current Lionel best practices with legacy command systems?

@PeterB posted:

what are folks doing/using/buying today, and what drives the decisions of whether to go with Legacy, TMCC, or DCS?  Are Lionel and MTH's systems the only game in town, or are there third party systems?  Is anyone using raspberry pi-based solutions (I have seen arduino type solutions, but that's a little too close to layer one for me -- RBP uses more layer 3 full stack code capacity).

It sounds like you're looking for automation beyond the "standard" capability of the control systems.  There's all kinds of options there.  As for the basic control system, there is also the dead rail stuff that is frequently discussed here, also some folks have gone to DCC.

It's pretty hard to answer such a general question, you could write a book trying to come up with an answer...

@PeterB posted:

..  what are folks doing/using/buying today, and what drives the decisions of whether to go with Legacy, TMCC, or DCS?  Are Lionel and MTH's systems the only game in town, or are there third party systems?  Is anyone using raspberry pi-based solutions (I have seen arduino type solutions, but that's a little too close to layer one for me -- RBP uses more layer 3 full stack code capacity).

Peter,

Even though it's been 15 years nothing fundamental has changed with respect to TMCC/Legacy or DCS.  In three-rail all that old stuff still applies.

You have newer options but these have made very little inroad against the established leaders.  These include DCC, coming from HO, N and G, and Bluerail if you prefer Bluetooth.  Arduinos and Raspberry PI's are only an option if you customize the hardware and program them yourselves.  With any of these you have substantial conversion costs, or personal effort if you'd rather do it yourself.

One important consideration is that by leaving the established leaders that we have presently only a small potential market exists to offload your stuff to, after you convert it, if you decide that you want or need to sell.

Many of us would like to see these alternatives make a big difference, but in the end it's coming only very slowly.

No big news here.

Mike

Leaving out automation (which given you mention arduino or raspberry pi could be used for that), with command control it really hasn't changed. If you want out of the box command control, it is still Legacy and DCS. In terms of why someone would go with these, it is because even now they are simply the only out of the box solutions (I'll get to that). With legacy at the moment (pre base 3.0), you have legacy through the command base, and in legacy 2.0, you also can go bluetooth from an app running on a device to control the engine. (Lionchief , Lionel's 'starter' command control, works via a remote; the later lionchief engines also can work from an App via bluetooth, not sure if lionchief+ or lionchief can work via an app). With Base 3, you can control any lionel command control engine, it will be accessed via wifi using a new app.

For MTH engines, you still need DCS to use them in command mode, using either the old TIU based system, or the new TIU that integrates wifi into it (which also is for the moment going to be app control only , no remote). MTH TIU can connect to a lionel command base and allow controlling lionel engines (I don't know if you connect base 3 to the DCS TIU and  if it can control lionchief engines or not, my guess would be no though MTH as far as I know hasn't said anything about lionchief support via base 3). So again, basically no major change.

DCC , which is the standard in 2 rail O and HO/N worlds, is not used much in 3 rail world. MTH supported DCC in its PS 3.0 chip set, prob because some of the engines could work in 2 rail, were convertible. DCC is attractive in that it is an industry standard, it has grown a lot in terms of its functionality, but it is a totally different system than either dcs or legacy.

As others mentioned there is bluerail, which allows for bluetooth control of engines. I don't know if that uses DCC or is its own decoders, but again this is not off the shelf,, you would have to convert engines.

So in a nutshell, it really hasn't changed much in the sense that the DCS/Legacy dichotomy still rules.

These are really useful responses, and I thank you.  I didn't put an email in my profile, as @Alan Mancus pointed out -- that was an oversight on my part.  A couple people observed, correctly, that my initial question seemed to ask more than the original features of command control offer, while others pointed out that SBC*'s offer a lot more options.  One epiphany I had while reading these responses, Lionel's manual for Legacy Control, and third party blogs, is that I don't want more than the original hardware/software offer. Or, at least, not yet.  If neither the technology nor the paradigm for command control, be it TMCC, Legacy, or DCC (which I incorrectly referred to as DCC in my first post), have changed, it may be that they do so much and do it well enough that a change is not actually needed?  That may be a myopic outlook, but I'd love to set up a Legacy system out of the box before I go looking for more functionality.  Okay, why haven't I? Probably because the price of a new Legacy set is akin to a weekend in New York, and I love my travel as much as I love my trains.  This brings me to my final question in this thread (for the moment, at least):

Does Legacy or DC lend itself to a scenario where I can address the engines, but the layouts change with a high level of dynamism (ie, I put up a new layout, and break it down a week later, start all over again)? Or do these systems depend on a static layout?

