LionChief control from TMCC? Version 2.0 - More questions (Updated 5-27-18)

Well, 24 engines are certainly sufficient for simultaneous control!   For a $10-$15 difference, I'd go for the higher amount of possible engines.

As for the target price, I'd just figure the costs and your desired markup and float a trial balloon.  You could do what I'll be doing this summer with the TMCC Buffer that I'm finally getting back to, make it a BTO project and take deposits.

Great work John!

 However, I thought the concept behind Lionchief was a more simple control system for those who felt the TMCC/Legacy remotes were too complicated?

The majority of Lionchief locos were previously offered with TMCC and Railsounds years ago.

No rant, just a little irony here.

 Now, create a DCS bridge, that will operate MTH locos in DCS mode from my Legacy handheld and I'm in, money in hand.

I don't see the reason to do this. The people who buy lion chief locomotives are not going buy any type of upgrade to run them with tmcc/legacy.

i think your barking up the wrong tree, but hey what do I know. 

Dave

gunrunnerjohn posted:

...As for the target price, I'd just figure the costs and your desired markup and float a trial balloon.  You could do what I'll be doing this summer with the TMCC Buffer that I'm finally getting back to, make it a BTO project and take deposits.

Thanks for the input.  On the pricing I kinda have a target in mind that I think is right on the edge of what I, as a cheapskate, would ever consider, but it's the lowest I can manage given having one exceptionally expensive part that is required.  I don't want to infulence the input by saying my expected cost yet, just want to see if what people are willing to pay will cover the cost of parts or not.  

RickO posted:

Great work John!

 However, I thought the concept behind Lionchief was a more simple control system for those who felt the TMCC/Legacy remotes were too complicated?

The majority of Lionchief locos were previously offered with TMCC and Railsounds years ago.

No rant, just a little irony here.

 

 Now, create a DCS bridge, that will operate MTH locos in DCS mode from my Legacy handheld and I'm in, money in hand.

This is intended only for the people that want to run LC/+ from TMCC/Legacy/(DCS)  The discussion over if people want that is something else entirely, and well covered in many other threads over the last several years.  I'm not looking to get side tracked on if such a product should exist, but rather what form it should take to be the most useful and cost effective for those that would use it.  

As for the DCS bridge, there isn't really any technical limitation to doing this, other than perhaps the two remotes not having corresponding keys for some functions.  The real limiting faction is one company's refusal to provide any information on their proprietary system, and their penchant for suing folks that do any modification to or make compatible products for their system.  I dare not even say the name of the company for fear of a law suit.  

for those that use the Wifi systems, I am VERY surprised someone hasn't yet developed an app that combines those of the two main systems, allowing one app to offer full functionality for both systems.  I expect it has more to do with a reasonable fear of lawsuits than it does anything else.  

As a side note, if you do own a DCS system, but not a TMCC or Legacy system, the LionChief bridge should work from the DCS base as well, using TMCC commands without the need for a TMCC/Legacy system.  

JGL

david1 posted:

I don't see the reason to do this. The people who buy lion chief locomotives are not going buy any type of upgrade to run them with tmcc/legacy.

i think your barking up the wrong tree, but hey what do I know. 

Dave

See above, and previous thread linked above.  It's for the people that want it, not those that don't.  

If this were made I would buy one. Pricing will be at something above your cost, whatever that works out to be. I am less sensitive to price than many others provided the device does every time what it is supposed to do. I have a Legacy/LCS controlled layout and would like to be able to operate the FlyerChief engines with the Cab 2 and have them show up on the LCS engine roster. DCS is not of concern to me since there is only one S gauge engine made with DCS.

As far as testing, the LCS needs to be included. I have 37 LCS modules interconnected by 231 feet of DB-9 cables. The signal loss was so large in the system Lionel had to custom make 3 signal amplifiers to add into the system to get it to work. Any additional signal loss would be a problem for me. If a "wye" connection feature could be incorporated that would be really useful for layouts like mine (modular) where all the LCS components cannot be mounted at a central location.

I would prefer any required programming be done from the Cab 2. I have no control panel, only an iPad, 2 Cab 2's and 2 iPhones. The bridge would be in a relatively inaccessible spot under my layout.

I would settle for 3 engines, be happy with 6 and likely never use 12. But I am an S gauger, we have only about 1/100th of the engines available from Lionel as the O gauger's have!

