Allen Bradley PLC Lifecycles ?

Has anyone heard of an AB document that spells out their planned product lifecycles?

I'm helping a customer decide between CompactLogix L43 and L35E. L35E solution would be less expensive but my concern is that AB might be planning to phase out the L35E and my customer is planning to purchase a large number of these.

They are migrating from 1746/1747 platform for this very reason.

Thanks.
Warren

I doubt CompactLogix are going Silver Series anytime soon, but here is a link:

http://ab.rockwellautomation.com/ro...ration-solutions/product-search/overview.page

I don't think you'll find anything in-terms of life-cyle in their current offerings. To be safe you're probably better off going with the 5370 controllers as they are the newest.

http://ab.rockwellautomation.com/Programmable-Controllers/CompactLogix-5370-Controllers

Check out the CompactLogix Selection Guide.

http://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/sg/1769-sg001_-en-p.pdf

Bottom of page 10 shows the new CompactLogix 5370 L3 replacements for the older 1769-L3X controllers.

Looks like 1769-L33ER or 1769-L36ERM would be the ideal choices.

whumphrey said:

Has anyone heard of an AB document that spells out their planned product lifecycles?

I'm helping a customer decide between CompactLogix L43 and L35E. L35E solution would be less expensive but my concern is that AB might be planning to phase out the L35E and my customer is planning to purchase a large number of these.

They are migrating from 1746/1747 platform for this very reason.

Thanks.
Warren

Click to expand...

Re: L35E CompactLogix.

Many will offer varying views on this topic, some accurate, most likely not.

However.

Your consideration can be based on fact.

And, the fact is that the L35E has a limited firmware support. That is to say, that V20.13 is the most recent firmware that this processor can be flashed to. That's it. No V21, no V22.

http://www.rockwellautomation.com/rockwellautomation/support/firmware/overview.page?

When you consider the implications of that fact, it might help to guide you to your choice.
It may not matter, or, it may. Only you know.

jdbrandt said:

Re: L35E CompactLogix.

....

Your consideration can be based on fact.

And, the fact is that the L35E has a limited firmware support. That is to say, that V20.13 is the most recent firmware that this processor can be flashed to. That's it. No V21, no V22.

....

Click to expand...

That's a little weak considering nothing but the latest and greatest controllers are compatible with V21. No such thing as V22 (yet). Don't forget that V21 is NOT compatible with Windows XP. Should the OP should consider an older model if the end user is does not have a Windows 7 platform to work from?

Paully's5.0 said:

That's a little weak considering nothing but the latest and greatest controllers are compatible with V21. No such thing as V22 (yet). Don't forget that V21 is NOT compatible with Windows XP. Should the OP should consider an older model if the end user is does not have a Windows 7 platform to work from?

Click to expand...

Well, yes, if he never intends on using Windows 7, and never intends on using the advanced motion, and if he....

Neither of us knows the end use gear. We can assume something pretty tame, since he speaks of 1746, but, that would only be an assumption.

For all we know, v16 of a -35E would be good enough. There are sure enough of them out there running perfectly fine.

The Windows 7 requirement is a bit stiff, but, then again, when the choice is "Allen-Bradley", you have to roll with what they decide you need.

But, even IDEC's latest stuff runs better in a W7 environment, so, perhaps this is the wave of the future.


The minor challenge, of course, is to go out and buy a new laptop with Windows 7 on it...but that's a topic for a new thread.

Thanks for replies and good info everyone. This is a pretty low tech application (waste-water treatment) but there will be about 30 processors.

Main concern here is that whatever platform is chosen, that they can buy parts for the next 15-20 years without Rockwell ramping up the price like they are doing with the 1746 series now.

Warren

I dont use AB or CompactLogix, but I cant resist the urge to express my opinion.
For a system that has to have a very long life cycle expectancy, and be able to source components, and be based around AB/RA and CompactLogix, I recommend to go for POINT IO and connect all and everything via Ethernet/IP. In other words do not plan to use any 1769 IO.

It is not easy to predict the future, and especially not what a company like AB/RA will do in the future, but one can take an educated guess. This is my take:
Especially the 1769 backplane seems to me to be a hardware platform that isnt future-proof for the next 15-20 years.
POINT IO on the other hand and Ethernet/IP will be around for a very long time, and will be easy to use with whichever Ethernet/IP capable CPU that exist now or will be launched in the future.

Thanks. I can't disagree. Our problem though is space. I don't think the Point I/O density is high enough to fit in the space occupied by chassis full of 1746 I/O.
I haven't used much point I/O either...perhaps they make some higher density modules now.

whumphrey said:

Thanks for replies and good info everyone. This is a pretty low tech application (waste-water treatment) but there will be about 30 processors.

Main concern here is that whatever platform is chosen, that they can buy parts for the next 15-20 years without Rockwell ramping up the price like they are doing with the 1746 series now.

Warren

Click to expand...

While I wouldn't condone using 1746 hardware for a new project I know full well I will be able to buy surplus components until well after I am in the ground.

