# Menards F-7's back for a couple minutes



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

Menards released 200 more AT&SF F-7's today for beta testing #2. Sold out in a couple minutes. Memo stated that improvements were made per testing of the first 200. Price was $159.99.

Bill


----------



## Spence (Oct 15, 2015)

I know, I tried to get one and they were sold out almost immediately


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

I was able to get one.....or at least they took my money!!!! As soon as I paid I looked and online said 'NOT AVIALABLE'....that was FAST!


----------



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

If they released another 200 for further testing I guess the Menards Milwaukee / UP teaser from last week is not for the F-7's.

Bill


----------



## moranb2864 (Dec 9, 2021)

So, if these are in such high demand is that an indication that O Scale is not in a total freefall decline? I know these are fairly priced and Lionel, Atlas, and MTH (when they were around and now as a specialty house) price their locomotives from the high $300's to $700 - but is it all about price?


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

I think the $159 is a big draw. From video reviews I have seen the loco is a cross between a Williams and a Lion Chef with remote. So still a deal....to me.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

ANOTHER Beta test??? To be honest, I'm perfectly happy letting others pay for another round of testing. I'll wait until all the testing is complete, and Menard's can offer a final version fit for sale to the unwashed masses. If the finished features meet my expectations, my price point, and my road name preference, I'll buy. 

Wonder how many we'll see listed on Flea-bay in the next several days for 2 or 3 times the price? Bargain-basement trains that don't quite perform as well as can be expected are highly collectible these days, ya' know.


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

Someone post a few photos of it when/if , they get theirs?


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

I ordered one and also have one from the first batch so they can be compared side by side.
My plan (after the side by side review and comparison) is to take the first series one and replace the control board with Lionchief Plus back EMF boards I bought at the half off Lionel parts sale.

The main problem with the first batch was the firmware programming of the control board that dynamically brakes the motors when stopping. No amount of flywheel would overcome this firmware mistake or feature. So the hope is, Menards listened and changed the firmware. If they added flywheels great, but again the main problem and would defeat flywheels is the fact the motor controller all but locks the motor up when stopping rather than coasting.


----------



## 87smokemetalic (Oct 24, 2021)

I think the PSA is a bit much. You get what you pay for … But only time will tell. 
I imagine the market is focusing on entry level.


----------



## Jeff T (Dec 27, 2011)

Personally I always said I would never take Menards seriously until they made powered locomotives. I wholeheartedly applaud their efforts and look forward to their continued SUCCESS!!


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

So, have they re-named it from their original release?

The first one was in reality an FP7….they called it an F3….

So is this release an F7, or an FP7?

Not sure how seriously you can take them if they have no idea of what they are making….kinda makes you wonder….


----------



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

At $160 for a new locomotive with limited CC I could care less what Menards label it as.

Bill


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

/i like the fact that either by mistake or just luck they did a FP-7....a new F unit on my layout. Menard's sent tracking on mine this morning. Can't wait......and it will be modified at some point. Some of the chrome is a little over the top.


----------



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

For you guys that will be receiving version #2, if possible, give us a review of operating capabilities. 

Thanks

Bill


----------



## Jeff T (Dec 27, 2011)

Old_Hobo said:


> So, have they re-named it from their original release?
> 
> The first one was in reality an FP7….they called it an F3….
> 
> ...


What does it matter what they call it. Making improvements based on feedback from the first 200 units manufactured is certainly a step in the right direction, IMHO.


----------



## neilblumberg (Apr 15, 2019)

At this price, it would be easy to give it a shot, if they can produce a reliable and functional loco in a road name I like. But I'm not going to be checking my email at 3 AM waiting for a chance . It's got to be actually available at some point. Right now, it's essentially vaporware for the average consumer.


----------



## rrman987 (Aug 29, 2021)

Amazed how fast they were snapped up. Made me wonder if it was one of those "buy bots" that snap up popular item inventories then rersells at two three time original price. Capitalism at its best???


----------



## neilblumberg (Apr 15, 2019)

Why anyone would pay 300-450 dollars on the secondary market for a product that is, at least thus far, generally inferior to what is already on the market at those prices is a puzzlement. Just the pleasure of owning something "rare?" At $200 or under it's a possible purchase for me. At the same price as LionChief or LionChief+, it's not of much interest. Current LionChief locos are at street prices not much more than this and a known quantity. LionChief + is gone, and LionChief + 2.0 is twice the price or more, so that's not a new purchase option. MTH isn't going to be a reliable source of new locos in all likelihood and will also be twice the price. It doesn't have to be perfect, just functional, attractive and a good value. And available to the mortal man .


