Is there any chance that the Lion Chief/ LC + will be able to run out of the box with the Legacy/ TMCC system, Its the only drawback with the system and the reason why I don't have any engines with this system.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
At the Legacy Users Group this question was asked. JonZ, Lionel's CTO said they were reviewing this but had no answer at this time.
Interesting thing about LC was many were asking Lionel to make a cheaper easier to use remote system. When they did, the same folks then wanted TMCC and Legacy control of the same. Seems Lionel can't win on this.
Marty,
I think that your looking at this in reverse? Lionel satisfied the users with a simple remote.....But, not allowing some "compatibility" even via a add on box to legacy was DUMB, DUMB, DUMB. Think about what you are saying! They hooked the users with LC. Now, those users want more features? Yep, if they went to legacy and their engines would still function......they would have a upgrade path to the better system.
Hook line and sinker!
Plus, there are a couple of LC engine that I might have bought. But, why....to grow another hand and use a second remote.
If there's enough demand, Lionel or someone else will make it. One of our members, John Galt Lines, is working on a prototype, for example. Once there are enough LC and LC+ locos out there, and they've been strong sellers for several years, it will probably happen. Remember these are small companies with limited engineering staff. They need to make choices. This product line was not meant for those already using TMCC and Legacy, for whom they already catalog dozens of locos each year.
Personally IMO I think LC and LC+ should have been TMCC lite. This would have saved a lot of hassle for Lionel. Another system wasn't needed. What was needed was a simple cheap remote that would control 3 TMCC addresses and engines with basic functions you have in LC. Then these engines could migrate to a layout with Legacy and full TMCC. Much like MTH's lower end sets and engine having PS3 in them. The engine never becomes obsolete (unless you can't get parts).
Honestly I don't care about features, I like the LC engines how they are but I just want to one one remote to run all my Lionel trains.
MartyE posted:Personally IMO I think LC and LC+ should have been TMCC lite. This would have saved a lot of hassle for Lionel. Another system wasn't needed. What was needed was a simple cheap remote that would control 3 TMCC addresses and engines with basic functions you have in LC. Then these engines could migrate to a layout with Legacy and full TMCC. Much like MTH's lower end sets and engine having PS3 in them. The engine never becomes obsolete (unless you can't get parts).
I agree 100%, this would have been a very nice move.
Some of you are missing the point. The system was designed to be affordable and easy to use. They accomplished that goal without making people pay for something they may never use.(DCS in all engines)You want TMCC/Legacy just buy up.
Who knows, maybe it's not us that are missing the point. 
The point is, it really wouldn't have a major cost impact to have made them compatible with TMCC.
Jim 1939 posted:Some of you are missing the point. The system was designed to be affordable and easy to use. They accomplished that goal without making people pay for something they may never use.(DCS in all engines)You want TMCC/Legacy just buy up.
I'm definitely not missing the point. I tend to agree with you but if there had to be a lower cost alternative then why not a lite version of TMCC with a simple lower end remote? Lionel did what you stated and made a lower end, cheaper remote and now folks want it to run under Legacy and TMCC. Again no matter which way Lionel went here they couldn't win.
Now the upside to this is the majority of folks buying these LC sets probably will never buy up as these sets are seasonal sets for around the tree but alas here comes LC+ with more bells and whistles. Engines for the "next level up" and now folks want them in the Legacy world.
gunrunnerjohn posted:Who knows, maybe it's not us that are missing the point.
Maybe, maybe not; I would guess that LC/LC+ is based on dirt-cheap WiFi, rather than the custom 455 kHz stuff that forms the basis of TMCC/Legacy. I suspect that Lionel would love to move away from the 455kHz stuff altogether at this point.
Now, I would suspect that you could make the Cab-1L communicate directly with LC/LC+ with no involvement of the Base, but that wouldn't help in many of the existing TMCC installations.
Just my $.02 worth. No refunds.
MartyE posted:Jim 1939 posted:Some of you are missing the point. The system was designed to be affordable and easy to use. They accomplished that goal without making people pay for something they may never use.(DCS in all engines)You want TMCC/Legacy just buy up.
