Goodbye to conventional?

I'm guessing they're responding to demand and sales figures.  Also, they probably make more money on the command/control stuff.

Rather than rehash all of the pros and cons of this trend, all I can say is that is that I see Williams in my future along with postwar. I know this is so subjective it's ridiculous....... but I read the new issue of a certain magazine that had a major essay on converting conventional layout to command, and the poor guy who did it was around 71-72 years old, and the photos of what he had to go through ( for me) was almost like an advertisement for not going that route, ( banging his head, not being able to see the #22 wire connectors, having to deal with interference, etc.).and I am a youthful 61..One of the tips they gave ( I am not kidding) was to buy a hard hat. LOL.

What seemed even more of sort of jumping the shark was that he ended up with a conventional loop and one that was command. So, I am thinking ( as my layout is similar ( 2 loops) why hassle with it but as far as choices in new equipment, it looks fairly bleak. 

I think whoever that was made way too much of getting a command layout to run!  I just tore down a carpet layout that spanned three rooms using Fastrack.  It took about 15 seconds to get command working on the layout.

 

Connect a wire from the Legacy base to the track.

Turn on the base.

Turn on the power brick.

Start running trains.

There is absolutely nothing in the new catalog that interests me (and the only thing that caught my eye in the RTR catalog was the UP piggyback flat w/trailers)

 

That being said, thank God for Williams

 

 

(Patiently awaiting the arrival of the UP Greyhound set)

I have many conventionl engines but I do like operating remotely too. Many of my conventional engines I will never get rid of. I have two Z4000 transformers so the discontinued MTH 40-4001 remote control system has been a great product for me. Yes it doesn't have all the remote features of Legacy or DCS but the features it does have- bell, whistle, direction and speed control are fine by me. One remote can control numerous tracks and handle multiple transformers. The system has become scarce and you may have to pay a bit more for it but it is a great alternative to conversion which for me would have been in the $1000s of dollars.

just my 2 cents...

Gunrunner,

You may be right but you have to read the article for yourself to get the ironic impression they gave that it was a hassle. It wasn't meant to be a pronouncement on command control as I have no direct experience with it,but rather on the essay which gave me a migraine just reading it. I do wish there were more choices though inasmuch as some of us have simple loops or configurations were command control is somewhat unnecessary, more of a more expensive option. From a cost benefit view, it doesn't work for me and perhaps others as well.

I don't disagree that many folks run conventional, and there should be more choices.  It is somewhat expensive to convert everything to command, and I'm in an ideal position to know!  I've converted at least a dozen locomotives, and a bunch of other stuff to TMCC, and the costs do run up.  The two Legacy handhelds and the command base is another $500+.

 

My only comment was on getting command to run, I've helped several people get it going, and TMCC is a piece of cake.

There's certainly nothing wrong with conventional (I have a great many conventional locomotives), but I switched to command control last year and I don't figure on ever looking back.  I haven't had to crawl under my layout even once since going to command control, and the overall wiring requirement is next to zero compared with what is required for a conventional layout operating multiple trains.  I am able to operate five locomotives/trains on my modest-size layout, with just a couple of wires to the track.

 

This is not a one-size-fits-all hobby, and I hope it never will be, but it's rather obvious that the manufacturers must be enjoying considerable success with command control sales.  Just another case of different strokes for different folks.

For TMCC operators, the TPCs and their Lionel double first cousin, the "Power Masters", make running Conventional from the handheld Cab 1 Remote [and I hear the Cab 2 also] easy and practical. I don't run Conventional much any more, but when the Grand kids show up its all Conventional, including Thomas and Friends, the North Carolina DOT/Amtrak  Cardinal,etc, and of course those stinking diesels that they like[they have never seen a steam engine except the oldest girl once up at "Tweetsie"[ET &WNC].

Conventional-only for me.

 

I hope they drop conventional, we should focus on the future of the hobby and  its technology vs replicating the past with conventional.

Even though I have TMCC, I rarely use it, except to "show off" the additional sounds, smoke boost, remote couplers, etc. when company comes over.  Most of my locomotives are conventional and most of the time I run even my command locos in conventional.

