Is LCS dead?

Much of it has been down since they revamped the website some time back. Many links were broken, pages not moved and so forth. It is true there has been some LCS items dropped (example sensor track sensors and module) but hopefully demand and requests will bring them back.

I do agree, it's a shame more attention wasn't paid to the documentation and presentation of LCS as a flagship foundation to going all Lionel components (switches, accessories) on layouts.

LCS isn't dead, but it's also not getting the support, attention, updates, and new features it should be either.

See this post from @Dave Olson from February.  LCS is NOT dead.

@Vernon Barry posted:

Much of it has been down since they revamped the website some time back. Many links were broken, pages not moved and so forth. It is true there has been some LCS items dropped (example sensor track sensors and module) but hopefully demand and requests will bring them back.

I do agree, it's a shame more attention wasn't paid to the documentation and presentation of LCS as a flagship foundation to going all Lionel components (switches, accessories) on layouts.

LCS isn't dead, but it's also not getting the support, attention, updates, and new features it should be either.

thanks for the reply.  its kind of like saying its dead without saying its dead.  yea, you can buy some of it, and the app is still on the app store - until apple makes a change and they need to update it to keep it there...  I get lionel is not a huge company, but the broken links on the website shouldn't be a hard of difficult thing to solve - especially if you have a product you are looking to move.   if you were new to the hobby and interested in tech and layout automation - you would be very confused.

But are they going to do some updates to the LCS app soon?  It still has the problem of getting lost if you assign the out (curved) route of a switch to be the thru route.  It's easy to swap the sense for the DZ-2500 and it works properly with the TMCC/Legacy remote, but not on the iPad.

@ChrisFromCle posted:

... its kind of like saying its dead without saying its dead.  yea, you can buy some of it, and the app is still on the app store - until apple makes a change and they need to update it to keep it there...  I get lionel is not a huge company, but the broken links on the website shouldn't be a hard of difficult thing to solve - especially if you have a product you are looking to move.   if you were new to the hobby and interested in tech and layout automation - you would be very confused.

Zooty,

There's nothing new here.  Lionel excels at confusing people.  This is one of the fundamental reasons that the OGR Forum has so many followers.  They come here to get answers that they can't get directly from the source, whether it's because there are broken links on its site or some other oversight.  And there are many of these, starting with errors in instruction manuals, in catalog postings, and on box end-flaps.

Perceived quality takes a hit with every one of these loose ends that's not tied up successfully.  The bad links on the website are just one example.

@Vernon Barry posted:

..., it's a shame more attention wasn't paid to the documentation and presentation of LCS as a flagship foundation to going all Lionel components (switches, accessories) on layouts.

LCS isn't dead, but it's also not getting the support, attention, updates, and new features it should be either.

Vernon,

At one time LCS might have been thought of as a foundation for Lionel's future but after seeing and using it, it's clear that this is not for everyone.  Instead of eliminating complexity and making things easier to deal with, thus reeling in its existing customers for more business, it just changes the nature of that complexity, from one form to another.

Unfortunately, as a result I think that it has a much more limited market than was originally forecast, even if the documentation were to be correct and readily available, and they've come to realize this.  As far as producing anything new building on what's already there, since it wasn't the huge flagship-worthy hit they originally expected why throw good money after bad?

Mike

It's true that Lionel has been doing little to support, enhance, or promote LCS. Lionel's technology priorities for a number of years have revolved around Bluetooth and then the Base3 / Cab3 App. But...

LCS is definitely not dead. As Dave Olson said in the thread that Marty linked, the new website that Lionel is building for the Base3 / Cab3 App will have all the LCS information. More pointedly, the Base3 will have not 1, not 2, but 3 PDI connectors for LCS. Lionel is not putting 3 PDI connectors in the Base3 just to increase their costs. As they bring out their new technology platform, they're clearly looking for LCS to be part of it going forward.

@Keith L posted:

LCS is definitely not dead. As Dave Olson said in the thread that Marty linked, the new website that Lionel is building for the Base3 / Cab3 App will have all the LCS information. More pointedly, the Base3 will have not 1, not 2, but 3 PDI connectors for LCS. Lionel is not putting 3 PDI connectors in the Base3 just to increase their costs. As they bring out their new technology platform, they're clearly looking for LCS to be part of it going forward.