I'm definitely not missing the point. I tend to agree with you but if there had to be a lower cost alternative then why not a lite version of TMCC with a simple lower end remote? Lionel did what you stated and made a lower end, cheaper remote and now folks want it to run under Legacy and TMCC. Again no matter which way Lionel went here they couldn't win.
Now the upside to this is the majority of folks buying these LC sets probably will never buy up as these sets are seasonal sets for around the tree but alas here comes LC+ with more bells and whistles. Engines for the "next level up" and now folks want them in the Legacy world.
Lionel, must have reasoned if it was a price point customers wanted. It was more cost effective to design a new system. More bull dinky decisions
I think it would be straightforward to create an interface device that would fit in the LCS system allowing FlyerChief etc operation from Legacy. It should just be a matter of engineering and manufacturing priorities versus likely sales volume. Lionel already has a benchmark price point for the accessory with the three engine controller at $49.99. It would possibly also require a Legacy software update to recognize the functions of the new interface device.
Speaking only for myself, I would have purchased a FlyerChief Berkshire if I could have operated it with the Legacy system but one more sale does not make a market.
A secondary "patch" for those that want Legacy control will have to be weighed with the market. How many times has somebody asked here "would you buy xyz if ABC made it?" and you have 100 people say they will. The ABC catalogs it, then cancels it, due to lack of orders?
I would imagine Lionel would have to do a little bit better job of market research than just the OGR forum to see if this is a worth while investment. I imagine I would be inclined to buy some LC+ engines but I don't want to have to spend a lot of money to do it or add a lot of extra hardware. At least Lionel has said they are looking at it.
I agree with those that have said that the LC+ system is just fine the way it is. Why confuse things with ties to more complicated systems. The LC+ system is simple and straight forward. Those of us that like to run post-war trains got a nice gift with LC+.
I agree with Marty on this. I just really wish Lionel would do this sometime soon. The LC stuff is nice but again, not being able to run it on the normal Lionel remotes really sucks, plus that annoying beeping sound would get to be too much using the LC controller.
MartyE posted:Personally IMO I think LC and LC+ should have been TMCC lite. This would have saved a lot of hassle for Lionel. Another system wasn't needed. What was needed was a simple cheap remote that would control 3 TMCC addresses and engines with basic functions you have in LC. Then these engines could migrate to a layout with Legacy and full TMCC. Much like MTH's lower end sets and engine having PS3 in them. The engine never becomes obsolete (unless you can't get parts).
actually, it was more then the remote. I'm sure lionel saved a bit of change going to a different board with different technology. I'm sure that was the main driving force to the change
The components to receive TMCC commands are maybe a couple of bucks at any level of production. Having a dual function of the radio and TMCC would not have been that big a deal.
As I said previously, I suspect this was really a marketing decision, they made a conscious choice to have a separate and incompatible system for the LC/LC+ line.
What John said.
MartyE posted:What John said.
Well, who know what comes in the feature. We talked about this at York last year Marty....I still think its one dumb decision.
Given lc+ was always touted as a stand alone system I don't understand why the legacy tmcc crowd feel left out or cheated by the introduction of lc+ engines by Lionel not being compatible with legacy or tmcc OS. It comes across as entitlement in some regards. It's like buying a new Samsung plasma TV in 2000 paying super premium $$$ for that technology and wanting an ongoing never ending upgrade in 2015 to 4k led smart TV because you bought a premium system at a premium price point at an earlier time when it was the best available product. But that technology has seen it's heyday long ago. Your system was the latest and greatest and you made a significant investment because it was premium at the time...but technology moves on and your plasma is outdated even though it still works great...just not in comparison to the new TV technology. Buying a premium system at a given point in time does not come with a guarantee that the system will always be forward compatible and won't go by the wayside at some future time.
I'm not sure they feel cheated but they do like the offerings and would rather be able to run them from one remote. Lionel built LC and LC= because everyone wanted easier and cheaper, now some want cheaper but the Legacy remote is ok now. That being said, my point is why start a whole new system when you probably could have made a simplified version that was cheaper and easier to operate but still forward compatible with Legacy. But each their own.
"That being said, my point is why start a whole new system when you probably could have made a simplified version that was cheaper and easier to operate but still forward compatible with Legacy. "
The point some of us have made is that to include a TMCC/Legacy "Light" handheld almost certainly would have been significantly more expensive than the LC/LC+ remotes, and that the TMCC/Legacy boards are much more expensive than LC/LC+ RF/motor control/sound boards. Designing a new TMCC/Legacy "Light" board would have been that much more expensive and was not a realistic option in all likelihood.