 

Just remember that is an option--even if Lionel & MTH stop making conventional-only locomotives you can still run command locos in conventional.  The only problem with that is that you will be paying for a lot of extra features and only be able to use a few of them in a conventional environment (some of the sounds, basically).

I buy the command units for the sound package. I do NOT run command so I am still conventional. 

Not everybody has the thousands of dollars to spend or multi room-sized layout to make Command Control systems economical, unless you intend on seeing O gauge become a rich man's hobby. That's what I'm seeing in the new Lionel catalog, it's no wonder that people snort in derision and take up HO or N scale.

I think there is room for both.

 

Most of the time, I run DCS, or TMCC through DCS.

 

At Christmas, I got out a Lionel Type K and a number 81 rheostat, and ran standard gauge under the Christmas tree the way it would have been done 70 or 80 years ago.

 

I am one of those that does not really understand the difficulty in converting a layout from conventional to command.  I did this on the layout my father built for me in 1960 with no problem.

 

My group also still puts up a floor layout with DCS and TMCC once a year at Cal Stewart and several times a year at TCA Western Division.  It always works, as long as we have proper grounding for the TMCC.

While I realize threads often take on a life of their own, my point in starting this thread was not to re-ignite the debate about the merits of conventional versus command. Each has its merits, and to each his own. Rather, I was more interested in thinking about whether Lionel has decided to phase out the conventional option for its modern engines. Whatever your feelings and experiences with command control, there are many people who prefer conventional. And the main catalog from last year suggested Lionel was willing to cater to those people. I don't know how much to read onto the new catalog's omission of conventional diesels, but I find the omission notable.

I would like to see a remote control system that could be hooked up between a power supply and the track, that would not cost an arm and a leg that would control conventional units. Something simple, direction, speed, bell, and horn. It would make life so much easier to check the switch that is on the other side of the layout that causes a derailment every once in awhile, that is away from the control panel.    

I am disappointed that Lionel did not offer a Legacy version of the standard-size Polar Express engine.

I enjoy seeing modern O gauge trains run, using remote control features, hearing loco sounds and watching precise operation. Still I resist using the complicated electronic control gizmos as I do not feel comfortable that they will provide long term reliability.

I own a Lionel 726 Berk that runs as good today as it did back in 1948 when it first came out and so do my F3's, GG1,s, FM's, switchers and Hudsons. Will modern equipment do that? I highly doubt it. Nothing against adding a circuit board here and there that can help with sounds or cruise control (as they can always be replaced or removed) but the new Legacy engines have electronics at the very nerve center of their control apparatus. I believe that all electronic devices built these days are built as throw-a-way items; appliances, cell phones, DVD players, computers, video recorders, televisions etc. I do not want my trains added to that category.

Call me "old fashioned" but I've purchased enough new equipment that was DOA and have others that have broken down. I remain skeptical that the modern era stuff will last, especially in the high humidity basement location where my layout is located. 

As for new CC; since the original K-Line went bust, Williams now owns the conventional market and is also the price leader. 

My sentiments exactly

 

There is a time and place for high-end, finicky (disposable?) technology, and toy trains isn't where I'd want it to be.

 From the guy who called anti- facebook folks "luddites", oh the hypocracy

It may be different strokes for different folks but this reminds me of other electronic games of planned obsolescence, where it isn't a choice, there are no other strokes but one (and I won't mention which one) when you buy into one system whether it is software or hardware and it changes in five years and you have to scrap your investment because you have been forced to change, not that there was anything wrong with the previous system. If Lionel is following this path, they can kiss me goodbye, the same for MTH. Bachman is bigger than both and the reason for that is, unlike these other newbies, they understand we all don't hang out at the country club or hang our credit cards out to dry. This is the real crossing of the Rubicon and I am staying out of having future shelves of obsolete equipment or stuff I have to upgrade or replace because they blew up. This, if it follows through will be the blow that killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. Making things better by making them worse as they backed themselves into a corner with no options and I can see no reason other than to have the latest and greatest to follow them there. I have been in the hobby for more than 50 years and this is about as backwards as it gets, taking away choice from the consumer and so my choice is to say bye-bye. They split the market into haves and have nots, how smart is that? Confine themselves to one market segment. Give me a break. Can you tell Im not real thrilled? I am glad that others enjoy command control, the hobby should be enjoyed as we each see fit but my beef with the manufacturers not my fellow hobbyists.