We have transitioned away from using the L4x series of controllers to using the new L3xER controllers and using 9300-ENA or the new Stratix5300 w/ NAT for the separate networking capability. The old controllers no longer support the newest firmware, plus the new ones have USB support, don't contain batteries, take up less space, have fast dual core processors, and are a few dollars cheaper (to try to force you to phase out the old models) if my memory serves me correctly.

whumphrey said:

Main concern here is that whatever platform is chosen, that they can buy parts for the next 15-20 years without Rockwell ramping up the price like they are doing with the 1746 series now.

Warren

Click to expand...

We're talking about Rockwell, here. Frequent, unnecessary product line change is their bread-and-butter. I wouldn't be confident telling you that ANY Rockwell product line is still going to be around in 15-20 years. If you're looking for a good 20 year period of no-hassle part stocking from Rockwell, you're going to have to get into a new platform shortly after they introduce it. The problem with that is fairly often, the "big, new thing" from Rockwell gets kicked to the curb a few years later when it becomes apparent what a horribly bad idea it was. So there's a risk involved.

Rockwell reminds me a lot of Apple in the early 90's before Steve Jobs returned. It's product line is so massive and varied that you have multiple product lines by the same manufacturer overlapping in roles, so hardly anyone knows what to buy or what they need. I went to a RAOTM once and they actually had a class on what all the different FactoryTalk View packages were. I'm dead serious, a freaking CLASS on how to order from their catalog correctly. But they need it because if you don't know what each package does, you're clueless. Do you need Factory Talk View SE Studio? Factory Talk View ME Station? FactoryTalk View SE Server? FactoryTalk View SE ME XP 33 69 75 Standard Server Client Ultimate Unlimited Tags Edition?

I wish they'd clearly identify the industrial segments they want to provide for, and then only offer ONE product for each segment. Every product line starts that way and then they start adding more and more features until it starts creeping in on the next product line up's territory. Most of the things people used to do with the SLC platform can be done with a Micrologix, even though the Compact Logix is supposedly the "Successor" to the SLC platform.

Anyway, that's my weekly anti-Rockwell/AB rant.

whumphrey said:

Thanks. I can't disagree. Our problem though is space. I don't think the Point I/O density is high enough to fit in the space occupied by chassis full of 1746 I/O.
I haven't used much point I/O either...perhaps they make some higher density modules now.

Click to expand...

8-channel POINT IO modules have a higher density than 16-channel 1746 IO modules.

whumphrey said:

Thanks. I can't disagree. Our problem though is space. I don't think the Point I/O density is high enough to fit in the space occupied by chassis full of 1746 I/O.
I haven't used much point I/O either...perhaps they make some higher density modules now.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. I have replaced PLC5 racks with PointIO, maintained the original IO count/type of the PLC5 rack and fit it within the original footprint of the PLC5 rack, worked great. Rockwell offers an expensive "conversion" setup for PLC5 rack IO to CLX rack IO but you can use PointIO at a fraction of the cost. I bet you can do the same with SLC IO. My only concern would be the height of the PointIO rack versus the SLC. Point may be a bit taller.

brstilson said:

We're talking about Rockwell, here. Frequent, unnecessary product line change is their bread-and-butter. I wouldn't be confident telling you that ANY Rockwell product line is still going to be around in 15-20 years. If you're looking for a good 20 year period of no-hassle part stocking from Rockwell, you're going to have to get into a new platform shortly after they introduce it. The problem with that is fairly often, the "big, new thing" from Rockwell gets kicked to the curb a few years later when it becomes apparent what a horribly bad idea it was. So there's a risk involved.

Click to expand...

Curious about how you have reached this conclusion? I've been in plants that are running original PLC5 processors which are 20+ years old. Even gotten emergency replacement PLC5 processors from Rockwell on 2 occasions (very expensive, on a Saturday, air delivery then courier within 11 hours) so I have confidence that they have long-term availability. FlexIO has been around for many years and I don't see them dropping that anytime soon. I can't see SLC support dropping soon either, might go silver series but doesn't mean that you can't get parts from Rockwell.

CLX Processors can still control PLC5 rack IO over RIO networks, so PLC5 rack IO will be around for years I think. Companies will upgrade processors, keep the existing IO to save money, then down the road upgrade the IO. There are pleny of migration options for Rockwell hardware, you can't expect to be able to get exact replacement parts over a 20 year period but I certainly expect to find alternatives if I needed to. PLC5 rack IO can be replaced with FlexIO while maintaining the original RIO network. Some re-programming yes but not earth-shattering. Granted I've seen RIO block IO that probably isn't around but again there are other products you can use with out too much trouble. Ultimately Rockwell isn't directing avaiability of their parts, it's all a function of those internal electronics required. Loose a vendor or supply of those circuit board components, well your SOL.

Rockwell even has tools to do 80% of a program conversion for you, so if you move from PLC5 -> CLX you can do it pretty cheaply, I disagree with this method as I feel if you are going to migrate you improve your entire automation system rather than just the hardware. But that's just me.

You may be justified on the software offerings by Rockwell, but when it comes to the hardware foundation of a control system I don't see how anyone can be critical of Rockwell.

I agree with Jesper, if you want to "future proof" a system PointIO over Ethernet is the way to go.