to, upgrade some of your conventional locomotives to TMCC/Railsounds, I've done quite a few of these conversions.

As far as the transformer, if you're only running one of these at a time, adding power drops is the way to go. Also, make sure the pins are tight and clean. I have taken to using DeoxIT D5 on connections, makes a significant difference.  Look around for a Lionel KW on eBay, they're a great value for the power, if you're a little patient, you can have one for less than $50.


----------



## mattily (Dec 6, 2011)

Thanks for the replies. Very helpful. I'm a bit nervous about buying a transformer on eBay since there could be a lot of issues/wear and tear - but I will look.

After doing a bit of research - I think I read that in addition to the Legacy 990 command module, I will also need another piece to run the conventional(non - TMCC or legacy) trains (2 of them are from the 70s and 80s)...

Either the TMCC Track Power Controller 300 (6-14189), OR TMCC Track Power Controller 400 (6-14179).

This was from an older article (2008) - but is this still true today?

Thanks again.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, if you want to run conventional trains, the most cost effective solution is probably to shop around for some used PowerMasters and a PowerMaster bridge. One TPC will only control one conventional train, and they go for well north of $100. OTOH, a used PowerMaster PM1 (the 135 watt model) will go for $20-25 if you look around. For the Legacy system, you'll also need a PowerMaster bridge if you go that way, that's about $45 or so.

What I'm saying is for around $100, you can have the stuff to control two conventional trains, rather than spending more and only controlling one.

Also, think about your power for either the TPC or the PowerMasters, they're only the control element, you need input power for them. You can use a PowerHouse 135 or 180 for the PowerMasters or the TPC. 

I think you need to first decide exactly what you want to have when you wrap up. Do you want to control multiple conventional trains on separate loops or multiple TMCC trains and have everything on a single power district?

Again, if you're going Legacy, I'd be thinking along the lines of possibly converting your favorite conventional locomotives to TMCC, then you'd have the benefits of that environment.


----------



## mattily (Dec 6, 2011)

Wow - great - a lot to think about. Here's where my head is at right now:

- since this is only a seasonal layout that sits on the floor under the tree, I doubt I will have a layout in the near future that runs 2 trains simultaneously. My existing layout is essentially 2 interlocking ovals that form an L shape - with the Christmas tree sitting at the point of the "L". So I can run the train on either oval, or around the outside perimeter of both

- moving forward I would imagine that any locos I buy would be legacy or TMCC. however I do have 3 or 4 conventional locos (plus another 5 or 6 that my dad has that I will eventually inherit) + the railking subway cars (with DTS prosound 2)

- I like the convenience of the remote control, and the features of legacy are very cool.

- I'm not sure I have the time/expertise in ordering and converting many of my existing locos myself - I assume going to a local Lionel dealer is an option for this as well?


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, while I'll agree that the Legacy is very cool, especially with Legacy locomotives, using it to run conventional is like using a tractor trailer to pick up your groceries at the local store.  You won't get much of the benefit from the Legacy system with only conventional locomotives, all you'll really have is a transformer control that you can walk around with. I'm not sure that's worth $400 or more to run one locomotive!

There are folks that will do conversions for TMCC, and it also depends on exactly what you have and what you want to end up with.


----------



## mattily (Dec 6, 2011)

Great analogy! So to crystallize this - If I intend on having a single train layout that could run either all of my conventional trains or a new legacy enabled train I would need the following:

- Legacy #990 command and control package
- New/used more powerful transformer
- Power master bridge
- Powermaster PM 1
- a second Power Supply?

This set up should give me both forwards and backwards compatability? I wouldn't have to alter the above set up if I wanted to switch between a legacy locomotive or conventional correct?

Thanks again for your help.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, to run a conventional train with the Legacy controller, you set the switch on the PowerMaster to *Conventional*, then if you want to run a TMCC/Legacy one, you need to move the control to *Command* on the PowerMaster. Conventional locomotives will have direction control and whistle/bell capability (assuming they have either of those), just like using a standard transformer.

The reason I recommend the PowerMaster is it's sooooo much cheaper than the TPC, though if you are only running one train, then the PowerMaster Bridge and PowerMaster may come a bit closer to a used TPC-300. FWIW, I have a couple of TPC-300 units and some PowerMasters with the PowerMaster bridge.