Since they've discontinued the IRV2 sensor box and the mating sensor sleds, it doesn't seem it's robust.  The reason was stated they didn't sell well.  May well be true, but I suspect none of the LCS stuff is selling all that well, primarily because it's perceived by many that it's going to be allowed to wither and die.  That may not be the plan, but limiting one of the key features to just Fastrack seems to suggest it's certainly not going to be universally available.  They also have the CSM2 that is a specific box to interface the DZ-2500 switch machine to LCS.  However, the software that interfaces that to the iPad app has had an obvious bug for years, and there's been no updates or even mention of the possibility of it being addressed.  Then again, the CSM2 is another LCS box that isn't used with Fastrack, so it may be the next one on the chopping block. That doesn't suggest to me a robust product.

@Keith L posted:

It's true that Lionel has been doing little to support, enhance, or promote LCS. Lionel's technology priorities for a number of years have revolved around Bluetooth and then the Base3 / Cab3 App. But...

LCS is definitely not dead. As Dave Olson said in the thread that Marty linked, the new website that Lionel is building for the Base3 / Cab3 App will have all the LCS information. More pointedly, the Base3 will have not 1, not 2, but 3 PDI connectors for LCS. Lionel is not putting 3 PDI connectors in the Base3 just to increase their costs. As they bring out their new technology platform, they're clearly looking for LCS to be part of it going forward.

They could have 10 PDI connectors, if the modules have poor documentation, can’t be purchases, are discontinued, or the app has bugs it’s just not worth it and they will have another failed product.  

I don't think it is dead, but at the same time it has not changed in years.  No improvements or advances with it. 

So, it's not dead, but not growing either.

I use it extensively on my layout but would love to see some tighter integration and improved app for it.

I agree an LCS app update is overdue but the current version does work. I use it every day. I do think there is more pessimism than warranted about LCS. Imagine that, like me, you are an S gauge operator and need Sensor Tracks. Lionel never made any in S. The neat thing about the O gauge Sensor tracks are the IR sensors and the programmers are on two different boards. After removing the boards from the FasTrack section, the sensors can be hidden under the track and the programming board can be mounted remotely at the layout fascia. I have three installed this way.

The CSM2 was convenient but not necessary for position indication of DZ-2500 actuators. The same result can be obtained by adding a DZ-1008 AC relay. My layout has six DZ-2500's wired this way to provide correct turnout position indication to the STM2 and then to the iPads.

The LCS is not dead, but regardless of Lionel support, I think its application will be limited by cost and by an intimidation factor that some operators get from looking at the programming and setup of the components that is necessary.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

But are they going to do some updates to the LCS app soon?  It still has the problem of getting lost if you assign the out (curved) route of a switch to be the thru route.  It's easy to swap the sense for the DZ-2500 and it works properly with the TMCC/Legacy remote, but not on the iPad.

I found on my wife’s older I pad not running the most up to date software it worked sometimes, on mine running 16.8 nope.

Your problem may be ios 16.8, the newest release is 16.6. I have two old iPad 2's running 9.3.5 (latest available) and a new iPad Pro running ios16.6 with an Apple pencil. All three work perfectly.

I think Lionel should build a "21st-Century showroom layout" as a definitive demonstration of what LCS can really do.  If a killer demo exists, I haven't seen it, someone please post a link!!  Better still, they could make the layout modular and bring it to some of the larger train shows.  If Legacy users got to experience the potential hands-on, IMO that would spark more interest and more sales.  Layout control from the iPad is brilliant.  But imagine running a local freight while the computer controls an express passenger train on a programmed route!

Also, and I emailed Jon Z about this a long time ago... I think LCS should incorporate provisions for RANDOMNESS, such that you could allow the system to choose which locomotive, which route, etc.  This would permit fully-automated operation that isn't rote-repetitive.  It would effectively turn your layout into a kind of mechanical fish tank that could be fun and relaxing to watch!

LCS has a lot of potential and I would like to incorporate it into any future layout I build.  Yes, it's complex (but IMO not compared to some alternatives like JMRI.)  I really hope that Lionel doesn't abandon it, and that I haven't missed the window of availability for some of the key hardware.  Hoping...

Also, a little off-topic.  But if you're bored, google "Intelino"...

Ted - great comments.  I totally agree, before I got back in to ogauge I was in to HO - and did a lot of automation.  It was very cool to be able to essentially have trains run.  Make stops on sidings, passenger stations, etc.   One could argue the LCS system could be really great with the sensor track capabilities to create this kind of automation.  Take it a next step forward with AI / Machine learning and it could come up with suggested routes, stops, etc.  I would say if Lionel is not interested in doing it, they should open up there an API that gives you access to everything through the base 3.  I expect Lionel make great engines, rolling stock and accessories- I don’t expect much out of them on the software side, so they should just open source an API and let the community or others do the work.

