How and Why I Run Conventionally and LC

Not a bad set of ideas and opinions you have Lee.  However you may have given your 1st entry a low score for DCS/Legacy.

I can't speak to Legacy, but once wired correctly (maybe that's why the low score) the DCS will run conventional trains through the variable channel.  Quite well actually.  My Atlas AEM-7 runs smoother using DCS variable channel to control the voltage than it does using the handles on the Z-4000. 

Maybe that score would be an 8 (If I were scoring anyway).

Respectfully,

Ron

Lee,

Thank you for your thoughtfulness and attention to detail! 

I admired my grandparents conventional engines every Christmas. My wife bought me a conventional Alaska work train our first Christmas together. We now have two train loving boys, ages 4 and 1.5.  They do well with conventional on a flat layout. 

They have used the LC remotes at shows and love them and frequently mention things like "I want a remote train like they had at the show"

The home layout will have grades eventually and I fear the engines will run away on the downslopes - dialing down the speed in LC has enough of a delay that I suspect it will be a problem until they learn to anticipate rather than react - which isn't age appropriate for several years. 

I'm a techy and went all in with a Legacy system, for myself.  I've found like you, that it is expensive in time for setup, learning, tweaking the necessary details to keep it working...  The Cab2 is definitely beyond the comprehension of the smallest of the small ones.  Cab1L is still far more complex than LC and LC+ for anyone.

We were hesitant to drop $300+ on and LC+ engine and put the remote in the hands of the kids. 

Mostly due to your continued praise of LC+ features we are planning on trying LC+. 

I suspect that it will be wonderful and the best solution for us due to the reasons your clearly illustrate above.  It provides an easy to understand remote, doesn't require me to be messing with things to keep the trains moving (they have very little patience for problems at this age and just want to RUN THE TRAINS!!!), has cruise to control the speed on the slopes,and can run conventional if we want to or if the remote is misplaced, needs repair, has died, etc... 

I have both conventional and original TMCC and there is times I run just conventional and times I run TMCC also my 2nd level on the main layout is pure conventional at present. the shelf layout is TMCC Lately I have been getting back into running my conventional equipment. I only run one at a time as both my main loops on the main layout are connected together and I need to separate them. Well that will give me something to do. 

I find myself often doing the exact same kind of analysis for other purchases, cars and golf clubs being the most recent example, but I didn't do it prior to my first recent LC+ purchase because of one simple fact: I will not spend upwards of a thousand dollars or more for a steam engine, $700 for a diesel, just to get the two "modern" features which mean the most to me, remote control and cruise control. All of the other features of Legacy/DCS aren't that important, at least to me. Frankly, if Lionel would substitute the crew talk, which I fine ridiculous, with the more robust sound effects that the Legacy/DCS equipment has, I would be even happier.

Also, I'm also bugged by the difference in engine and rolling stock sizes between O Scale and and Traditional O. I have a lot of post-war equipment that I actually run. Intermixing the newer scale equipment with Traditional O looks odd to me.

Therefore LC+ fits my needs perfectly; The two most important features of modern equipment, traditional size and good detail all at an reasonable price-point.

 Nice chart, FYI i don't believe DCS system has ground plane issues as does Legacy.

Lee,

That is a really interesting, logical analysis.  I had written off LC+, but may have to give it a closer look.  Thanks for sharing.

-Dustin

LC+ rates a 10 in category 1 in my list because LC+ locos will run in LC+ mode at any voltage down to about seven and a half volts.  They do not have to have the full eighteen volts.  If you run them at, say, half that (nine volts) they won't run up to their full potential top speed, but they will cruise and pull nicely anyway, up the maximum speed they will run at when given only nine volts (which is considerably diminished from eighteen, but still fast enough or me).  You can even vary the voltage while they are cruising and they continue to cruise along.

For example, thirty minutes ago, I was running a MTH PS3 Niagara (in conventional) and four LC+ steamers, all on the same loop, all pulling ten to twelve car trains. I operated the Niagara up to the speed I wanted by adjusting my ZW-L's throttle conventionally, and  set the four LC+ locos to match that locos' speed, then one by one I slowed or sped each up until the trains were spaced out evenly around the loop (its 130 feet around so there is a bit more that a train length between trains.   