$40, about the same as the universal LC remote that can control at least 3 engines. Buttons/switches not necessary if the Cab remote will handle the programming. Make SURE part of the design silences that periodic chirping for all LC engines that are powered up but not receiving a signal. Having to turn on all your LC remotes after powering up the track to stop that stupid noise is inconvenient at best.

JohnGaltLine posted:

 

 

That was then.  At this time I'm working on designing a bridge that could actually be sold to the public at large.  To that end I have some questions for the folks that would have an interest in a product that lets them control LionChief/+/FlyerChief engines from their TMCC or Legacy remote.  

The questions I need a consensus on before advancing in development are as follows:  

1. What is the price point people would find reasonable for this product?  In the simplest implementation I can do right now the bridge would allow control of up to three LC/+ locomotives from your Cab1/2.  the hardware needed to accomplish that, however leaves plenty of room for expandability.  to that end... 

2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  I am not entirely certain, but expect that it would add around $10 to the cost to provide for expandability.  In exchange it will cost about half as much as the first bridge to add another module to control three more engines.  

3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed.  I won't know for sure until the code is written, but may run into other issues with a single master device controlling so many engines.  Would a unit that can only be expanded to control 12, or 6 total engines be acceptable?  

4.  Are tactile, physical buttons and switches on the device for programing preferred or wanted?  The implementation i'm currently working with uses the cab1/2 remote for most programing with perhaps 2 buttons on the bridge it's self.  Do people prefer to use buttons or switches on the bridge to program it, or is it ok to program from the Cab remote?

5.  Is there anyone in the Metro Detroit area that has a functional layout  with Legacy AND LCS that might be willing to volunteer some time to help do some testing to insure the bridge is fully compatible with those systems?  (DCS as well  would be nice.)  It is my intention for the bridge to be installed with the 9-pin serial port on the command base, and for any additional serial devices to then plug into a second serial port on the bridge device.  I can think of no reason this won't work, but need to test it.  It would also be nice to test the bridge with Legacy and DCS for compatibility.  Once any obvious bugs are worked out, I'll probably look for a couple "beta testers" to try the device on their layouts.  

I'm sure I'll have more questions, or forgot some of the ones I was thinking of and will add them, but thanks for whatever input can be offered.  

JGL

 

1. Cost plus profit.  $50 (3-6 locos) - $100 (24 Loco)

2. Yes

3. 24 would be fine

4. Prefer Tactical buttons but if it is easy to use with the Legacy remote that would be fine.

5. Live in Salem ,Oregon, but I would be willing to be a beta tester. I currently only have one Lion Chief Plus loco, but also have a Legacy system.

AmFlyer posted:

I have a Legacy/LCS controlled layout and would like to be able to operate the FlyerChief engines with the Cab 2 and have them show up on the LCS engine roster. 

As far as testing, the LCS needs to be included. I have 37 LCS modules interconnected by 231 feet of DB-9 cables. The signal loss was so large in the system Lionel had to custom make 3 signal amplifiers to add into the system to get it to work. Any additional signal loss would be a problem for me. If a "wye" connection feature could be incorporated that would be really useful for layouts like mine (modular) where all the LCS components cannot be mounted at a central location.

In the implementation I have working, any engines would appear as TMCC equipped engines, though they would only have the level of functionality offered by LC or LC+

My intention is to have serial communication provided by an industry standard part, so I expect it's output level would be similar to a Legacy base.  There is nothing stopping someone from placing the device at the end of the line with a SER2 serial module, but my hope was to keep people from having to buy that module if possible to connect the bridge.  

(as a side it might be worth while to look into RS-232 to RS-485 converters and run you long cable over RS-485.  I don't know how much a ready made solution costs, but the parts would cost around $10 per cable.  RS-485 is designed to work properly over hundreds of meters.  

AmFlyer posted:

I would prefer any required programming be done from the Cab 2. I have no control panel, only an iPad, 2 Cab 2's and 2 iPhones. The bridge would be in a relatively inaccessible spot under my layout.

I expect even if buttons/switches are offered, there will be an option from the remote as well, though it may be more complex/cumbersome.

Doug Kinsman posted:

Make SURE part of the design silences that periodic chirping for all LC engines that are powered up but not receiving a signal. Having to turn on all your LC remotes after powering up the track to stop that stupid noise is inconvenient at best.

There is nothing that can be done to actually "fix" the chirping without replacing the electronics in the engine, however the bridge would remain connected to any engines, acting just like a remote that is turned on.  