@Ted S posted:

I really hope that Lionel doesn't abandon it, and that I haven't missed the window of availability for some of the key hardware.  Hoping...

The ship has already sailed unless you're running Fastrack.  The dropping of the IRV2 and associated sensor sleds means that only Fastrack has the sensor track capability to track where trains are and do the automation you suggest.  Folks with other track systems don't have the capability of using the sensor tracks.

Sure, you can tear apart Fastrack sensor tracks, but that gets really expensive and cosmetically ugly trying to integrate those into a different track system.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

The ship has already sailed unless you're running Fastrack.  The dropping of the IRV2 and associated sensor sleds means that only Fastrack has the sensor track capability to track where trains are and do the automation you suggest.  Folks with other track systems don't have the capability of using the sensor tracks.

Sure, you can tear apart Fastrack sensor tracks, but that gets really expensive and cosmetically ugly trying to integrate those into a different track system.

The IRV2 going away is definitely a disappointment but if they ain't selling them it would be bad business to keep producing them.  Seems we all are guilty of crying when something gets discontinued but in reality the demand just wasn't what was implied.  It happens all the time in this hobby.

While the FasTrack version of the sensor track is more money it really isn't hard to adapt it to other track systems with as another poster likes to put it "tinkering".  I for one wish they would have continued the IRV2 but I guess there just wasn't enough demand to sustain it.

@MartyE posted:

The IRV2 going away is definitely a disappointment but if they ain't selling them it would be bad business to keep producing them.  Seems we all are guilty of crying when something gets discontinued but in reality the demand just wasn't what was implied.  It happens all the time in this hobby.

Well, IMO, we have a chicken & egg scenario.  I suspect a good part of the reason that the IRV2 wasn't selling was the lack of progress on other parts of LCS, specifically the application.  Also, the sensor cars being discontinued as well made the sensor track capability only apply to newer Lionel Legacy and Fastrack users.  This removed the capability to enjoy the benefits of the LCS operation with other engines or track systems.  That removed a large part of the potential user base.  Both of those being totally discontinued suggest to me that Lionel wants a bigger slice of a smaller pie.  If you don't buy our new locomotives and use Fastrack, you're not welcome in the LCS arena.

@Ted S posted:

Also, and I emailed Jon Z about this a long time ago... I think LCS should incorporate provisions for RANDOMNESS, such that you could allow the system to choose which locomotive, which route, etc.  This would permit fully-automated operation that isn't rote-repetitive.  It would effectively turn your layout into a kind of mechanical fish tank that could be fun and relaxing to watch!

LCS has a lot of potential and I would like to incorporate it into any future layout I build.  Yes, it's complex (but IMO not compared to some alternatives like JMRI.)  I really hope that Lionel doesn't abandon it, and that I haven't missed the window of availability for some of the key hardware.  Hoping...

Ted,

This will only work, especially if trying to control simultaneously, and avoid collisions between, multiple trains, if the control system knows the precise location of each train.  With LCS this could be done as with other means in the past, by dividing the layout into blocks.  Correct me if I'm wrong however, but as far as I can tell there's presently no way in LCS to indicate information describing each block such as:

• Relative or physical location of entrance(s) to it with respect to the other blocks and components (operating accessories, turnouts, uncoupling tracks, etc.) on the layout
• Relative or physical Location of exit(s) from it
• Length of block

   although you could get buy with only two of the three because if arranged correctly you can compute the missing one from the other two.

And then, with respect to the set of blocks that make up the layout, to automatically track the path of all trains, only limited means presently exist for answering these questions, and these come mainly via the existing Sensor Tracks, which can't presently answer all of these:

• How many blocks are occupied?
• Which ones?
• What block precedes the block that a train is currently occupying?
• What block follows the block that a train is currently occupying?
• How long are the trains?
• Are there any trains presently straddling two or more blocks (as opposed to fitting nicely into one)?

If the trains all travel in only one direction then perhaps only one Sensor Track is needed for each block, most likely positioned at its entrance.  Any block that can be entered from either end will need at least two, one at each end.

LCS would need all of this, and the info that comes from it, in order to correctly run trains that do not collide.  What's important here is that, although wonderful, the proposed AI part can't do it's job without knowing precisely where the trains are, how long they are, and how fast they're traveling, at every point in time.

