Has LC+ replaced TMCC engines?

Not completely true.  TMCC and Legacy are different hardware.  A TMCC engine has specific capabilities because it is TMCC based.

Legacy has much more and certainly is the evolution from TMCC.   G

Slight correction: The LC+ remote does allow you to adjust volume. I've done it.

Well, that can certainly be argued.  

There are several TMCC boards that have been reprogrammed for Legacy locomotives with no hardware changes.  The improved sounds have migrated back to TMCC in the form of RS5.  The RCDR that ERR sells for TMCC dummies is the exact same hardware that appears in several Legacy locomotives, including my Legacy Lindbergh Atlantic.  The R4LC is the same hardware as the R2LC, the primary change being a processor with more memory to support the Legacy functionality.

It's true that further advancements in sound and function have accompanied Legacy releases, but the early Legacy stuff was really built pretty much with reprogrammed TMCC hardware.

When you talk newer Legacy stuff, they've redesigned the hardware to take advantage of newer capabilities, so it's certainly different than any of the TMCC stuff you'll find.

Lee - I meant to say Camelback - sorry about that. Still, maybe an Atlantic won't be too far behind

To me my take on LC and LC+ vs TMCC.

TMCC was replaced with Legacy with Legacy programmed to work and accept TMCC.

LC & LC+ is a entry level and maybe a little beyond never meant to replace TMCC Lionel even came out with a Legacy lite ( never had one ) but believe it was suppose to be some where in between the two with a controller like the cab 1. I only have one Legacy engine so at present not really worried about it but do plan to upgrade in the near future.

I'm sure others have basically said the same as I just did but I wasn't up to read every post.

so bottom line in my view is yes they sure are pushing the LC & LC+ hard but I don't see it being a replacement as it would send folks away as who really wants 4 remotes to run there trains when one will do the trick it's just a entry level thing to get the electronic side of the hobby into young hands and a smart one at that.  

I always thought Legacy replaced TMCC as hookup and operation are the same. All of the "meat and potatoes" functions/ keystrokes of TMCC and legacy are identical.The icons on the legacy touchpad represent the same functions as the numbered keys of the CAB1. 

 Legacy  uses newer electronics to replace the older outdated TMCC stuff. Legacy has more features, just like most "newer " electronic devices that replace older ones.

Lionchief and Lionchief plus are entry level systems targeted primarily at younger beginners in the hobby. This way kids can run their trains via a remote control just like they do everything else without being stuck behind a transformer.

Meh....... what do I know? lets continue to split hairs on the obvious.

You bet Rick, that's what we live for!

What may be obvious to the gun slingin cowboy may not be so obvious to the quiver slung Indian. Though both may be able to split a hair with their chosen weapon.

I'll get a camelback even though it is not a favorite.  But a scale Atlantic - I would love an Atlantic.

Johns trains:  Slight correction: The LC+ remote does allow you to adjust volume. I've done it.

Ken-Oscale:  so the LC+ "missing features" that we have identified so far are:

1) remote control of lighting

2) remote on/off for smoke

3) multi-loco remote

4) consisting

Agree with the suggestion that remote on/off for smoke would be nice.

If a person really needs #3 & #4, they will likely purchase Legacy or TMCC locos, and skip LC+.

Of course we know that LC+ does allow a limited form of consisting - one remote controls multiple locos of the same type.   I am looking forward to controlling my FT ABA set with a singe remote.

Perhaps a #5:  On the remote, reverse the coupler activation Front/Rear.  Currently, the whistle and the rear coupler are on the same button.   The bell is an on-off, while the whistle is more frequently used.   Combine on one button the whistle and less-used front coupler.   The other button for bell and rear coupler.   This should reduce the occurance of unintended rear uncoupler firing when signalling with the whistle.  {I had a guest new to Lionel cut off her cars accidentally.   No big deal, just reversed to pick the train back up.]

Well this can be argued too.  Actually when Lionel first released Legacy it was the r4LC, which can handle 9 vice 8 bit serial data, and also receive both frequencies.  So it was different hardware based on the same design.  The fact they made it backward compatible made sense.  The fact they can program a Legacy R4LC to act like an R2lC made engineering sense.  Why produce 2 boards when one can be used for both.  They just didn't reprogram Legacy into TMCC stuff John.  What they do is program the limited features of conventional Railsounds and TMCC into Legacy hardware when needed.