Thanks for the input so far.  

1. What is the price point people would find reasonable for this product?  

$50-100 is fine by me.  That said, even more would not be a hindrance for many of us, myself included.  It's a one time purchase.

2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  

I would say yes.  But not essential if keeping costs down is the main goal.

3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed. 

I would think 5-10 would be more than enough for most people. 24 should meet almost anyone's needs.

4.  Are tactile, physical buttons and switches on the device for programing preferred or wanted?  The implementation i'm currently working with uses the cab1/2 remote for most programing with perhaps 2 buttons on the bridge it's self.  Do people prefer to use buttons or switches on the bridge to program it, or is it ok to program from the Cab remote?

Program from remote, which is obviously owned by anyone who would be interested in the device.  No need to duplicate features.

Thanks for doing this.  I would think Lionel ultimately might want to buy the concept from you the way they did with Jon Z. and ERR, once you've put in the initial hard work .  Clearly something they logically should be considering at some point.

As I understand it, with Legacy, it can be set up to run everything you have, except Lionchief. So, yeah it sounds like something people would buy. 

As to price, what does it cost to add conventional running to an all Legacy layout?That might be a starting place.

JohnGaltLine posted:

Doug Kinsman posted:

Make SURE part of the design silences that periodic chirping for all LC engines that are powered up but not receiving a signal. Having to turn on all your LC remotes after powering up the track to stop that stupid noise is inconvenient at best.

There is nothing that can be done to actually "fix" the chirping without replacing the electronics in the engine, however the bridge would remain connected to any engines, acting just like a remote that is turned on.  

Thanks for the input so far.  

I didn't say fix it (in the sense it is permanently turned off), just stop it. If the bridge is continuously communicating with the engines it should stop the noise and would be a welcome addition to my layout. Good luck with the development.

JohnGaltLine posted:

The questions I need a consensus on before advancing in development are as follows:  

1. What is the price point people would find reasonable for this product?  In the simplest implementation I can do right now the bridge would allow control of up to three LC/+ locomotives from your Cab1/2.  the hardware needed to accomplish that, however leaves plenty of room for expandability.  to that end...

$75-$100 seems quite reasonable, especially if it controlled more than three locomotives.  Hell, even it it only did three I think that would be OK.

2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  I am not entirely certain, but expect that it would add around $10 to the cost to provide for expandability.  In exchange it will cost about half as much as the first bridge to add another module to control three more engines.

For $10-$15, this is a no-brainer for me, I'd add the functionality.  Why limit yourself to somewhat of a kludge to do it in pieces?

3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed.  I won't know for sure until the code is written, but may run into other issues with a single master device controlling so many engines.  Would a unit that can only be expanded to control 12, or 6 total engines be acceptable?  

I would think 12 would be more than sufficient, and 6 would be probably good enough for 99% of the intended audience.

4.  Are tactile, physical buttons and switches on the device for programing preferred or wanted?  The implementation i'm currently working with uses the cab1/2 remote for most programing with perhaps 2 buttons on the bridge it's self.  Do people prefer to use buttons or switches on the bridge to program it, or is it ok to program from the Cab remote?

I'd minimize the buttons on the device if at all possible.  Why complicate the build, it's probably far easier to do it with the CAB remote.

Controlling a LionChief loco from a TMCC remote would be interesting, but would be technologically comparable to putting a gas engine in a Tesla.

I,d be interest in a 24 LC model. I have 1 LC and and 10 LC+ engines now. 

I want to make sure I understand this part, because I don't think people are accounting for the total cost properly if I read the original proposed trade for adding more engines (I'm not picking on either John quoted below, just think I am reading it differently than they are):  

(though it's of course possible I'm reading it wrong too....)

JohnGaltLine posted:

.........................

2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  I am not entirely certain, but expect that it would add around $10 to the cost to provide for expandability.  In exchange it will cost about half as much as the first bridge to add another module to control three more engines.  

3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed.  I won't know for sure until the code is written, but may run into other issues with a single master device controlling so many engines.  Would a unit that can only be expanded to control 12, or 6 total engines be acceptable?  

.....................................

JGL

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Well, 24 engines are certainly sufficient for simultaneous control!   For a $10-$15 difference, I'd go for the higher amount of possible engines..................

John Graser posted:

1. Cost plus profit.  $50 (3-6 locos) - $100 (24 Loco)

................................