Mike

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Well, IMO, we have a chicken & egg scenario.  I suspect a good part of the reason that the IRV2 wasn't selling was the lack of progress on other parts of LCS, specifically the application.  Also, the sensor cars being discontinued as well made the sensor track capability only apply to newer Lionel Legacy and Fastrack users.  This removed the capability to enjoy the benefits of the LCS operation with other engines or track systems.  That removed a large part of the potential user base.  Both of those being totally discontinued suggest to me that Lionel wants a bigger slice of a smaller pie.  If you don't buy our new locomotives and use Fastrack, you're not welcome in the LCS arena.

Ah yes the sensor cars that no one purchased as well.  I think it was you that wished they were kit form rather than just a car, something I agree with 100%.  These I think might have done better being able to install them directly into a locomotive.  At one time I was told Lionel had an inventory of sensor boxcars.  I always looked for them at the warehouse sale but never saw them,  You would have thunk they'd be giving them away there.

@MartyE posted:

Ah yes the sensor cars that no one purchased as well.  I think it was you that wished they were kit form rather than just a car, something I agree with 100%.  These I think might have done better being able to install them directly into a locomotive.  At one time I was told Lionel had an inventory of sensor boxcars.  I always looked for them at the warehouse sale but never saw them,  You would have thunk they'd be giving them away there.

Yep, the board option was the best solution, and it would have been pretty easy to do.  FWIW, I have half a dozen of these that I picked up when people were unloading them, and I am going to try to stick the guts of one of them into the scale T1 Duplex that I upgraded to Legacy.  I figured I'd remove the boards from the boxcars and still have a nice scale boxcar and the electronics to add to a locomotive.

Of course, Lionel had an inventory of TMCC electronics and they suddenly disappeared as well, so one has to wonder what is really going on there...

At least Lionel made O gauge Railsounds cars with the Sensor track interface. They were never made in S gauge with the sensor track interface. I considered buying some O gauge cars and transferring all the electronics to  S gauge cars but decided life was too short to head down that path.

The IRV 2 was much cheaper than the O gauge FasTrack Sensor track, but the result, with that sled between the rails, is in my opinion, unsightly. I think this looks a lot better with the sensors hidden under the track. This is MTH track. From three feet away it is not visible. In my opinion it is worth the extra cost to hide the sensors and put the programming at the edge of the layout under the fascia.  

@Ted S posted:

Also, a little off-topic.  But if you're bored, google "Intelino"...

Intelino is neither boring nor off topic, especially if you're into this kind of thing.  Please follow Ted's link and look at the website carefully.

Note: For those of you who believe that the envelope has already been pushed much too far feel free to skip over my comments below.

What Intelino does is precisely the thing that LCS should also be able to do.  In fact, the fact that a newcomer had to create its own train system from scratch to accomplish its goal of incorporating programming and automation illustrates precisely where our hobby is presently stuck.

This has happened because our existing toy train and model railroading manufacturers have had a failure in imagination.  Some, like JMRI have thought things out this far, but not about how to make them simple enough to master easily.  Most however aren't even thinking along these lines, when years ago their very success came from such looking into the future and thinking outside the box.

Imagination is where our hobby started, what has always propelled it forward, and above all, is one of the most important things it teaches to those who partake in it.

We were all children at one time.  Our hobby has been, and still can be, a substantial means for encouraging them and expanding those imaginations.

We're dropping the ball.  LCS is just one example.

It shouldn't have taken an Intelino to demonstrate exactly how.

Is this a big crisis for our hobby?  No.  Is it a small one?  Maybe, but not necessarily -- as long as we don't ignore it going forward.

Make LCS work.  Upgrade it soon.

Mike

That was exactly my point about bringing up Intelino.  What you see in their demos should be a minimum goal for what LCS can do.

I disagree that you couldn't create an automated demo with LCS (although I haven't experimented, so I don't really know what the software is capable of.)  The simplest case I can think of is a loop with a passing siding.  The sensor tracks are positioned near the entrance of the siding, and also on the main adjacent to the siding.  The siding is at least twice as long as each train.  The pseudocode would be something like:

Start train 1, gradually accelerate to medium speed.  When sensor 1 reads train 1 (i.e., loop completed) then gradually stop train 1.  [Note- deceleration distance shouldn't allow the train to reach the fouling point.]  Set exit and entry switches to curved.  Start train 2, gradually accelerate to medium speed.  When sensor 2 reads train 2 then gradually stop train 2.  Set entry and exit switches to straight.  Go back to start and repeat program.