Railsounds always developed along its own path though Linked. RS 5.0 is a TMCC based system.  Followed by 5.5 for legacy. Then RS Lite when they moved away from Motherboards. 

Just because Lionel and ERR are intertwined do you have the tech moving back and forth.  Lionel uses the ERR design for certain engine probably based on production issues not backward fitting.  TMCC RS 5 was put into ERR RS Lite probably for cost savings reasons.  ERR built the RS Power Supply and Mother board as one board.  Lionel still used Mother boards because they were building engines not sound systems.

My point was that TMCC is not just a trade name. It represents limited capability also.  Certainly Lionel can change that, but I doubt they will.

The new Legacy has the basic TMCC frame work, but much more output capability.  G

How is it done, the LC+ directions I read did not have that.  G

To control volume, hold down the bell and whistle buttons and vary the speed dial to the volume desired.

I just found it.  Not really a one hand operation, but it is there.  G

We'll need to hire an octopus to help with all the remotes anyway. OTOH, if you have a big enough layout and a few kids or grand kids, all the remotes will come in really handy and the octopus can have the day off. 

I've run up to five at a time with no problem.  Whether you are running conventionally (an transformer and loop for each, or Legacy/DCS, or LC+, you still have to keep track of all five or how many you are running and control each somehow.  I keep the remotes on a shelf when I am running.  It helps to write the road # in big numerals on the remote, and to memorize which loco is which #.

"When explaining this to people getting into the hobby, they are have the same response, If I buy LC and then want Legacy I have to buy new locos?"

I have no idea why knowledgeable people would offer such rubbish and misinformation.  LionChief and LionChief Plus locos will work fine in a Legacy (or DCS or TMCC) environment.  They are designed to work at fixed voltage.  If you want Legacy, of course you need to buy Legacy equipped locos. Duh.  You also need to buy Legacy.  The same is true if you buy a PS3 equipped loco.  You still need to buy DCS.  Why would anyone assume that when you buy a Lion Chief or LionChief Plus loco that you automatically have the high end command control capabilities of a loco that costs a $100 more?  Or that you won't have to buy the Legacy system?  Once again, LC and LC+ locos work fine in a command or conventional environment provided the voltage to the track is at least 10-12 volts in most cases.  They are effectively command control "light."  If you want Legacy, yes, of course, you need to buy Legacy equipped locos and the control system.  This seems simple to me, but obviously I'm too dumb to realize how complicated it is .  It would be best if people in our hobby who haven't used the equipment refrained from expressing misinformed opinions, but perhaps that is too much to ask.

I think you need to read between the Lines on the question.  You assume it has one meaning. When I read it I see another meaning.

If I buy a TMCC engine and later but a Legacy controller will my engine work with the Legacy..."CONTROLER".  Yes.  If LC+ the answer is no.

Do a search, there have been folks asking how simple is it to do an upgrade to turn the LC+ into a TMCC engine.  They were hoping it was a single board swap/addition.

That was the reason for my question after I looked at the Lionel catalog and did not see any intermediate priced TMCC engines.

If you want an intermediate priced Command engine you have to go Atlas to get TMCC, or buy Williams and upgrade.

So the operator on a budget who wants some of the TMCC based features I listed above doesn't have that choice.  So one hole filled, but another one opened.  G

Also, don't discount the used market.  There are lots of great deals on used command stuff, typically at 50% or less of the new selling price.

The statement about PS-3 is not correct.  IF you buy a PS-3 you can operate it conventionally.  You even can control certain Command Functions with the bell and whistle button.  Like opening a coupler of choice.  Or you can run it on DCC.  If you then later get DCS you run it with DCS and the DCS Remote.

There are subtle difference between this method of operation and LC+ integration.  So it is not a simple DUH response.  These subtly are what are catching folks.

So you need to be very clear when you try to use a single phrase as "Legacy Compatible" with the LC+ model.

Another perfect example was a question posed about an ATLAS engine that had that statement.  The statement of Legacy compatible had the 100 speed step phrase too.  Yetit generated questions on whether ATLAS had Legacy installed, when what they had was ERR Cruise installed, so it had 100 speed steps available vice TMCC 32.

I don't think folks are offering rubbish and misinformation. Though some of the marketing term you use with vagueness can be construed as misinformation.