----------



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

neilblumberg said:


> At this price, it would be easy to give it a shot, if they can produce a reliable and functional loco in a road name I like. But I'm not going to be checking my email at 3 AM waiting for a chance . It's got to be actually available at some point. Right now, it's essentially vaporware for the average consumer.


Yep, Would like to see a Northern Pacific or SP&S but I doubt those 2 road names would be considered by the midwestern company, but just maybe a Milwaukee.

Bill


----------



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

neilblumberg said:


> Why anyone would pay 300-450 dollars for a product that is, at least thus far, generally inferior to what is already on the market at those prices is a puzzlement. Just the pleasure of owning something "rare?" At $200 or under it's a possible purchase for me. At the same price as LionChief or LionChief+, it's not of much interest. Current LionChief locos are at street prices not much more than this and a known quantity. LionChief + is gone, and LionChief + 2.0 is twice the price or more, so that's not a new purchase option. MTH isn't going to be a reliable source of new locos in all likelihood and will also be twice the price. It doesn't have to be perfect, just functional, attractive and a good value. And available to the mortal man .


Makes sense, I also would not be in the market for one at the $400 level. You can get some darn nice Lionel Postwar F units in that price range.

Bill


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

neilblumberg said:


> LionChief + 2.0 is twice the price or more, so that's not a new purchase option.


Actually, I bought a couple of the LC+ 2.0 0-6-0T Docksiders for $200/ea. Fan driven smoke, electrocouplers on both ends, cruise control, RailSounds, etc. LC+ 2.0 doesn't have to be expensive. I'm happy to see Menard's venturing into the locomotive field, but I'll reserve judgment until they produce something that I'd want to have.


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

The loco was lint one per address and you need an account. Kinda doubt any went to robot sales. 200 units is nothing for a decent F unit @ $159. Total shipped, tax and die cast truck was under $190....
Still a deal to me


----------



## neilblumberg (Apr 15, 2019)

"Actually, I bought a couple of the LC+ 2.0 0-6-0T Docksiders for $200/ea."

That's a great value. My vague memories are that most of the new LC+ 2.0s are more in the $300-400 range, but I may be misremembering. With costs of materials, labor and shipping rising it will be interesting to see what the catalog prices are in the new January book. I would prefer LC+ 2.0 and even LC to Menard's if the price isn't too much higher, since I have the universal remote and TMCC working.


----------



## Bryan Moran (Jan 15, 2017)

I mean if it gets more 20 somethings into the hobby I am all for Menards entering the marketplace. 

I am fine with what I have and what I have on order. I need more U30C's, or similar U Boats and I can't seem to get those in my road names. So, I would certainly buy a U Boat in Rock Island, Milwaukee Road and Burlington Route (I have some U's in Milwaukee Road and Burlington)


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

My Menard's Fp-7 2.0 came today. I got her open, added batteries to remote, and she worked as advertised. It took me a few minutes to adjust the Z-4000 to where I had good throttle response from the loco....but after that it was great. The horn now works as long as you hold the button, I found it easy to use and make road crossing horn very well. The 'talk' is nice, clear and appropriate for the loco.....but not a important feature for me. The loco ran very smooth from box pulling 20 cars without working hard.....or so it seems.
The BAD: Only issue I had were two easy fixes.
1. Bell button stuck in ring position. Used a pocket knife to pull it up. After a few uses seems to work OK.
2. Rear coupler on loco opened twice while testing. If it keeps happening I'll look at it....again a easy fix if I need. 
Not a huge fan of the chrome trucks and chassis. If loco had a passenger pilot I KINDA can see it. Again....if it bothers me I'll fix it. 
Overall if Menard's keep making locos....I'll more than likely buy. Paint is fantastic with a tiny tiny blemish on roof.....nothing I'll worry about. A nice F unit B dummy and a GP-7 would be firt on my list. Thanks


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Open that shell up? Pretty please.
Only 4 screws.


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

I will inspect and lube it before she goes full service.....but when......


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Looks like they improved the firmware. No jerky start and no sudden braking stop of the motor drive.


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

I do not have the first edition.....but the 2.0 does stop and start smooth......reminds me of the firs gen HO momentum throttles.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Looks like they didn’t listen to the multitude of comments about the chrome trucks and pilot, and how it should really be reversed with the silver on the body….