This would alternate each train making a loop with smooth starts and stops (which is more realistic, and easier on the locos than what I've seen at most museums and commercial displays.)  Additional sensor tracks could be added to simulate station stops (passenger trains only), whistle for grade crossings, etc.  Add a few simple provisions for RANDOMNESS, and folks might watch longer until they get to see all of the trains run, on all of the routes.  Hopefully I'll get to see an automated layout like this in my remaining lifetime!

As with any computer program, there are assumptions about the starting conditions.  Certainly the software can't know which locos have been placed on the layout or how long their trains are, although if Lionel sold a sensor-equipped caboose (which would make a ton of sense), then the software could figure that out.  Of course there are constraints, too.  Even human dispatchers struggle with a "saw-by" when two long trains meet on a single-track line.

Having only gotten into the O gauge hobby about 3 years ago, I have often toyed with the idea of going from conventional to LCS or other command systems.  (I almost bought a Lionchief set a couple of years ago.)  But threads like this continually convince me not to go there.

I want a hobby that is fun, not one filled with constant problems and frustrations.  Whenever I hear the word "updates" in connection with any application, I am not interested in it.  I've got enough problems in life without fooling with constant "updates."

And, I only have utter dismay at how Lionel, which was the gold standard of trains 40 years ago, has morphed into a mass producer of unreliable products.

So, I'll stick with turning on the power switch, rotating the transformer knob, and watching all of my trains run flawlessly, each and every time.

I wish it wasn't so.

Mannyrock

@Mannyrock posted:

I want a hobby that is fun, not one filled with constant problems and frustrations.  Whenever I hear the word "updates" in connection with any application, I am not interested in it.  I've got enough problems in life without fooling with constant "updates."

And, I only have utter dismay at how Lionel, which was the gold standard of trains 40 years ago, has morphed into a mass producer of unreliable products.

I wish it wasn't so.

Mannyrock

Mannyrock,

I hear ya, but ...

You're asking for a situation that can't exist, and never did.

Consider these observations;

1. Lionel wasn't the Gold Standard 40 years ago -- it was much longer ago than that.  In 1969, because it was no longer the Gold Standard, and in fact had sunk quite far below it, it was on its last legs.  Fortunately MPC ended up with it and managed to carry it through until more capable hands could resurrect it.
2. "Updates" are a given, and a must, with everything nowadays -- You can thank the Personal Computer and Smart Phone manufacturers for that, and even the automotive folks.  But you can also thank "Modern Quality Control" which has at its core a concept called continuous improvement.  Think back to the absolute junk that was sold, in every sort of product line not just hobby goods, back in the 1970's.  You would still be buying that garbage if manufacturers hadn't adopted continuous improvement.  Updates are just a quicker way of advancing the state of the art via continuous improvement, and for addressing unforeseen safety issues quickly -- before someone gets hurt.
3. Even at it's zenith Lionel's quality was not perfect -- There are plenty of stories about things that were sub-par and so, importantly, it had a very, very large service network to take care of them.  If things were perfect back then why did they need such a network?

If this hobby takes you back to simpler, more pleasant times, then good for you.  Good luck though finding any other that doesn't have similar headaches at times as well.

Headaches are part of the advancement of the real world, and always have been.  No risk, no advancement , no reward, even with hobbies.

It's unfortunate but the only place they don't exist is in the nostalgia of adults fondly remembering the perfect world of their youth.

Mike

"And, I only have utter dismay at how Lionel, which was the gold standard of trains 40 years ago, has morphed into a mass producer of unreliable products."

Lionel's products are entirely reliable in my hands, and those of most end users as far as I can tell.  High end, complex systems like LCS are not intended for the casual user, and are probably used by fewer than 1 in 1,000 to 5,000 of Lionel's customers (my guess).  LionChief (a command system in every starter set) is simple and bullet proof. Legacy is less simple, but not very complex for basic functions, and pretty reliable/robust.  Not a whole lot more complex or problematic than conventional control.  That said, most people have probably never tried Legacy or TMCC, and operate in conventional mode.  And there is nothing wrong in that in any way. 

So I would say your assessment above is inaccurate and misleading, perhaps due to reading too many complaints on the internet rather than your own experience,  and bears no resemblance to the reality I and my friends have enjoyed over the last 30 or so years.

Well Landsteiner,  I haven't read anything on the internet about LCS and Lionchief, except for the chronic complaints and problems on this board for the past three years. 