Things just need to be very clearly stated until folks not as familiar understand it.  G

If you have a  Lion Chief or LionChief Plus engine, you already have a controller.  You cannot buy a cab-1, cab-1L or Legacy controller and control someone else's (Williams, MTH, for example) loco.  Why is this such a big deal to anyone?  You cannot buy a PS3 loco and control it with your cab-1, cab-1L or Legacy controller.  You cannot buy a Williams loco and control it with your LC or LC+ remote, your cab-1, cab-1L, your Legacy, DCC or DCS remote.  It ain't all that complicated or frustrating to me .  You use the controller that came with loco.  Not rocket science.  Shouldn't be a source of emotional distress. Except to those trying to stir the pot.  Or with a consistent bias against a particular manufacturer and their current products.

And I never said you couldn't control a PS3 loco in conventional.  I said if you wanted command control (like LC and LC+ provide), you needed DCS (another $300 please ).  LC+ works with conventional and it comes with a remote for what is effectively command control.  For $100 less than the competition and the same price as Williams with conventional only, fewer features and lower quality sound.  It's an alternative.  If there are those in the hobby who wish to obfuscate and denigrate, that's a problem of the people not the product .

John,  Actually you never need to buy a new engine again.  Everything comes back on the market used with in a year or less.  So if you can wait a little..... G

Always seeing the evil in the world or do you see the good?  This is a fair question posed with respectful post until you stated using word like DUH, dumb, misinformation, and rubbish.

There is a difference even if you don't see it.  No one bad mouthing LC+ here.  I am just one who still longs for TMCC engines and the capabilities they have that LC+ doesn't.  Nothing more.  G

"Things just need to be very clearly stated until folks not as familiar understand it."

Stating, as some have done,  that if you want to go with Legacy, you need to abandon your LC and LC+ locos and buy Legacy locos, is clearly rubbish and misinformation.  These statements are the opposite of the truth,  and the opposite of clearly stating what the reality is.  Being respectful is impossible in such a situation.  Apologies are what are required, not demands for respect.  The truth is very,  very simple except to those with some sort of an agenda.  The statements I was critiquing were not made by anyone on this board, but ignorant people elsewhere.  Not clear why respect is required for people who aren't even present. 

And I would ask, why are you defending other people's ignorance and misinformation?  Is the truth not of any value? 

Guys, let's play nice.

I think this thread has answered the original question:  LC+ is not replacing TMCC or Legacy-1 systems.   And now we are off in the weeds a bit.

One interesting aspect that I appreciate about LC+ and one about DCS-PS3.0:  

*  Without purchasing anything else, I can run all of my LC+ locos on my layout at the same time.  

*  I also have an MTH loco with PS3 using the remote commander and infra-red receiver.   Without purchasing anything else, I can run any PS3 loco (with the recent firmware upgrade that allows the factory reset from the remote commander) on my layout using the remote commander, but I can only run one PS3 loco at a time.

I love being able to run either LC+ and MTH-PS3-remote-commander, but LC+ allows me to run more locos now.   I will probably upgrade to DCS down the road in order to run multiple DCS locos at the same time in the future, but that is an additional expense not needed with the LC+.

Both are great fun, I am loving running multiple LC+ with a PS3 loco without investing in a a more extensive command control system (yet - smile).  

Have you changed religions?  I though I was being nice, but don't come an poop on a my thread with a liberal use of adjectives not necessary to get your point across. 

I do get your point though G

If they said abandon than I would agree with you.  But just like many conventional only engines get less and less use once a fully Command control layout is up, that may have been the what they meant.  G

Ken, I got  your point as it comes from the conventional operator perspective.  LC+ gives you fantastic new perspective and operating enjoyment.

As a TMCC guy who runs multiple conventional and TMCC engines on a layout via one remote, turning smoke on and off, changing volume to accent which train I want, idling one on a siding and turning off smoke and light, or shutting it down, you can see how LC+ doesn't work for me, unless I use it in conventional only.

We have a pretty big spectrum of users now.  Conventional, Basic TMCC, Basic DCS, Legacy, Legacy and DCS, TMCC and DCS.  How big the population is in each group I don't know.  But the Basic TMCC or CAB-1L guys have less options for an intermediate priced Command Train.

For me the TMCC functions are necessary.  G

Thanks GGG, I get your points as well, and mostly agree with your last post:

1)  LC+ does not have a remote smoke on/off.

2)  LC+ does allow remote sound volume control - but not as easy/nice as the MTH remote commander.

3)  I do idle LC+ locos on a siding.   The smoke goes off when standing, but the headlight stays on.

Its good to have all of these choices and options:  I have the LC+ FT ABA set on preorder, but I am also looking closely at the MTH Challenger.