Thus, LC+ is fully compatible with running any train in conventional.  I can't run a conventional loco using LC+ remotes, but when my layout is "set up" and being run for LC+, it can still run any O gauge loco, PS1-3, Legacy, TMCC, or conventional, at the same time.   

OK now that makes a little more sense.

Lee, I completely understand your operating plan and your thinking is in line with my own. .  I run 100% conventional but LionChief+ is a very attractive system because it is stand alone and plug and play. If and when Lionel comes out with some near scale AA F units, GP9's, and FM's in the Eastern road names (CNJ, Erie, Lackawanna, LV,  NYC, PRR,) I will probably make my unofficial entry to the mode of remote operation.  

Lee,  Why do you seem to constantly post why you don't like command.  It is your preference, but now it seems to be an obsession telling us why??

What color do you like, what is your favorite food, why would it matter to me? 

Seriously though, isn't it a waste of bandwidth now?   G

I believe that Lee's chart is one of the most complete retrospectives on the subject of operating modes. The main driver for the popularity of LC/LC+ seems to be simplicity of operation, which is why I built my own RC cystem after trying out TMCC. Conventional operation is so basic, it will probably never be eliminated. The only mode left out of Lee's chart was battery powered, which is understandable since it is generally not commercially available, so difficult to review.

Here is a graph that demonstrates what I mean.  This morning I am running the MTH PS3 BR-44 in conventional along with five LC+ steamers, all on the same loop.  

The BR-44 comes alive at 8 volts but will not move at less than 8.5, at which it does ab out 4=5 mph.  Speed increased rather linearly up to about 60 mph at 18 volts (or at least 18 on the ZW-L throttle scale).

I tested one of the LC+ steamers as best I could.  It runs at voltages just above 7 volts or more.  Slowest speed (about 3 - 3 mph) seems unaffected  by voltage setting.  Half throttle speed varies a little bit at the lower voltages.  Top speed varies with voltage and probably goes above 60 mph at higher voltages but I did not want to run faster.  

Thus, in any voltage range where I am going to run the BR-44, LC+ steamers can go both slower and faster than it will go.  I can completely coordinate their speed with it.

You don't have to make excuses Lee, each to his own.

It is about what I expected.  In every field, hobby, and product area there is technical progress that eventually obsoletes the previous generation.  TMCC, Legacy, and DCS were conceived and put in place before there was so much broadcast bandwidth available for consumer products and also before inexpensive components were available that could do so much with a tiny slice of that bandwidth.  They used what hey could and did the best they could  Also, the people who conceived them got into a type of "features" contest for "market leadership" that led to gobs of interesting, and for a few, fun, programming options and codes and such that gave model train enthusiasts control of aspects of the train they never had before.  The result was two good, if complex systems, that are expensive in terms of both manufacturing cost and user involvement and skills required to use them.  

The way I see it, LC+ is the first of a more modern "paradigm" that will gradually creep into more space in hour hobby until it, and similar systems, dominate.  Lionel is using it very cleverly, in actually the same way TMCC and DCS where marketed initially: offering something that the other systems can't.  With TMCC and DCS that was extraordinary levels of control.  With LC+ it is simplicity and ease of use.  The electrical engineer in me knows that LC+ has the capability for all the detailed control Legacy and DCS provide, is simpler and cheaper overall, and therefore that it will eventually evolve into the next generation.  But the manufacturers also know that there is a large, enthusiastic population of users for TMCC, Legacy, and DCS out there, so there are not going to abandon those systems anytime soon, and they probably have or will develop plans for their "next generation" systems to use direct radio control like LC+ but also be compatible with "legacy" (pun intended) systems like TMCC-Legacy, DCS, and conventional.  I have absolute confidence they will achieve all of this: the engineering doesn't strike me as challenging, although the product design would be, I think. 

Regardless, this reminds me of the advent of fuel injection in mass market cars (I'm not talking about the Chevy's Fuelie 'Vette and similar early, expensive applications, but when  throttle body fuel injection first came on the market.  Traditionalists among the hot rod crowd poo-pooed it as "just an electronic carburator" and had lots of reasons why carburators were better for both drag and amateur road racing  For a while that remained true.  But gradually F.I. got good, until today, direct injection is heading toward being universal, and is just awesome.  