Let me throw together a theoretical cost (using nice numbers to make the math simple).  The $100 several have proposed seems fine to me, and I wouldn't probably find it necessary to run more than 3 or maybe worst case 6 LC+ engines at once.

So lets say a basic unit without the expandability would be $90.  If it adds $10 to get the expandability, you get $100 for the master that does 3 engines.  If I want more than 3 engines, I need to buy a new module for every 3 engines, each at half the cost ($50) of the master.

So if I want to control 6, I'd spend $150 (master plus an extra module), 9 would be $200 (master plus 2 extra modules), 12 would be $250 (master plus 3 extra modules)..... and 24 would be $450 (master plus seven extra modules).

JGL, do I have it right?  (again, just the breakdown, I know the actual price is not set yet).

Even though I'm probably interested in only controlling a small number of engines, I would not let a small delta in the basic master unit price dissuade me form purchasing.  I'm all for the expandability for those who desire it, even if I may not ever go beyond the master unit myself.  (i.e., I'm not about to suggest I'd buy it at $90, but change my mind to no at $100, or whatever the actual is - that small delta is inconsequential in my mind for the master unit)

-Dave

I would purchase your proposed product. I don’t care what it costs. Great idea!  I Don’t like the cheap LC remotes. The way you are implementing it, I could also likely be able to control LC engines from the MTH DCS app too. Finally, everything controlled from one app.  

Dave45681 posted:

ISo lets say a basic unit without the expandability would be $90.  If it adds $10 to get the expandability, you get $100 for the master that does 3 engines.  If I want more than 3 engines, I need to buy a new module for every 3 engines, each at half the cost ($50) of the master.

So if I want to control 6, I'd spend $150 (master plus an extra module), 9 would be $200 (master plus 2 extra modules), 12 would be $250 (master plus 3 extra modules)..... and 24 would be $450 (master plus seven extra modules).

JGL, do I have it right?  (again, just the breakdown, I know the actual price is not set yet).

I think you have it wrong Dave.  I'm pretty sure he was talking $10-15 to the base cost to allow for control of more than 3 engines, but it would be built into the cost of every unit. 

An alternative design was to save the $10-15 and simply stack more controllers on to the base configuration.  I believe the whole point was trying to come in as low as possible or adding a small cost for the version that handles a lot more locomotives.  My take is I'd simply go with the simpler option, even though it's slightly more expensive out of the box as it's far cheaper in the long run if you run more than three at the same time. 

I'm sure JGL will chime in and let us know who's right.

GVDobler posted:

As to price, what does it cost to add conventional running to an all Legacy layout?That might be a starting place.

A Legacy PowerMaster is the product currently available that would do this.  The MSRP is a hundred bucks with retailers often selling for about $75. The power master would allow conventional running of a single track, eliminating several features from LC+ locomotives in the process as well as hindering running TMCC/Legacy engines on the same track.  It may also require rewiring and track work on layouts build for strictly command operation.  All told several hundred dollars to run 3 LionChief Plus engines independently, albeit on isolated tracks from each other.  Also regular LionChief engines can not be run conventionally at all.  

Landsteiner posted:

Thanks for doing this.  I would think Lionel ultimately might want to buy the concept from you the way they did with Jon Z. and ERR, once you've put in the initial hard work .  Clearly something they logically should be considering at some point.

Yeah, that'd be nice... but it's unlikely to happen in my estimation.  Lionel already has everything they need to make a better bridge and make it cheaper than I could.  It's just barely possible that they could add this function with as little as a n update to the Legacy firmware and universal remote firmware.  It depends on the technical limitations of the universal remote and legacy remote's hardware.  If the legacy system's 2.4GHz radio can be programed to talk to more than one receiver, it should be possible.  Maybe not likely at this time, but possible.  

Doug Kinsman posted:

I didn't say fix it (in the sense it is permanently turned off), just stop it. If the bridge is continuously communicating with the engines it should stop the noise and would be a welcome addition to my layout. Good luck with the development.

The bridge will operate just as if it was a remote in this regard.  When the bridge is turned on it will connect to any LC+ engines it has previously been paired with.  

BOB WALKER posted:

Controlling a LionChief loco from a TMCC remote would be interesting, but would be technologically comparable to putting a gas engine in a Tesla.

