Thinking about why I run only conventional

Hi Lee, we all do this hobby thing for our own reasons. In your case it is watching your trains run with little or no trouble because of the high tech world you work in. That's your escape mechanism.

In my case my work life was a little different, I was a technician who always had to make other peoples design ideas come true. In other words I was the guy who recived your instructions and then had to make them work as planed.

So when I go into my train world I am always trying new things like building cercuits to do things I wont, or incorporating products others have built in new ways.

I always said that a good technician was just a frustrated engineer without his EE.

 

That's why I love DCS and other CC systems. They allow me to play and let my mind run away with itself without alot of smoke.

I stay with conventional only for many reasons. One is cost. Legacy and tmcc is too much for me to justify. Another is all the constant complaints about the new electronic engines failing and NO replacement boards available, or too expensive. I like the simplicity of conventional and the reliability. The last thing is I don't want to end up setting my hard collected post war engines and cars aside. 1950 is fine with me.

Rob

There are so many ways to look at things. I had a seafood business for almost 35 years. Sometimes it involved 18 days going to the docks and then back to run the shop. It was many years of long days spent around all types of seafood. I still ate seafood several times a week at home and was always experimenting. I guess I was lucky that I really enjoyed my work all day so I never minded when it carried over into my home life.

There is more than the cost factor for me not to run command control that much anymore, and here is one factor; you must have a constant voltage to the track, an inconveniance when you have a lighted caboose or passenger car on the train.

I had a lighted caboose short out it's center rail pick-up because of command control voltages.

 

Lee F.

There is that old expression about "Doing what you love."  I does seem that many in the restaurant business love food and spend free time in other restaurants & kitchens with other cooks.

I can relate, except in my case it's lacking the desire to "relax" at my home workbench gazing through a magnifier building something after spending all day at my work workbench gazing through a magnifier repairing something.

 

And, there'd something to be said for the simplicity of conventional: track, train transformer or powerpack, two wires.  Just plug it in and let 'er rip. 

 

No selecting locomotive, no scanning for locomotive, no puffs of blue smoke at the most inopertune time.

 

Rusty

I think there is room for everything in this hobby - which is why it is so great.

 

When I was planning my layout, much of my decision on how to control it was driven by my locomotive roster and my ineptitude at wiring.  I want to be able to control everything from my remote but I also want to be able to run any train I want to even if it is the one I got in 1964.  I don't see the need for the choice to run conventional to have to be exclusive of the choice to run command and vice versa.  You can have both but if you don't want both, that's fine too.

 

I do like the way Lee makes me think about why I make my choices.

So far, the minuses of command control have outweighed the pluses from what I read on this forum.  The engines are DOA or certain features are lost that used to work etc.  I like the certainty of my KW and throttles.  No batteries or programming necessary to get in the way of the fun of running trains. 

For me, running conventional is partly nostalgia: All my trains growing up were conventional.

 

I also like the simplicity: I don't work in technology, but I do work with people a lot. There is something nice about a train that is predictable, and does precisely what I need it to do, and without requiring a lot of instruction

 

Most of all, I like the immediacy of conventional. I always seem somehow disconnected from the locomotive when running command. I really don't enjoy the "momentum" feature at all! Part of it, I guess, is that I got good long ago at coaxing slow starts out of traditional locomotives with Pullmor motors. With can motors and command, you don't need to do that. Or is it that you can't do that, and that's why you need pulse power and "momentum", to do it for you? Either way, it takes something away from the illusion that I am running the train.

 

Here we have another example of the "different strokes for different folks" scenario.  There is, of course, no "right" way to operate one's trains.  It's strictly a matter of individual preferences.

 

For most of my long tenure in this hobby I operated with conventional transformer control.  It more than satisfactorily met my needs.  Then, about two years ago, more or less, I began "experimenting" with DCS and, more recently, with Lionel Legacy.  Now, for me at least, there is no turning back (love the freedom from a maze of wiring).

 

However, I still have, and will keep, a good collection of conventional-only locomotives.  I can still run them whenever I care to, and if all of my CC stuff was to go belly-up simultaneously, I can still operate all the other trains I care to via conventional means.  Kind of the best of all worlds to my way of thinking.