At least they have moved on from calling it an F3….. 😆


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

Old_Hobo said:


> Looks like they didn’t listen to the multitude of comments about the chrome trucks and pilot, and how it should really be reversed with the silver on the body….


I'd bet these were from the first run and needed to be used up. Final production may delete the chrome as it's costly anyway. I'll shoot it with some clear flat I bet.


----------



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

Jetguy said:


> Looks like they improved the firmware. No jerky start and no sudden braking stop of the motor drive.


Pretty impressive for the price. If Menards can keep the price under $200 they will sell a ton of them next year.

Bill


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

Got down to the layout after dinner and ran my loco some more. I found if I set the Z-4000 at about 11 volts the FP-7 starts very slow and gains speed when I turn the remote to about 3/4 max. I pulled a Williams F-3 dummy to see what it looked like behind the Menard's loco. Sized well and looked like it belonged. But my coupler issue happened every time I went a few feet.......so I added one small rubber band o the coupler shank. Issued solved. 
I THINK I have one wheel set out of gauge. It has not caused an issue yet.....but noted it really bumps on turnout frogs. We'll see. Still very happy with it.


----------



## neilblumberg (Apr 15, 2019)

Thanks for taking the effort to review. Looks like they've improved the major functional quirks and if the final product comes in under $200 they'll have a great value proposition for most with three rail O gauge interests. I don't need any more locos, but I'd be in for one or more over time, given the road names of interest.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

*Flaws discovered on the new one today while unboxing:
#1 the remote battery terminals* still may not make contact with your brand of AAA batteries. I had to add the same little drops of solder to the positive battery tray terminals to contact the standard energizer batteries I was using in the previous remote. Again, this is a carryover problem not solved from the first batch.








*#2 the wheels with the traction tires on both the front and rear truck are not pressed on the axle* and are found loose on the shaft and out of gauge. This is a new problem I do not remember seeing on the first batch of engines. Notice the wheels are against the truck sideframes. The lower wheel in this photo is just sitting on the axle held only by the sideframe. They should be tight against the center block casting of the truck.










*What has changed and for the good:
The remote included with the latest release engine plays the horn sound as long as you press the button*. The old remote (March version) plays the horn only a short burst and you can kind of get around that with rapid back to back taps of the button. Again, this is a FIRMWARE function change, the PCBs and chips are identical.

*The engine motor control is now silky smooth start and stop with a momentum feature* to slow the motor rather than coasting or sudden braking as see in the old version. By testing the old engine and the new engine side by side using the old and new remotes, it was isolated the speed control and momentum change is firmware in the control board of the engine. Again, it appears the 2 major changes, the remote firmware affects the horn sound function, and the engine control board is what affects the speed control changes.

*The remote will drive BOTH the old engine and the new engine.* Likewise, the old remote will also run both versions of engine. This is a good thing, but again, the flaw in the remote is the battery tray area contacts (they could just be stamped with a taller dimple and this problem goes away).


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

I think one of my traction tire wheel set is out of gauge......it bumps bad on turnouts. I'll look and report.


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

Jetguy said:


> *Flaws discovered on the new one today while unboxing:
> #1 the remote battery terminals* still may not make contact with your brand of AAA batteries. I had to add the same little drops of solder to the positive battery tray terminals to contact the standard energizer batteries I was using in the previous remote. Again, this is a carryover problem not solved from the first batch.
> View attachment 572881
> 
> ...


For the gents here that do not have soldering capabilities ... would wedging something between the plastic housing and the terminal contact to bring it close enough to contact the battery nipple?


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Millstonemike said:


> For the gents here that do not have soldering capabilities ... would wedging something between the plastic housing and the terminal contact to bring it close enough to contact the battery nipple?


Yes, absolutely, anything conductive. Folded aluminum foil, a brass or copper strip, piece of solder wire.

Onto that pesky loose wheel issue.
Some more pictures of me fixing the out of gauge loose wheels on the latest (Dec) version. I used the side cutter in some needle nose pliers to knurl up the shaft for better bite into the wheel. Then just used an arbor press to press the wheels to gauge. Also, The main worm wheel drive shaft, I pressed the collar on to reduce the side to side play.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Picture of the boards side by side to compare the previous version to the latest version.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

The chips still have no markings.
The changes all appear to be firmware in the chips.
The only chips we know are not that important, the H bridge, the audio amp, the voltage regulators.
The key chip that appears to be both a radio receiver and main microprocessor is a total unknown.








