Legacy Cab-2 finally running LionChief Trains

Impressive. I think there are more than enough techno nerds here that will eat this stuff up. Love the innovation shown here. Keep up the good work.

Pete

You are one busy beaver!  Nice stuff, very impressive work!

Thanks, I certainly do not know how many will be needing something like this, more like the people like myself,  who started off with LionChief locos for but later decided they would like to cross over into Legacy but don't want to run with a pile of remotes to run their original (LC) trains at the same time as their single new legacy loco.

LC 2.0 is a great thing going forwards, but why leave LC and LC+ locos isolated on their own island of (very) restricted controller options.

I personally love the thought of doing consists with LC locos.

Good points Ryan. I deleted my earlier comment. Nice work.

Lionel has sold a lot of LC and LC+ locomotives, so there should be some market.  I tend to doubt that you'll interest Lionel in collaboration unless something significant has changed there.  However, making your own product is much more realistic.

@RickO posted:

Good points Ryan. I deleted my earlier comment. Nice work.

No hard feelings, your post was definitely true for certain types of owners, maybe even the majority. I'm glad you raised the point.

Terrific work Ryan.  If Lionel isn't interested, I'm sure there will be 100s, maybe 1000s of users who would be interested in purchasing the product from you directly.  Alternatively, some hobby store might be interested in marketing it for you for a cut of the product cost, the way 3rd Rail did for the ERR products.

@Norton posted:

Impressive. I think there are more than enough techno nerds here that will eat this stuff up. Love the innovation shown here. Keep up the good work.

 

Pete

Thanks, I know I'm certainly having a blast blending trains and code like this. The real question is what next? . I have a few more projects in mind already, but I wonder if people seeing this could spur on some new requests for other functions/integrations.

All I know is my next ideas are even crazier uses of these Lionel control systems. I can't wait to try these other ideas I have, just need to get back to using my 3D printer for whats next. (it involves driving these trains I assure you).

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

You are one busy beaver!  Nice stuff, very impressive work!

Thank you thank you, if I impressed you then I know I did well.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Lionel has sold a lot of LC and LC+ locomotives, so there should be some market.  I tend to doubt that you'll interest Lionel in collaboration unless something significant has changed there.  However, making your own product is much more realistic.

This is first point about the number of LC/LC+ locos out there is part of what drove me so hard to get this going. I think giving people flexibility in control system choice will only help people get a better return on their investments. I got to say it put a huge smile on my face to drive a LionChief loco with the Cab-2.

I consider you to be an authority in the matter of add'on products/ideas like this, I will have to send you an email to expand on this in a little while. I know I always saw you in the TMCC deep dive threads too. Your insight on this is a huge help.

Just one of many, don't say any more, my head won't fit my hats anymore!

@Landsteiner posted:

Terrific work Ryan.  If Lionel isn't interested, I'm sure there will be 100s, maybe 1000s of users who would be interested in purchasing the product from you directly.  Alternatively, some hobby store might be interested in marketing it for you for a cut of the product cost, the way 3rd Rail did for the ERR products.

Thanks, That is an awesome perspective. If any of that were to happen it would be amazing. I have built online stores for people in the past so that would not be the hard part either. ERR is certainly a good model for this sort of thing too. Glad you brought that up.

Building the on-line store is one thing, getting people to look at it is quite another.  That's why my stuff is sold through Henning's Trains.

My O-Gauge Enhancement Products at Henning's Trains

Very intriguing. What is the signal path from the CAB-2 controller to the loco mounted LC receiver?

@BOB WALKER posted:

Very intriguing. What is the signal path from the CAB-2 controller to the loco mounted LC receiver?

Thanks, and I'm actually glad you asked. Grab a seat. It is electrically very simple. Just a max232 Serial converter plugged into the Legacy base with a wire running from the serial converter to a Bluetooth module (more on that below). As a packaged item I am calling it the LC Gateway. Signal then travels through the air to the train. Just like your phone or the real remote. The train just works as intended from there.

(Warning for anyone reading, the following is really nerdy)

That Bluetooth module is then running custom firmware that I wrote from scratch after spending MANY hours re-implementing the (undocumented) LC protocol from scratch. LOTS of binary math. The binary to decimal converter of the windows calculator has been my best friend. Lots of bitwise operations. Lots of ones and zeros, and so far: 1700 lines of code. All written from scratch to do just this much. I will still need to write some more code to discover and save new locomotives to some flash memory on my gateway board but that will be easy by comparison. That part will be easy by comparison.