There is a lot of things being thrown around here,about legacy and lc+ and TMCC and what they are, what they aren't. 

With any of these systems, there is both hardware and software (usually called firmware, because it is loaded into a chip rather than being in memory). TMCC had a hardware set (the controller, the command bases, the receivers) that contained the circuit boards that in turn had the operating chip/cpu, memory and the receiver/transmitter stuff. The firmware is what runs everything, it is what generates the command codes that actually do something, it is in the receiver in the engine that reads the command code, then for example cuts voltage to the motor to make it slow down, triggers the sound sequence, etc. The 'real action' happens in the firmware, the actual operations are controlled via that. Because so much is done in firmware, the hardware components and such don't matter as much (with some caveats). As long as, for example, the controller circuitry on a board in an engine can see command sequence nn, and say "Aha, that means I need to tell the voltage controller to cut voltage to the engine", the actual components don't matter.

I have never looked at the circuit boards in TMCC versus original legacy, but I don't really have to. It is possible, for example, that in the early legacy locomotives the circuit boards were retooled TMCC boards, with more memory or the addition of a new controller area (in theory, depending on the added functions on a certain legacy engine, they theoretically could have used TMCC boards and simply gave it different firmware to control functions not available on TMCC, assuming that the board had circuitry to implement the function). 

The beauty of firmware is that it acts as a 'translation layer', and can handle different kinds of boards if it needed to. For example, if lowering the speed is function 54 (and that is just  hypothetical), the actual command sent to the voltage controller that varies voltage to the engine could be two different things. If a legacy board sees function 54, it could send a bit string of 11101 to the voltage controller; if a TMCC board sees function 54, it might send 11011 to the voltage controller, assuming that tmcc and legacy used different voltage controllers (and all my examples again are hypothetical). 

It is why Legacy controllers can control TMCC based engines and such, the legacy controller can be totally different in hardware than the TMCC one was, and still work, because the firmware is set up for backwards compatibility. In the case of TMCC and legacy, I believe that Legacy is a superset of TMCC in terms of the firmware. 

It doesn't really make sense for Lionel to produce TMCC based products, their marketing strategy has kind of made TMCC the lower level of command control, which they make money from licensing/selling boards to third party firms, plus they also can sell legacy engines with features that no one can match, since Legacy is proprietary.

LC/LC+ are relatively simplistic units designed for entry level, pure and simple. For one thing, what is the range with LC/LC+? If this comes with starter sets, the assumption probably is it would be run on Christmas layouts, or small layouts, thus may not have the capability that Legacy has in terms of that...(and I ask that as a question, I don't know the range of LC). 

If starting over, I suspect that Lionel would use the LC kind of system (radio control/bluetooth/wifi) as the base for its command control, would do away with the command bases and the crazy way they transmit it through the rails, and LC would be the entry level, that could control only a single engine (which is not a big deal, it means the controller would be hardcoded to address a specific engine id, that would be unique to LC). The legacy equivalent would be able to talk to multiple engines, legacy engines would have the programmable engine id the user sets, as today, plus it could also talk to LC engines, the user would program in the LC id into the legacy controller, and it would be one of the engines on the roster.

This isn't going to happen, obviously, because among other things, it would lock out the third party firms like Atlas and Weaver that use TMCC currently, the above would be a clean slate kind of thing. Yes, in theory a "New Legacy" could also talk to command bases and such, for engines who need that,maybe by having a 'wireless' module on the command base that can pick up the new legacy controller radio signals (or whatever it uses), but that would also add to the complexity. 

But the reality is I don't see the current paradigm changing much, legacy has a huge command set, and in many ways has barely been touched in terms of what it can do. You can see part of the problem with trying to develop a new system, in some of the posts on here, where people for whatever reasons can't/won't upgrade to Cab-2, where there is a large installed base of older systems, it would be hard. I would love to see a Legacy command system that can work with the old kluge of the command base but also supports direct communication to engines like I mentioned above, I would end up buying engines that could talk directly and if possible upgrade existing stuff I had to use it, just to get rid of the whole nonsense with the rail based communications. 

Not to heat this up again but I see the issue a bit differently.

LC or LC+ you get a remote with each engine and you must use that remote  - not a Legacy or TMCC remote.

DCS Engines are coming with the IR remote that is DCS lite to me, BUT the engine will run on DCS full systems.

