No arguing that it has some good points, but I was trying to run one of my Legacy locomotives using the LC BT app and once again realized why I hate the idea of using a smartphone to run my trains!  Controlling the speed in any precise manner is hopeless!

Model train technology always leaps forward but some of that "progress" includes planned obsolescence of older (but still fully functional) Lionel control systems; i.e., the TMCC Command Base (original version), a CAB1, and a PowerMaster.  That is what I have wired to my modest L-shaped layout, and I'll keep using them with my TMCC-equipped locos until those control devices die; then replace them.

I have a few LEGACY locos, but they require larger minimum radius curves than my layout can provide (it's limited to O42). So I don't need the LEGACY gear -- not until I add an extension to the house and reconfigure my layout to O72 curves within it.

I toyed with the idea of future planning with a CAB1L purchase now (it's available), but apparently there are no more Command Base 1L devices that can do a "handshake" with it. Thankfully, the CAB1L will "talk" to the upcoming CAB3, but the $500 price tag for a CAB3 is a mega-punch to the wallet and a test of one's patience while waiting a year for its arrival at dealer stores.

Some hobbyists on this FORUM have already expressed their concern that the CAB3 (like any new product nowadays) may have some out-of-the-box glitches and require some retro-fixing through warranty service - a frustrating scenario. Probably all hobbyists hope for a perfect launch of Lionel's CAB3, but ....

I'm now 82 and stuck in older hand-held control technology. I yield to the techno-friendly (and probably richer) wizards of the future.

Mike Mottler    LCCA 12394

For me and maybe a few others I do see one other drawback to the Base3 and it's unavoidable. All of my power and command equipment is located under the train table and isn't readily accessible.  With the Base3 having the Run/Program switches for Bluetooth & RF engine on the unit itself, I'd have to get under the table each time I want to add a new Lionchief engine.

Also, I believe there is a limit to the maximum number of Lionchief engines allowed to added at one time. I think Dave said no more than three LC engine with Bluetooth or RF can be accessed at one time.  Obviously LC 2.0 engines you can just run using TMCC.

I think it also worth noting that the BASE3 and CAB3 app will not enhance the playablity of any engine. Everything will operate the same and this will not access any additional features you do not already have with any of the existing Lionel command systems.  It will enhance the playablitiy of your layout by consolidating your remotes. Now you can use a CAB1l, CAB2 or even a DCS remote/app to run any Lionel command engine.

I think this is a good move for the O gauge market and further secures the future of command control by requiring less electronic components that are specialized to our remotes and advancing on the smart device platform that will attract younger interest into the hobby.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

No arguing that it has some good points, but I was trying to run one of my Legacy locomotives using the LC BT app and once again realized why I hate the idea of using a smartphone to run my trains!  Controlling the speed in any precise manner is hopeless!

The High Rail app by @Brian Coyner recently added tactile feedback from the phone.  I found this to be an improvement for getting a better handle on precision speed adjustments.  I know you're not an Apple guy but for those who are should check it out.  Feels as close to the Cab2 indents as you can achieve on a smart device IMO.

In watching Chris's video I pretty much agree with a lot of what you said.  No one can be 100% happy about everything but I don't see where Lionel had a choice but to move to a App based control.  Technology changes to fast now.  They did right though by keeping the current remotes relevant.  I suspect the Base3 will be able to do more than Lionel is letting on too. 

One thing I'd like to mention though that you mentioned, by adding a 993, you do not get access to anymore engines than what's already available in your 990.  The base holds the database.  Since the 993 is just a charger there is no database in there to add additional engines.

I'm really look forward to discussing this at the Legacy Users Group meeting.  That is if the EDTCA ever emails me back about getting the room reserved.

Thanks for the video Chris!

When Lionel officially announced the Base3, I had mixed feelings about it. DON'T get me wrong, $500 is a lot for the system,but really think about it. The compatibly alone is definitely worth the money. Most starter set are equipped with Lionchief already. Plus some sets are Bluetooth compatible as well.

This means that everyone can run their trains with whenever they want. Most people own a smartphone or a tablet nowadays. Making easy for somebody who only just getting into trains or somebody who want improve their model railroading experience.

@Cmontagna - Thanks for a well thought out and clearly presented video - you did a good job of acknowledging a lot of the shortcomings and backlash against the Base3 while focusing on the upside.

While I generally prefer to not use a phone or tablet to control trains, I think that we will benefit from accepting the evolution of technology.  It's nice to be able to visit a layout and control trains with your own device.  And my modular club won't have to spend money when someone drops a controller on a concrete floor.  $50 for a tablet vs. $200 for a remote?  Easy choice.