Here is a bit about about my background:

I'm a software engineer by day. But I also had learned just enough electrical engineering when I was in college to get me literally rolling. A few months ago I designed a basic pullmor motor driver circuit to go with a custom LC receiver I also used to run a postwar loco over LC. ZC detector and all that jazz. I must say electrical engineering for model trains is a quite a lot of fun. A passion of mine is hardware/software integration (embedded circuits basically). Doing this with trains has been a blast. I imagine at least few others here truly understand that feeling too .

Anyway its a good thing I love low level logic, I built a computer processor from scratch using 7400 series chips in between college and high school many years ago, even made my own assembly language and opcode set at the time. All i know about CPUs at the time was that they had memory and a program counter. I took that and ran with it. It was only ever a hobby project and was also before I had any trains.

So in short that's the story behind how it all works, any questions?

Super job Ryan 

Awesome

my only wish (for now ) would be improving the LC App to allow for independent control of 2 or more locomotives,  but ....that might be a Lionel issue

Thank you for doing this 

Continued success!

Larry

@Casey_Jones posted:

Super job Ryan 

Awesome

my only wish (for now ) would be improving the LC App to allow for independent control of 2 or more locomotives,  but ....that might be a Lionel issue

Thank you for doing this 

Continued success!

 

Larry

Funny enough I had started to address that issue on my own knowing that most likely wont be easy/possible for a phone to directly control more than one at a time. I have my LC gateway already able to control one or both at once. as seen here: https://youtu.be/mYDu9uKFSws?t=94

My solution is to use the LC Gateway to send commands to one or more trains at once by using the on screen horn and announcement buttons as a mode changer. Maybe all you need is drive mode and engine selection and consist building modes for example. I could also just write an app of my own in theory that would have these consist building options right on screen. I could also use such a custom app as a settings/config screen for the gateway.(I will have to try doing that no matter what now).

Anyways... I will try to make my gateway solve all issues at once. I have a feeling I could make a really neat solution to this problem using just the gateway and even the official LC app. (I could repurposed the existing volume screen as an engine selector!) each of the four volume sliders could select a different engine to build a consist! You're question actually gave me a good idea. I think I will have to try this concept out even though I only have one LC loco and one diy Postwar LC conversion train with me to test it right now. Thanks for the good question though. Keep coming up with more wises and I will keep having fun making them real. I will bring any updates on that progress to my other long running topic on the LC gateway. I will try to keep mostly Legacy stuff in this topic.

Ryan, thank you Sir!

Basically you achieved 3 huge accomplishments 

1) You built the Gateway  and the gateway allows for the following to work

2)  You created a new control board to convert all conventional trains (Post War and newer can motor) to Bluetooth control  via an LC or LC+ or Legacy controller, (including electro couplers and you are working on sound) 

3) You basically just turned the Legacy controller (thanks to your Gateway) into a Universal Remote, that can control several LC, LC+, TMCC, and Legacy locos at the same time.  

Question:   If the LC & LC+ can now be controlled by the Legacy Controller with your Gateway, does that mean the Lionel LCS can now control those locos also?,  if so, then I guess no need to alter the LC App.

If so, I would love to find a way to bypass the Legacy base and just use Lionel LCS and your Gateway as the universal remote 

Thank you 

Larry

Need clarification. Is it correct to assume that for gateway control of conventional locos with the CAB-2 controller, the loco must be retrofitted with a bluetooth control board?

@Casey_Jones posted:

Question:   If the LC & LC+ can now be controlled by the Legacy Controller with your Gateway, does that mean the Lionel LCS can now control those locos also?,  if so, then I guess no need to alter the LC App.

If so, I would love to find a way to bypass the Legacy base and just use Lionel LCS and your Gateway as the universal remote 

Thank you 

Larry

First of all, thank you for that excellent post, I'm so glad to see you like the results of my labor 

Before I answer your questions I also just want to mention that I may have to figure out some sort of arrangement like the LCS partner program with Lionel before I can actually sell a postwar LC board. Also I would have a bit of a road ahead of me for the motor control electrical engineering portion. My board works but is pretty sensitive to electrical  spike damage right now. Software is my strong suit.