Also unknown how the remote and engine are paired if other roadnames come out?
Again the old remote and the new remote can drive either the old or new engine.
No FCC ID?


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

Jetguy said:


> The chips still have no markings. ...


----------



## Jeff T (Dec 27, 2011)

Those plastic gears though...


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Jeff T said:


> Those plastic gears though...


Have you seen a Lionchief?


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Oh the plot thickens. So before, during bench testing, (because the new engine, my example needed some help with the motor truck wheels needing put back correctly) I stated either remote could be used with either engine (Mar VS Dec).
I did not have a way to power both engines on the bench at the same time with just one pair of alligator leads. So now, testing both engines on my layout, the remote pairs only to one engine at a time. It will pair to either engine, just it seems to pair to the March engine first if they both power on at the same time. If I remove the March early engine, power the December new engine, the remote pairs to it, and then powering the March engine the December remote stays paired to the December engine.

*So you cannot use one remote and build an AA set of these.*


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Jetguy said:


> *So you cannot use one remote and build an AA set of these.*


Even more fun.
*You can run 2 engines at the same time with 2 remotes.* The thing is, controlling which remote pairs to which engine is based which is first available. Again, it's a situation where either remote can pair with either engine. Once paired, then the next remote and engine pair because they are "open" to pair.

I've never had 2 of the same Lionchief engines to try a similar situation so I don't know how they respond to basically the same circumstance.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

The plastic gears leave me wanting!


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Recap:
The Menards engine appears to be a head to head alternative to a Lionchief engine.
*Pros:
Heavy diecast trucks, fuel tank, and pilot. 
Stamped metal frame
Dual vertical RS385SH* type can motors
*Traction tires* (4 total, one pair per motor truck)
*Heavy duty pickup wiring *with proper eyelets and heat shrink. Also, front and rear truck wiring soldered together to single power entry harness to control board. This matters so that in a derailment, the wiring can handle a decent short and also is not going through connectors and PCB traces on the board from 2 different power entry points. *Again, the one huge thing is they did not skimp on wiring.*
Bright LED headlight, tailight, and number board lights (amber). Also directional lights.
Heavy die cast operating metal couplers front and rear. Thumbtack armature type operation.
*Remote control has positive pairing and* shows status (blinking vs solid) LED on remote showing both power and pairing status.
*New smooth control of speed with momentum coasting *and slight delay for direction change. Very much improved.
Excellent pulling power
*Decent crew talk, horn, and bell.* On par with what Lionchief often has. Not superb, but again, decent enough and better IMO than similar Lionchief.
Another huge pro IMO,* the truck side frame screws face downward for easy access *when needing to change a traction tire. This should be the standard for all engines from all manufacturers.

*Cons:
QC on the motor truck pressing of the wheels and axles* on this batch has had a few problems. First run did not have this or I do not remember any complaints but in this batch this is a new manufacturing problem (just put more knurling splines on shafts). This is a show stopper of a problem, but again, odd it only showed up in this recent batch?
*Remote battery tray contacts.* This was not resolved from the first run. Common off the shelf AAA batteries may not make contact and thus the remote does not work. 
*Couplers are different* than Lionel, Williams, K-line, or MTH i*n the mounting to the truck *(not the traditional ring and spring T bar). IMO a bad move for something that is commonly broken in usage. No good reason to stray from what has become and industry standard. A coupler is a common part that might need replaced with abuse or damage. Having it be a non standard part specific to this engine is not great IMO.
*The remote in general is cheap plastic*, the knob is terrible, the buttons for horn, bell, and crew talk are terrible. I would like to see the horn and bell locations switched to match the Lionchief convention of horn on the right button, bell on the left (even the MTH DCS remote follows this). Last agree, the on off switch of the remote is backwards too. 
Again hands down, the remote is just terrible. The buttons, you can feel the internal nub not line up with the PCB switch and hinge points of buttons basically allowing foreign material or liquid to enter the remote is just sloppy. 
*No FCC ID and no markings on chips *is probably going to catch up with Menards at some point.
I'll agree the *horn got better this release*, but there is *still room for improvement.
Plastic gears. *The concern I have is more about the worm wheel splitting on the splined shaft at some point, but wear is also a valid concern longer term. It does seem to be out of place, this nice diecast truck, then plastic gears as the weak point.