Actually not so much in this case.  Maybe more like building a Chevy Volt, the best parts of both.  The bridge removes the obsolete part of the TMCC/Legacy system, the track signal.  the actual command structure of even TMCC provides much more information than LC/+  the digital radio is capable of much more, but so is the multi-word command structure of Legacy.  Legacy talking through digital radio would offer limitless options, even more so with LCS and a touch device that lets you put whatever controls you like on the display.  

I am taking notes of the things I'm not directly responding to, typically folks actually answering the questions I posed.  I'll respond to those more when I have more data.  

I will add this information about projected costs.  The current implementation involves dissecting a Universal remote, and as such I have to buy one for every 3 engines controlled, at about $40 minimum each.  

I'm wondering if it might be best to offer two options. One, a non-expandable bare bones, stripped down of everything I can get away with, that will work for folks without complex layouts, or don't mind spending $40 for a SER2 if they want to use it with LCS, and such. The second with expandability and the serial ports needed, etc. I might be able to get away with a much less expensive microprocessor if it only has to manage 3 LC engines, and the single serial port.  Of course for the $10 in parts savings on my end, folks will have to spend $40 on a ser2 if they have LCS or something else plugged into the serial port on their base.  

I'd like to provide as many options as possible, but all those $2 here and $3 there add up after a while.  

Adding another question, is it reasonable to have a "programing address" for the bridge it's self?  ex having to access accessory #99 to enter program mode for the bridge then enter some series of button presses to set the ENG address for each of the three LC/+ engines?

Again, thanks for the information so far.  

JGL

Dave45681 posted:

Let me throw together a theoretical cost (using nice numbers to make the math simple).  The $100 several have proposed seems fine to me, and I wouldn't probably find it necessary to run more than 3 or maybe worst case 6 LC+ engines at once.

So lets say a basic unit without the expandability would be $90.  If it adds $10 to get the expandability, you get $100 for the master that does 3 engines.  If I want more than 3 engines, I need to buy a new module for every 3 engines, each at half the cost ($50) of the master.

So if I want to control 6, I'd spend $150 (master plus an extra module), 9 would be $200 (master plus 2 extra modules), 12 would be $250 (master plus 3 extra modules)..... and 24 would be $450 (master plus seven extra modules).

JGL, do I have it right?  (again, just the breakdown, I know the actual price is not set yet).

Even though I'm probably interested in only controlling a small number of engines, I would not let a small delta in the basic master unit price dissuade me form purchasing.  I'm all for the expandability for those who desire it, even if I may not ever go beyond the master unit myself.  (i.e., I'm not about to suggest I'd buy it at $90, but change my mind to no at $100, or whatever the actual is - that small delta is inconsequential in my mind for the master unit)

-Dave

 

 

You have it right.  Sorry if I didn't explain it properly.  My major cost at this point is that I have to rip apart a Universal remote for every 3 engines you want to control.  I'm still working on ways to get around this, but have been unable to do so yet and don't have the connections I would need, nor want to deal with any legal issues from bootlegging the code in the remote.  If at some future date I'm better able to get around the cost of a universal remote I will, but as of right now, that is a cost I'm stuck with.  

That said, 3 engines might be enough for many people, even those that own many more.  After all, if they are just turning on the trains for a display or open house or such, they can still use the original remotes to have the engines running in circles.  on the other hand I'm planning on one or two button presses to pair a new engine to an address, so you could park one engine on a siding, turn it off and turn on another siding, then repair the second engine, swapping between engines for whichever three you want to control at once.  

"Adding another question, is it reasonable to have a "programing address" for the bridge it's self?  ex having to access accessory #99 to enter program mode for the bridge then enter some series of button presses to set the ENG address for each of the three LC/+ engines?"

Not a big issue I'd guess.  Once the engine is programmed in, you're done.  For example, programming a TMCC engine with the cab-1 required a bunch of similar steps and it was not a problem that anyone complained about.

GregR posted:

I would purchase your proposed product. I don’t care what it costs. Great idea!  I Don’t like the cheap LC remotes. The way you are implementing it, I could also likely be able to control LC engines from the MTH DCS app too. Finally, everything controlled from one app.  

If the cable to connect a TIU to a TMCC/Legacy Command base works the way I believe it does, this should work, assuming you can control TMCC engines from the DCS app.  I'm woefully uninformed on the current state of the DCS product line as I've gotten negative pushback every time I've looked into it.  As someone that likes tinkering and modifying things, Lionel offers a much better platform and friendly environment to work with.  

