LionChief control from TMCC? Is it possible? (Yes, it is!)

Looks like a cool idea!

I'll add myself to the club of those who have essentially crossed Lionchief sets/engines off my list of potential purchases.

I've been looking over the RTR catalog, and there was at least one set I found that I might like to own, but the fact that it relies on the extra remote to work at all is a deal breaker for me.  Needing the remote that comes with the set is not attractive to me. 

Heck, I'd be OK if it even worked conventionally (I've bought several conventional starter sets over the years), but I believe that only works if it's a LC+, which most of the starter sets tend not to be.

-Dave

banjoflyer posted:

Dominic Mazoch posted:

The Fox Mulder in me is saying that L might have come up with a TMCC/L Bridge to LC.  But why? One L locomotive is 2-3X the cost of a LC/+ model.  

 

 

Look at this response as it says it all:

GREENRAILOGR FORUM MEMBER

55 MINUTES AGO

Something like this is definitely needed. It overcomes my barriers to ever considering any LionChief (+) line of product. Keep up the good work. I can only hope that the Lionel Folks are listening and can see the expanded value in such a product.

Like Reply (0 Likes)

 

For every one high dollar engine buyer there are probably 10X as many modest dollar engine buyers who then might invest in a Cab1L system to avoid using multiple remotes. And who knows...there are probably some Legacy buyers who have avoided the lower priced stuff as it wasn't compatible with the Legacy system. Now it could be. But you're probably right that Lionel will take a pass on this. They don't seem to poll the masses on what they want to buy.

Mark

I second your post......why would a company limit their sales via remote. Especially, when the new system was designed from ground up....I usually buy mid cost engines. But,do have a Micky mouse windup....

banjoflyer posted: 

For every one high dollar engine buyer there are probably 10X as many modest dollar engine buyers who then might invest in a Cab1L system to avoid using multiple remotes. And who knows...there are probably some Legacy buyers who have avoided the lower priced stuff as it wasn't compatible with the Legacy system. Now it could be. But you're probably right that Lionel will take a pass on this. They don't seem to poll the masses on what they want to buy.

Mark

Yup, I'll third the post.   It seems clear to me that this is correct - for every high dollar engine buyer there are 10X as many modest engine buyers who would go for a Cab 1L system to run LC+. Personally, I'd love to run LC+ with Legacy. And it's certainly true that there are Legacy buyers who have avoided LC+ because it can't be run with Legacy; in fact, numerous posters have said just that.

It points out what is obviously a huge need that a number of folks have talked about - for Lionel to make conventional trains that can be run with Legacy, not just LC controllers.

Remarkable work by JGL. If I were king, I'd lock JGL and GRJ in a room for a week and have them perfect this system to get it to market. No doubt a lot of them would be sold.

RTR12 and GRJ, Thanks for the articles to read,  actually cleared up a lot for me, so thanks.  As I've said before, I'm not a great programer, but am learning.  Using the interrupt timers looks like an option in the future.  

On the several comments to the effect of " lionel is dumb to not make LC compatible with Legacy": (It should go without saying that this is just my thoughts on the matter, I don't have a hotline to Lionel's management.)  I want to agree, but I can also understand the desire to not make them compatible.  

From a marketing stand point, you have two factors involved.  First, you will probably sell less legacy engines if your lower cost model becomes a possible choice.  Sure the legacy engines are far superior, but some folks just like running trains and don't get hung up on the details. If you can but a $350 strong runner, why spend $900 on the legacy version if you don't care about the extra features.  The second is that it is generally considered bad marketing to allow inferior products to work with your high end stuff.  As pure marketing, you wouldn't want someone new to pick up a legacy remote, then use it to control a LC engine that has such limited features.  After all, even LC+ has less functionality (Speed control excluded) than the earliest TMCC engines made over 20 years ago.  You don't want someone to get the impression that Legacy control is garbage because they are running a LC engine with it. Lets face it, LC+ is really good compared to conventional, but leaves a lot to be desired compared to Legacy.  

