system compatibility spreadsheet

Hi Tom.....You sure have a knack for complicated tasks.  If you were to simply list all the different technologies, it would be a long list without the need to include each different brand of loco control systems.  NMRA DCC could be considered one technology with several manufacturers/brands.  There are other forms of DCC (Maerklin, Motorola protocol, etc.) which are mostly European.  Don't forget good old AC (aka known as "transformer control" by Lionel/AF) and good old DC as well.  Then there is infra-red technology.  And analog radio waves.  And wireless throttle-to-loco systems which do not send human-originated instructions through the rails.  Not to mention battery-powered systems which don't even need metal rails.  Lionel and MTH each have their own proprietary systems as well.  Each different technology has it's pros and cons.  Lenz has a new system in Europe with a hand-held controller the size of your car key.  It has a few buttons and can transmit a limited number of commands directly to a "receiver" located in the loco.  Easy to use, cheap and interesting, but not extensive.  None of these various technologies are compatible with each other.  You might check out the Zimo Yahoo Group for some recent discussions about all the various control systems.  Have fun......Ed L.  PS:  The live steam enthusiasts use very hot water to control loco speed.  Heh, heh.......

"I would like to propose a compatibility spreadsheet for all the different systems we have for model train propulsion in S scale (or gauge if you prefer)."

   Hi Tom, As Ed said there's a lot and they are not very compatible.  Some will work a bit with others but most are designed with no thought of compatibility. I think as it stands now folks just have to choose on and go with it. DCC is the most available factory installed so probably should get first look. I think the big problem buying something other than DCC is it's hard to guess how universal the system might become or if it will even exist in a few years? ........DaveB

Don't forget Bluetooth.  Bachmann's introducing a Bluetooth system and there's been a lot of yada-yada about it on the O Gauge side.

Some Bluetooth discussion goes on in this thread.

Then there's issues if any of the companies upgrade their firmware during a product run.  For example, the original Flyer Legacy code didn't like some DC powerpacks, the current revision of Legacy likes most, but still may operate erratically with one or two others.

Two wires and a variable power supply looks a lot better with each passing day...

Rusty

Wow,

I knew this would be a daunting exercise, but I didn’t know how daunting it could be.  I think I mentioned I was interested in just S scale (to include all of S; Hi-rail, Flyer and scale). That would simplify the task considerably.  My focus is on what Flyonel is doing and how it impacts existing layouts and what will happen when MTH finally comes out with their proprietary system(s).

I have come to realize I don’t have the foggiest about how many different system Flyonel has and just what they mean to each other and what they mean to more conventional power systems – meaning AC, DC & DCC.

Even a list of the different systems (along with some explanation) might prove sufficient.  Does Wikipedia address this mess?

Just what is TMCC and how is if different from Legacy, FlyerChief, FlyerChief Plus, or anything else they do.  Is Railsounds yet another Flyonel system?

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Legacy is an evolutionary step of TMCC (Train Master Command Control,) more features, more sounds, more funk.  Legacy can control TMCC and vice-versa.  Controlling Legacy with TMCC will work but doesn't have access to all of Legacy's features.

"Chief" systems are not compatible with TMCC/Legacy, with the exception that those systems can supply the track power (along with any other 18v AC or DC supply.)  It's currently one remote - one locomotive.  The remote is included with the locomotive.

The remote transmits directly to the locomotive. The remote will only control locomotives of the same type.  For example with the upcoming Berks:  A remote supplied with the Flyer NKP Berk will control any other Flyer NKP Berk, but it won't control the Flyer Southern, C&O, PM, Erie or Polar Express Berks.

The + (plus) versions have a switch on the locomotive so it can be controlled with conventional AC.

Railsounds is Lionel's sound package only.  It was initially a sound package for conventional locomotives in the days before command control systems.  It has evolved to be included with Lionel's command control systems.

Rusty

Tom - I agree that this is a daunting exercise - but doable and I'd encourage you to take a shot at it.  Like you, I have almost no exposure/experience with anything beyond good ol' variable AC track power.  But I recently acquired a TMCC set up so I could take advantage of the 'more advanced' features of a Flyonel Mike.

I think your idea of starting with an excel spreadsheet is good - maybe something as simple as a matrix with the rows and columns identically labeled and then fill in the intersecting boxes with some sort of code about the compatibility.  You could use other worksheets to expand/explain further what each system features, etc.