*** Oops, I meant that email to include a starred breakout of SBC: I was referring to Single Board Computers like raspberry Pis, Arduinos, or similar hardware.  I have a number of raspberry Pis, and they cost a good lot less than a single legacy control system (have not researched DCS basic hardware costs).

Legacy and DCS don't depend on the layout configuration.  DCS is sensitive to how it's connected due to the track and wiring constraints, but Legacy/TMCC can be dropped on most any layout and run.

I've taken a Legacy system and a few Legacy/TMCC locomotives to a club running conventional and demonstrated full command operation in about five minutes.

@PeterB posted:

These are really useful responses, and I thank you.  I didn't put an email in my profile, as @Alan Mancus pointed out -- that was an oversight on my part.  A couple people observed, correctly, that my initial question seemed to ask more than the original features of command control offer, while others pointed out that SBC*'s offer a lot more options.  One epiphany I had while reading these responses, Lionel's manual for Legacy Control, and third party blogs, is that I don't want more than the original hardware/software offer. Or, at least, not yet.  If neither the technology nor the paradigm for command control, be it TMCC, Legacy, or DCC (which I incorrectly referred to as DCC in my first post), have changed, it may be that they do so much and do it well enough that a change is not actually needed?  That may be a myopic outlook, but I'd love to set up a Legacy system out of the box before I go looking for more functionality.  Okay, why haven't I? Probably because the price of a new Legacy set is akin to a weekend in New York, and I love my travel as much as I love my trains.  This brings me to my final question in this thread (for the moment, at least):

Does Legacy or DC lend itself to a scenario where I can address the engines, but the layouts change with a high level of dynamism (ie, I put up a new layout, and break it down a week later, start all over again)? Or do these systems depend on a static layout?

Both systems (DCS and Legacy) in theory were designed for easy use but there are wrinkles on that. DCS sends its commands through the middle (power) rail, and there are limitations with that. With DCS, on a layout outside a small one you need 'power districts' isolated from each other (basically it is like setting up block wiring, without the block switches!). The reason is there are limitations to the DCS signal and of course voltage drops (with DCS, the power to the rail is the same wire that delivers the DCS signal, the TIU output is delivering the power+signal.) Because of interference, you can only have 1 DCS feed per district/block the blocks/districts need to be below a certain length (in standard block wiring, you could have multiple feeders into a block, to ensure consistent voltage. )

TMCC/Legacy delivers its signal 'over the air', it uses the house ground wiring as an antenna.  The only connection legacy/tmcc has with the track is it connects to the ground side of the rails. It has its own quirks with signal strength and the like.

Thus is you rebuilt a layout for TMCC/Legacy, it literally is 1 wire (it was designed to be easily retroffited to an existing layout from what I recall has been said). DCS isn't difficult, you simply would have to have power districts in the new layout, but if you already had DCS on the old layout it shouldn't be a big deal, it basically is isolating the middle rail at the end of each section. 

PeterB

You replied "If neither the technology nor the paradigm for command control, be it TMCC, Legacy, or DCC (which I incorrectly referred to as DCC in my first post), have changed, it may be that they do so much and do it well enough that a change is not actually needed?"

Pretty sure you mean DCS! I use DCS on my 32X50 layout and run conventional, TMCC, Legacy, Lionchief, Lionchief Plus and Lionchief 2.0 with no problems. Though I started with a 12x8 and expanded several times I have experienced  no problems with DCS. One point noted earlier is I have districts. Meaning I have isolated the center rail every 12 sections of track (regardless of track section length - every 12 sections is a district). Bluetooth does drop out when at the far ends or in a mountain sometimes. Legacy and TMCC also require ground wire planes at times. I also have Dale/Johns signal extender.

For me DCS was the way to go as I could and can run anything out there except 2 rail DCC. I could run that if I converted to 2 Rail on my MTH Engines. It would have to be it's own loop of course!

Curtis

@CurtisH thanks for that break-down!  I have often thought I need to use districts or powerblocks, or *SOMETHING* to distribute power more evenly.  The fact all my layouts are temporary (this will change when I own property and have a huge swath of space to deploy something more permanent) has .

I *really need to proofread my posts more carefully.  Can someone distinguish between DCS and DCC?  I think each represents a real product/technology, and I clearly need to be set straight!