JGL, thank you for considering making this product available for sale and for the thoughtful and complete answers to all the comments. In response to your most recent question, I could live with a 3 engine version provided it had all the control features in the iPhone Bluetooth app. I would pay for whatever option was the easiest to use and best integrated into the Cab 2. 

I currently run the FlyerChief engines on my Legacy layout using the Bluetooth app, not the Lionel controllers. The layout has 8 power districts supplied from 2 ZW-L’s. Conventional running is trivially simple, the track voltage in any power district is controlled directly from the Cab 2 but I do not run the FlyerChief engines in conventional mode. 

If you need to use the insides of universal remote maybe we could buy part from you and install it. I myself already have uv remote. 

AmFlyer posted:

JGL, thank you for considering making this product available for sale and for the thoughtful and complete answers to all the comments. In response to your most recent question, I could live with a 3 engine version provided it had all the control features in the iPhone Bluetooth app. I would pay for whatever option was the easiest to use and best integrated into the Cab 2. 

I currently run the FlyerChief engines on my Legacy layout using the Bluetooth app, not the Lionel controllers. The layout has 8 power districts supplied from 2 ZW-L’s. Conventional running is trivially simple, the track voltage in any power district is controlled directly from the Cab 2 but I do not run the FlyerChief engines in conventional mode. 

In any form the actual control of the engines will workjust as if they were standard TMCC engines from the point of view of control, once the initial setup is done.  if you can do it now with a TMCC engine, the controls will be the same for the lion Chief engine with some caveats.  The functionality will be limited by the hardware in the LC/FlyerChief engines.  There are only 16 speed steps in each direction, Whistle, Bell, crew announcements, front and rear couplers if equipped, and the ability to adjust the volume of sounds (when in neutral).  Features like turning on and off the smoke unit or head light are not available because Lion/flyer chief doesn't support it. 

Oley Valley Rail posted:

If you need to use the insides of universal remote maybe we could buy part from you and install it. I myself already have uv remote. 

I am open to this idea, but am not sure how many folks are comfortable dissembling their remotes, desoldering parts and soldering in others, and in the process making the remote unusable as it's original form.  (Instructions could be provided on how to retain original function for the remote, but it makes things even more complex.)  I wouldn't mind making a "build it yourself" kit for a reduced price, but think that shouldn't be my primary goal at this point.  Perhaps I could offer a "trade-in" discount, where you send me a working universal remote for a $40 discount or some such.  As another thought I could also provide the instructions to modify a remote for the ability to expand the "base" for more locomotives. The main product I'm interested in selling is the code running on the microprocessor.  The rest is just a way for the average person to be able to use it.  That said, Time is money and I need to make something for spending an hour soldering a board together and assembling everything.  I happen to have time in the spring where I'm only working 3-4 days a week in my regular job.  On the other hand from October-February I work 7 days a week with maybe 10 days off through the entire stretch.  

JGL

JohnGaltLine posted:

 

The questions I need a consensus on before advancing in development are as follows:  

1. What is the price point people would find reasonable for this product?  In the simplest implementation I can do right now the bridge would allow control of up to three LC/+ locomotives from your Cab1/2.  the hardware needed to accomplish that, however leaves plenty of room for expandability.  to that end...

I could handle around $100

2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  I am not entirely certain, but expect that it would add around $10 to the cost to provide for expandability.  In exchange it will cost about half as much as the first bridge to add another module to control three more engines.  

I would pay the extra cost for future expansion (although I could see myself never expanding)

3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed.  I won't know for sure until the code is written, but may run into other issues with a single master device controlling so many engines.  Would a unit that can only be expanded to control 12, or 6 total engines be acceptable?  

I honestly think I would be fine with 3, but sometimes you just don't know until you know.  I like the idea of expanding to as many as possible (cause odds are someone will complain if you don't  

4.  Are tactile, physical buttons and switches on the device for programing preferred or wanted?  The implementation i'm currently working with uses the cab1/2 remote for most programing with perhaps 2 buttons on the bridge it's self.  Do people prefer to use buttons or switches on the bridge to program it, or is it ok to program from the Cab remote?

CAB remote is perfect.