It is to be expected that there will be a lot of people who are very committed to the "older" technology and take a while to come around, and a few who will, forever, resist the new, and want to stay with the old:  In all these fields, train, cars, and others, there are hobbyists who are proud of their skills with the old technology, guys who love muzzle loading guns, are proud of their skills rebuilding, setting up, jetting, and synchronizing carburetors, etc.  It is no different with toy trains.   In fact, it makes the hobby more diverse and rich in some sense, so I'm all for it.

As long as they don't lose the LC+ simplicity and robustness.

I am confused how either TMCC/Legacy or DCS is problematic or complex.  I run both systems.  Each took about an hour to hook up.  I did read the directions for both and that is not included in the one hour figure.

As far as LC+ goes, I am happy Lionel has found a potentially new way to attract people to the hobby.  But I don't understand all the fuss over it here -- my impression from looking at the product, particularly the controller -- is that it is (or was originally intended as) a product for kids and other young, new entrants to the hobby.  This is why (at least until there seemed to be interest from more experienced hobbyists) I had not heard that Lionel planned to offer a "universal controller" because such things exist already -- TMCC/Legacy and DCS. 

As far as other types of problems, one should distinguish between quality control problems (can happen with any product, and from reading this forum it is certainly possible with LC+ and everything else) versus complexity-related problems.  (Yes, postwar Lionel is pretty bulletproof but we're talking control systems here, right?)  On the latter category of complexity related problems, I really fail to see how either TMCC/Legacy or DCS is complex.  They are easy to install and most locomotive issues, when they occur, are resolved with a simple reset of the system or the locomotive.  Has happened to me only a few times in many years of running, and the additional operational fun more than compensates.

None of this is to put down LC+, conventional, or any other operating system.  To each his or her own.  But to keep bringing this up seems like certain folks need to continually justify why they do something one way versus another.  The inability to stop bringing up the topic may reflect that the person is not completely happy with his or her choice, so feels a need to keep justifying it.

Forget about it and enjoy the trains.

Lee,  For a professional Engineer your application of facts to thesis seem suspect.  You want to compare a Manufacture A train designed to run in command against Manufacture B train designed to run conventionally.

That is like comparing a 4 cylinder engine to a 6 and lamenting that peak hp occurs at different RPM.

Boston Pete, sorry I enter via the "All" Control System Forum, so I see every thing sub'd under it.  Traditionally this has been the troubleshooting area.  Generic topics about what is better or worst usually was in the 3 Rail section.

It really is funny, 2-5 years ago it was arguments about mechanical e-units and conventional operation versus electronic and commands.  Just seems like a resurrection of that bad blood, but using LC+ now.

You don't see command guys constantly posting why Command is better.

If you don't want dissenting opinions, just post why you like LC+ and leave the comparison to Command alone.  Especially since this is all personnel preference.

Just step back and is this the type of misinformation you want new members to read?  Or would you want them to have a balance read on the pros and cons of all things trains.  Versus one review from someone with an aversion to technical train control.

Frankly,  I think the post harm the hobby with there repetitive nature.   But that is just my personal opinion, from a guy who runs just as much conventional as basic TMCC, but appreciates what hobbyist can do with Legacy and DCS controlled trains, layouts and railroads.   G

I absolutely understand each users passions on the subject.  I do appreciate these discussions because it causes us to think and learn.

I run DCS... I do not have a Legacy or TMCC system but have been toying with the idea for years.  I have upgraded most every conventional engine to DCS with the exception of one that I won't touch and neither will pros.

I have been so focused on DCS that I would not even look at a Lionel product.  I figured, why bother, I do not own their control system and I only run DCS.

Then for a few weeks, I've been reading Lee's posts on LionChief products.  I really knew nothing about it since I've been basically ignoring Lionel systems.  It has been intriguing and educational.  

I like the idea that I can run my DCS trains and without buying another command and control system can run a LionChief engine on the same track at the same time.