Again, the 3 big things that made this test a massive problem and I was not alone in seeing these problems.
*Mechanical QC on the motor trucks *was just really bad this time. This cannot happen again.
*The battery contacts* are going to cause more anger and returns. This is just a matter of getting the stamping right on those contacts.
Close to being a show stopper- *this remote just feels flimsy.* It is the cheapest part of the system, but also the one the user puts hands on. Lionel got this right- Menards, you got this wrong. Fix it.


----------



## CKCECB (Feb 22, 2013)

That's a really nice evaluation, thank you for doing the grunt work and sharing with the community. Hopefully Menards will note the feedback and make corrections and not hurry to get into production runs. But the one big thing that would concern me is will they have replacement or maintenance parts available, or are they treating these as disposable (more likely).


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

CKCECB said:


> But the one big thing that would concern me is will they have replacement or maintenance parts available, or are they treating these as disposable (more likely).


Remember the other 2 competitors Lionel and MTH. Go ahead, throw in Williams and Atlas while at it.
Take a good look at what parts are available for recent engines produced in the last 18-24 months.
Things like trucks, motors, gears.
The bar is pretty low.


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

Checked out the gauge of my wheels.....I thought I had a set out of gauge as the loco bumped on a turnout. Are checking gauge I found them all within 1/64 inch......the issue was a rough frog in a older Gargraves turnout. I did add a good coat of Red grease to all gears and then ran it for 30 minutes. I guess we'll see how the gears hold up. If they are a good quality plastic....hope they last a while. 
My batteries fit prefect in remote, lucky?
Overall still happy.


----------



## Bryan Moran (Jan 15, 2017)

Why are plastic gears seen as bad? If the plastic is machined properly, it should be ok for model trains. Hard, tough and about the same hardness as brass. Obviously lighter weight.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Bryan Moran said:


> Why are plastic gears seen as bad? If the plastic is machined properly, it should be ok for model trains. Hard, tough and about the same hardness as brass. Obviously lighter weight.


They are especially bad when small diameter gears must grip a knurled or splined shaft. What tends to happen is a stress crack forms and splits the gear over time. Lionel and other manufacturers all have had problems with this even with metal gears. Really, the bigger problem is designing a gearset with minimum number of teeth and thus gear size compared to shaft size. This enforces a rule of how thick (outer diameter VS inner diameter of the bore) for strength. Another factor is width of the gear and these are pretty thin.








The other problem gear in most truck gear systems:


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Bryan Moran said:


> Why are plastic gears seen as bad? If the plastic is machined properly, it should be ok for model trains. Hard, tough and about the same hardness as brass. Obviously lighter weight.


I've seen tons of split plastic gears, and only a couple examples of split bronze gears. FWIW, a decent gear is bronze, not brass. Brass is actually very fragile and would wear out very quickly.


----------



## Bryan Moran (Jan 15, 2017)

OK, bronze. Thank you


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Plastic gears are definitely a deal breaker. Besides the problems already pointed out, this gear should be a helical gear assuming it meshes with the motor worm. Rather it appears to be straight cut so less of the tooth is in contact with the worm. Those who have them enjoy them while you can but in the future look out for similarly price Williams engines which are in the same price range, at least second hand, and have none of these faults.










Pete


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

IF, when, but......if the gears fail I will removed failed gears......and still have a nice dummy unit with sound. Check the price of even dummy units today. 
YES.....metal gears might be better.....but the market at the $160 level is different than most of us here. The person that runs this loco for a few hours a year will not have a issue. Thx


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

AMCDave said:


> IF, when, but......if the gears fail I will removed failed gears......and still have a nice dummy unit with sound. Check the price of even dummy units today.
> YES.....metal gears might be better.....but the market at the $160 level is different than most of us here. The person that runs this loco for a few hours a year will not have a issue. Thx


If the gears fail, I'd put the control module in a William's Loco.


----------



## neilblumberg (Apr 15, 2019)

Remember these are beta (or even pre-beta), so the real test will be in the final alpha product, when quality and pricing will be known definitively. I'm expecting they will fix a few simple things, but not up to and including metal gearing which probably would be a major redesign and cost consideration. Time will tell. Remember that most trains are bought for round the tree duty, not hundreds of hours per year, so they may be considering usage issues that aren't typical of experienced hobbyists with permanent layouts.


----------



## Bryan Moran (Jan 15, 2017)

I don’t think most trains in our hobby are for round the tree.