Once again LC/LC+ uses off the shelf components that likely costs pennies to a few dollars because they are made in the millions. This is not true of TMCC/Legacy components. Even a 10 or 20 dollar difference in manufacturing cost (just a guess) is very large in determining the retail price of a set or LC+ loco.
The assumption that Lionel chose to do this for marketing reasons and not for cost reasons is probably wrong, if not certainly wrong. It's almost certainly cost. Other explanations for designing a new system make no business sense. Cost and the fact that LC/LC+ are more robust and better radio frequency communication technology than TMCC or Legacy. LC/LC+ is a step forward, not backward, in terms of lower cost and greater reliability.
None of this means that a converter box to allow Legacy to control LC/LC+ locos isn't possible or perhaps even likely. Just not part of the initial marketing plan, which is only a few years old at present. With continuing success of LC/LC+ it is seems likely such a box is going to eventually be made available. Just not this year or next probably.
You're probably right. Since I use Legacy and really doesn't effect me I'll bow out of this discussion. We'll have to see what the future holds.
BOSTONPETE has a good argument. Listen, those of you who bought into the high end systems offered by Lionel did so consciously. Now you're alittle annoyed because a new easy to use system has been produced that essentially gives the operator everything he could ask for. Now your investment, in Legacy or whatever it's called, seems over the top.
Let those that want this new system have it as is. Why do you feel that it should be complicated with features the average operator doesn't need, want or even care to understand.
There is a similar argument going on in large scale. The track power and DCC guys are beating a dead horse. Battery power has all but eliminated any issues related to track power, Forever ! Yet the DCC guys get annoyed when battery users point out the benefits of it. It's the same argument. Track power is phasing out. Get over it.
Here we go again! G
Dan Padova posted:Listen, those of you who bought into the high end systems offered by Lionel did so consciously. Now you're alittle annoyed because a new easy to use system has been produced that essentially gives the operator everything he could ask for. Now your investment, in Legacy or whatever it's called, seems over the top.
Let those that want this new system have it as is. Why do you feel that it should be complicated with features the average operator doesn't need, want or even care to understand.
Get over it.
Well Dan I was going to depart but you made some very good points. Ones I have made since the beginning. Why does LC and LC+ have to be more than it is. I have no simplicity envy. To the contrary I am more than happy running Legacy. Not even close to being annoyed as I don't find Legacy complicated. My investment in Legacy is perfect as it is in DCS.
The problem is, there are many that do want to re-complicate the system that Lionel made for those demanding simplicity. My only point was if it were me I would have made LC a subset of TMCC. That was if a newbie does get a LC or LC+ engine and does move on to Legacy, he doesn't have an engine he can't use with is Legacy remote. While true he could still operate it on his layout. I suspect an easy to use, limited featured, TMCC compatible remote that looks and operartes just like a LC remote could have been made and the engines equipped with the limited functions of LC and LC+ at the same price point.
So there you have it. The only ones that seem to be upset are the ones actually buying LC and LC+ engines. Those of us who happy with Legacy mostly seem to speculate on how a bridge could be made. So Dan I agree, LC and LC+ folks should get over it. Lionel made what they asked for and they bought what they made. Now they want more. So JonZ said they are looking at but not promising a solution again to give the customer what they want.
It's all in the way one reads the thread. What I read was that TMCC people are disappointed that LC+ isn't compatible with TMCC. You interpreted it the other way. You have a point about the buyer wanting to move into TMCC and not being able to do so with his LC+ loco. Notice I said, move into, not upgrade to. There are those of us that still want simple and want to keep it all to ourselves.....LOL
Dan, Your posting on this subject and I am not sure you even understand what TMCC is or possibly how complicated or simple it really is. Boston Pete, and your statements are not even factual when you describe what folks have asked for here.
It has been an age old want for Command operators. A COMMON Remote/system to run all their trains. All this other hogwash about obsolete plasm TV and stuff does not apply. LEGACY is the premier system for Lionel.
