S-Gauge Legacy does not have all the features of O-Gauge Legacy?

Not a student of the Lionel O Gauge line so I do not know for sure, bit I think there are lighting features not included in the S gauge line. I was not aware of the Speed matching item. Never built a lash-up of Legacy High Rail (with traction tires) engines because one engine will pull any train I run. Typically it would be 9 passenger cars or 20 freight cars. Two powered Legacy units are not required, dummy engines for appearances are fine.

I do have TMCC engines with scale wheels, no traction tires. These must be double or triple headed to move the trains. I make lash-ups with these all the time and they work perfectly. The engine speeds are fairly close among these engines and I suspect some slight wheelslip solves any mismatch. I do not understand the speed control fine tuning comment. As far as I know all Legacy engines have 200 speed steps. Maybe Dave can clarify what the comment means.

My bigger gripe is that Lionel has never made an S gauge SensorTrack so we can use the LCS communication features built into the newer Legacy engines. I ended up having 3 custom made out of 5" straight sections so I can use the communication and programming features.

I saw the same post about the AF boards.  The manuals for both the SD70ACe and ES44AC explain how to make "lash ups" in Legacy.  I've never had a problem running multiple units with the American Flyer Legacy diesels.

" The manuals for both the SD70ACe and ES44AC explain how to make "lash ups" in Legacy.  I've never had a problem running multiple units with the American Flyer Legacy diesels."

I have not seen the post but I agree with the above statement. Other members in Badgerland and I have run consists with the legacy engines. I run a pair of Milw. Rd U-33s constantly.

AmFlyer posted:

I do not understand the speed control fine tuning comment. As far as I know all Legacy engines have 200 speed steps. Maybe Dave can clarify what the comment means.

The back-EMF boards used in a lot of the AF, and recently in a couple of O-gauge Lionmaster locomotives, don't offer nearly the precise speed control as the full Legacy RCMC with the flywheel speed sensor.  You see 200 speed steps on the CAB2, but you don't actually get the same control with the BEMC boards.

Rayin"S" posted:

" The manuals for both the SD70ACe and ES44AC explain how to make "lash ups" in Legacy.  I've never had a problem running multiple units with the American Flyer Legacy diesels."

I have not seen the post but I agree with the above statement. Other members in Badgerland and I have run consists with the legacy engines. I run a pair of Milw. Rd U-33s constantly.

Any of the same or similar engines will run just fine in a lash-up. SD70, U boats, etc.. Same engines have the same board, same gear ratio, same wheel diameter. So they will run just fine together. Try to run a consist of say a SD70 and the Challenger and it isn't going to work. In O Gauge w/ the RCMC you can basically lash-up anything you want (with some exceptions like switchers or Shays).

The electronics required to do this are too large for Flyer engines. Requires not only the larger RCMC but also a motor encoder. That's why back emf is used. 

In terms of precise speed control, we have made Flyer Legacy engines with nice speed performance. It comes down to gear ratio in that instance. Make it a higher ratio, and the engines can perform slower and more precise speeds. The RCMC is much more forgiving with gear ratio, and can be tuned to drive almost any gear ratio.

Thanks John and Dave. There is always more to learn about the Legacy system.

Dave Olson posted:

 

The electronics required to do this are too large for Flyer engines. Requires not only the larger RCMC but also a

Hi Dave,

Is there any plan to reduce the size?

I still have trouble understanding how the DCC companies can build decoders that are much smaller and still outperform the proprietary Lionel electronics. Especially if Lionel is expanding into HO I would think you would have to create a smaller form factor wouldn't you?

I assisted Jon Z with the Beta testing of the DCC implementation on the S scale boards. While it was a great success to be able to support so many different platforms (dc, ac, tmcc, legacy, DCC) they never really came close to the precise motor control or function support that DCC offers.

Are there any plans to shrink the electronics so more models can be offered in HO and S?

Thanks.

Dave Olson posted:

It comes down to gear ratio in that instance. Make it a higher ratio, and the engines can perform slower and more precise speeds. The RCMC is much more forgiving with gear ratio, and can be tuned to drive almost any gear ratio.