It might actually be easier for me to make a board that plugs into the same connector on the ERR driver boards as the Lionel TMCC module R2CL. Although I may also running to signal issues for the Bluetooth module reception in the metal shell of a steam loco. I could make the module with a wire long enough that you can stick it near the window in the cab of the shell or something though.

Now for the questions:

LCS absolutely should be able to control LC/LC+ locos since I am giving them a virtual TMCC engine ID number. I do not yet own any LCS equipment but as long as the commands are sent in the same format as the legacy base it should be fine. Good point though. My one legacy loco has IR so I should probably get the LCS IR receiver for it. Maybe make my self a module that lets me add IR transmitters to postwar and LC while I'm at it.

Now for your second question: I think it could work, if lets say you didn't have any legacy or tmcc locos, I may be able to allow LCS hardware to control LC locos. I guess you leave me no choice but to buy LCS stuff now. This should be tried at least once. It could really open a new market for Lionel's LCS gear. A new market to another one of their own product lines! I sure hope they embrace this. Fingers crossed.

@BOB WALKER posted:

Need clarification. Is it correct to assume that for gateway control of conventional locos with the CAB-2 controller, the loco must be retrofitted with a bluetooth control board?

Yes whether it's fully custom driver or an R2LC pin compatible module, a Bluetooth board of some description would be needed. If blessed(nice word for licensed) by Lionel it could be LC. Otherwise a from scratch LC Gateway proprietary signal. At that point though, might as well go ERR TMCC unless Bluetooth or LC remote is the goal. In which case I wouldn't blame you. I like LC too!

It appears that you are proposing two basic control modes. (1) Signal format conversion from TMCC/Legacy to LC. (2) Shift to wireless direct to loco signalling. Do I have this correct? 

@BOB WALKER posted:

It appears that you are proposing two basic control modes. (1) Signal format conversion from TMCC/Legacy to LC. (2) Shift to wireless direct to loco signalling. Do I have this correct? 

Pretty much, different solutions for different problems.

TMCC/Legacy to LC for those who would like it.

Wireless direct control to control postwar. This would have the side bonus of also working with the TMCC Integration too.

Impressive,

I want to see a converter board now. Taking basic TMCC commands and turning them into DCC commands.

Actually, I'm waiting to see the polished original project, that's a pretty cool deal!  I'm sure there's some interest in controlling LC and LC+ from the Legacy CAB1 or CAB1L, what a great option!

@Bruk posted:

Impressive,

I want to see a converter board now. Taking basic TMCC commands and turning them into DCC commands.

funny you should ask, I was just about to do an experiment to pull that converter off with code published by @SanDiegoMark. Among other great things related to DCS automation, he wrote Arduino code to simulate a DCS Remote. So connecting that project to the TMCC/Legacy base would only require a little translation code which would be no big deal at all for me to prepare. The fancy part of that code is a user frendly way to assign TMCC ids to DCS engine IDs, but I have a few ideas in mind for that. If the test goes well I can post a video of it working and we can all enjoy using one master remote.

Sounds to me like that would work!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Actually, I'm waiting to see the polished original project, that's a pretty cool deal!  I'm sure there's some interest in controlling LC and LC+ from the Legacy CAB1 or CAB1L, what a great option!

Thank you very much, You bet, and me too lol. The current stage of that project is the hardest one, working out the most user friendly way to scan for LC locos, assign them IDs, and run them. All without crashing my controller hardware. That last part has been a little tricky at times. As for the user interface I am currently using a very small OLED display with 3 small buttons on it to run scans for locos. technically I could also setup a phone app or a web site to manage the different locos but I really want to keep this 100% independent from any computers. Maybe I can work out a menu that uses the number pad on the cab remote to make selections on one of the following screen types.

a 16x2 character screen like this:

Pros: bigger screen/text

Cons: I'm afraid 2 lines will make it much less intuitive to use, more abbreviations.

OR the one I'm currently testing with some success

0.9" 128x32 pixel White OLED:

Pros: more text better explanations/menus.

Cons: 0.95 inch diagonal screen. 1/4" tall by 7/8" wide display area.