 

Apparently you didn't read the first part of my last post...

 

"There is a time and place for high-end, finicky (disposable?) technology"

 

Be sure to read carefully before you blurt out next time.

 

I can understand the hesitation towards modern electronics, but seeing as any command loco from lionel or mth can be operated under a conventional environment have they truly left the conventional operator behind? Why did that "poor guy" even go through all of the trouble? If the more complicated stuff is Lionel and Mth's "bread and butter than so be it,at the same time it allows Williams to focus on what they do best, theres room for everybody. For some fear of command control, also comes from fear of the unknown. I'm not familiar enough with DCS but the only real difference between a layout wired conventionally and a layout wired for TMCC/Legacy is just ONE additional wire attached to ONE common on the layout,thats it. A layout wired for conventional operation could add Legacy in a matter of minutes.

Come on guys lets stop talking about people and bring the discussion back to trains.

  If I can sum up my sentiments it would be that I believe that modern legacy Locomotives offer the ultimate in operating realism at a sacrifice in long term reliability. As for choice Lionel apparently wants to focus on Legacy only and we may see this extend to the accessory line as well.  Williams and RMT will continue making conventional trains for the conventional market and for those of us that are "old fashioned" operators . On my layout I set the throttle, let the trains run and walk away to watch. I can go forward reverse and blow the horn using the ZW button.  I can run switches using the contact switches. Never felt the need for a remote control.

As a hobbyist who runs DCS, TMCC, and Conventional engines the move away from conventional engines by Lionel and MTH speaks more about their emphasis on Command Control Systems. There is more opportunity for profit in these higher priced engines.

 

They have pretty much turned over the Conventional engine market to Williams. To this end Williams is offering more and more choices to fill this niche of the market.

 

Steve Tapper

Back to the original question.  Conventional is definitely alive and well in Lionel's product line: any Legacy loco will run conventionally (I know, its all I run but most of my locos are Legacy).  The company has made changes recently to the electronics to improve slow speed starting in conventional, too.

 

If it were my company, I would offer only Legacy (and this is me talking, I run my locos only conventionally).  Offering a conventional and a Legacy version means you have to engineer, produce, ship and manage two different models. That costs something - just managing two products.    Maybe not much - only 5%, but its there.  

---Meanwhile, you are saving next to nothing: we're talking about a slightly larger circuit board and couple of additional chips that you save in conventional - still the same number of boards, etc., the workers have to assemble, etc.. The savings is going to be small, let's say 5%.  So do the math.  The Legacy RS-11 costs $480 now.  Assume a $100 differential for Legacy versus not and that you split it evenly: the conventional costs $429 minus 5% you save from chips, etc., for $409, and the Legacy costs $529 now.

-- EXCEPT, you still have to add the 5% higher cost of managing products: so its back to $429 for conventional and  about $550 for the Legacy.  Ugh, the conventional buyer isn't saving that much and the Legacy model - your flagship, costs a lot more.   

Add in the business value to Lionel that Legacy-only loco sales create a future market for Legacy controllers, etc., and its the right thing to do, IMO.

 

Williams introduction of the Ten-Wheeler is confirmation of that, given the interest I've seen they could have a real winner here, and a champion for the Conventional crowd.

There are a lot of really beautiful new engines in the catalog. However everything is legacy. I really like the jersey central nw-2, but I can't see paying $450+ for a switcher. All this legacy stuff is pricing me right out of getting any new engines.

While I do not advocate high prices, o-guage/Lionel has always been a rich mans hobby from the very beginning. The cost of a new Lionel train versus a persons income 60 years ago has been covered numerous times on the forum. 