That seems to be the bottom line to me. Each of the starter / mid level sets has a partial set of the controls the full system gives.

And the difference:

The MTH starter systems:

Con: Cost is a bit more than LC sets.

Pro:  Come with the full command system in the engine. It will run in Conventional

        DCC, DCS lite, or Full DCS. No upgrade to engine to switch systems.

The Lionel Starter sets:

Con: LC only, not LC+ unless I missed something in recent catalogs.

       No upgrade path but you can keep running it on a Legacy layout.

       But you can't run it in conventional.

Pro: Costs a bit less than the MTH sets

Ya pays your money and makes your Choice.

I agree, particularly with the last paragraph.  I don't see giving up TMCC.  There is no compelling reason.  I don't buy starter sets.  The higher priced Legacy locomotives really don't have a hold on me.  Most of you already know what I think of DCS.

Lionel has no business reason to kill off TMCC by anything except attrition, at least not if they are thinking clearly.  With the escalating prices of mid-to-high level locomotives and the declining market share available to purchase them, there's money to be made in lower cost LC sets and TMCC boards / upgrades.  And something is a lot better than nothing.

George

Great reading. Appreciate the insights from all.

What is interesting to me is how I found myself identifying my "train profile," so to speak, in the discussion. I run PW conventional mostly (did TMCC a little years ago) and when I first saw the Lion Chief line really had zero interest. Then, LC Plus appears and I was still lukewarm. Things turned the corner when I saw the Lionel guys demoing LC+ at York back in 2013. Piqued my interest and learning that I could run LC+ conventionally put it out over for me. 

Bought a LC+ Pacific just before Christmas and now have two additional locos on pre-order.

I'm happy.

Bigkid, Some of what you say is correct, but other parts are not.  So it is worth opening an engine or browsing the Lionel parts sight to see what these components are.

Lionel's command architect started single board based, one way radio communication, common AC ground to accessory outputs, RailSounds separate board.  Only had 5 discrete outputs besides serial data for motor drive and sounds.  2 couplers 2 lights and smoke or a third light.

You seem to have heart burn with the track as the antenna, but any system needs an antenna, so using the track which is required anyway makes a lot of sense to me.  Granted some of the interferences on larger layout probably were not recognized at first.

Rather quickly Lionel went to a modular set with Mother boards.  When they first transitioned to Legacy, they kept the original architecture, modular format.  The R2LC changed to the R4LC.  Received on a different frequency, changed from 8 bit to 9 bit data, and had different firmware.  So while most might have been firmware related, there were some subtle hardware changes.  Also, the TMCC R2LC could not communicate with a Legacy Motor driver and vice versa.  Most of this probably was just firmware.  The R4LC was able to receive TMCC command though from the TMCC Base.

Modular Legacy only lasted 2 to 3 years, before Lionel changed it to a single board with all DC outputs.  RS also went single board to RS Lite.  Again most of this hardware is backward compatible, meaning you can load TMCC based firmware.

Receive only and the basic Legacy command structure remained, but these new boards can do much more then the Legacy modular could with their 5 outputs.

It is what it is, and since most of what a person is buying when they are an operator is performance capability (speed control, smoke control, sounds and sound control) the programming is the important piece.

LC+ is the new device and it is being installed in starter and mid level engines with a certain element of the Legacy and TMCC functions.  

I don't know what the hang up is with having to have the remote talk directly to the engine.  Does it really matter that a command base hidden under the layout does the talking?

LC+ is a remote that talks directly to the engine, but it seems to have limitations, just like single remotes in the RC Plane and car world.

Having that command base that has ports to talk to different devices opens up a whole other world for expansion.  Proprietary yes, but expansion none the less.  G

This thread has been really interesting and informative to someone who is new this whole game. I'm not terribly sorry I've missed out on what sounds like painful and expensive technology growth pains the last 10 years or so! But, with all technology, it's an expensive roll of the dice to be on the bleeding edge. I can remember the $5K plasma TVs not that long ago, and now you can pick up a 42" panel for a couple hundred bucks. And who doesn't have a 3 year old phone that feels like a obsolete brick now?

I dont ultimately think any technology which requires a lot of wire is going to make sense 5 or 10 years from now. It's going to be a wireless something or another moving forward and the cost of making everything on your layout "smart" will only get cheaper and cheaper. 

That said, I mess with technology and computers and handheld devices all darn day long. For me, I want to mash buttons, throw levers, and wonder at the glow of little incandescent light bulbs. No remotes for me.  That's what I love about these trains. 