DCS is MTH Digital Command System and is used for OGauge 3 rail. DCC is Digital Command Control and is used mostly in HO and N gauges. DCC is set by CV's. (with me having a terrible memory it is hard for me to use). CV is Control Variable. Here is the NMRA Definition -  https://www.nmra.org/beginners...mand-control-and-dcc.

There is plenty of YouTube videos from Lionel , books on basic TMCC / legacy to advanced. Also the fourm produced vhs tapes when TMCC was in full swing.

@Jerryc86 I feel as if I drowned in *all* of the videos and stuff out there the second I went looking.  I have no shortage of resources to explore.  What I really wanted to know (which I think @Mellow Hudson Mike answered) was, 'given what your collective experience has taught you, what is a sane and manageable route to pursue?')

For my part, the Legacy product seems the most manageable approach for me, but I could be mistaken. Twelve years on the networking team of a federal agency, paired with five years of smart home construction and maintenance, gives me a modicum of confidence, but what I'm reading about MTH's DCS product doesn't seem ideal for my environment.

@PeterB posted:

@Jerryc86 I feel as if I drowned in *all* of the videos and stuff out there the second I went looking.  I have no shortage of resources to explore.  What I really wanted to know (which I think @Mellow Hudson Mike answered) was, 'given what your collective experience has taught you, what is a sane and manageable route to pursue?')

For my part, the Legacy product seems the most manageable approach for me, but I could be mistaken. Twelve years on the networking team of a federal agency, paired with five years of smart home construction and maintenance, gives me a modicum of confidence, but what I'm reading about MTH's DCS product doesn't seem ideal for my environment.

It is going to depend on your motive power.  If you have or plan on having MTH PS2 and PS3 engines, you cannot control them with legacy (the obverse is true, though, DCS can control Lionel engines via a Legacy command base to DCS TIU cable). If you plan on running engines from  both Lionel and MTH, then you need both command systems, pure and simple. The  new DCS TIU and the Lionel base 3 use apps to control them, there is no remote for either (MTH has said they might...).

If you stay with Lionel products only, the new base 3 is able to control any of Lionel's engines, tmcc, legacy and lionchief. If you add a legacy powermaster assuming legacy only, you can use the legacy base to control conventional engines (the powermaster varies voltage to the track, like a transformer).  If you go DCS only, the TIU has variable output that allows controlling conventional engines as well.

One of the features/problems of 3 rail is that there are two different, incompatible systems. In the HO/N/O scale world, DCC is a standard, while all systems offer some custom extensions, they all support the basic DCC command structure, same for DCS decoders.

@bigkid posted:

The  new DCS TIU and the Lionel base 3 use apps to control them, there is no remote for either (MTH has said they might...).

That could be incorrect.  The BASE3 will have the CAB1L which is remaining in production.

@CurtisH posted:

DCS is MTH Digital Command System and is used for OGauge 3 rail. DCC is Digital Command Control and is used mostly in HO and N gauges. DCC is set by CV's. (with me having a terrible memory it is hard for me to use). CV is Control Variable. Here is the NMRA Definition -  https://www.nmra.org/beginners...mand-control-and-dcc.

In addition, the NMRA established standards for DCC, so "most" engines will work on any manufacturer's control system.  In the 3-rail world we have a mish-mash of systems.  Oh, and DCC equipment is readily available; TMCC/Legacy and DCS not so much.   Not that I'm bitter or resentful...

@PeterB posted:

@Jerryc86 I feel as if I drowned in *all* of the videos and stuff out there the second I went looking.  I have no shortage of resources to explore.  What I really wanted to know (which I think @Mellow Hudson Mike answered) was, 'given what your collective experience has taught you, what is a sane and manageable route to pursue?')

For my part, the Legacy product seems the most manageable approach for me, but I could be mistaken. Twelve years on the networking team of a federal agency, paired with five years of smart home construction and maintenance, gives me a modicum of confidence, but what I'm reading about MTH's DCS product doesn't seem ideal for my environment.

If you don't mind using an MTH remote/app for your MTH engines and a Lionel remote/app for your Lionel engines, running both systems isn't complicated as noted by @gunrunnerjohn a few posts back - literally one additional wire.