I would think that a good place to start (Ed L's comments notwithstanding) would be with the "major systems" used in S gauge - meaning AC, DC, DCC, Lionel's 'stuff' (Legacy, TMCC, xxxchief), American Models, SHS and then whatever MTH is gonna use.  I presume folks like River Raisin and Southwind use DC or DCC??  Probably not a complete list but folks on this forum will add to it.  Especially if you send it out as a draft in excel or pdf format.

Thanks Rusty,

Some parts are becoming clearer.  It vaguely sounds like Chief systems will run alongside of the Legacy system… I would call that sort of compatible.

Let me reiterate, is this ‘Balkanizing’ of systems addressed elsewhere?  I don’t want to duplicate something that might already exist.

I suppose this has evolved because Lionel already had so much invested in the toy train side of the market.  So they are trying to make the AC trains of old mimic DCC… sort of, I guess.

Rich,

When I got back into Flyer the first thing I did was to convert to DC operation.  I didn’t care much for the way e-units perform and I saw how DC with block control (dual cab in my case) could make running trains much more interesting.  A few years later AM introduced their B&O heavyweight set (I think it became SHS by the time it was delivered) and I jumped on it.  Along with that came AM flex and turnouts.

But now we have two new major players in the game and they insist on introducing two separate operating systems along with vestiges on their past systems.  This seems so counter cooperation in the model train field when DCC is so well established.  It’s like not only can’t they play in the same sandbox as others but they have to have their own private sandbox because they can’t get along with anybody else.

Your suggestion on setting up the spreadsheet is what I had in mind.  A simple yes/no to compatibility along with footnoted codes explained under the matrix.  Having the Forum members fill in the blanks is how I would have to do it, because I’m at a loss when it comes to anything other than DC and some reading I’ve done on DCC (because I’m thinking of heading that way).

It is finger nails on a blackboard when I think of having to pay for these other systems only to replace (gut) them.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

It's going to get worse before it get's better.  MTH and Lionel will be playing "king of the hill" for the foreseeable future.

MTH has a slight advantage because as I mentioned earlier, they had to incorporate DCC into the DCS system because of HO.  MTH originally tried selling HO products with DCS only and it didn't sell.  The HOer's weren't about to have an incompatible control system shoved down their throats.

I have no idea how well MTH's DCC functions operate, I'll find out like the rest of us whenever the F3's come out.  But, I guess since they're enjoying some success in HO, it's probably OK.

Now, I don't know what exactly possessed Lionel to incorporate DCC into the Legacy systems of the SD70's and ES44's, other than it was important to get it out before the SD70's were released.  It works rather well, at least for a guy like me who's only concerned with smooth running forward, backward, lights, general sounds, whistle/horn and bell(if sound equipped.)  I could care less about having a million CV's to fine tune the decoders to their ultimate outputs.

I have DC and DCC on my S scale railroad, selectable by the block toggles.  And for the most part, I run the DC stuff.  I'm in no hurry to convert my DC stuff to DCC.

I have TMCC and DCS hardware for goofing around with some Flyonel and MTH O gauge I have.  It just so happens in the long run it will allow me to goof around with these command control systems with hirail S if I so desire.

Rusty

I am not into S gauge but I am into HO as well as O gauge.

The MTH DCC system works very well on my club's large HO layout.  I don't know why MTH even bothers to put DCS into HO because it doesn't sell.  

I was at O Scale West last weekend.  The current standard for scale O and S gauge is DCC.  I think it will remain this way for the foreseeable future.  The big advantage of DCC is that  you can put any manufacturers DCC equipped engine on any DCC layout and it will run.

The only decision that the layout builder has to make is which DCC system to buy.  This decision is usually driven by what other modelers in a person's area are using.  Most of the people in all gauges (N, HO, S, O, and G) in the SF Bay Area use the NCE system.  Digitrax is a distant second.  I noticed that most of the layouts that I toured in the Seattle area were using the Lenz system.  I was on layouts tours in the New England area.  Many of these layouts used Digitrax.

Bachmann's new Bluetooth system is just being introduced.  It appears to be compatible with DCC.  Perhaps Bluetooth will become the new standard in the next 20 years or so.  The big drawback is engine conversion from one system to the next.

I also think that Lionel Legacy and MTH DCS will eventually be discontinued in favor of a standard system (DCC or Bluetooth or ?).  They will not die for many years because so much product already has these systems installed.