S-gaugers should be grateful that their locos are geared for a realistic top speed; they will work well with ANY decoder, or no decoder at all.  The post above confirms what I've known for years; namely that Legacy (and DCS) are an electronic band-aid applied to fairly toylike original designs.  Sometimes the end result has a 'robotic' feel, rather than a natural sense of heavy mass that's always made electric trains fun to operate.  Look at a US Hobbies O scale brass loco from the early 1960s:  the gear ratios were near 25:1 or 30:1, providing some natural coasting and a modest top speed appropriate for home-sized layouts.  Most 3-rail locos are nowhere near that, and the way they are made, it's very difficult for the home hobbyist to change the gear ratio.

At this point, I already have models of my favorite locos, so purchases are about upgrading to a "better" one.  The re-introduction of back-drivable gears on some models beginning in 2007 was a step in the right direction, and gives Lionel an engineering edge over its primary competition.  But it seems like some of the benefits are negated by over-controlling with software (in my perception of how the locos stop.)  In another recent case, the size and quality of the motor wasn't what I expected given the price and product positioning.  Although the Legacy/RCMC restores performance to an acceptable level, I wanted more fundamental quality, so I passed on that loco.

I would be more likely to pay the $1700 asked if the chassis were retooled with a higher gear ratio, separate gearbox, and individually replaceable wheels and axles.  Basically US Hobbies in die-cast, with a frame and flanges suitable for operation on 3-rail sectional track.  Just something to think about...

jonnyspeed posted:

Dave Olson posted:

 

The electronics required to do this are too large for Flyer engines. Requires not only the larger RCMC but also a

Hi Dave,

Is there any plan to reduce the size?

I still have trouble understanding how the DCC companies can build decoders that are much smaller and still outperform the proprietary Lionel electronics. Especially if Lionel is expanding into HO I would think you would have to create a smaller form factor wouldn't you?

I assisted John Z with the Beta testing of the DCC implementation on the S scale boards. While it was a great success to be able to support so many different platforms (dc, ac, tmcc, legacy, DCC) they never really came close to the precise motor control or function support that DCC offers.

Are there any plans to shrink the electronics so more models can be offered in HO and S?

Thanks.

Well I'd have to disagree that DCC outperforms Legacy. Especially RCMC electronics. 

In terms of size, you have to remember that O scale and S gauge to an extent have a lot more in terms of power management to deal with. Higher voltages, some work with AC and DC, etc. That means bigger components and bigger boards. Power is a lot more simple in smaller gauges because it's much lower.

Jon did a wonderful job on the DCC that's in the HO Polar. Not sure if you've tinkered with it, but there were improvements made there and the DCC operation rivals most decoders I've messed with over the years. The only reason the HO Polar board is a bit large compared to most DCC decoders is because it has LionChief on board as well as LionChief sounds.

So to answer the question on shrinking the electronics - only where needed. We don't plan on offering Legacy for HO since that market is quite comfortable with DCC. What we have now for O and S work well. The focus is on developing new and exciting things. There's a lot in the pipeline for the next two years.

Any of the same or similar engines will run just fine in a lash-up. SD70, U boats, etc.. Same engines have the same board, same gear ratio, same wheel diameter. So they will run just fine together. Try to run a consist of say a SD70 and the Challenger and it isn't going to work.

I would encourage Lionel to use the SD70s and ES44s as a standard for future diesel production in terms of Legacy speed and responses so that buyers can build consists of older and newer locomotives without problems. The two SD70s I have run slightly faster than the ES44s, and on curves the faster engines in a consist would push the pivoting pilots to one side until they derailed on a switch. There were only two solutions: keep the SD70s in the lead or use screws to fix the pivoting pilots to prevent their movement. I did the latter. The speed differences were slight, but the adhesion of the traction wheels exaggerated the differences.

As for the U33C, the first generation runs faster than the second, so it will not "run just fine together" with the second generation of U33Cs or the more modern diesels. Steam locomotives are generally OK as single units, but modelers like to build consists of multiple diesels to mimic prototype operations. If RCMC electronics are too big for American Flyer locomotives, then Lionel should standardize performance to ensure compatibility with future products.

(As a side note, Southern Pacific U33C I recently acquired was a surprise. Lionel's marketing department failed to mention or show the SP light package atop the cab, the prototypical L-window for the engineer, or the bell behind the horn. The red emergency light blinks if the user selects the Mars light option after pressing AUX 2 on the handheld remote. The Owner's Manual does not mention this option, and no review I've read discusses it either. Lionel took some extra effort on this model to enhance it but failed to promote it or the other road-specific details on other U33C models.  It must have been frustrating for designers to take such pains for accuracy and have them ignored by reviewers and their own marketing department.)