The better analogy is you buy a premier TV and Entertainment system from Manufacture X. You love it, but than you buy the less expensive DVD player because you like it, meets a need, is different (you fill in reason). BUT you find out it doesn't function integrated with your new Top of the Line entertainment system. In fact the single remote that controls all your items doesn't even work with it? Hah, disappointment. That is all that folks are asking.
If you are on a computer on this forum, use a cell phone, or wireless phone in your house, your doing stuff far more complicated than a TMCC engine set up. It was born in the 90s.
So in the end, the LC+ is not a PW engine, plenty of integrate electronic in it. A few more buttons than a PW transformer.
I will leave the argument of how cost effective it would have been to accomplish to others, but the fact folks desire the capability should not be a reason to get upset.
Do like Mikey, give it a try, you might like it! G
I don't understand the concept of TMCC in LC/LC+
TMCC Legacy engines 455 KHZ
Cab-1 27 MHZ
Cab-2 2.4 GHZ
I don't know what frequency LC/LC+ uses, but for sure it won't be 455 KHZ. So, how are LC/LC+ going to be compatible with TMCC and Legacy without adding 455 KHZ radio to the LC/LC+ engines. That would defeat the point of low cost. Also. to be low cost, the command base cannot be required.
It would take a 'bridge unit" much like the Power Master Bridge.
MartyE posted:It would take a 'bridge unit" much like the Power Master Bridge.
That can be developed, but part of this discussion seem to suggest that "out of the box", LC/LC+ should have functioned with CAB-1 and CAB-2. If it takes an add on to accomplish this, then IMO, Lionel can introduce this when they want to. I may have read some of this wrong, but it seemed to me that there was a suggestion to somehow have these engines respond to CAB-1 and CAB-2 without adding a bridge. The phrase was TMCC lite.
Oman posted:MartyE posted:It would take a 'bridge unit" much like the Power Master Bridge.
The phrase was TMCC lite.
Yes I used that phrase. I always felt that lower end starter sets such as LC had a limited life because there was a limited path to advance into the next step of Lionel's Command System. Just a personal opinion which I'm sure many don't agree with. A system using the TMCC platform could have an easier path much like MTH DSC starter sets. Since Lionel didn't do this all the guessing is irrelevant. I'm sure there are reasons none of us are considering.
The system is in place as is so the only option at this time is a bridge. It will be up to Lionel or perhaps a 3rd party to do this. Moving on.
GGG, you are correct, I don't fully understand what TMCC really is. What little I know about it by reading postings led me to believe it's some sort of high tech system. So then, what is Legacy and is it part of the TMCC system ?
I am one of those who has a long learning curve when it comes to the new technology. I have a smart phone, that can do things I haven't dreamt of yet. I'm okay with computers as long as nothing goes wrong. I have a smart TV that I only use as a television.
So I go back to my original stand, those of us who want simple and want it to stay that way, LC+ is the answer. Just as those of us that run post-war trains, because they're simple.
We like things in our little world. And it's okay. We know one another there.
Still dealing with computer troubles so not online as much as I'd like. Missed this thread even though it is right up my alley.
The first thing to consider is that at any point that they chose to do so Lionel could release a TMCC/Legacy to LC/+/FlyerChief bridge and make plenty of money offering the device for $50-75. They already have access to the command protocol in use thus do not need to back door the system the way I have in my bridge. Also the Cab2 remote could probably be updated to directly control LC/+ engines with no intermediary device involved, as it communicates on the same frequencies as the LC system.
I managed to create such a device in my spare time in a matter of a few weeks, and the task would be much simpler if the actual data and radio protocol in use were available. You can look at that project Here:
and the discussion so far is here: https://ogrforum.com/t...-tmcc-is-it-possible I'm waiting on delivery of universal remotes before doing anything else with this project, however I've also been casually working on direct radio communication, but that is not going particularly well just yet.
As for talk of a TMCC lite product that runs on the same radio system, (455k using household ground plane, etc) I believe such a system would cost somewhat more that the tech used in LC/+, but not a huge sum more, perhaps adding $10 to the cost of an engine, but also requiring a base , similarly priced to a DCS remote commander, say $50. There are two problems I see with this. The first is that the cost of parts to make a TMCC lite system is almost identical to that of the standard TMCC system/Cab1L system in actual production cost. The only real difference is the number of buttons you would have, and using the (don't know the proper term) rubber film style of buttons that the cab one uses the cost per button is practically free... so in the end, if you have the equipment that is absolutely necessary to deliver even a single TMCC command, the additional cost to provide the full TMCC system is almost nothing.