Joe

>> A simple yes/no to compatibility along with footnoted codes explained under the matrix.

I am not sure that a simple "yes" or "no" will adequately describe the situation.  There is partial compatibility and also the quality of operation to consider.  For example, running a DCC loco on DC is possible, but the performance on DC is usually much worse than with a pure DC loco (without DCC).  Many shades of gray complicates things.  Ed L.

I am not sure the answer to Tom's question is hard when limiting it to S gauge. Legacy and and the MTH systems can coexist on the same layout from what I read in the O gauge comments and some limited cross-operation is possible. Flyer chief and Legacy can coexist, but one cannot control the other's engines. DCC and Legacy should be able to coexist on the same layout but I have not tried it yet. Hopefully someone can comment on this. Bluetooth is an unknown future prospect for S gauge. I am also unaware of any battery powered S gauge engines. 

 -- Many shades of gray complicates things.  Ed L.

maybe 50?  (couldn't resist...)

Ed is correct. 

When the first Flyonel Mikado's came out, I was running them conventionally.  They ran OK, but there was nothing stellar about it.  Also, if you didn't put a battery in the tender, the sound would cut out over dirty track, when the reverse sequence was used or the train stopped.

I bought a TMCC base unit and interfaced it with my DCS system using a DB9 cable made by MTH.  The TMCC stuff runs a whole lot better.  I use it whenever I throw down some track for a hirail fix.

Notice the high-quality installation...

The TMCC base sits awkwardly on top of the MTH TIU(Track Interface Unit) and it all runs with the DCS remote.  Pay no attention to the KW under the card table.  It's all powered by an MTH Z-4000 transformer on the card table.

Rusty

Hi Ed,

I know you are correct in your assessment of a simple yes/no answer.  I would hope the footnotes would address the gray areas.  And more to the point for me, I didn’t know one could operate a DCC engine on regular DC. An example of a footnote could be to explain what ‘much worse than a pure DC loco’ means to the operator.  I do not have a clue about these various systems and I am sure I am not the only one who would like it explained in a simple manner.

Also why I would prefer a matrix is a lot comparison charts are done that way and it gives the info at a glance.  I am finding the prose has a bit too much subjectivity and I don’t end up with a good comparison.

Rusty are you telling me I didn't have to gut my Mikado to run it on DC?   Please don’t take offence, but ‘stellar’ is
exactly what I mean by subjectivity.  It doesn’t
give me any info I can use to make my own assessment.  Like my Y3 will run on DC, but it isn’t stellar.  In fact, it sucks.  Because of the Y3 DC performance, I would
assume all the Flyonel engines with their proprietary systems would be less than
stellar on DC.  So unless I’m mistaken,
gutting my recently acquired Flyonel 4-6-2 is my only option.

Do you hear finger nails on a blackboard?

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Nope.  Was running it conventional AC with my good ol' Z-4000 transformer and Zeppelin anchor. 

Under conventional AC, speed control was fair at best, seemed more sensitive to track munge, started with a jerk (no, not me...) because the lowest conventional AC output of a Z-4000 is about 2.5 volts, which is about what it takes to wake up the basic electronic E-unit. (Old postwar Lionel transformers start around 5v because that's what it took to wake up the mechanical E-units.) 

I already had the MTH DCS system from my O gauge adventures, once I added the TMCC base into the mix I was able to run the Mikado's and later Pacific's much more smoothly.  And can I use the same set up to run Legacy stuff, minus some bells and whistles I'm not really concerned about anyways.

Just as I don't attempt to run DCC equipped locomotive off of straight DC on my scale railroad, even though it's possible nowadays.  As I mentioned earlier, I tend to run my conventional DC locomotives more while the DCC locos gather dust. 

I don't bother to attempt to run TMCC/Legacy (or DCS) equipped locomotives on the Carpet Central off of conventional AC anymore.  For any old Flyer or Lionel I might want to run, I can still run conventional AC no problem.  I have the technology.

I've never looked for or expected a one control fits all solution, because it's never gonna happen in my lifetime.  Things like Bluetooth and some of the other alternates like Airwire will get along fine without me.

Sound and all the other electronic hoo-ha is neat, but merely options available to me.  It's not why I model railroad.  My fingernails are just fine...