----------



## plandis (Oct 5, 2011)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Well, to run a conventional train with the Legacy controller, you set the switch on the PowerMaster to *Conventional*, then if you want to run a TMCC/Legacy one, you need to move the control to *Command* on the PowerMaster. Conventional locomotives will have direction control and whistle/bell capability (assuming they have either of those), just like using a standard transformer.
> 
> The reason I recommend the PowerMaster is it's sooooo much cheaper than the TPC, though if you are only running one train, then the PowerMaster Bridge and PowerMaster may come a bit closer to a used TPC-300. FWIW, I have a couple of TPC-300 units and some PowerMasters with the PowerMaster bridge.


hi gunny- I have been watching your posts on tmcc. you even suggested to me once on doing a conversion on a oldie I have. I would like to attempt the conversion. I have a pre-war 224E with 2426W tender (with fan in it) You suggested using the tender as the real estate needed for the goodies and speaker- I want sound also. can you point me in the right direction for the pieces parts to pull it off?? I looked at a link you posted once that makes the boards but I m unclear on driver/sound/decoder board needed without going through trial and error!! although that is sometimes fun as well. If I get smart enough I might attempt more tmcc conversions. I like how tmcc works. thanks in advance!!


----------



## plandis (Oct 5, 2011)

powermaster bridge???


----------



## plandis (Oct 5, 2011)

I've been running cc locos on same track as conventional at same time with one PM and one base. there is a way to more than one conventional with some sort of pm bridge?? that would be cool!!


----------



## plandis (Oct 5, 2011)

you are quite the tmcc guy!


----------



## stevetil (Sep 6, 2011)

plandis said:


> hi gunny- I have been watching your posts on tmcc. you even suggested to me once on doing a conversion on a oldie I have. I would like to attempt the conversion. I have a pre-war 224E with 2426W tender (with fan in it) You suggested using the tender as the real estate needed for the goodies and speaker- I want sound also. can you point me in the right direction for the pieces parts to pull it off?? I looked at a link you posted once that makes the boards but I m unclear on driver/sound/decoder board needed without going through trial and error!! although that is sometimes fun as well. If I get smart enough I might attempt more tmcc conversions. I like how tmcc works. thanks in advance!!


Hey wow, I also have some old Lionel engines, all postwar actually, like a
665 and a 736 and a 221 and a 1615 and I would love to make all of them
tmcc and I would love to do it myself. Sound isn't so necessary for me, when
you get 4 or 5 of these trains racing along, there is already plenty of sound!
Still, some whistle and bell would be nice. But I hate e-units!!!


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

If you hate them that much, pull them out and go forward. With a large enough rectifier you can use DC.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Time for the TMCC clinic. 

The folks at The Electric Railroad aka ERR, have all the stuff needed to convert a conventional locomotive to TMCC. Also, Bill at Modern Toy Train Parts sell most of the ERR stuff at a discount. There is also Digital Dynamics that sells some similar systems. I've used a couple of their items, but I favor the ERR stuff as a rule.

For older postwar steamers, you'll most likely install all of the electronics in the tender and use a tether, there really isn't much room under the shell in most of them. One of the major issues you'll face is what to do with the antenna if you have a diecast tender shell. What I do is use nylon screws and Kapton tape to insulate the tender shell and use it as the TMCC antenna, works a treat. 

There are three options for TMCC conversions for full sized trains (a couple more for little stuff like speeders and track inspection cars). For an AC motored locomotive, you will be using the *AC Commander*, for DC motored locomotives, you can use the *DC Commander* or the *Cruise Commander*.

All of these choices provide the TMCC command control functionality of motor control, electrocouplers, smoke unit control, and directional lighting. The Cruise Commander also gives you speed control, something that will be very handy when you get half a dozen trains running around! 

For sound, you can add the *Railsounds Commander*, it's the sound board and comes with a speaker and all the wiring necessary to connect it to the TMCC board.

My experience is that the basic installation is very simple. Where I spend all my time on a conversion is on the extra stuff like fancy lighting and retrofitting electrocouplers to a set that never was intended to have them. 

-------------------------------------------------------------

My recommendation for the projects is if you have a specific locomotive you want to convert, start a thread on the conversion, and we'll talk you through it.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

plandis said:


> powermaster bridge???



Here's the PowerMaster Bridge, it's used with the Legacy CAB2 to control the PowerMaster modules directly. The older TMCC CAB1 talked to them directly on 27mhz, the Legacy CAB2 uses 2.4ghz to talk to the base, so you need a converter to talk to the PowerMasters on 27mhz.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

plandis said:


> I've been running cc locos on same track as conventional at same time with one PM and one base. there is a way to more than one conventional with some sort of pm bridge?? that would be cool!!