 

I care more about the trains than I do about the juice (or digital commands) that is powering them and/or making them do their stuff.  But I also am having a great time using the many features that CC offers, and the freedom afforded by such systems.

 

It's strictly a matter of what works for YOU, and no further justification or support from others is needed.

Lee,

While I do have the ability to run DCS & TMCC I prefer not too. All my trains with the exception of one set are pre 1932. While the older pieces do require more power to run, they require less work to maintain and enjoy. We all model the era we can relate to. That's what makes this such a enjoyable hobby. While to world rushes by us outside. Our layouts are stuck in time, JUST FOR US. Are we in, "The Outer Limits" or "The Twilight Zone"? Maybe, but that's how we enjoy it.

Interesting thread indeed. I am fortunate to have the opportunity to run both on my layout: conventional on the lower level and TMCC/Legacy above. I have been wondering: why, after being disinterested in O-gauge for over 10 years, after many years of full-scale immersion in it, have I become so re-invigorated? I realize: part of the reason is the new sound and control systems. From 1991-2001 I did have the good fortune to run real trains: SW-1, GP 7 and 9, F7, RDC, and others. After doing that, hearing the sound, feeling the vibrations, etc,, the ZW and my Lionels just weren't the same. The layout languished in the basement.

 

Now, as I no longer run the real thing, I realize that the new sound systems make me feel like I am! Today's Lionels are the next best thing to hearing the chant of the EMD prime movers as one opens the throttle.  

 

B&OBill

I’m conventional only, but that’s mostly a function of the fact that I run tinplate exclusively these days.  Sure,  I know I could use CC with my tin, but have decided to go traditional. I like the simplicity and it fits well with the classic "toy train" layout I have.

 

When I first got back into O gauge I did run TMCC for a short period of time, and have to say I enjoyed it. Come to think of it, I’ve got a like-new CAB-1 and base stashed away somewhere.

Command control is like watching TV with a remote,once you do it theres no going back to getting up and pressing those buttons by hand. 

Simplicity. That's why I am a conventional operator. I work on aircraft electrical systems and electronics at work. I don't want to come home and spend my hobby time troubleshooting and repairing my trains. I had one loco with DCS. It became problematic and I couldn't run it for a couple of years. I ripped it all out, added a Williams reverse unit and manual couplers. Now I can run the thing without any problems.

Nothing wrong with running conventional outside of the fact that if your running newer equipment conventionally, you really miss out on all they have to offer. I think theres alot of "fear mongering" in regards to the latest command systems. I personally find this computer I'm typing on far more complicated, at least legacy buttons have pictures on them so I know what they do. I'm especially surprised by you Lee, the man who isn't afraid to cut two brand new locomotives in half and the glue the opposite halves together for an all-new creation

A simple way to run both with very little wiring and blocks and cut off power switches is to run seperate tracks for TMCC/DCS and conventional. It does limit the ability to run on same track but an easy alternative to just keeping the conventional engines on the shelf. 

Personally, I find Legacy to be the simplest to use system around. Far less complex than conventional control. (Although I can set my system back to purely conventional in under 5 minutes if I should ever need, or wish, to do so.)

The wiring is simpler, just a few track power feeds and one wire for the Legacy base. And as for ease of control, I sit in a comfortable chair, at my favourite viewing position, and can operate my trains and switches all from a single controller. Simplicity itself, and that is without even mentioning all of the wonderful extra things that you can do with Legacy control.

Well, actually, yes there is.

My rather large standard gauge tinplate layout is all wired for MTH's DCS, and I have enjoyed running it that way, and will keep that capacity.  But I'm also just finishing up wiring control panels with toggles for the turnouts, and I find myself most frequently running my trains with the transformer's throttle handle.

 

For me, it has to do with the tactile, kinetic feedback of the transformer handle; it's how we ran them as kids, and it still gives so much more thrill and pleasure than pushing remote buttons.  In this way, running the trains is not like watching TV: there is an active participation and physical involvement with the trains which I really miss when it is removed with the remote.