When train control handhelds first came out, many folks said that they didn't want to lose the tactile experience of moving a lever on a transformer - look what happened - many transformers now serve only as power supplies.  When smartphones were introduced, many people didn't want to replace their flip-phone but eventually did - more evolution.

Yeah, the Base3 ain't cheap.  However, it's roughly the cost of a diesel locomotive; look at what people are paying for control systems, especially DCS, right now.  And Lionel is making it backwards compatible, so our remotes will be usable until they croak.

Have fun and run trains!

One other thing about Apps vs hardware, I suspect more people look at their remotes than they realize.  That being said some of the controls are definitely easy to access by touch.

@H1000 posted:

For me and maybe a few others I do see one other drawback to the Base3 and it's unavoidable. All of my power and command equipment is located under the train table and isn't readily accessible.  With the Base3 having the Run/Program switches for Bluetooth & RF engine on the unit itself, I'd have to get under the table each time I want to add a new Lionchief engine.

WOW, I have the same issue, my command base is on my power panel which is not readily accessible.  However, although it'll require opening up the BASE3, I have a solution to that particular issue.

I have this nifty 4-channel RF remote control system with relay outputs.  This will manage up to four switches from a keyfob transmitter and allow you to remotely switch those RUN/PGM switches.

I use one of these to control my under layout lights and another button to control the power to my Legacy command base.  That way I can switch to run TMCC/Legacy stuff in conventional mode without going in and unplugging the Legacy base.

@Mallard4468 posted:

While I generally prefer to not use a phone or tablet to control trains, I think that we will benefit from accepting the evolution of technology.  It's nice to be able to visit a layout and control trains with your own device.  And my modular club won't have to spend money when someone drops a controller on a concrete floor.  $50 for a tablet vs. $200 for a remote?  Easy choice.

@Mallard4468,

I appreciate your comments, and as a gadget hound from way, way back, I'd normally fawn all over this but the "benefitting" you mention, from accepting the evolution of technology, is actually an illusion in this case.  It probably took you a great deal of time to think of the set of benefits you cited, because they are not the first things that would pop into most peoples' minds.

As a counter-thought look at RC devices like aircraft and boats, or better yet drones.  They are not migrating in this way.   Sure you can use a phone as a gimmick with them, but would you like to use it to control take-offs and landings if you had a drone or a model plane, even an inexpensive one?

Using a phone to control trains, or anything else that moves in the real world for that matter, is heading farther away from the prototype, rather than closer to it.

I personally see too many rationalizations in this thread, and the others that have popped up since the Base-3 announcement -- ways of convincing yourself that it'll be ok, and accepting less that you would prefer as a result.

Mike

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Using a phone to control trains, or anything else that moves in the real world for that matter, is heading farther away from the prototype, rather than closer to it.

I personally see too many rationalizations in this thread, and the others that have popped up since the Base-3 announcement -- ways of convincing yourself that it'll be ok, and accepting less that you would prefer as a result.

BINGO!

@Cmontagna posted:

[...] Overall, I'm bummed at the concept of losing a tactile remote [...]

This is my only real issue with the Base3 system.

I've seen drone remotes that connect to cell phones for, at minimum, displaying video coming from the drone, if not adding to computing power to the operation of the drone.  I wonder if Lionel could create a small tactile remote that consists of a red throttle knob and a whistle/bell slider (the two tactile controls I use most) and connects to (incorporates) the cell phone.  The device would only be an input for the phone.

Andy

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

@Mallard4468,

I appreciate your comments, and as a gadget hound from way, way back, I'd normally fawn all over this but the "benefitting" you mention, from accepting the evolution of technology, is actually an illusion in this case.  It probably took you a great deal of time to think of the set of benefits you cited, because they are not the first things that would pop into most peoples' minds.

As a counter-thought look at RC devices like aircraft and boats, or better yet drones.  They are not migrating in this way.   Sure you can use a phone as a gimmick with them, but would you like to use it to control take-offs and landings if you had a drone or a model plane, even an inexpensive one?

Using a phone to control trains, or anything else that moves in the real world for that matter, is heading farther away from the prototype, rather than closer to it.

I personally see too many rationalizations in this thread, and the others that have popped up since the Base-3 announcement -- ways of convincing yourself that it'll be ok, and accepting less that you would prefer as a result.

Mike

You make a good point about RC stuff, but I think it's different for a few reasons.  First, one needs to act more quickly with cars and planes.  Secondly, the RC remotes control far fewer functions than we ask of train remotes - they control speed and have a couple of joysticks for other controls - seems to me that the guts of an RC controller would be less specialized, so parts should be more generic and easier to obtain.  Third, and I think most importantly, is that the RC market appears to be much larger than 3-rail trains, so manufacturers can order larger quantities of components and spread the development costs over a lot more buyers.