So while we can disagree and have different opinions... let's not shut down the discussions.   If it were not for these few threads on the topic, I'd still be siting in my DCS bubble ignoring the possibilities that LionChief might have for my application.

Respectfully,

Ron

Thanks, Ron.  You nailed the advantage as I see it, too.  In your case you like the fact that run your preferred control system (DCS) and LC+ - that it makes no limitations on your use and enjoyment of you present system, while costing very little in money and time to learn.  I feel the same way, exactly, it's just that my preferred "control system" was good, old fashioned conventional.  

People can get amazingly passionate about hobbies and it is a shame some get a little too . . . but as I said, I saw the same thing with fuel injection back when the Chevy Vega (a near but truly terrible car) came out with the first manifold injuection, etc.  

And let's keep the discussion pging.  Doesn't bother if people get personal and talk about my shortcomings - not really good form but it certainly doesn't hurt me.  It was, as I said earlier, expected . . . 

And I'm glad to have it all.  All of the comments, good, bad, personal, or on point, are helping accomplish what I set out to do: as stated in the first post here. "I'm sharing this just to get discussion going and help this sub-forum get some activity: its rather dead on some days."  

I run DCS and I also only look at MTH PS3 engines because of this. 

I recently finished my 2nd level that I planed to run conventional but in the end, its DCS as well. Although I don't really have much time to run my trains and use most of the features DCS has to offer, I have come to really like my DCS system. I plan to add the wifi module over time.

Reading the posts on this forum has also taught me that LC+ can also be used at the same time as trains running on DCS. This has opened my eyes and a will probably buy some in the future due to this.

I do get the urge to run conventional now and then so I simply switch the wires to a variable channel and run using DCS. I have found not all conventional transformers run all conventional engines but DCS thru the variable channel runs more than most.

Ron, Just out of curiosity, which engine is that?  G

Lee, I apologize if I offended you, not my intention, but feel free to dispute my statements. 

But if you have to post and stir the pot to keep this forum active that speaks volumes.

LC+ has it's place, why does it have to be compared in order to make it sound like the "best" solution. 

Even the chart has subjective identifiers.  As others have posted, one persons complexity is not another's.  So subjective on subjective doesn't really make for good application of engineering data.  G

Ron, Just out of curiosity, which engine is that?  G

Atlas AEM-7 ALP-44.  Jam packed with stuff and lights all over the place.

(I just received a lecture from my son that it is an ALP-44)

Ron

Four LC +, one LC, four conventional and one Legacy.  Love to run them all. Last Christmas the LC and LC+ took over as all want to participate. I am just getting started on the Legacy but, I like the wifi app and the sensor track.  I have two on order - one legacy Lion Master and one LC+ RS 3. Looking forward to the arrival of both!

Lee. What amazing custom work you do.  Thank you for sharing it and your thoughts with us.

Is that the horizontal motor version with drive shafts?  G

Lee's chart and my chart would be very different. DCS, TMCC and Legacy are more than just a way to operate trains. Access to all the features these system provide is important to me. Why buy a convertible if you never put the top down?

Yes... It has the horizontal motor. 

Ron

Nobody offended anyone, and as you said, the goal is to stir the pot.  I understand your perspective and am truly pleased your are getting what you want out of the hobby, as well as the fact that LC+ extends its appeal to folks who I think would otherwise not be involved.

Best regards.

Ditto, G

I see no problem with Lee liking LC+, it's a pretty cool little system,  IMO, it'll never replace either Legacy or DCS, but it doesn't have to.  We're getting Lee in bits and pieces, first we hook him on remote control, then we decent on him and connect up that Legacy system he has in his closet!

Lee

How do you convert an LC steamer to scale,if Lionel made LC steamers in scale I would try one

Haven't you seen Lee's threads on making modifications to several of the LC+ steamers?  They're quite informative about his process.

Well, it is a lot of work and I posted threads about some of the earlier ones, particularly the tank engine, which is some ways is a favorite, but this is the latest thread.  Turned out to be a super loco.  This link leads to my final posting when it was done.  You can go to the top of the thread and then scroll down through the thread: I posted on and off as I made progress during the build.

https://ogrforum.com/t...29#41412508808487929