OR

2.4" 320x240px Color LCD:

Pros: bigger 2.4 inch screen, lots of room for multiple locos, touch screen capability, color display

Cons: more expensive.... this particular screen is 30 but I may be able to find similar ones for as low as 20 each.

OR

a web UI.

Pros: Best user experience, easiest to read.

Cons: gateway needs to be added to wifi (so slightly more complex unboxing setup), phone or computer needed when adding/removing/changing loco IDs. Not sure if the gateway processor can do that much multitasking. Leaning towards not.

So anyway @gunrunnerjohn what do you think about these display choices. Same question is open to anyone who would like to contribute an opinion.  My personal favorite is the 2.4 inch color LCD

@Ryaninspiron posted:

2.4" 320x240px Color LCD:

Pros: bigger 2.4 inch screen, lots of room for multiple locos, touch screen capability, color display

So anyway @gunrunnerjohn what do you think about these display choices. Same question is open to anyone who would like to contribute an opinion.  My personal favorite is the 2.4 inch color LCD

Bigger the better.

The plain white one would be fine, but it would have to be larger.  A 1" diagonal screen would be pretty limiting and hard to read, remember most of us train nuts are old and going blind! We need text large enough to read.

I guess I'm with Bruk, the bigger the better.

@Bruk posted:

Bigger the better.

That is indeed how the saying goes, of course though there's a point of diminishing returns,

I think that 2.4 inch color one might just do the trick, especially because I can make the text pretty big on it and still have enough room for whatever menu I need.

Also @gunrunnerjohn, I figured which is why I was getting into the discussion about the bigger screens. that 2.4 inch one would be pretty convenient for me to integrate because it won't be massively bigger than the entire package I was already trying to fit inside. I should also be able to make the text pretty big on it. It might be the sweet spot. I will change gears to using that one instead of the tiny OLED 0.9" in that case.

The 2.4" one looks like a good choice, so I can go along with that choice.  The lettering on the tiny one would have been a bit of a challenge for anyone visually impaired in any way.

@Bruk posted:

Impressive,

I want to see a converter board now. Taking basic TMCC commands and turning them into DCC commands.

Here is the first video just posted about that project, A TMCC to DCS Bridge. By the next video I should have at least control over at least one DCS loco via TMCC.

The hard part with this is the same as the hard part for my TMCC to LionChief integration. To make a user friendly way to configure which TMCC engine ID corresponds to which DCS ID. Whatever I come up with for this DCS Bridge will be the same solution I use for LionChief.

I think the O gauge world would have been different if MTH had made this possible 20 years ago.

That's really cool, imagine all the people that are lamenting the demise of the DCS remote!  Is that RF talking directly to the TIU like the DCS remote?

DCS with Legacy. That's something I've been talking about in a few of my own posts. Controlling LC/LC+ with a Legacy remote would be great. Since you can run an LC+ engine with a conventional transformer, I could use Legacy and my Powermaster to operate LC+ locos (if I ever choose to buy any; I like Legacy better).

@Ryaninspiron,   Looking good Sir, looking real good!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

That's really cool, imagine all the people that are lamenting the demise of the DCS remote!  Is that RF talking directly to the TIU like the DCS remote?

For me I really prefer the Cab2 for all its two handed ness and all. I can also understand the fans of the DCS remote though. Definitely easier to one hand operate for instance. Anyway I for one want to run DCS from the Cab2 and now have the tools in place to make it happen. (the current trick is that the one serial interface on my LC gateway(which has the serial adaptor attached already) is taken up already by the TMCC base so I will have to communicate between those boards with another method like I2C.

Thanks, Mark gets the credit for implementing a great basic serial interface to the DCS remote RF protocol here. Some absolute magic is in action here. I am just giving his code a translation of the TMCC commands. After that comes the same fun part as I am at with LionChief; a user friendly interface to assign the IDs that link the two systems. Whatever I come up with in this DCS bridge will make life easier getting LC on TMCC IDs in a friendly way (since as I mentioned before its hard coded at the moment).

@Casey_Jones posted:

@Ryaninspiron,   Looking good Sr, looking real good!

Thanks, this is just getting started though.

@SanDiegoMark posted:

I think the O gauge world would have been different if MTH had made this possible 20 years ago.

Hindsight is 20/20 they say. Also they certainly chose that path on their own. It would have been so much easier for MTH to have pulled this off in house. No technical limitation as to why not.