Re using phones to control physical things heading further away from the prototype, I recently learned that railroad workers can now remotely control switching engines using a tablet - life imitates art.

I'm sure that Lionel and MTH realize that people prefer a dedicated device and are considering it, but the economics of it will probably win out.  If there's any rationalizing going on, it's by way of understanding that we are a very small niche market and there's a limit to what our demand will dictate. 

@Andy Hummell posted:

This is my only real issue with the Base3 system.

I've seen drone remotes that connect to cell phones for, at minimum, displaying video coming from the drone, if not adding to computing power to the operation of the drone.  I wonder if Lionel could create a small tactile remote that consists of a red throttle knob and a whistle/bell slider (the two tactile controls I use most) and connects to (incorporates) the cell phone.  The device would only be an input for the phone.

Andy

Andy, I think this is a good idea. The big hurdle to overcome is dealing with the many sizes available for phones and tablets and then attaching this tactile remote to your own device.  Not saying that it can't be done but it might not look as pretty as a fully integrated remote. I do see this as the best way to appease those who still want remotes and for Lionel & MTH to keep hardware costs (specifically remotes) down.

Using a gaming controller available on amazon for about $40, I built my own home-brew DCS remote that operates on top of the app.  It includes all of the nifty features like a tactile control for the quilling whistle. What I like about this approach is all of the buttons and joysticks are fully customizable and if want to move a particular function, it can be done.

I just hope the cab3 app works better with android phones than the lionchief app does. Since I do not have a control system for now as I am just getting started , I decided to start using the app to get used to it. Worked fine when I first used it but not when I went back out to the layout room later the same day.
I was on the fence anyway as I have a lot of money going out on track at the moment, but for now have decided to go with semi scale and use the universal remote for my trains. I would like to have a lionchief 2.0 engine this year.

@Mallard4468 posted:

You make a good point about RC stuff, but I think it's different for a few reasons.  First, one needs to act more quickly with cars and planes.

Yes, one does, until just before your $1,200.00 locomotive, controlled by you with your phone, is about to get in a wreck.  Then you have to act just as quickly as with an RC car or plane.  Or maybe not?

Mike

@Mike H Mottler posted:

Model train technology always leaps forward but some of that "progress" includes planned obsolescence of older (but still fully functional) Lionel control systems; i.e., the TMCC Command Base (original version), a CAB1, and a PowerMaster.  That is what I have wired to my modest L-shaped layout, and I'll keep using them with my TMCC-equipped locos until those control devices die; then replace them.

I have a few LEGACY locos, but they require larger minimum radius curves than my layout can provide (it's limited to O42). So I don't need the LEGACY gear -- not until I add an extension to the house and reconfigure my layout to O72 curves within it.

I toyed with the idea of future planning with a CAB1L purchase now (it's available), but apparently there are no more Command Base 1L devices that can do a "handshake" with it. Thankfully, the CAB1L will "talk" to the upcoming CAB3, but the $500 price tag for a CAB3 is a mega-punch to the wallet and a test of one's patience while waiting a year for its arrival at dealer stores.

Some hobbyists on this FORUM have already expressed their concern that the CAB3 (like any new product nowadays) may have some out-of-the-box glitches and require some retro-fixing through warranty service - a frustrating scenario. Probably all hobbyists hope for a perfect launch of Lionel's CAB3, but ....

I'm now 82 and stuck in older hand-held control technology. I yield to the techno-friendly (and probably richer) wizards of the future.

Mike Mottler    LCCA 12394

I'm with Mike and although stuck with the older command control TMCC/Legacy technology, I'm fine with it. My smaller, 10 year old, 2-train layout was conventional until about 3 years ago when I switched to the CAB lL/Base Command 1L, and it's all my grandkids and I will ever need. It has all the features we want with never a breakdown or problem.

If I were to eventually advance to the CAB3, it would require expanding my small control panel. No thanks. I'll stick with  my tried and proven existing system. For you "must have the latest and the bestest" techies out there, good luck with that.

@H1000 posted:

...Using a gaming controller available on amazon for about $40, I built my own home-brew DCS remote that operates on top of the app.  It includes all of the nifty features like a tactile control for the quilling whistle. What I like about this approach is all of the buttons and joysticks are fully customizable and if want to move a particular function, it can be done...

That's pretty slick - mitigates the issues regarding hard-to-find components by piggybacking on a mass-market product.  Are you a reincarnation of Frank Pettit?