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

FYI a short video of the loco on the layout......


----------



## neilblumberg (Apr 15, 2019)

Bryan Moran said:


> I don’t think most trains in our hobby are for round the tree.


Most locos are sold in train sets, and that is what I was thinking of when making this assertion. Lionel the major source of locos in our hobby, sells several times as many (perhaps 10-100 fold) locos in train sets as they do for separate sale, according to rumor. Perhaps Menards will not put together train sets and will only sell as separate sale, and in that case, you are almost certainly right that those will not be for around the tree in most cases.


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

If this engine was bought as a gift for a child then it may get more run time then the full scale engines some of us buy. My 2035 received when I was 5 probably has way more miles on it then all the others I have combined and I sold it when I was 12.

Pete


----------



## neilblumberg (Apr 15, 2019)

"My 2035 received when I was 5 probably has way more miles on it then all the others I have combined and I sold it when I was 12."

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and we were kids, there wasn't much to do besides play with trains. Now there are video games, the internet and other enchantments that may lead to lesser mileage . In any case, there is little doubt that many modern toys and appliances aren't built for the long haul. Including furnaces, water heaters, washing machines and toy trains. And our bodies seem to be lasting longer, so it's a problem in that respect.


----------



## Jeff T (Dec 27, 2011)

Jetguy said:


> Have you seen a Lionchief?


Only 1 LC in the house...


----------



## mosin44 (Mar 7, 2021)

Old_Hobo said:


> So, have they re-named it from their original release?
> 
> The first one was in reality an FP7….they called it an F3….
> 
> ...


Y’know, if the rivet counters are getting their nickers in a twist about that kind of detail, the truly Menards nailed it.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Not rivet counting….if someone is going to all the trouble and expense to produce a train model, they should at least get the actual designation right…..it’s not like there’s no info out there…..don’t they do research before investing a lot of money to produce it…..?

Very strange….unless it’s true what they say…..most O scale pieces are fantasy anyway, so why would anyone care…..


----------



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

AMCDave said:


> FYI a short video of the loco on the layout......


Neat video, thanks for sharing. Looks like the Menards AT&SF F unit is powerful enough to pull a string of Lionel aluminum Postwar passenger cars which are real slugs. It would make for a nice set.

Bill


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

CKCECB said:


> That's a really nice evaluation, thank you for doing the grunt work and sharing with the community. Hopefully Menards will note the feedback and make corrections and not hurry to get into production runs. But the one big thing that would concern me is will they have replacement or maintenance parts available, or are they treating these as disposable (more likely).


I'm not interested in the diesel (sorry Menards). But I would be interested in buying the control module and remote to add to some Williams locos I have. And that may be a nice market niche. Especially for MTH loco's if their replacement boards are scarce / nonexistent.


----------



## neilblumberg (Apr 15, 2019)

". But I would be interested in buying the control module and remote to add to some Williams locos I have. And that may be a nice market niche. "

Second the motion. Simple, inexpensive command upgrades or replacements for defunct systems would be welcome.


----------



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

Millstonemike said:


> I'm not interested in the diesel (sorry Menards). But I would be interested in buying the control module and remote to add to some Williams locos I have. And that may be a nice market niche. Especially for MTH loco's if their replacement boards are scarce / nonexistent.


Yep, that would be great to be able to purchase those control modules for other use.

Bill


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

Jetguy said:


> View attachment 572893
> 
> 
> Picture of the boards side by side to compare the previous version to the latest version.


I see faint markings on the chip nears the motor connector. Is that the final output to the motor? Can you tell us the chip number?


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Millstonemike said:


> I see faint markings on the chip nears the motor connector. Is that the final output to the motor? Can you tell us the chip number?


The H bridge is pretty decent, A4950T










https://www.allegromicro.com/-/media/files/datasheets/a4950-datasheet.ashx


DESCRIPTION
Designed for pulse width modulated (PWM) control of DC
motors, the A4950 is capable of peak output currents to ±3.5A
and operating voltages to 40 V. 

They appear to have followed the data sheet suggested design for thermals and just the basic circuit.








Backside of the board with thermal vias and large surface area for thermal transfer.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Jetguy said:


> They appear to have followed the data sheet suggested design for thermals and just the basic circuit.
> 
> Backside of the board with thermal vias and large surface area for thermal transfer.


Never a bad idea to read the datasheet of any part you're designing with!  I've used copper on the backside for some power supply boards for a heatsink.