I started with DCS and then added Legacy several years later.  Overall IMO Legacy is easier to set up and manage.  Here are the problems with both systems:

DCS:
Requires a more complex star pattern in wiring, older TIU versions (Pre-"L") produce weaker signal

TIU "L" versions have stronger signal but are susceptible to damage to signal components (unless circuit board modifications are done)

Neither TIU or Wifi-TIU are currently available

PS2 5V boards in engines have a higher failure rate (3V boards are more reliable), PS2 boards don't receive signal as reliably as newer PS3 boards

No handheld remote option with new equipment (phone app only)

Fewer new locomotive models being produced

Availability of boards for engine repair or upgrades is spotty

Legacy/TMCC:
Signal problems can occur with parallel tracks, bridges, tunnels, or if house wiring does not provide adequate earth ground (solved by adding a ground plane wire in problem areas)

Many different configurations of TMCC and Legacy engine electronics make DIY repairs more challenging

Lionel abruptly stopped selling all replacement electronics boards for TMCC and early Legacy engines.  Future availability is unknown.  Electric Railroad Company continues to supply boards for TMCC upgrades and repairs (sound sets are more limited and generic)

Legacy remote and Cab2 base no longer sold, Cab3 base not available yet

Only new handheld remote option will be Cab L which has no display screen (phone app is available)

Conclusions:
Most of these problems can be solved with time, money, and patience.  You may want to wait for the new control systems to be available.  You can purchase a used DCS TIU and remote ($500-700) or Legacy Cab2 base and remote ($800-1400) on the secondary market at greatly inflated prices. Beware that most TIUs being sold are not Rev "L".  Most auction site listings "conveniently" forget to list the version and don't include a photo showing the back of the unit or a view of the ports (where version is could be identified).  

Eventually, new control systems for Legacy and DCS will be available.  But many of us prefer the handheld DCS and Legacy Cab 2 remotes, only available as used equipment.

As I stated, I have had fewer signal problems with my Legacy system, but I have an earlier version of the TIU and my MTH engines are all PS2.  I run both since certain engines have only been available from MTH (DCS).  If you go with DCS, sticking with a Rev "L" TIU or WTIU and PS3 engines will be most reliable.

Bob

@Mallard4468 posted:

Not that I'm bitter or resentful...

Different markets, different methods.

You could always walk away. That's one way to treat your apparent heartburn.

The other of course is to replace TMCC/Legacy and DCS with DCC in all of your locomotives, which may make your heartburn worse although it may not impact your pocketbook too badly.

Mike

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

That could be incorrect.  The BASE3 will have the CAB1L which is remaining in production.

Yeah, forgot about that one.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Different markets, different methods.

You could always walk away. That's one way to treat your apparent heartburn.

The other of course is to replace TMCC/Legacy and DCS with DCC in all of your locomotives, which may make your heartburn worse although it may not impact your pocketbook too badly.

Mike

The "not bitter or resentful" is a line from an old movie or TV show, the name of which escapes me.  It's called HUMOR.  I don't allow a hobby to cause heartburn, although I do think that Lionel's and MTH's insistence on being different is really dumb and has worked to the detriment of our hobby.

edit:  it might have been a sarcastic line from a Steve Martin routine, but I could be mistaken.

@Mallard4468 posted:

I don't allow a hobby to cause heartburn, although I do think that Lionel's and MTH's insistence on being different is really dumb and has worked to the detriment of our hobby.

Both very valid points, however the latter has only really risen to the level of a true detriment as TMCC/Legacy and DCS have entered old age.

When they were new the market was different and not only tolerated them but expanded rapidly because of them.

In hindsight were they a good idea?  At the time yes because the market grew nicely.  Now, in retrospect, clearly not so much.

Mike

It seems my role   to point out on these threads that all current Lionel command locos (LionChief, LionChief + 2.0 and Legacy) for the last year or two or three, can be operated in command mode by the $55 (or less) Universal Remote for the locomotive basic functions.  No command base needed, no particular layout wiring required, etc.  This is a possible decent alternative for new hobbyists while we see how the Base 3 and Lionel remote options play out (or not).   The cab-1L will talk to the vaporware, at present, Base 3.  Also can use the free LionChief app and a smart phone or tablet to control current locos.   So no absolute need to splurge right now on a used Legacy, TMCC or cab-1L/base system if you are playing with only current production Lionel sets and locos.  It will say Bluetooth on the box and instruction manual.

Caveat is that 25 years of older TMCC and Legacy locos will not operate on such a system (Bluetooth/universal remote).  You can do conventional, or TMCC/Legacy, but not the Universal Remote/app approach with these older locos. Some have reported signal problems with the Bluetooth approach (LionChief) on larger layouts (as in, say,  20-25 foot or more transmission distances).