 

Part of the problem for me is the MTH remote control itself: the thumbwheel particularly is a very poor interface, giving delayed and sporadic response, and feedback unrelated to your input.  I hear that the remote control is being redesigned, which may help, but it will still not have the physical "feel" of the big throttle handle and the manual toggles for the switches.

 

MTH's "conventional mode" options in DCS are all about running conventional engines with their remote control, which doesn't interest me: the whole point of conventional is to get away from that remote.

 

And yes, there is certainly some connection between running the prewar standard gauge tinplate, and the conventional control mode - and also the physical memory of working the throttle as a kid.  Someone coming at the hobby from a different direction will have an entirely different take on the subject.

I run conventional trains for their simplicity of operation, repair/availability of parts and for their unparalleled reliability. Most of my runners are MPC or 90's era Lionel and Williams engines. Well maintained, these conventional engines will run for years and years without problems. I certanly like Legacy and DCS operation but those engines are expensive, hard to repair, not as reliable and the parts supply seems shaky if not non-existent. I have better things to do with my money than to buy a Legacy engine and chance ending up with a $1500 "boat anchor". 

[in my family]: Desktops (2), Laptops (4), active [voice only] cell phones (3), Nuvi (1), Hiking GPS (2). I have zero interest in yet one more digital device or OS to 'think about' or learn. If I belonged to a club, if I had a mini club sized layout @ home I'm sure I would feel different.

 

For me Rich Melvin has said it best: You throw the switch, the transformers fire up, push the handle & the train moves. Worked for us then, still works for many of us now. Now where did I put that latest issue of OGR?

Running Legacy and DCS, is less "computer like" than running conventional even if there are microprocessors all over the layout. But you miss the feeling of controlling your loco from a "huge" ZW handle. I would like Lionel to make a "fake" ZW" that works like up to 4 fixed Legacy remotes = a ZW handle that controls a loco, not a loop of track.

The last time I redid my carpet central layout, I added a second loop hooked up to a CW-80 only just so I could run my command engines with the remote on the outer loop (hooked up to my 180W power brick), while also being able to keep things simple with my good old postwar equipment on the inner loop.  I've been enjoying this setup for quite awhile now.  It's fun running my Legacy SD80MAC's next to my postwar 736 berkshire or 2020 turbine.  And sometimes I forget the command stuff and just run postwar, or visa versa.

 

And another story...

 

One time I brought my brothers prewar 1688 torpedo to a local train show I was running trains with my club at.  Near the end of the show I pulled off my command stuff and put the 1688 and it's 4 tinplate freight cars on the layout and sent it on it's way around the layout.  We had had a number of issues with the command equipment on the layout that day, but the old 1688 just ran and ran, and kept running until I stopped it.  Left a few fellow club members, who had command issues during the day, scratching their heads

 

I love running trains both ways, but I always love the simplicity of the conventional stuff.

As there is joy in motoring through the countryside shifting a manual transmission.  And shooting film instead of digital.  And using compact manual focus lenses instead of clunky autofocus versions.

I run conventional because it is simple. Period.  The last thing I need when I go to the basement to run trains are the headaches of legacy and tcc. Maybe later, when I have time tocp create those self imposed headaches. 

 

"Plug in. Turn up, and drop out."

 

That about sums up why Ipike conventional right now

Playing with trains is fun. Conventional, battery operated, hand pushed, DCC, DCS, TMCC and Legacy. They are all great. 

 

That being said I must say Legacy and DCS engines are much more reliable than posts here indicate. Once you get the initial bugs worked out and they are safe and sound on you layout as opposed to bouncing around the globe in shipping they are very stable.

 

I have several that I have run several hours a day for the past 18 months with zero problems. Again, I must admit that often out of the box you may have an issue but once attended to they are very reliable. I have even driven one right off layout onto a cement floor at a good speed. Cosmetic damage but no electronic issues. 

Allan's right- this is a "different strokes" topic. For me it's simply because I'm one of those who has trouble figuring out my TV remote. I can just imagine what would happen with a train remote- I'd probably get a diesel horn out of a steamer.