Lionchief is bulletproof?    Not from what I have read here for the past three years.   But maybe, it stems from the locomotives they made, and not the system itself.

And, the very reason I have never gone forward and bought any of those products is due solely to what has been posted on this board.

Lionel products are entirely reliable in your hands?  Really? How bout those wonderful thumbtack couplers?  :-)

Mellow Mike, you are correct.  I stand corrected.  My Golden Years with Lionel were from about 1964 to 1970, so I guess I was exiting the hobby about the time the curtain came down.

Mannyrock

"I haven't read anything on the internet about LCS and Lionchief, except for the chronic complaints and problems on this board for the past three years. "

With all due respect, that's where you have gone wrong.  You only are reading complaints from those with problems, whether due to user error,  manufacturing defects or shipping damage. You don't hear from those with no problems, obviously.

I own dozens of products from the last 10 years or so and have had exactly zero problems, including multiple (say about five or six) LionChief locos.  They are much more precisely made than postwar Lionel locos,  and generally problem free.  That's the experience of almost everyone I know.  Try them, you might like them.  Please  stop spreading misinformation that comes from inadequate data, and no personal experience. It will discourage new hobbyists, and for no reason whatever.

Mannyrock, perhaps you have not read my LCS posts. I have the largest deployment of LCS among all those who post here. I have never complained about it. I use the LCS almost every day and it works perfectly every time. Over seven years two ASC2's have been replaced, not bad for 45 LCS components. I have the seven pages of LCS mimic screens that control my layout on a total of six iPads, three of which are connected to the Wireless module when the layout is operated.

There are a couple of known issues with the LCS iPad app that have not affected my system. One is apparently related to changing the color assignments on turnouts, I think the other one is related to an O gauge accessory. I suspect Lionel will address these after the Base3 is released.

Installing the LCS on my layout rather than physical controls was the right decision, absolutely zero regrets.

@AmFlyer is there a comprehensive thread on your layout, or a YouTube video?  Maybe a block diagram of the LCS hardware you are using and how it's connected to the layout?  I'm sure I could learn a lot from studying it.  Thanks for sharing on here!

Never thought I would get this much discussion - I bought some LCS stuff, going to try it out and see if it will work for me.  It probably will to some extent.  It will also be interesting to see in the long haul if automation could happen with something that could bridge LCS/Legacy/Base3 and MTH WTIU to open the door to automate a layout and run whatever command engine you want.  That will be my goal, should be fun to try and figure it out - wish it was easier, but having a computer science degree and working as a software engineer I should be able to figure something out.  But with my background - I know I will continue to ask the question - why is this so hard in 2023?

There are a lot of images of my LCS setup on this site. Here are a few reposts.

LCS is not a command control system; it is simply a system that allows control of lighting, accessories, turnouts and power blocks from an iPad. It can operate in no base mode. I know of some S gauge operators who use LCS in no base mode to control their layout, and DCC to run their engines.

In base mode, how I use it, the LCS communicates to the Legacy base. This allows things like the control of engines from the iPad as shown on the above screen shot of my Line 3. It also allows control of all the LCS connected items from a Cab2 handheld. Screens like the ones below can also be displayed, all this info is on the Legacy Base, not in the LCS. I know many of the participants here know this better than myself.

@AmFlyer posted:

LCS is not a command control system; it is simply a system that allows control of lighting, accessories, turnouts and power blocks from an iPad. It can operate in no base mode. I know of some S gauge operators who use LCS in no base mode to control their layout, and DCC to run their engines.

In base mode, how I use it, the LCS communicates to the Legacy base. This allows things like the control of engines from the iPad as shown on the above screen shot of my Line 3. It also allows control of all the LCS connected items from a Cab2 handheld. Screens like the ones below can also be displayed, all this info is on the Legacy Base, not in the LCS. I know many of the participants here know this better than myself.

I think everyone gets that - while LCS is not a command control system, one could argue when you bring them together the value to the end user is much higher.  I think the crux of the issue is you need a control system for the layout, and a command system for the motive power to have any sort of chance at automation.   In the current state, there is zero chance of real automation from a single platform.  The hope is that there will be some in the community that bridge this stuff together with duct (or duck) tape and rubber bands to get something going.  That said - there are two major vendors in o gauge that seem to be more interested in staying closed than having and ecosystem.  The funny part about that is we are talking about moving a model train from point a to b or throwing a switch track.  The amount of intellectual property left in this space is probably close to zero even with the best of lawyers.