Peter,

The out-of-production DCS TIUs and Legacy Bases have used prices that are outrageous.  Until new product is shipped later this year (we hope), the only relatively inexpensive way to experiment with command control gear on a layout is to buy an original (mid 90's) Lionel Cab1 base and remote.  Mine still work fine.  The basic wiring is a single connection from the base to the track and an alligator clip jumper works for me on temporary layouts.  The TMCC signal and commands from the Cab1 will control the basic features of a Legacy locomotive plus switches, routes, accessories and trains.  You can find inexpensive TMCC locomotives on the used market and the current LionChief 2.0 locos still use the original TMCC command set.

... or ignore the problem of acquiring unobtanium gear altogether and get on with running your trains:

Most of the latest Lionel locos offer Bluetooth control.  No base needed.  The currently available Lionchief app doesn't control all Legacy features, but the good news is it doesn't add any cost and gear to run your locos remotely.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Both very valid points, however the latter has only really risen to the level of a true detriment as TMCC/Legacy and DCS have entered old age.

When they were new the market was different and not only tolerated them but expanded rapidly because of them.

In hindsight were they a good idea?  At the time yes because the market grew nicely.  Now, in retrospect, clearly not so much.

Mike

It was never a good idea to have 2 different systems from the point of the user base. In the scale world if you had had incompatible systems it would have been a mess and command control likely would be a niche product. The NMRA making it a standard allowed DCC to thrive IMO.

There is an analogy right now with the EV market ( and please, no comments of whether you think EVs are evil or great ,that is not the point). One of the issues right now is there is no standard for the charging heads when you plug in. As a result there can be problems with charging stations,esp if you want rapid charge.

Unfortunately for us we don't have that. TMCC came first, and by the time PS 2 came along there was no bridging the gap,for a variety of reasons we all know.

They could have done what DCC did and have basic control functions like speed control, couplers and the like be the standard, then compete on extensions ( like speed control steps or advanced sound).

It worked bc people had no choice unless to stay with one vendor. The DCS to TMCC/legacy functionality made it a little less painful,but you still had to buy both systems. 

One thing that time had shown is that proprietary systems generally don't fare well. I like the Apple Mac computers, but because they kept it a closed system globally it is dwarfed by windows. In the computer world proprietary large scale computers are a niche, the dominant systems in almost everything are running Linux or other unix variants, the hardware is pretty much Intel based servers.

Obviously this is all academic, it is what it is. With even cab 1l systems in short supply, you do what you can,thankfully at the least they run conventional other than lc. It is also nice the universal lc remote and the app can control any of the engines mentioned as well.

@bigkid posted:

It was never a good idea to have 2 different systems from the point of the user base. In the scale world if you had had incompatible systems it would have been a mess and command control likely would be a niche product. The NMRA making it a standard allowed DCC to thrive IMO.

There is an analogy right now with the EV market ( and please, no comments of whether you think EVs are evil or great ,that is not the point). One of the issues right now is there is no standard for the charging heads when you plug in. As a result there can be problems with charging stations,esp if you want rapid charge.

Unfortunately for us we don't have that. TMCC came first, and by the time PS 2 came along there was no bridging the gap,for a variety of reasons we all know.

They could have done what DCC did and have basic control functions like speed control, couplers and the like be the standard, then compete on extensions ( like speed control steps or advanced sound).

It worked bc people had no choice unless to stay with one vendor. The DCS to TMCC/legacy functionality made it a little less painful,but you still had to buy both systems.

One thing that time had shown is that proprietary systems generally don't fare well. I like the Apple Mac computers, but because they kept it a closed system globally it is dwarfed by windows. In the computer world proprietary large scale computers are a niche, the dominant systems in almost everything are running Linux or other unix variants, the hardware is pretty much Intel based servers.

Obviously this is all academic, it is what it is. With even cab 1l systems in short supply, you do what you can,thankfully at the least they run conventional other than lc. It is also nice the universal lc remote and the app can control any of the engines mentioned as well.

All very good points and a lot of us were already expressing concerns with two independent systems 20+ years ago.  Then what does Lionel do, they come out with Lionchief and now we have a third proprietary communication system. And unlike TMCC/Legacy, the communication library is not published for open use. So you must buy or use Lionel proprietary controllers, bases, and (free) apps to operate these devices. The LC Universal remote is only universal to Bluetooth and LC equipped Lionel locomotives, it's not universal to every Lionel product. Everyone sees "Bluetooth" and thinks it is universal but it's not. Bluetooth is a wireless protocol that carries (Lionel's) proprietary communications.