5.  Is there anyone in the Metro Detroit area that has a functional layout  with Legacy AND LCS that might be willing to volunteer some time to help do some testing to insure the bridge is fully compatible with those systems?  (DCS as well  would be nice.)  It is my intention for the bridge to be installed with the 9-pin serial port on the command base, and for any additional serial devices to then plug into a second serial port on the bridge device.  I can think of no reason this won't work, but need to test it.  It would also be nice to test the bridge with Legacy and DCS for compatibility.  Once any obvious bugs are worked out, I'll probably look for a couple "beta testers" to try the device on their layouts.  

cant help here, wrong state 

I'm sure I'll have more questions, or forgot some of the ones I was thinking of and will add them, but thanks for whatever input can be offered.  

JGL

 

Nice to see you getting this up an running again.  

JohnGaltLine posted:

 

The questions I need a consensus on before advancing in development are as follows:  

1. What is the price point people would find reasonable for this product?  In the simplest implementation I can do right now the bridge would allow control of up to three LC/+ locomotives from your Cab1/2.  the hardware needed to accomplish that, however leaves plenty of room for expandability.  to that end...

I would think this would have to retail for about $150 on the high end.  I think I'm probably the one with the highest guestimate but your time and effort are worth more than some give you credit for.  Plus this is a nice addition for those wanting to run LC and LC+ from TMCC.  I think they'll pay.

2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  I am not entirely certain, but expect that it would add around $10 to the cost to provide for expandability.  In exchange it will cost about half as much as the first bridge to add another module to control three more engines.  

YES.  Unfortunately if you set it for 3, someone will want 6.  Someone will want more so you might as well plan for it.  Again I think you're pricing yourself low.  LC and LC+ was originally developed for those not wanting the complexity of TMCC Legacy but once it was out everyone wanted to run them from...Legacy and TMCC.

3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed.  I won't know for sure until the code is written, but may run into other issues with a single master device controlling so many engines.  Would a unit that can only be expanded to control 12, or 6 total engines be acceptable?  

I would say 12 but as I stated above everyone wants more so I would MAX it out to start.  I hate to be the pessimist but again once they control 3 they'll want 6 and so on.

4.  Are tactile, physical buttons and switches on the device for programing preferred or wanted?  The implementation i'm currently working with uses the cab1/2 remote for most programing with perhaps 2 buttons on the bridge it's self.  Do people prefer to use buttons or switches on the bridge to program it, or is it ok to program from the Cab remote?

If it's simple from CAB1 or Cab 2 then I would do it that way.  If it's too complicated then add the buttons to the bridge.  LC was made to be simple, it shouldn't be over complicated when adding TMCC interface to it.

5.  Is there anyone in the Metro Detroit area that has a functional layout  with Legacy AND LCS that might be willing to volunteer some time to help do some testing to insure the bridge is fully compatible with those systems?  (DCS as well  would be nice.)  It is my intention for the bridge to be installed with the 9-pin serial port on the command base, and for any additional serial devices to then plug into a second serial port on the bridge device.  I can think of no reason this won't work, but need to test it.  It would also be nice to test the bridge with Legacy and DCS for compatibility.  Once any obvious bugs are worked out, I'll probably look for a couple "beta testers" to try the device on their layouts.  

Can't help you there but will keep an eye on the thread in case I have any thoughts.  I would imagine you'll need to work with a SER2 which may require you to join the LCS partner program.  @Railsounds maybe able to help you there.

I'm sure I'll have more questions, or forgot some of the ones I was thinking of and will add them, but thanks for whatever input can be offered.  

JGL

 

JohnGaltLine

Are you saying you can run 24 engines on one Universal remote? I'll send my remote to you to install this set up.

Bob

JGL,

Any plans to emulate a TMCC (Tr)ain  with the bridge.

John 

John Graser posted:

JGL,

Any plans to emulate a TMCC (Tr)ain  with the bridge.

John 

I gotta believe that this would be a limitation of the LC/LC+ system.  They recently added the ability to do some limited trains using the Universal remote.  

MartyE posted:

 

 It is my intention for the bridge to be installed with the 9-pin serial port on the command base, and for any additional serial devices to then plug into a second serial port on the bridge device.  I can think of no reason this won't work, but need to test it.  

I would imagine you'll need to work with a SER2 which may require you to join the LCS partner program.  @Railsounds maybe able to help you there.

 

 Marty is correct that an LCS SER2 would be required if ANY other LCS components are present. However, if you are simply injecting commands over the wired serial connection, the TMCC and Legacy protocols are freely available with or without being part of the LCS Partner program. 

Railsounds posted:

 Marty is correct that an LCS SER2 would be required if ANY other LCS components are present. However, if you are simply injecting commands over the wired serial connection, the TMCC and Legacy protocols are freely available with or without being part of the LCS Partner program. 