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

Jetguy said:


> The H bridge is pretty decent, A4950T
> View attachment 573187
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed. If the designers didn't limit the current below the device ratings (3.5 amps continuous), that board could power some hefty loco's..


----------



## Bryan Moran (Jan 15, 2017)

Old_Hobo said:


> Not rivet counting….if someone is going to all the trouble and expense to produce a train model, they should at least get the actual designation right…..it’s not like there’s no info out there…..don’t they do research before investing a lot of money to produce it…..?
> 
> Very strange….unless it’s true what they say…..most O scale pieces are fantasy anyway, so why would anyone care…..


Old Hobo, you have been on this band wagon and basically looking for comments from us that challenge your stance. You are 100% correct, it is mis labeled and Menards should be ashamed of itself for not doing it's due diligence and including a 6 paragraph historical summary like MTH did in their catalogs, the ones they did after being in business 20 years by that time. C'mon Menards! Buck up.


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

*It's a nice choo-choo..........*
My 3 year old grand daughter.
Nuff said.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Exactly what we should expect….from a three year old…..


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

But expecting Lionel Legacy diesel for $159 ain't going to happen. I think it's a great alternative for the market. Thanks to those at MENARD's


----------



## Bryan Moran (Jan 15, 2017)

AMCDave said:


> But expecting Lionel Legacy diesel for $159 ain't going to happen. I think it's a great alternative for the market. Thanks to those at MENARD's


Exactly. Like some of us, I need to "dollar cost average" so I buy a detail laden locomotive for $749...then offset that with a Williams for $149 (off the secondary market). So yes, if Menards comes out with a Rock Island, CB & Q or Milwaukee Road in a cab style I can use, for $199, I will buy it. If they get into the $250 or so, then I start to nit pick a bit.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Millstonemike said:


> Agreed. If the designers didn't limit the current below the device ratings (3.5 amps continuous), that board could power some hefty loco's..


Well... not that hefty. 3.5A absolute maximum rating isn't that huge, typically the parts that are driving full sized Legacy diesels are rated at more like 18 amps max. It's a very small package








Compare that with something like the four large FET's on the ERR Cruise Commander tied to a real heatsink!.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Well... not that hefty. 3.5A absolute maximum rating isn't that huge,


Yes, so more digging, the primary competition is Lionchief.
As an example, what one version of Lionchief uses is. Picture by user GeoPeg on the other forum.








I know, hard to see but I made out the basic H bridge is 4 FETs.
2 each IR042 https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/196/Infineon_IRLR024N_DataSheet_v01_01_EN-1732999.pdf\
2 each IR5305 https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/irfr5305pbf.pdf?fileId=5546d462533600a401535632522820ff
Being that an H bridge uses a pair of transistors for one direction the *P channel MOSFET* is the weaker one limiting to something way less than the 17A peak rating of the FET.








Now again, there is *limited heatsink area,* the traces and the *bridge rectifier limit*, as well as the *JST connector *output pins limit.
So in light of that, *nothing to brag on for the Menard's board and it's 3.5A peak*. It's not bad for the use case, but it's not some brilliant retrofit board either IMO as others begged for Menards to sell them.

Flat out folks- this is why I tried and continue to try to document Lionchief series of boards- they can represent a value in some situations. Yes, they are limited. Yes, the sounds are not great. But $45 gets you a basic board with sounds that can drive a can motor- maybe even 2 can motors. Lionel half off parts sale annually makes even more attractive. Universal remote solves buying individual remotes for each conversion.

Again, I just shared one example and Lionel has made so many series of Lionchief at this point, there are a lot of variations. This is an early example before bluetooth.

Keep in mind, in a starter sized conventional engine, the reverse unit is using TIP31 and TIP32 BJT transistors. We know they realistically are thermally limited to maybe 1.5A and maybe even 1A or less before they flat out burn up in thermal runaway. The board also only has 1A diodes for the bridge rectifier section.










*Again, just trying to frame some reference of commonly used parts, what they are rated for in similar starter toy engines with can motors.*


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Well... not that hefty. 3.5A absolute maximum rating isn't that huge, typically the parts that are driving full sized Legacy diesels are rated at more like 18 amps max. It's a very small package





Jetguy said:


> *...nothing to brag on for the Menard's board and it's 3.5A peak*. It's not bad for the use case, but it's not some brilliant retrofit board either IMO as others begged for Menards to sell them.