Calling Lionchief, Legacy/TMCC, and DCS compatible with each other is a bit of a misnomer. While they can all share the same power source, you must purchase "handshaking" equipment to get them to function together within the same environment from the same controller.

It would have been easy and cheap enough to incorporate DCC into Lionel O gauge products many years ago but not doing so forces us to buy and/or use Lionel products to operate their trains. They do it in other scales, so why not O? Using an open standard like DCC and incorporating it into your electronics allows you to choose the system you want and run trains from any manufacturer because you would then be using a true universal communication standard.

@H1000 posted:

Using an open standard like DCC and incorporating it into your electronics allows you to choose the system you want and run trains from any manufacturer because you would then be using a true universal communication standard.

And they wouldn't have you locked into their operating environment, the object of the exercise!   If you have Legacy, you're not likely to be buying DCC locomotives as they don't co-exist at the same time.  OTOH, if you run DCC, someone like Menard's could jump into the arena with a DCC locomotive line and fit right in, I'm betting Lionel has no interest in facilitating that scenario!

When Neil Young, Dick Kughn and colleagues developed TMCC in the mid-1990s, DCC equipment was not a practical consideration, because it couldn't be used with AC open frame motors (the most commonly used motors), and, in any case, there weren't DCC boosters commercially available that could handle the high current loads that three rail O gauge trains required.  So Lionel developed TMCC which allowed retrofitting AC equipment from the previous 75 years, provided for the first time command control in the current production AC motors (now discontinued) and the increasingly employed higher current DC can motors (as in Pittmans, etc.).  In addition, Neil Young was very determined that sound capabilities be part of the TMCC system (and then Legacy), and DCC would not have supported that back in the 1990s.  The product of his obsession is that Lionel's locomotive sounds have usually been state of the art through much of the last three decades.  This would not have been possible with DCC until fairly recently.

Finally, Lionel allowed Ed Bender (the Train Brain), Train America Studios (Bob K. and Mike Reagan) and Jon Z. (ERR Studios) to develop TMCC products that upgraded previous Lionel products, Weaver, K-Line, MTH PS-1 and Williams locos.  This helped cement TMCC as the most frequently employed system on many folks' layouts.

Thus to Lionel after 1996 or so, TMCC became a sunk cost by the time DCC might have become practical for some of their products.  They offered the system to Williams, Atlas, MTH, Weaver, 3rd Rail and K-Line.  Atlas, Weaver, 3rd Rail and K-Line signed on.  Williams declined and MTH developed their own proprietary system, which they fiercely defended both in the market place and in threatening letters from their attorneys .  Lionel today still provides the ability of Atlas and 3rd Rail to use TMCC and Railsounds.  MTH never offered that to anyone and indeed was quite clear that any attempt to reverse engineer or otherwise mess with DCS would be met with their usual barrage of lawsuits.  So the situation now is hardly only Lionel's responsibility.  It's just the natural evolution of the marketplace that dates back close to three decades, the limitations of DCC in the 1990s, and the intensely competitive relationship between Lionel and MTH for most of that period.

@H1000 posted:

They do it in other scales, so why not O? Using an open standard like DCC and incorporating it into your electronics allows you to choose the system you want and run trains from any manufacturer because you would then be using a true universal communication standard.

'O' Gauge, i.e. 3-Rail,  and 'O' Scale, i.e. 2-Rail Scale, are not the same thing.  They were and still are very different markets.  Lionel and MTH did not want customers running trains from other manufacturers.  Together dominating the 'O' Gauge market, but totally uninterested in 'O' Scale, they were in a position to dictate terms.  That's exactly what they did.  This strategy worked marvelously for them back then.

@H1000 posted:

Calling Lionchief, Legacy/TMCC, and DCS compatible with each other is a bit of a misnomer. While they can all share the same power source, you must purchase "handshaking" equipment to get them to function together within the same environment from the same controller.

No it's not.  Set your trains on the track, turn on the power, grab their respective hand controllers and go.  They can be on the same track fed by the same power.  I'd call that compatible.

Yes there are some of us who want it all controllable from one remote, but it's not nearly everyone.  In your opinion what is the percentage of us for which this is a "must have" feature?  (We'll probably disagree on this.)

Unfortunately all of this is water under the bridge.  If you want to use DCC go ahead an retrofit all of your 'O' Gauge stuff.  However, even if we're master tinkerers most other 'O' Gaugers won't do that unless there's no other choice (which may come to pass at some point despite our best efforts).

The 'O' Scalers already have their equipment fitted to their heart's content, very likely from the beginning.