If you're willing to share your work, I'd suggest submitting it as an article for OGR - just contact @Allan Miller - I'm sure he'd be interested.  Or perhaps you should pitch it to MTH and Lionel - maybe one of them will license your idea.

My son spends his weekends racing RC cars, mostly carpet tracks this time of year. We've discussed this remote issue and I don't think you can draw any similarities to the RC controls and what we use to run trains. They are using the pistol grip controllers mostly, with radio tx/rx to modules in the cars, and there is about 7 msec of latency between finger movements and car movements. There are no buttons, sliders, etc. A few use the old two joystick controllers the model airplane guys used. These are not cheap toys from Walmart.

@H1000 posted:

Andy, I think this is a good idea. The big hurdle to overcome is dealing with the many sizes available for phones and tablets and then attaching this tactile remote to your own device.  Not saying that it can't be done but it might not look as pretty as a fully integrated remote. I do see this as the best way to appease those who still want remotes and for Lionel & MTH to keep hardware costs (specifically remotes) down.

Using a gaming controller available on amazon for about $40, I built my own home-brew DCS remote that operates on top of the app.  It includes all of the nifty features like a tactile control for the quilling whistle. What I like about this approach is all of the buttons and joysticks are fully customizable and if want to move a particular function, it can be done.

@Dave Olson confirmed on a recent video that Lionel is looking to add this capability because of the work we did. This could be a game changer!

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

My son spends his weekends racing RC cars.  I don't think you can draw any similarities to the RC controls and what we use to run trains.

You can't?

What is so different about "go" and "stop", especially when you're running fast with either cars or trains?

A pistol grip would work just fine with a locomotive.  And if I recall most of them  have a center position on the trigger.  When you pull back on it with your finger the car goes forward, push forward and the car goes backwards.

This would be excellent for a switcher, especially if the directions are swapped.

Mike

Have you ever seen these kinds of RC races? Do you need to steer your trains to avoid collisions? Do you need almost the same start/stop reactions as driving a car? Sorry, very different animal and nothing the rc remotes are built with will do anything for our low latency needs.

A few months ago one of these guys was hit by his own car, it broke his hip!

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

Have you ever seen these kinds of RC races? Do you need to steer your trains to avoid collisions? Do you need almost the same start/stop reactions as driving a car? Sorry, very different animal and nothing the rc remotes are built with will do anything for our low latency needs.

We haven't said anything about steering.  It's clearly not necessary.

On the other hand I'm very happy that you aren't the person, in the real world, designing the controls on the latest Acela.  Does the engineer need to have the same start/stop reactions as driving a car?

It's not a very different animal at all.  It's exactly the same in the real world.

Now I will grant you one thing:  Is it as critical when operating models?  No.  But our situation is definitely not low-latency.  Go back to the impending wreck situation and ask yourself if low latency is satisfactory.

Is this whole topic important?  Yes.  Is it prototypical?  Definitely.

Do we want to pay for the extra fidelity in our modeled environment?  Maybe not, but some of us do.

Mike

@TheRambles posted:

@Dave Olson confirmed on a recent video that Lionel is looking to add this capability because of the work we did. This could be a game changer!

I actually think this is the most likely end game for hardware control.  I would even go so far to suggest a 3rd party could develop as Andy Hummel suggested a more specific add on interface that would cradle the smart device and act as a tactile controller for the most frequently used features.  I really don't think Lionel needs to make anything but be aware and open for 3rd party developers that would. 

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Yes, one does, until just before your $1,200.00 locomotive, controlled by you with your phone, is about to get in a wreck.  Then you have to act just as quickly as with an RC car or plane.  Or maybe not?

Mike

Stop "button" on the tablet is pretty easy to find.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

We haven't said anything about steering.  It's clearly not necessary.

On the other hand I'm very happy that you aren't the person, in the real world, designing the controls on the latest Acela.  Does the engineer need to have the same start/stop reactions as driving a car?

It's not a very different animal at all.  It's exactly the same in the real world.

Now I will grant you one thing:  Is it as critical when operating models?  No.  But our situation is definitely not low-latency.  Go back to the impending wreck situation and ask yourself if low latency is satisfactory.

Is this whole topic important?  Yes.  Is it prototypical?  Definitely.

Do we want to pay for the extra fidelity in our modeled environment?  Maybe not, but some of us do.

Mike

Ok, you can have the last word. I'm not into hyperbole.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

Ok, you can have the last word. I'm not into hyperbole.

This isn't hyperbole.  It's the real world.  In the real world people get hurt when safety isn't properly considered.