From a technological and economic stand point there are also hurdles that have to be jumped to have made LC/+ compatible from the start.  The first is that I imagine any consideration to make the original LC compatible with other systems was shot down due to choices to make it cheap and simple.  Once the simple, off the shelf, electronics were in use, there was no point in having to add a second radio system to allow legacy/tmcc operation.  

Sort of leaving this thought hanging now, because I have to head out the door...

JGL

I think you stated the case very well.

I agree, well stated. If you don't have a hotline, must be telepathic (or whatever they call thought transfer without a hotline).

OK you guys are starting to give me a headache, Please somebody sell me a bridge so I can play with my  trains.

gg1man posted:

OK you guys are starting to give me a headache, Please somebody sell me a bridge so I can play with my  trains.

I appreciate this comment a lot more than I can show.  At the moment I don't have a marketable product, as the current version requires opening up your current LC/+ remotes, which is beyond what most folks are going to want to do.  I'm going to work on decoding the 2.4GHz signal some more, and if I can figure that out, I'll have a better option available.  If I can't figure that out, I'll be depending on the electronics of the Universal Remote to talk to engines, and that will require them to be available for purchase.  In either case, I'll be looking to have something other folks can use in 4-6 months... Probably need to talk to the Ad Man before then if I want to use the forum for such things.  So far there are only a few people that have shown an interest in purchasing a Bridge device, so I do not know if it will be worthwhile to make many of them just yet.  

I also appreciate the technical discussions as they help me better understand how to improve things.  I haven't gotten any comments on any flaws in my execution yet, which I'll take as having done something right, but if there is anything I did wrong, or should change, I'd like to hear it, so I can make any needed changes.  

JGL

From my looking at the video, the execution looked pretty good, I suspect we'll just have to have a prototype before we can comment further.

JohnGaltLine posted:

RTR12 and GRJ, Thanks for the articles to read,  actually cleared up a lot for me, so thanks.  As I've said before, I'm not a great programer, but am learning.  Using the interrupt timers looks like an option in the future.  

On the several comments to the effect of " lionel is dumb to not make LC compatible with Legacy": (It should go without saying that this is just my thoughts on the matter, I don't have a hotline to Lionel's management.)  I want to agree, but I can also understand the desire to not make them compatible.  

From a marketing stand point, you have two factors involved.  First, you will probably sell less legacy engines if your lower cost model becomes a possible choice.  Sure the legacy engines are far superior, but some folks just like running trains and don't get hung up on the details. If you can but a $350 strong runner, why spend $900 on the legacy version if you don't care about the extra features.  The second is that it is generally considered bad marketing to allow inferior products to work with your high end stuff.  As pure marketing, you wouldn't want someone new to pick up a legacy remote, then use it to control a LC engine that has such limited features.  After all, even LC+ has less functionality (Speed control excluded) than the earliest TMCC engines made over 20 years ago.  You don't want someone to get the impression that Legacy control is garbage because they are running a LC engine with it. Lets face it, LC+ is really good compared to conventional, but leaves a lot to be desired compared to Legacy.  

From a technological and economic stand point there are also hurdles that have to be jumped to have made LC/+ compatible from the start.  The first is that I imagine any consideration to make the original LC compatible with other systems was shot down due to choices to make it cheap and simple.  Once the simple, off the shelf, electronics were in use, there was no point in having to add a second radio system to allow legacy/tmcc operation.  

Sort of leaving this thought hanging now, because I have to head out the door...

JGL

 

JGL

I can see that line of thinking up to a point. Vertical integration of the systems would be very beneficial. I know this is a questionable metaphor, but, "Kind of like a gateway drug."

Providing the ability to move up in the system is something lacking here. Two completely different remote systems produces an impediment to one starting out in the hobby.

Not being an MTH expert, but, are their basic sets not vertically integrated into the DCS system? The sets I have seen at the LHS, have a basic DCS remote that allows operation in the DCS system, without all the bells and whistles. This allows a starter in the hobby to aspire into bigger and better products.

Personally, my thinking is Lionel would have been wise to produce a basic system that would have fully integrated into the Legacy/TMCC system, allowing newcomers to move up in the product line. I for one am really turned off by the thought of having another "Remote" for operating trains. (See use of Cable, Bu-Ray, DVR, Surround Sound remotes on your coffee table) It's why my Wife won't turn on the whole system to watch a movie in my house.