You'll have to be more specific. There is no way to run multiple conventional locomotives on the same track block at the same time and have independent control of them if that's what you're asking.


----------



## Hellgate (Nov 9, 2011)

Is there a good thread to learn about adding railsounds to PW Locos? I am now running the CAB-1 with my PW and would love to convert some. More importantly, I do not have the new Legacy controller. Only the CAB-1, so I need to know which railsounds are made with the CAB-1 in mind and which ones are designed to use the capabilities of the Legacy. I don't want to buy something that I can't take full advantage of. I guess, what is the best they have just for the CAB-1 system?
I hope that makes sense!
Thanks
Mark


----------



## Hellgate (Nov 9, 2011)

Also could you comment on trainsounds versus railsounds?
thanks again!


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, I posted a couple of step-by-step TMCC conversions, including RailSounds. You don't have to worry about the CAB1 vs. Legacy, you can't buy the RailSounds 5.0 stuff for retrofit, that only comes from Lionel in new products.

If you just want to add RailSounds, it's pretty easy, but the functionality with conventional control is limited. If you want to do the full TMCC conversion, that's were most of the work is. Adding Railsounds to a TMCC conversion is just about Plug-N-Play, stick the connector on, connect the speaker, and find a place for the RailSounds module.

If you want to control sound from a TMCC conversion, RailSounds is the only way to go. TrainSounds is a stand-alone for conventional only module. Also, TrainSounds is a single sound thread, RailSounds will overlay multiples, like the prime mover, the horn, the bell, and the coupler clank, for instance.

Again, I recommend picking a likely candidate and we'll get into more specifics, no sense typing a bunch of generalities here that probably won't apply to the specific case.


----------



## plandis (Oct 5, 2011)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Time for the TMCC clinic.
> 
> The folks at The Electric Railroad aka ERR, have all the stuff needed to convert a conventional locomotive to TMCC. Also, Bill at Modern Toy Train Parts sell most of the ERR stuff at a discount. There is also Digital Dynamics that sells some similar systems. I've used a couple of their items, but I favor the ERR stuff as a rule.
> 
> ...


John- thanks for all he help. It looks like something I want to tackle. Question for you: the old loco I want to do (postwar 224E) has an AC motor with the old eunit. do you know if I use the DC commander, will the speed control work? I think the pulmor type motor will run on DC and I will be eliminating the eunit. maybe you have tried this?


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

You can NOT use the Cruise Commander with an AC motor, you must use the AC Commander for that unit. AFAIK, there has never been a cruise control unit developed by anyone for AC motors.

The Cruise Commander uses the back-EMF from the motor to sense motor speed, but it's strictly designed for two-wire DC motors. The AC Commander is a three wire connection to the motor as opposed to the two-wire connection for DC models.

Here's a wiring comparison.

*A/C Motor Wiring for TMCC AC Commander*











*D/C Motor Wiring for TMCC DC Commander/Cruise Commander*


----------



## plandis (Oct 5, 2011)

roger that. didnt realize field winding was fed different AC from the eunit. hummm. they run well on DC though (minus the eunit). just a thought.

I thought I saw ac speed regulation once by someone using tach feedback before the modern back emf technology. Was I dreaming? probably so. I have been thinking about doing this for a few years, just never got around to benching it up. we use modern inverters on large industrial AC motors with tachless speed regulation but that technology apparently hasn't made it into the modeling world just yet. I thought it had. -just brain-trainstorming here...

here is something I found for small ac motors..

http://www.aaroncake.net/circuits/acmotcon.asp?showcomments=all


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

They run on DC, but not with the current products. It's possible to design speed control using the opto-sensor and the striped tape on the flywheel of a DC motor, but the problem with the AC motor is they don't have nearly as good low end speed control. Also, none of the AC motors currently in use in Lionel trains have a flywheel! Note that virtually all new stuff, except for some of the Lionel "retro" releases, have DC motors nowadays.

I know that industrial AC motors can be speed controlled, but as you say, it hasn't made it to model trains. It's not likely to either, since they took the easy (and cheap) way out and just use DC motors in everything that has speed control.


----------



## plandis (Oct 5, 2011)

rager that. thanks John. hey you getting any more snow?