The second issue is that the TMCC radio (Legacy uses the same radio) is obscenely obsolete, based on tech that reached it's height of usefulness in the late 1970's for house hold lighting control systems. I understand using the same system between TMCC and Legacy, to maintain compatibility, and because better (digital) radio systems were not quite cost effective at the time of development and release of Legacy. Given the high end nature of the Legacy product line, however, I don't think that using "expensive" 2.4 GHz radios would have been a bad move at the time to eliminate all the shortcomings of the TMCC radio system.
On the LC radio and electronics package, this is an insanely low cost system using an off the shelf radio module that, in quantity, costs under $0.50 each. The other components involved are likewise cheap and common. The remotes are even simpler, consisting of a radio module, microprocessor, voltage regulator, three buttons and a potentiometer. the whole package probably costs about $2 to make. All in all you've got under $10 in parts involved, AND the system is at least reasonably modern, using the same radios used in common WiFi and BlueTooth. The tech used in Lionchief/Plus is OBJECTIVELY superior to that used in TMCC/Legacy, (The fact that the system has less actual capability is programed in, not a limitation of the system its self.) and as such it is a smart choice to introduce a new product line using better technology. I do not expect that it even considered that the consumers of the original LC products might care about TMCC/Legacy, and as such building any compatibility was probably not even considered either. I'm sure things would have been done a bit differently had the demand from folks further into the hobby been predicted, but for an entry level product I think that LC+ addressed the biggest issues.
One other thing to consider is the marketing aspect. I don't see it as a good idea to allow Legacy to operate low end engines that have very limited capability in a market where most consumers are not knowledgable about the various levels of the product lines. What I mean here is that at a show or friends house someone might see a LC engine being controlled by Legacy and think that that is the limit of the legacy system. For marketing it is likely better that a legacy remote only controls higher end products.
I also don't think there is actually a very large demand for LC/+ to do much, if anything, more than it currently does, but folks would like to ALSO be able to control the engines from their 'control everything' remotes. As started with, this would be a feature that is easy for Lionel to provide, but if they don't I'm sure I'll find out just how much of a market there really is for such a thing.
JGL
so, a liitle confusing. The LC engines addressing can be changed? Is there a limit to addressing?
Assuming you are referring to the bridge device I built, Shawn, the device has the same limits as any TMCC/Legacy engine. From the remote this is 0-99/98. (Legacy, from what I understand reserves engine 99 to control all engines.) When using a PC link rather than the remote you can actually also use engine numbers 100-127 as well, the remote, however is limited to 2 digit addresses.
On the technical end, (for anyone that might care about such things) you are assigning an address to the bridge device, then the bridge talks to the LC engine. When the universal remote is delivered I'll be able to allow control over 3 engines as the remote will, each with its own programable TMCC address. Rather than flipping a run/program switch on the engine this switch (or button) will be on the bridge device.
I'm unsure at this time how the universal remote is programed for a particular engine, so that part of the system is yet to be developed, and I'm unsure how it will best be implemented.
As of the last information I have the universal remote is expected to be delivered some time this month. I do not know if that is still the case as the last time I looked the universal remote was no longer on the shipping schedule. I expect I'll have a working, multi engine, plug and play, prototype operational within a few weeks of the remote being delivered, and once that happens I'll post an update and see how it works. There are also a couple of components I'm looking to change between the first prototype and the next version to increase compatibility and to make the device more user friendly. I'm also unsure at this point if the device should be battery operated, use a wall-wart type supply, or be able to be powered from track power, and need to figure out what would be most convenient for folks. In addition, some of my code needs to be rewritten to run more efficiently.
JGL
Thinking more about this, for a starter set the TMCC lite is a non starter. Lionel wanted something that someone could run with a minimum amount of hardware. LC does that without a base. The only viable option is what John has produce, the bridge, between LC / LC+ and the TMCC world. The route Lionel took was probably the best. What they didn't anticipate was the popularity of the line with the established hobbyist.