Same principle applies here. This divergence of technologies is frustrating and pushes on to consider the competition as a result.

You're looking at it from the perspective of someone that already has TMCC/Legacy, the target market for these products is folks that are just starting out.  I don't preclude Lionel from perhaps making a bridge product sometime in the future, but I also don't think it's likely to happen any time soon.  I suspect a vast majority of LC purchasers will never have TMCC/Legacy, and that's the market Lionel is after.

Personally I do not "get" the resistance to having a second remote that is essentially without additional expense.  LC and LC+ locos are less expensive at retail prices than other command locos by any manufacture, in general, and you get a remote with every loco.  If the idea of a second remote is OK, but a third remote makes you break out in a cold sweat, the new three loco universal LC/LC+ remote (about $40) later this year should save your anti-perspirant costs somewhat .  Most of us like having the idea of a backup remote or remotes in any case.  Particularly if we're taking it a demo or train show where the public will be getting their tiny little sticky hands on it.

That said, I will be happy to have a bridge so a Legacy remote (which I do not yet own) or Cab-1 can operate a LC/LC+ loco.  That seems to be what some are insisting on, for reasons that remain mysterious to me.  I presume a bridge that allows your LC+ remote to operate TMCC/Legacy locos will also be favorably received.  Put me down for #4 or 5, or wherever we are in the priority list JGL.

"The sets I have seen at the LHS, have a basic DCS remote that allows operation in the DCS system, without all the bells and whistles. This allows a starter in the hobby to aspire into bigger and better products. Personally, my thinking is Lionel would have been wise to produce a basic system that would have fully integrated into the Legacy/TMCC system, allowing newcomers to move up in the product line."

The MTH starter sets are command ready, but not command capable without purchase of DCS (about $300).  This is a much bigger obstacle to a beginner operating two trains independently than LC and LC+ not being operable by the Legacy system.  You'll also need a second DCS remote ($150) to get equivalent functionality to a Lionel set and LC+ separate sale loco.  If you buy two MTH sets or a set and a Railking or Premier loco, you do not have command control quite yet, not without DCS.  You have two locos that cannot be operated simultaneously and independently, except in conventional mode on separate loops or blocks.  In addition, by having the more capable PS3 loco in every starter set, MTH has upped the price by about $100 or more at retail beyond a typical Lionel set, which is not trivial when you're talking to folks just starting out.

Lionel's strategy is to have two levels of command control:  LC/LC+ and Legacy.  The first (LC) comes with each starter set and gives you independent control of the loco in any setting: conventional/Legacy/DCS.  These starter sets have been priced at retail as low as $100-150, which is perhaps half the price of the typical equivalent MTH set.  The MTH set admittedly also includes higher quality locos and rolling stock.  But the price of Lionel can be much more beginner friendly.  And the locos will operate on a command layout without additional expense. 

Should you buy a LC+ loco, no additional expense is required for independent control of your starter set LC loco and your LC+ loco, compared with $300 for DCS for the MTH starter set and RailKing purchase.  And you still only have one remote of any utility.  So in practice, you can acquire two Lionel remotes and two locos capable of command operation for about $500-600 or less.  This compares with a starter set (say $300) from MTH, a RailKing Loco (say $250), DCS ($300) and an additional DCS handheld remote ($150) for a grand total of $1,000 or so.  True, the MTH stuff will be, on average, higher quality equipment.  As it should be for double the price.  But the realities of play value vs. market price seem remarkably in Lionel's favor in this analysis, at least to me.  Worrying about whether Legacy owners will object to having a free remote or two in a LC+ purchase seems peripheral to their goal of providing command control at modest prices to the beginner to intermediate consumer.

Making a bridge device so that someone with Legacy can control a LC/LC+ loco seems inevitable, but not part of the original startup of this new line. 

John,  This is truly amazing what you have developed. I take my hat off to you, and i will stay tuned as you make more progress on this fantastic idea.

Thanks for posting,

Alex