Gents, people wouldn't buy this board to put in a Bigboy or other high-end modern loco towing a bazillion cars. But some pre-post war and Williams locos could benefit. It's a different application than either of you would likely pursue.

And it's rated 3.5A continuous - 100% duty cycle. I can barely get an amp reading on a postwar Marx towing 8 weighted cars, jumps around at 0.1 with peaks of 0.2 amps. And Williams diesels' dual motors can be wired in series to use a higher voltage at less amps. Many modelers do that now to slow down some overly fast Williams dual motor diesels.

Jetguy, do you have measurements on the module. Looks to be about 4.5" long from the pics.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Mike, you really have to separate absolute maximum ratings from practical operating ratings. The 3.5A rating is also predicated on proper heatsinking of the chip, which is likely not present on this small board.

One of the issues with motor drives is what happens when a motor stalls. If there is no overload protection, the drivers simply burn up. Since I've seen this with the much higher current rated ERR Cruise Commander FET's, as well as the Lionel RCMC FET drivers.


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Mike, you really have to separate absolute maximum ratings from practical operating ratings. The 3.5A rating is also predicated on proper heatsinking of the chip, which is likely not present on this small board.
> 
> One of the issues with motor drives is what happens when a motor stalls. If there is no overload protection, the drivers simply burn up. Since I've seen this with the much higher current rated ERR Cruise Commander FET's, as well as the Lionel RCMC FET drivers.


John, I agree on the amp rating and heat issue. It's a modern part and the datasheet specifies thermal shutdown protection and overload protection (on both the input and outputs including shorts). As for the heat issue, your dead on. I would use my experience with chip based amplifiers. (A) mount the board vertical so air flows up the sides of board instead of being trapped under it; (B) Mount it with the with the motor driver at the bottom. That may seem counter intuitive, see below. (C) Use a heatsink on the top of the chip aligned vertically for better air flow over the fins. I have small stick-on sinks just for this purpose. (D) Pray there's enough air capacity and changeover in the cab to keep things relatively cool  

I have the equipment for a nice test. A Williams F7 dual motor and seven extruded aluminum passenger cars. Measuring amp draw on that would tell me if "we're in the ballpark". Alas, I'm working on my Christmas train and the Williams cars are still in their original Styrofoam boxes. Too much a PITA to drag it all down from the attic and set it up this week.

*Heat Transfer Tests*: Tests with telco equipment after fan failures determined the best air flow is when the hottest equipment is at the bottom of the stack. That causes the air draft to move up over all the equipment - heat rises. When the hot equipment is at the top, you lose the air flow created by the heat at the bottom. Then the air stagnates and everything "boils".


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Millstonemike said:


> Jetguy, do you have measurements on the module. Looks to be about 4.5" long from the pics.


Board is 4.9 inches long, 1.4 inches wide. and the big caps make it 1.5 inches tall
Kinda big if I'm honest.
A new Legacy or Lionchief Plus 2.0 board is 3.5 inches long, 1.2 inches wide, and 1 inch tall


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

Jetguy said:


> Board is 4.9 inches long, 1.4 inches wide. and the big caps make it 1.5 inches tall
> Kinda big if I'm honest.
> A new Legacy or Lionchief Plus 2.0 board is 3.5 inches long, 1.2 inches wide, and 1 inch tall


Many thanks. A little surgery and that board can be much smaller. I suspect the caps can be off board and that part of the PBD removed (maybe add small cap in addition close to the electronics). Same with the antenna side. There's always a way to "skin the cat"  

Now if Menards will make them available.


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

Here's a video showcasing Menards O offerings. At the 8:35 mark, you can see the new F7 towing 12 freight cars and a caboose. It doesn't look like it's breaking a sweat doing it. After that, the F7 motoring along with some higher end sets. A good video of the new F7.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Although he keeps calling it an F3….actually, it’s an FP7…..but why dither over actual facts….


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Well so far I have about 10 hours of runtime on mine (2 full nights where it ran 5 hours straight) at our local train club. I was pulling a bunch of MTH Christmas cars.

I do recommend adding grease to the worm as while they were factory lubed, it was not exactly adequate IMO.
Just trying to give the plastic worm wheel the best conditions.

The general public and club member response is that they liked it, and were impressed by the die cast truck and overall weight as well as pulling ability. The volume control knob was also a major talking point club members liked.


----------



## AMCDave (Jun 14, 2015)

3.0 dropped this afternoon.....sold out already


----------