I am very curious about this.  Does LCS do something to change the operation of the serial port on the legacy base? change it's baud rate or use a non RS-232 standard?  

My intention was to have two active serial ports where everything that comes in on one is repeated out on the other, as well as injecting any TMCC commands from the bridge both ways out.  However, even a nonstandard db9 pinout can be worked with if needed, prebuilt modules just cost less than the parts to make them.    I just don't have access to any LCS hardware for testing at this time. 

Even if a SER2 is needed, they are not particularly expensive in any case, for the folks that would need it, just hoping to eliminate that cost if possible.  

JGL

Oley Valley Rail posted:

Are you saying you can run 24 engines on one Universal remote? I'll send my remote to you to install this set up.

No.  Just 3 engines per remote.   I think the BLE module in the remote can speak to up to 6 devices at once, but I'm not that far into the code at this time. 

John Graser posted:

Any plans to emulate a TMCC (Tr)ain  with the bridge.

With the original prototype linked in the top of this thread I had TR(Lash-up) commands operating, however I'm unsure if it it is a good idea to do so.  I was planning on posing it as a question later on on the forum.  The issue I see is especially with LC Plus engines, in that there are not enough speed steps to match speeds between different models of locomotives.  I don't want anyone blaming me for burning out the electronics in their engine because they coupled two engines together that run at different speeds.  On the other hand, it could be useful for folks with several of the same model engine with different road names, or with TMCC operating cars being pulled by an LC/+ engine.  I'm really unsure at this point.  

MartyE posted:

I gotta believe that this would be a limitation of the LC/LC+ system.  They recently added the ability to do some limited trains using the Universal remote.  

There is no technical limitation that would prevent having TR commands, just a "are people smart enough to know what equipment can be run together without damaging anything" one.  A single button of the universal remote, if I understand correctly can speak to up to 3 devices that it sees as the same thing, with up to 6 total device across all 3 buttons.  This isn't quite the same as a TMCC "Lash-Up", but would allow up to three of the same Identical (same road name and model) engine to be run together.  I read the above question as more about running engines with different models and/or road names for which the universal remote can currently control only separately.  

I expect to bring back the "Lash-Up" question once I have a proper circuit board design in place.  Perhaps it will be coded in, but require a user to enter some complex key sequence to activate it, where by insuring that they are at least taking responsibility if they don't understand the limitations in place.  

Lots of chatter about the Cab-2, what about the Cab-1L?

PLCProf posted:

Lots of chatter about the Cab-2, what about the Cab-1L?

I'm using an original cab1 for my my testing and such on the bench.  From there it should work fine on cab1L and cab2.  From the point of view of the command base, the bridge is a TMCC locomotive.  Or rather 3+ different TMCC locomotives.  I'm using only TMCC command protocol, so I'm not expecting any conflicts with any other devices.  

JGL I'm very happy to see that we have decided to return to this effort. Please put me down for one on these one you have them available.

1. I agree with some of the above folks on cost. The Universal remote being $40+ and other miscellaneous parts running you at least $10+ more and your time being 1hr would lead me to believe that a $150 starting price would be reasonable. Others may say that is high but as you said time is money.

2. Yes, I could work with just 3 but would prefer 6. Question. If you have the base with the expansion ability would you make it so that users could add more modules as they go along by purchasing more from you at a later time? Think something along the lines as the PC slot cards being available to upgrade a desktop with more capability.

3. 6 for me personally others would want more or less and of course the 2nd half of my question 2 answer applies here as well.

4. I like the KISS method of things so it it's easier to have the buttons on the module vs the remote that's fine with me. However everything I implement on my layout is with remote control in mind. I like to run everything from my Cab 2.

5. I'm not it the Detroit area but I do have a legacy layout with 2 LCS modules.

I hope this helps and will be keeping a close eye on this thread.  Thanks again for working on this!

 A few years back I had zero interest in LC+ locomotives but the Berks based on the PW design are actually some very nice locomotives.  If they continue with that trend I will definitely keep an eye on the line so this is definitely an interesting thread.

John, This is definitely something I would be interested in, but I do agree with you, not a lot of us would want to be taking out universal remotes apart and re-soldering the elements. I would be happy being able to operate six FlyerChief engines on my layout. $100.00 seems a comfortable number for me to control everything from my Cab 1L.

Ray