Mike

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

The 'O' Scalers already have their equipment fitted to their heart's content, very likely from the beginning.

Correct.  While I think it would have been great to have a single system like DCC for all the O-scale players, that didn't happen.  There's pretty much zero chance it'll happen anytime soon either.  That being the case, I'll just muddle along with my Legacy and DCS systems, I'm doing fine.  I have a few LC+ 2.0, conveniently they run with TMCC as well, so that's how they run.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

No it's not.  Set your trains on the track, turn on the power, grab their respective hand controllers and go.  They can be on the same track fed by the same power.  I'd call that compatible.

Just because you can put a PC and MAC on the same desk and plug them into the same power strip doesn't mean they are compatible. They do however coexist, neither one uses the same interface nor can they share input devices at the same time unless you introduce some form of handshaking equipment.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

'O' Gauge, i.e. 3-Rail,  and 'O' Scale, i.e. 2-Rail Scale, are not the same thing.  They were and still are very different markets.  Lionel and MTH did not want customers running trains from other manufacturers.  Together dominating the 'O' Gauge market, but totally uninterested in 'O' Scale, they were in a position to dictate terms.  That's exactly what they did.  This strategy worked marvelously for them back then.

Exactly how much 2 rail equipment does Lionel manufacture for the 2-Rail scale market? MTH did successfully incorporate DCC with all PS3 engines (2 or 3 Rail) since 2010. If Lionel didn't want customers running trains from other manufactures, then why publish the TMCC command set and put a DB9/RS232 interface on the original and subsequent command bases? A major point of this interface is to allow you to control your trains from another device not made by Lionel, they even advertise that fact. MTH specifically took advantage of this and also advertises that you can run trains from other manufactures with their DCS system. MTH didn't want customers to choose "us or them" (i think it would have been a losing battle) but rather said you can have both and run everything with DCS. I don't know about you but I usually run up to 6 or 7 consists at once, I don't want to carry three remotes around to so.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

And they wouldn't have you locked into their operating environment, the object of the exercise!   If you have Legacy, you're not likely to be buying DCC locomotives as they don't co-exist at the same time.  OTOH, if you run DCC, someone like Menard's could jump into the arena with a DCC locomotive line and fit right in, I'm betting Lionel has no interest in facilitating that scenario!

Agree, it wasn't about what's the best value for the hobbyist but rather making sure they have to buy from you and the alternatives won't work. Kind like how drug dealers work, Give em taste, keep em hooked, and make sure they have to buy from you.

Lionel could have developed a DCC booster and gone that route back in 95, I'm sure they had enough technical skill to do so, I mean they built a command system from the ground up surely a simple little DCC booster wouldn't have beat them down? There were plenty of manufactures already using DC power motors in O gauge but in order for Lionel to do it would have required significant cost of retooling to convert existing product from open frame AC to a DC can. And with DCC, you don't necessarily have to buy a Lionel DCC system to run your trains anymore and all of the other DCC command system manufactures now have new O Gauge market to build equipment for and thus creating more competition for Lionel. Even if it was the best way, it was never gonna happen because you can't maximize your profits with competition and the high cost of retooling all of your locomotive product for new motors.

@H1000 posted:

If Lionel didn't want customers running trains from other manufactures, then why publish the TMCC command set and put a DB9/RS232 interface on the original and subsequent command bases? A major point of this interface is to allow you to control your trains from another device not made by Lionel, they even advertise that fact.

Because publishing the TMCC command protocol inherently supports running Lionel trains and those whose manufacturers have licensed TMCC, such as Weaver, Williams, Atlas, and 3rd Rail.  This command set inherently does not support running other manufacturer's stuff, like MTH or Menards.  This is consistent with what I said in the previous post.

You can control TMCC equipment with MTH's controller because:

1. Lionel allowed it.
2. MTH agreed and implemented it.

From Lionel's point of view this approach directly supports buying and running Lionel trains above all else.

It did not happen the other way around because:

1. Either MTH didn't allow it, or
2. Lionel didn't agree that it had value and didn't implement it, or
3. Both

From Lionel's point of view this approach inhibits, or at least doesn't support, buying and running MTH trains if you're a loyal Lionel customer.

Who was more generous here?  It's tough to say.

Mike

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Because publishing the TMCC command protocol inherently supports running Lionel trains and those whose manufacturers have licensed TMCC, such as Weaver, Williams, Atlas, and 3rd Rail.  This command set inherently does not support running other manufacturer's stuff, like MTH or Menards.  This is consistent with what I said in the previous post.