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

No snow, and I'm in no hurry to see it!


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

Industrial motors are generally 3 phase induction motors. They are nothing like the universal (brush type) motors in Lionel trains. The speed control for 3 phase induction motors will not work with Lionel motors. 

Speed control with Lionel universal motors is difficult because the motor torque constant varies by 2:1 depending on where the armature is. This is called cogging torque. If you run a Lionel loco slowly, you can her the motor speed change radically as the cogging torque varies. There are two fixes for this cogging torque: One, skew the laminations in the armature so that the slots for the coils are not lined up with the field slots; and, two, put a piece of steel between the poles of the armature to magnetically connect the pole pieces and smooth out the magnetic flux between the poles. I have not tried either of these possibilities on Lionel motors, but I have used the skewed laminations on high performance servo motors and it works very well. Unfortunately, I don't know what would be involved in taking the windings off of a Lionel armature, skewing the laminations, and rewinding the armature. I have thought about adding small pieces of iron between the armature poles as an easier modification. If this cogging torque problem can be solved with the post war motors, they should run well at low speed.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

OTOH, that seems to be a lot of trouble. Frank Timko will convert a power truck for an AC motor to a DC motor, and that includes the motor. Once you have a DC motor, you're good to go with the standard ERR Cruise Commander.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

I have 50+ locos, both post war and pre war. Many of them are steamers, and there isn't room inside them to add a can motor. If adding the pieces of steel between the armature poles worked, it wouldn't be too difficult. Just use some of Big Ed's epoxy to hold the added steel pieces in place.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, if you feel the urge, go for it. I'd be interested in the outcome. You'd also have to develop your own electronics since none of the currently available TMCC packages deal with AC motors.


----------



## plandis (Oct 5, 2011)

servoguy said:


> Industrial motors are generally 3 phase induction motors. They are nothing like the universal (brush type) motors in Lionel trains. The speed control for 3 phase induction motors will not work with Lionel motors.
> 
> Speed control with Lionel universal motors is difficult because the motor torque constant varies by 2:1 depending on where the armature is. This is called cogging torque. If you run a Lionel loco slowly, you can her the motor speed change radically as the cogging torque varies. There are two fixes for this cogging torque: One, skew the laminations in the armature so that the slots for the coils are not lined up with the field slots; and, two, put a piece of steel between the poles of the armature to magnetically connect the pole pieces and smooth out the magnetic flux between the poles. I have not tried either of these possibilities on Lionel motors, but I have used the skewed laminations on high performance servo motors and it works very well. Unfortunately, I don't know what would be involved in taking the windings off of a Lionel armature, skewing the laminations, and rewinding the armature. I have thought about adding small pieces of iron between the armature poles as an easier modification. If this cogging torque problem can be solved with the post war motors, they should run well at low speed.


Good discusion about motor design but I think there was something left out or your analysis. its been a while since I've been on but after reading this post, I do want to comment further. 

While slanted lamination do mitigate, to a large degree, the torq "pulsing", keep in mind that even a DC can motor (AKA permanent magnet motor) also has "cogging torq". there just happens to be many many more "cogs" per revolution. remember that the old reliable Lionel pulmores have only three magnetic "polarity swaps" per revolution. have you ever tried to count the cogs on a DC can (PMM) motor? give one a spin, you can feel them. Since there are many more torq "pulses" per revolution, the low speed performance is much much better as everyone has experienced. Since maximum tor is transfered only at the tangent point of the rotor at 90 degrees from the magnetic field, and the pulmore design applies torq for 120 degrees of rotation, the torq is hardly constant. even with slanting the laminations (provides "overlapping" magnetic force on rotor) and using many many poles on the rotor (demonstrated by the many many commutator contacts) there still is only one point of rotation where maximum available torq is transfered. there just is many more of them.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Bottom line here seems to be that the AC Pulmore motor simply doesn't have the low speed performance the DC can motors have, something that anyone with the two types can demonstrate. 

