LCS Sensor system. . Is it a solution in search of a problem?

I have gotten a few more locomotives that have the IR sensor since the LCS system was announced so I will play a little with it and see. I agree on some of the issues but it is like anything else that is new. It might become something and if not I just consider it a nice add on to my Legacy system. The fuel level readout and system update is kinda cool.

It's a new thing to try and could be a lot of fun, however no one says you have to use it. Just like no one says you have to use command control

It's not a solution at all.  It's an enhancement.  It adds to the play value of the train layout.

I suspect that only the well-heeled will put dozens of sensor tracks around.  I'm thinking of this more for route control and automating operation, rather than for each crossing.

Maybe there will be kits in the future to add sensors to engines that don't have them...

About the only use mine would get is to add locomotives to the remote if they don't come with the module anymore.  But currently I don't even have to think about it since my 990 is still on order, and my 1st Legacy locomotive, the Vision Line Big Boy (With sensor track.), is still 4+ months away.

I think the key here is to have the sensor track close enough to the switch you're controlling so that you can predict the position of the switch after the control input.

Marty

 

an enhancement is the same as a "better solution than before."

 

I just do not see the "better than before problem" that a series  LCS-sensor tracks and modules solves. What was the problem that we could not do before that we wanted to do?

 

I am not just giving up on obtaining an LCS system. I would like for Lionel to come out with a PLAYBOOK on various uses for it that would encourage me( and others) to buy it.

Alan, I'm sure that will happen when it's been out for a spell and people get a chance to put it through it's paces.  I think we need to reach a critical mass, like the WiFi module for one.  I have that on pre-order, and I'll be doing more with the system when I have one of those in hand.

 

I suspect there'll be a lot of press on the system soon.

 

 

Alan, I sort of understand what you are saying. 

 

When sensor track was announced, I was bummed out....most of my engines are in the legacy sweet spot of a crap shoot...what I mean by that is they no longer have specific road names, but they also don't have sequence control or the sensor.

 

Along came the deal of the year and I have the legacy southern crescent - sequence control and sensor.  Then i started looking at sensor track, but with my small layout (4x8) it doesn't offer much.  However, I think the potential for this product is much greater than its current form.  I think it would be cool if the sensor track could be used in conjunction with the iPad to create more if/then type scenarios.  If sensor tracks sees this engine through this route.  right now it seems it can only be 1 engine or all engines and only the same scenario plays.

For us cost is the number one concern and it must be an easily mounted sensor for the non Fastrack users, especially with ballast glued down.

I think a HUGE addition to the line is something that has been mentioned before, the addition of a sensor equipped boxcar so you could add sensor capability to other consists.  That would make the appeal of the system much more general as you could equip more of your equipment with the capability without buying new engines.

Alan - Interesting topic.  Will be fun to watch for ideas.  Legacy shipping will make this even more timely.

 

Art 

I think it will allow the really creative folks to let their imaginations run wild. I agree that we will see things done by these folks that we never imagined. And there are a lot of creative folks around here (meaning this forum). Probably a long shot, but hey I might even think of something?  As Marty says, it definitely enhances the play value (for those that want to do that anyway).   

I think the short form answer to the OP's question is "Yes" -- but, more importantly, that the approach taken is, hopefully, wrong.

 

First:  A disclaimer:  I am a 2 rail, not a 3 rail person, so I have no direct interest in this Lionel product.  But I have been in the hobby a long time, and I think a product similar in goal though with a different technical approach is needed.

 

In my opinion, the wayside devices should be purely passive -- perhaps a roll of stick-on bar codes or small "beacons" that would be placed trackside.  All communications with a central station, plus the degree of onboard intelligence required, would be mounted on the locomotives or other rolling stock.  This approach permits the beacons to be liberally scattered around the layout -- and it would only be necessary to upload to the locomotive any commands [ sound grade crossing horn sequence, for example  ] requiring self-contained action;  the locomotive would report its locations to the command post, which would then execute the routing/signal/train separation etc commands accordingly.

 

In my opinion the Lionel approach will be eventually be supplanted by such systems as I've described;  in the meantime, Lionel does get to sell expensive hardware.

 

Your opinions may vary -- and that's OK.  It's a hobby, and this isn't PTC.

 

Best rgds, SZ

It's natural that we're focusing on SensorTrack, since it is the first shipping LCS product. But it's also helpful to remember SensorTrack is not a required part of the Layout Control System. In other words, it's not "THE" solution, just an important part of a larger picture. Also note that SensorTrack is the ONLY LCS component that requires an engine with the I/R transmitter. I look forward to the ideas you guys come up with to use this stuff!

 

Rudy Trubitt

Lionel, LLC

 

So much negativity on anything any of the companies come up with that's not based on thing made in 1950.

 

 

Just remember the suggestion for that sensor equipped boxcar Rudy.

 

I will!