 

But it's one of those things that if someone showed me how to do it, I probably would give it a shot.

It's one word for me, OZONE! I'm hopelessly addicted to it.

 

I grew up with the buzz of the e unit, the sparking of the rollers, the growl of the Pullmor motor. These new fangled trains seem kind of artificial to me.

All conventional here........

My real job was Senior System Analyst for a Fortune 50  company for 25+ years.

And although retired I am still 'tech support' for every member of my extended family. 

I just don't want to deal with it. I am already thinking if I loose too many DCU's down the road I'll cut them all out and run them on DC. (I only have 2 vintage AC locos)

Low tech for me.....I need it!!

Cost and cowardice... That stuff seems fickle and complicated.

I run TMCC in Conv.  Can run full CC if I want.  But to me the cost does not equal benefits.  And in TMCC conv, you can set the PM or the TPC in such a way that even the heavy PW dual motor engines can run as smooth as the newer can ones.

 

I think L and MTH have drooped the ball.  Some sort of TMCC Lite for conv. ops so you can walk around with your train.

If it did not come in a Marx, I must not need it

I do enjoy watching others with all the goodies though.

 

Steve

For myself, the extra expense is the deal killer. All the cute tricks are impressive, but do I really need to spend a couple of grand for the ability to turn on lights, change sounds and speed, etc.? I've got a couple of engines with sound but no control system, and after awhile I've opened them up and turned the volume down to where it's barely there - I still think AmFlyer's "Choo-Choo" sound is more pleasing to the ear. I'm no Luddite, but Lionel & MTH lost my business when they stopped offering a choice. As to dependability, I've lost boards on DC-motored engines and replaced them with e-units and rectifiers. That technology still works, and will certainly outlast me!

This isn't a complicated equation. Those who enjoy operating in conventional mode will run conventionally, those who enjoy the various command systems will run in a command environment and those who enjoy both will use both. I personally enjoy running sound equipped locomotives without utilizing the various command features so that's how I roll. Plus, I ran the real thing with my hand on the throttle and I like to do the same with my models. If I venture into any type of command control at some point, it will most likely be with DCC in my HO and N scale endeavors.

 

Bob   

Lee

This is a very interesting thread and I have often wondered how many people ran in the conventional mode verses the command. I started out with TMCC with all the TCP, ACS and etc and thought this is great then moved to Legacy and DCS and then thought this is the best but about 8 weeks ago I was able to get a used MTH Z4000 so I hooked it up for conventional operations and now I find myself being drawn back to that mode everyday. It seems to me to have the control feel of running your engines with handles. I also got an E7 Williams and that really has become one of my favorite running engines. Like some have said here that the cost of Lionel and MTH and most others has reached pass what I can spend but Williams still is in my range. Thanks you all who have replied and I ook forward to reading more. Good Thread.

Lee

 

Of course there were no computer controlled steamers. But as I look out on my layout with all three controllers, one in each hand I think of myself as THE Intelligent Designer!  A true theological delusion.

I had conventional in my early years with Lionel (of course) and then with HO. When I started back in O-Gauge over fours ago, I started with DCS. Last year I added Legacy, and I am having a ball.

 

Also, I don’t remember kids as eager in how to run the trains in conventional as I have experienced lately when they see the remotes, whether DCS or Legacy!

 

One of my neighbor's daughter, a 14-year old, almost tore the DCS remote from my hand the first time she came to see the trains. To make a long story short, she now knows how my layout works, helps me with its construction whenever she can, and is the only other person that knows how to operate the trains and turnouts using both DCS and Legacy (just the trains with the latter). I don’t think I could have recruited this helper if had been running just conventional.

 

But as has been wisely stated, whether conventional, DCS, Legacy, DCC, or whatever, running trains is just plain fun!

 

Alex

I started as conventional only but then I realized than my plans for multiple train operation would be much simpler if I adopted TMCC. Since then I have been converting all my Lionel conventional and MTH PS1 engines to TMCC. Now I find the conversion process to be just an much fun as running the trains.