NO. The license has nothing to do with the commands. Those manufactures could have easily still licensed TMCC without Lionel publishing and allow others to freely send commands to a base.  Correct, you can't control other manufactures engines with TMCC/Legacy. It does encourage manufactures to build equipment that can send a command to a Lionel base but the end user MUST STILL BUY A LIONEL HARDWARE BASE to utilize those freely published commands. None of those manufactures were allowed to build their own version of the BASE. That product has to come from Lionel.

Hypothetically, Williams could have then made their own remote controller to replace a CAB1 that they deemed better than it and sold it, but the purchaser must still buy a product from Lionel to use it.

Keeping the command structure proprietary with Bluetooth equipped engines is key because Bluetooth (IEEE 802.15) is an open communication protocol and a private command structure is the only way for Lionel to keep other manufactures from building their own Apps & remotes to run Lionel engines without actually buying anything from Lionel other than the locomotive.

The tradition continues with the BASE3. Sure, you can run that early generation LC engine with the MTH DCS App, but you must buy a BASE3 to do so. When LC2 came out, I was very happy and bought numerous items because now I could run them with my MTH DCS App. Before that, yeah it's nice, but I have to have a separate Lionel only remote and I can't even use any of my existing CAB remotes either.

I doubt Lionel when they developed TMCC had the idea of ppl retrofitting older engines, it was because they still primarily relied on the pullmor. They wanted to sell new engines with this gee whiz system,same way they introduce new and improved versions of legacy in engines they had done w earlier versions of legacy or TMCC. Lionel to their credit semi opened up TMCC when they put the DB9 port on the base,but they never made open the protocol between the base and the engine, which would have allowed 3rd party firms to build compatible decoders and bases ( in a sense, it would been like DCC that way). Thus you had to still buy the Lionel base . Also note that Lionel only licensed TMCC boards to other makers,, never legacy . I am not clear as well whether DCS can fully control Legacy engines through the serial connection, or if it is limited to TMCC level either.

And before claiming I am bashing Lionel ,I am not, just saying their decision was based on a model where they controlled the technology to their advantage. HRJ is right, they could have chosen DCC&made it work with AC motors.

MTH on the other hand went totally proprietary,Atlas had to in effect buy part of the business to be able to produce PS 3 engines.  They made money with the control system, it meant you were locked into PSx engines from them ( since no one else could make them).

One thing for sure, if we had DCC in 3 rail we wouldn't have a situation we do,where we dont know when the 2 prop systems will be available. Not to mention we wouldn't have the cost of 2 seperate control systems and issues like older boards no longer are available, in DCC, it is easy to replace an installed controller board w a range of choices. You can in theory lose manufacturer extensions,but you still have most of the capability.

Obviously it doesn't matter , we have what we do. Base 3 at least allows seamlessly tying the various pieces together of Lionel CC.

So the answer with CC is the same as it has been for decades, to not be tied to one co for CC, buy both systems.

@bigkid posted:

MTH on the other hand went totally proprietary,Atlas had to in effect buy part of the business to be able to produce PS 3 engines.  They made money with the control system, it meant you were locked into PSx engines from them ( since no one else could make them).

At the time there only being two players in the command control market, MTH did offer TMCC control via their DCS control system. Mike Wolf even said in an OGR article (Run 172 - Page 26) that the commands to run DCS will not be made public long before the system was on the market. However, MTH did offer PS2 & 3 upgrade kits early on so that users could retrofit DC-driven locomotives to run DCS. TMCC upgrades are nice (and much more expensive) but don't offer the Legacy level of features that PS3 upgrades do.

@H1000 posted:

NO. The license has nothing to do with the commands.

If you look carefully the word 'license' is not in my post that you cited, anywhere.  I agree, a license has nothing to do with the commands.  I didn't say that it did.

Mike

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

If you look carefully the word 'license' is not in my post that you cited, anywhere.  I agree, a license has nothing to do with the commands.  I didn't say that it did.

Mike

There's nothing open about either system really. However, the patents will soon expire on both systems and we'll all be able to roll our own and market whatever we want.

One thing no one can ever do, except Lionel and MTH for TMCC and DCS respectively, is market a product called TMCC or DCS. It would have to just say "RPLST8-Controller - compatible with MTH and Lionel command systems." "MTH is a trademark of MTH Inc. and Lionel is a trademark of Lionel LLC" or whatever.

OK....enough with the alerts.  The topic has gone off track from the intended question.  I think for the most part the OP got his answer(s).  Topic closed.