I really think that would be uber-cool!  It would really get people invested in the system much quicker than if they have to re-engine their whole fleet to take full advantage of the system.  I can visualize a USB port or similar to load the characteristics into the car for whatever you were running it with.  I suspect people wouldn't mind paying a decent buck for that capability.

 

Since, as I understand it, the emitter is strictly sending data, the car actually wouldn't be that complicated.  If the actual message format and protocol were available, I'd probably take a run at making one.

 

If all they had was the 1950 stuff I would not be playing with trains now. The new electronics, command control etc. is what makes it for me, the main reason I re-entered the hobby a few years ago. Looks like it's getting even better yet.  (Not knocking the older stuff here, I just prefer the electronics)

Guess that info wasn't released with the Legacy Info, but you think they might maybe?

The thought of building a car with an IR transmitter has been kicked around in engineering for some time.  The Cab-2 would be able to program the module that transmits the IR info once entered into the Cab-2.

 

Basically, configure the Cab-2 with the data you want transmitted, set the car to the same ID as the loco, press a Cab-2 button, and IR data will be configured by the Cab-2 and then be transmitted by the car,

 

 

Wow, Jon that sounds great and a good way to provide the function of the older non IR Transmitter Engines! 2015 Catalog? Just Kidding, but it would open up those engines for the LCS and shut up a great deal of opposition to LCS.

 

Thanks again for your input and trying to keep us involved of what is going on as much as possible!

 

I think it is VERY COOL!

Unfortunately, I do not see a use for it on my layout, as it is neither large enough or complex enough to be much use.

Being able to run existing engines and take advantage of the sensor track would be a huge bonus, not only for me, but I suspect for most folks that are in the target audience. To a significant degree, it'll be of limited functionality until you can equip every consist running with the IR transmitter to be able to fully realize the capability of the system.

I like Jon's solution, and the data entry method is already taken care of!  I sure hope that actually makes it into a product!

LOL, it better!

Or there will be a very long thread of people gripping!

It really seems too logical for them not to do it!

This is perfect product to help LCS and it would be nice to see the Lionel
Stepped up and committed to it !




Dennis
Piscataway, NJ


On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, O Gauge Railroading On Line Forum <
alerts@hoop.la> wrote:

 

They have shipped the 990's, we must have something new to complain about.

 

This actually does sound like a good idea and I hope they do make it soon.

NO ONE IS "gripping" LOL and I am not opposing LCS!!

 

I am just asking how this new TECH can be utilized or what problem it solves.

 

IF, for instance, we had the possibility of wireless control of engines and there was NO CAB1 or CAB2 THEN I can see why a WiFi Module that would turn my IPAD into a controller THAT then solves the lack of a controller problem.

 

Here with LCS we have a solution but I keep asking what is the problem it solves??

 

No one seems to be able to answer this question other than provide the rather tactless and non-answer that it is an "enhancement."

 

 

 

 

Alan I agree, we have the Cab1, Cab2 and now Cab1L.

 

I really feel that the iPad and iPhone as controllers are not really targeted to the older and current generation as it is the next generation. Kids!

 

Transformer handles are so old school, (no detriment meant) and kids are so into the electronics that it makes an easy transition.

 

Anyway, that is my thinking, it's for the future man! as I am an old Fart and while still into the techie stuff, not like our 11 year old grandson and granddaughter or really even already our 3 year old twins and our 2 year old!

 

Just my opinion....

You see it differently.  You expect it to solve a problem.  A lot of us don't see it solving a problem but adding to what we already have.

First we have to find out what problem Alan has, then we can suggest solutions.

 

OK OK why don't you guys just admit that while LCS is "great tech", "cool" and "enhancing";THAT at this point in our understanding of LCS IT SOLVES NO PROBLEMS WE HAVE wireless-ly  running our trains !

 

SO let me run right out and buy it or maybe two!

Alan, TMCC, Legacy, DCS, cruise control, etc. solve no "problems", they just enhance enjoyment of the operation of our trains!  You can run without any of those solutions.

 

Why are you railing against this so hard?  If you don't like the system, I suggest you save your money for the next 1950's set that comes up for sale.

 

It's no different than that new steamer, diesel, accessory, transformer or anything else you've been wanting to increase the enjoyment of running your trains and/or building your layout. These solve no problems either, but we all want to have them and anxiously await their arrival once they have been announced (well most of us do anyway). LCS and it's accessories are just another item, tool, accessory or what ever you want to call it, to increase the enjoyment of operating your trains.

 

Without the manufacturers inventing these new devices (all the electronics and command control, etc included) some of us would not be in the hobby. All these new things are what got me back into the hobby a few years ago. I find all these items just as exciting as the trains they are installed in or controlling. Many are still perfectly content with conventional operation, which is fine also, but some of us were not. This is half the fun of the hobby for me and probably at least a few others as well.