A good case in point as far as alternatives, my last new engine was a conventional Williams Rock Geep but I wanted another Rock diesel to run on the other loop. I bought two postwar Lionel Rock Island FA's (A and B) off Ebay for $40.00. They were hand painted and one was an Amtrak after the paint was removed. With the expert help I found here, I stripped, repainted and added decals etc to both, replaced one cab window, and ended up with two new conventional locomotives for 65.00 versus heaven knows what a new Lionel Legacy A and B costs..there are alternatives. The money saved can go to other layout projects. And..I can toot the horn without another additional $500.00 so not all hope is lost for us conventional folks. The final product I posted on another thread and its in a scheme that has never been done by Lionel. So..life goes on..without command control..I hope I wasn't seen as criticizing users of command it just struck me how complex that article made it to be when I believe installation is relatively simple as  others here have attested to.

When it is released, I'm going to kick the tires on Aristo's Train Engineer w/ sound. From the lit, the system appears to be incredibly simple and moderately robust - and moderately priced. I'm going this route as I am building outside - and a remote control just makes sense for the distance. That said, Williams E7's are my engine of choice as there is plenty of room in the shells for the electronics, and I get to keep an arm and and a leg. The detail is somewhat lacking - but at 40 or 50 ft away - well, my eyes just aren't that good anymore.

 

Inside, I will continue to run conventional for the time being. I know myself well enough to avoid those areas where I know I have a short fuse - with unstable electronics being only second to crappy utility knives. (I have a 3lb sledge that has cut short the "whole"-someness of several blades!) 

 

At some point, maybe I'll incorporate the TE system into the indoor layout - and that entirely depends on how well it holds up outside. 

 

C'mon, Mr. Polk....I'm ready!

Maybe it is that typical Lionel conventional operator (which makes up most of its customers versus a minority on this forum) just is unwilling to shell out $500+ for a locomotive . At that price point, it is a much better deal to go with Legacy which may be reflected in slow sales which is why there aren't any in the catalog. On another point, there is a total absence of Legacy-equipped starter sets, which I believe is also a cost issue. Conventional and legacy operators represent both ends of the spectrum and are totally different markets. As long as the Legacy locomotives will still work in conventional control, somebody will have to shell out the funds if they want a high-end loco. Otherwise, other makers (or used equipment) will fill the bill.

 

Peter

I run conventional but use TMCC to operate switches and certain blocks. Had bought a couple of TMCC engines to try it all out, and had no joy in constant 18 volts to the rails. Wrestled with the ground plane, had a couple of run-a-ways, and found I was running just as much wire as before. BPC's, SC2's, AMC's, etc all need wire. I still had to have jumper wires to distant sections of track. I am very happy to be able to walk around the layout, vary the track voltage, and operate my 022 switches with the Cab1 - that's enough for me.

Already done.  The Lionel PM-1 does exactly this.  They can be had for $25-35 each on the aftermarket for the 135 watt version, a little more for the 135/180 watt switchable version.

I run scale sized equipment, but prefer to run my trains conventionally, so I have a mixture of command and conventional locomotives.

 

I think Lee's post is likely the reason that the different manufacturers have only limited amounts of conventional engines available.  The economics of manufacturing and stocking both conventional and command versions of the same loco likely provides little incentive for offering both.

 

Jim

 

And Williams is getting the Message.  Boost in Price and the loss of the 773 and a couple of others are dropped for the immediate Future however they have left the door open for them to reincorporate them back into their lineup

At this time Williams for me was a lower cost engine but now their prices are up above an MTH Hudson so this is where they may loose their edge

I am not sure where the beef is with Lionel and conventional engines.  I counted 18 new steam engines and six new diesels not counting those in sets.  This is more new engines that they used to have TOTAL in a new catalog.

 

Happy railroading,

Don

I agree.  What is the beef?  Plenty of new engines, and all will run conventional.  Reasonable prices given everything.  Yes - they don't cost as little as Williams,  -- but they have sound . . . .really good sound, and a few more details and features, even if you don't use the Legacy controller.  And if you don't like them, just pass and go ahead and buy Williams - they make good stuff, just not with sound.