In our world they don't, but they need to be taught how to when they're out and about in the real world.  It's one of many ways each of form what we call common sense.

Including it in our little world is one very good way to do it.

Mike

@Mallard4468 posted:

Stop "button" on the tablet is pretty easy to find.

Not anywhere near as easy as spinning the red knob rapidly counterclockwise, or the thumbwheel rapidly down, without needing to look at either of them to do so.

Finding the stop button when you look down is one thing.  Getting your finger to the precise correct location is another.  But even worse actually getting getting the phone to recognize that you're pushing is not guaranteed.

Even in non-emergency situations, with plenty of time to do it, 10% of the time your push doesn't register correctly, no matter what app you're using.  Then you have to try again, in an emergency, even more quickly than the first attempt, because you have less time left to be successful.

Mike

Just trying to point out that modeling real things in miniature is many times much more important to the real world than simulating them on a computer.

Therefore, in addition to what we do being a hobby, it's also an important training ground for the future.

Thank you to all in this thread, especially @Mallard4468 and @turkey_hollow_rr, for entertaining my tirades.

Mike

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

This isn't hyperbole.  It's the real world.  In the real world people get hurt when safety isn't properly considered.

In our world they don't, but they need to be taught how to when they're out and about in the real world.  It's one of many ways each of form what we call common sense.

Including it in our little world is one very good way to do it.

Mike

Mike, maybe we're not talking about the same issue. I'm referring to our remotes going away for both Lionel and MTH because there are certain parts that will no longer be made.

@MartyE posted:

I actually think this is the most likely end game for hardware control.  I would even go so far to suggest a 3rd party could develop as Andy Hummel suggested a more specific add on interface that would cradle the smart device and act as a tactile controller for the most frequently used features.  I really don't think Lionel needs to make anything but be aware and open for 3rd party developers that would.

I agree. Items like these already exist, albeit without bluetooth capability, and could offer potentially dozens of options for our apparently picky tastes. The only question is how willing Lionel is to open the app to other developers.

@Yellowstone Special posted:

... My smaller, 10 year old, 2-train layout ...

Beautiful layout!!!

@TheRambles posted:

@Dave Olson confirmed on a recent video that Lionel is looking to add this capability because of the work we did. This could be a game changer!

I think in a big way this is the next step, especially in recovering the diehard handheld remote users. Lionel or MTH could release this (perhaps even with a customized controller?) and once again claim they have a (hybrid) hardware remote.

After this, a better integration of voice control. LVC leaves a lot to be desired but it did open the door.

@TheRambles posted:

@Dave Olson confirmed on a recent video that Lionel is looking to add this capability because of the work we did. This could be a game changer!

I am glad that you mentioned it to him, was going to reply and say that. If there is an easy way to use an off the shelf component to interface with the app (or relatively easy way), that would be huge. Among other things, if you break the remote, easy enough to find a replacement.

@H1000 posted:

Andy, I think this is a good idea. The big hurdle to overcome is dealing with the many sizes available for phones and tablets and then attaching this tactile remote to your own device.  Not saying that it can't be done but it might not look as pretty as a fully integrated remote. I do see this as the best way to appease those who still want remotes and for Lionel & MTH to keep hardware costs (specifically remotes) down.

Using a gaming controller available on amazon for about $40, I built my own home-brew DCS remote that operates on top of the app.  It includes all of the nifty features like a tactile control for the quilling whistle. What I like about this approach is all of the buttons and joysticks are fully customizable and if want to move a particular function, it can be done.

Beautiful job!   Just what the 3Rail community needs moving forward, integrating commonly available systems for ease of use and reduction of overall costs.

Is anyone really happy about the CAB3 not having the capability to use a dedicated remote?

@Frank Mulligan posted:

Beautiful layout!!!

Thank you, Frank.

@Frank Mulligan posted:

Is anyone really happy about the CAB3 not having the capability to use a dedicated remote?

Frank, I don't follow.

You can still buy a CAB-1L hardware remote (still in production) from Lionel and use it with the BASE3 and if you already own a CAB-2 you can use it with the BASE3 as well.

@H1000 posted:

Frank, I don't follow.

You can still buy a CAB-1L hardware remote (still in production) from Lionel and use it with the BASE3 and if you already own a CAB-2 you can use it with the BASE3 as well.

Sorry, I was mistaken.  I thought it only used the app.

@Frank Mulligan posted:

Sorry, I was mistaken.  I thought it only used the app.

No problem Frank, Dave Olsen did a nice Youtube demo of using the BASE3 with Lionels current remotes. It's very informative.