Rusty

>>  I do not have a clue about these various systems

There is no easy answer to learning about something which is complex.  The best suggestion I can make is to download the User Manuals for each system and read them.  Then ask questions on the appropriate Yahoo Group. Or, heaven forbid, call up the manufacturer and discuss things directly with their salesmen.  Or, even more heaven forbidding, ask questions at the local hobby shop.  Or, worst case, find a local HO club and go there and ask questions.  The scale of trains matters not.  The electrons do not care.  But the customer has to make the effort.  The knowledge does not flow into our brains via osmosis while we are asleep.  Ask me how I know that.   Good luck....Ed L.

Hi Ed,

Thank you for your suggestions and insight.  My goal is not to become proficient in each of the various systems that exist, but rather to explore how they interact with each other.  If I were on the Model Railroader staff I might be able to have a sample of each system and discover for myself how they play together then I could report my findings to the populace.  But alas, I am not on the MR staff.

What I am trying to do is to present a format that the members of the forum can populate.  I do believe the experience and knowledge already exists in the member of this forum.  It should be just a matter of tapping that knowledge and compiling it into a user friendly format.

Rich has already started a spreadsheet and we are bouncing around some ideas.  More input from other member would be welcome.  We are using Excel and plan to send it to anyone who would like to help by personal email until it is close to ready for posting.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

 "My goal is not to become proficient in each of the various systems that exist, but rather to explore how they interact with each other.  If I were on the Model Railroader staff I might be able to have a sample of each system and discover for myself how they play together then I could report my findings to the populace"

   I guess it could be interesting but ideally a person could choose one system and not need to know about the others. Personally since DCC is so widely used and available I'd just pull the parts out of anything that didn't have DCC and then sell them on ebay and use the money to buy a new DCC decoder for the loco. If I was into TMCC or DCS I'd do the same thing using their parts. I think one well implemented system would be less work and more reliable over time than a combination of systems that were not designed to play seamlessly together....DaveB

>> I'd just pull the parts out of anything that didn't have DCC and then sell them on ebay and use the money to buy a new DCC decoder

Dave B.........Obviously, we both lack the collector mentality.  While your idea is exactly what I would do, there are many many folks who are more concerned about selling something years later than with having fun right now.  Technical intimidation is no longer a valid excuse because there are numerous people in the DCC decoder installation business.  Ed L.

Music to my ears...

Dave, not only do I agree with you, but that is what I do to my Flyonel engines just so I can operate them on DC (except for my poor Y3).  However, I have found some things stated here that are intriguing for systems playing together.  Maybe for some I didn’t have to do that… I don’t know.  But I would like to find out.

Why Flyonel hasn’t standardized on DCC is beyond me.  And I don’t mean with all their electronics thrown it.  The concept of adding one system on top of another – making it over complicated and more prone to failure – is just poor design practice.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Lionel and MTH have huge investments in their systems.  They're not going to chuck it all away unless they lose significant sales from the 3-rail O gauge market in favor of DCC.  TMCC/Legacy and DCS has been embedded in the 3-rail market for years and both have their supporters and detractors.

Plus both companies have or will have apps to run their systems from smart phones....

BTW, the subject of an 8-pin DCC plug for Flyer was approached and shot down by Lionel's upper management.

The best we're going to get DCC compatibility within the Lionel and MTH systems.

Rusty

>> Why Flyonel hasn’t standardized on DCC is beyond me.

>> They're not going to chuck it all away

Seems to me that it is possible to have locos built with all electrical things coming into one standardized plug/connector.  Thus, lights, smoke, motor, sound, etc. could have their respective wires terminated in a uniform manner in a standard connector.

As a separate product, the customer would also buy a Control Module which would resemble the proverbial black box.  This black box would be available in several different flavors such as DC, AC, DCC, Legacy, LionChief, etc., etc.  The Control Module is plugged into the loco and the customer gets what he wants and only that.  Lionel has only the cost of producing what the customer wants and nothing extra.  The same Control Modules could be used in both O and S products. 

The customer inserts the module of his choice into the standardized connector and runs the engine as desired.  From the customer's perspective, this would be about as hard as inserting a battery into post-war O gauge F-unit diesels through a hole in the bottom of the fuel tank.As new control technology is created over time, Lionel makes a new Control Module using that new technology.

Howzat for a clever idea?

Always thinking.......Ed L.

Rusty