GGG posted:Dan, Your posting on this subject and I am not sure you even understand what TMCC is or possibly how complicated or simple it really is. Boston Pete, and your statements are not even factual when you describe what folks have asked for here.
Actually I prefaced my post by stating Lionel always intended LC and LC+ to be stand alone systems, with no compatibility or integration into their premium CC systems. That being said, "some" legacy users seem to hold a different perspective. This thread is most certainly not the only thread on this or other forums where the CC crowd is voicing a desire for LC+ to be integrated into the other Lionel CC systems or asking why Lionel elected to go in a different direction with the LC+ operating system and technology. I can't speak for Lionel, but the bones of the LC+ radio technology is superior to legacy or TMCC, and the available functions are selectively limited by the manufacturer rather than by the actual operational potential or capacity of the technology itself.
It has been an age old want for Command operators. A COMMON Remote/system to run all their trains. All this other hogwash about obsolete plasm TV and stuff does not apply. LEGACY is the premier system for Lionel.
I understand and appreciate wanting a common operating system, but that doesn't mean others have to be denied a new system or chained to an older and possibly obsolete technology that has been long surpassed by superior technology, just because someone else may have a significant investment of time and money into an older "PREMIER" system. Lionel realizes this and when they decided to introduce a new moderately priced product they called LC/LC+, they went in a different direction with superior radio technology. Again, plasma replaced by OLED. TMCC came out in 1994, Legacy in 2006. What is the expected shelf like of technology these days...that of a banana some say. The average American household buys a new TV every 3 years. How long can Lionel be expected to continue to retrofit legacy? (LCS now with wifi).
The better analogy is you buy a premier TV and Entertainment system from Manufacture X. You love it, but than you buy the less expensive DVD player because you like it, meets a need, is different (you fill in reason). BUT you find out it doesn't function integrated with your new Top of the Line entertainment system. In fact the single remote that controls all your items doesn't even work with it? Hah, disappointment. That is all that folks are asking.
Actually if you are buying a premier modern entertainment system or smart 4k oled TV you may very likely not be purchasing an add-on DVD player. You would better advised to utilize the smart TV streaming capability or use the digital copies of your movies over wifi. If you're still thinking you need a DVD player as of today and going forward into tomorrow you might as well buy a betamax VCR to go along with that system as well
If you are on a computer on this forum, use a cell phone, or wireless phone in your house, your doing stuff far more complicated than a TMCC engine set up. It was born in the 90s.
So in the end, the LC+ is not a PW engine, plenty of integrate electronic in it. A few more buttons than a PW transformer.
Here is where the rubber meets the road so to speak. Lionel developed LC+ as an intermediate moderately based product. It was not intended to appeal to legacy users and I think both Lionel and some Legacy users themselves were surprised that these engines were so intriguing to that segment. The engines are traditional size for the most part, but with significant upgrades over entry level LC engines or previous conventional only or RTR engines (good sound and smoke features, good detail, cruise, speed steps, conventional AND remote operation, flickering firebox etc.) These are nice engines at a very reasonable price so I understand why a legacy user would say, "why can't this be offered as legacy or TMCC lite so I can have this nice engine as well". Here's as easy answer... you can...just put down the star trek inspired cab remote (looks like a tricorder from Star Trek...I kid you not, see attached pic)
Maybe the LC-legacy bridge will come...maybe it won't. Depends if Lionel wants to take a chance that previous Legacy customers "might" opt out for the lower priced moderate option rather than spending more $$$ on BTO and see decreased spending on their higher priced legacy based engines and products. Tough call on that one for Lionel...or not.
I will leave the argument of how cost effective it would have been to accomplish to others, but the fact folks desire the capability should not be a reason to get upset.
Do like Mikey, give it a try, you might like it!
Attachments
Images (1)
bostonpete posted:just put down the star trek inspired cab remote (looks like a tricorder from Star Trek...I kid you not, see attached pic)
I don't know I am more a TOS kinda guy.
I think one of the key words are "some" of Legacy Users. Or is it "some" of the LC / LC+ users? Either way only Lionel will be able to decide whether it's worth it. To me not so much as I'm pretty much fine with the Legacy offerings. I think your solution of grabbing the LC remote and moving on is probably the easiet route.
Attachments
Images (1)