The beauty is we can have it any which way we want it - as long as you can afford it!

No, Legacy has replaced TMCC.  Legacy is really just improved TMCC, IMO.  Not to say it's not better, it is, but it is the natural evolution.

Lionchief + is the new entry level product -- designed to get people into command control by offering command control lite and aimed at children (look at the remotes).  It also has the benefit of stripping the costly transformer from the starter sets.  This also makes shipping cheaper due to lighter weight. 

PS:  I think Lionel may have been a bit surprised by the interest in LC+.  Originally these were starter set offerings, and now they have expanded it to locos that are not entry level.  At least originally, I saw LC+ as Lionel's answer to MTH's starter sets with remote control.  The advantage MTH has is that with that set you get a full PS3 locomotive. 

I know that in a lot of consumer electronics all levels of some products share the same basic innards. In some Canon cameras for example, the circuitry is the same for a consumer and professional camera costing 4x as much. The "pro" version is in a tougher, sealed case, the "prosumer" version is in a cheaper case and they simply deprecate features. It's less expensive that way apparently. Electronics are getting so cheap.

Thanks for the explanation about the evolution of legacy hardware. I wasn't trying to give a primer on the boards and what actually is in there, my point simply was that in a sense the functionality that TMCC and Legacy offer doesn't care about the hardware that actually, for example, controls the speed of the locomotive, whether it is one board or 6, the commands to, for example, have the engine speed up, stay the same, the firmware in the boards in the engine actually send the signal to the speed controller to slow down or speed up, in response to the command from the command module and/or controller. It means that with legacy, for example, all the control box had to know was it was sending a speed control message and the board(s) in the engine take it from there. It is pretty obvious that Legacy and TMCC have commands in common, the fact that a TMCC cab 1 controller can control a legacy engine (albeit limited to TMCC functionality only) says they are using the same codes and such. If Lionel had to hardwire those instructions in, it would have been a lot more difficult to have TMCC compatibility without that firmware layer, that's all I meant. Later generation Intel chips are a case in point, Intel was burdened by the old 808x architecture, because there were a lot of applications and such that used that architecture, so the later generations of that chip, the 286, 386 in particular, had to maintain that, and they basically kept the same architecture in hardware. Later processors switched to a flat memory model and such, and to maintain compatibility they wrote a compatibility mode into the later chips, that in effect allowed them to emulate an 808x chip for applications that needed it......

As far as my bias against wired command control, using the rails has some big drawbacks. For one thing, given the nature of track, how dirty it gets, the signal strength of the RF the rail is generating is going to fluctuate widely, if what users of TMCC and Legacy have told me, and you end up having to wire, not just the power, but the command output multiple times if the layout is beyond a simple loop (again, just what I have seen). Then we have the trickery with for example putting metal tape under the roadbed to try and make it work better (ground plane issues). If you want to hook up accessories to the command control box, you have to wire it. It isn't hard, it to me is just clunky in an age of trying to go wireless. 

If you go wireless, you have a lot of options. RC aircraft use pretty simple technology and the radio they use is straight out analog signals, with simple servos controlling the various functions. With RC, as long as the plane is in range and there isn't some jerk on the same frequency, about the only issue might be noise from the engine interfering, but that as far as I know is minimal. With a train, you can use wifi or bluetooth, both of which are digital which have things like error correction, so if there is a blip it can be corrected for, and as long as they are using the higher power bluetooth or wifi in general, I believe it would work better.  In a train context, a wireless connection could handle anything the command base over the rails could do, RC planes are relatively simply because they don't need anything else, they don't use a lot of channels and it works fine (you can, obviously, there are all kinds of things RC folks do, well beyond basic engine speed control, elevators, rudder, aerailons, flaps, landing gear,)....

It is true there isn't as much wiring as conventional if you are using block control, wire accessories and so forth, but it seems to me the idea is to try and simplify the hookups and whatnot *shrug*. In reality, TMCC and Legacy worked and continue to work, as does DCS, I am just saying I think that wireless based on what I know about it might be a better option in an ideal world......

You know, I've been noticing as I read on some of these threads, that many people in IT really like to unwind with conventional operation of their trains. Kinda neat as they have to deal with High Tech all day long and like to relax w/ some old fashioned hard wire tech. Guess it's kinda like the Honda mechanic I know who loves to maintain classic muscle cars. Knows all about the latest car tech,  loves the look and feel of the "old technology".