I'm a stepper motor guy, but we also used to use a lot of DC brushless motors in servo loops in avionics before the video revolution hit the cockpit.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

When I use a multi pole skewed lamination motor, the magnetic cogging torque goes essentially to zero. I can no longer feel it, and the servo doesn't see any cogging torque. There is another way that cogging torque is generated, and that is my the modulation process that is used. Brush type DC motors and universal motors have considerable cogging torque caused by the commutator as the brushes go from one segment to the next. The brushless DC motors I use for precision servos use a modulation technique that eliminates this cogging torque.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

Typo: that is my the modulation should be that is by the modulation


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

Typo: "that is my the modulation" should be "that is by the modulation"


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

The DC can motors do not have skewed laminations. It is possible to skew the laminations of a permanent magnet DC brush type motor, but it costs $$ and for a toy train it is unlikely anyone is going to do it. 

I believe the speed control for the newer locos is done closed loop with an encoder on the motor. I could do the same thing with a pullmor motor if I could find a place to put the encoder. Or I could use a DC tachogenerator which would work even better at low speed.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

There are two ways to do speed control, either the encoder wheel (usually on the flywheel of the DC motor), or the back-EMF of the motor, which is how ERR does their speed control.

The AC Pulmore motors don't have either a flywheel or the proper characteristics for the ERR method, which is why we haven't seen speed control for them. Since there are very few Pulmore motors coming from Lionel anymore except for the nostalgia items, I'm not seeing any chance that speed controls will be coming for them. MTH, Williams, Weaver, have all used DC motors from the get-go, so they have no interested in AC motor speed control either.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

Actually, you missed the oldest and sometimes the best method of speed control: Using a DC generator (tachogenerator) as a tachometer. The advantage of a DC tach is that it works down to zero speed without a Nyquist problem. Encoders will not work at zero speed as the sample rate becomes zero and Harry Nyquist tells you you can't do what you are trying to do.

If you express the back EMF and Kt (torque constant) in MKS units, they have the same value. This gives you insight into why you cannot use back EMF for speed control with a pullmor motor. The Kt is varying by 2:1 as the armature turns, so the back EMF constant is also varying by 2:1. Not exactly what the doctor ordered for speed control.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Well Bruce, I was talking about how it's done in model trains. I'm aware of the DC Tach, that was used in some of the avionics cockpit displays we did. However, the price is probably out of reach for model trains.

In later designs, we solved a lot of problems by using steppers with a simple zero detector. Whenever the instrument powered up, all the loops just stepped to zero, then slewed to the input values and tracked after that. When micros became practical to embed into individual instruments, you could do a lot of this stuff in software cheaper than trying to do it in hardware.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

I agree. I remember when an ADI for a 737 cost $35k. Steppers are really cheap. You know they are because they are used in printers that cost $150. 

You can use a cheap DC brush type motor for a tach. With enough gain, the rate loop would be as good as the tach is. Problem is, there isn't any place to mount the tach.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

It's not the technical issues in doing this, it's more the practical issues. ERR was going to come up with a cruise control for AC motors, but it never happened. My guess is after fooling with it for some time, they couldn't get it to work like the DC version. I have their DC cruise control in a number of locomotives, it works great with no tach or optical strip, just back-EMF monitoring.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

Back EMF speed control can work pretty well, however, it is limited by the accuracy of the speed calculation. The voltage across the motor is composed of two terms: The IR voltage and the Ke*RPM voltage. The total voltage is sum of these two. RPM is calculated as (V - IR)/Ke. All this would be A-OK if Ke were constant. Unfortunately, copper has a fairly high coefficient of thermal resistance, so Ke varies with the temperature of the winding. Toy trains live in a fairly constant temperature environment, so Ke may be constant enough, or the ERR guys may have compensated for it in some way. It is only a problem as the RPM gets small. It requires that the Kt be constant which, for the can motors, is almost true. I have read on this forum that the can motors have 5 poles. The more poles they have, the closer Kt is going to be to a constant. If the can motors have more than 5 poles, then Kt becomes more nearly constant. 

Remember, that, for the pullmor motors, Kt & Ke vary by 2:1 as the motor turns. This makes the RPM calculation very poor.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Not sure how ERR solved the problem, I only know that for the seven or eight of them I've installed, the speed control works very well. The great part about it is you don't have any optical sensors with the tape to stick to the flywheels, etc. Just wire up the board and away you go! The amazing part is for dual-motored locomotives, it works just as well, and the motors are wired in series. I would have thought that would have complicated the issue, but apparently not.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

Sounds like ERR has some clever elves.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

For add-on TMCC, they seem to be the best of the breed. Truthfully, they're now owned by Lionel, so they're just another way to get Lionel TMCC stuff into more hands. However, since they've done the best job with the upgrade packages, I'll let them have their way.


----------

