I'll say it again: Legacy is fantastic. I am never going back to conventional control. I even use a Legacy Powermaster to run my old conventional steam loco. I can walk around my room and watch the train run or lie on my bed with my CAB-2 in hand and enjoy the sounds of the train.
@Don Merz 070317 posted:Possibly completing the circle of knowledge here...Lionel published the TMCC protocols and let anybody make TMCC electronics. This is why Atlas and others are selling TMCC locos. This decision showed remarkable foresight and IMHO has strengthened the industry and the hobby. One practical aspect of this is that you can buy a TMCC board (from Electric Railroad), with or without railsounds, and make nearly any loco run under TMCC. To me, that is amazing.
Don Merz
That isn't entirely true, it was not open source. Atlas and others were able to use TMCC in their engines because as far as I know Lionel sold them the boards under license, and ERR likewise had a license to build their board sets and that doesn't come free (not saying it should be). It was great Lionel did that, MTH until the 'New' MTH didn't do that (It has now licensed the DCS technology to Atlas).
@bigkid posted:That isn't entirely true, it was not open source. Atlas and others were able to use TMCC in their engines because as far as I know Lionel sold them the boards under license, and ERR likewise had a license to build their board sets and that doesn't come free (not saying it should be). It was great Lionel did that, MTH until the 'New' MTH didn't do that (It has now licensed the DCS technology to Atlas).
AFAIK, it's perfectly legal for anyone to take the published TMCC specification and build and sell their own hardware. Not the same with Legacy, Lionel has released the specifications, but retains the control.
@graz posted:For the Lionchief 2.0+, you'll be fine with your set up.
However, in order to run postwar, you'll need to add a Legacy Powermaster. It allows you to remotely control the level of power that the xformer is feeding to the track.
It connects to a set of the xformer outputs and then connects to the track.
OR- a ZW-L transformer, although at much higher cost, it does give you added options beyond the PowerMaster.
@c.sam posted:In a quick read of these posts I didn't see anyone mention to the original poster that both systems operate with a constant 18 volts fed to the tracks as opposed to using a transformer which controlled the speed by varying the voltage from below 6v to 18v - 22v. The TMCC/Legacy systems control the voltage remotely through the locomotive.
But- by reducing the voltage (using a transformer) you lower the potential speed of the Legacy or TMCC locomotives, which is an easy way to reduce a child's top speed running your $1500 locomotive. BUT as the voltage drops certain functions (like the smoke output) drop off. and if taken to extreme, control as well. No HARM as such, though.
Well BIGKID, MTH used the published TMCC specs to enable DCS to run TMCC equipment. AFAIK, MTH did not have to buy anything from ERR or Lionel. I call that "open source". But maybe this is just semantics.
Don
@Don Merz 070317 posted:Well BIGKID, MTH used the published TMCC specs to enable DCS to run TMCC equipment. AFAIK, MTH did not have to buy anything from ERR or Lionel. I call that "open source". But maybe this is just semantics.
It's sure a lot more "open source" than MTH was or still is, I haven't seen published interface specifications for the DCS system from them. Selling parts to Atlas isn't the same as publishing the interface specifications freely.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:It's sure a lot more "open source" than MTH was or still is, I haven't seen published interface specifications for the DCS system from them. Selling parts to Atlas isn't the same as publishing the interface specifications freely.
I agree that Lionel publishing the interface specs for TMCC was much better than what MTH did, I wasn't criticizing Lionel at all. MTH in adding TMCC control to DCS was able to do this because the interface spec was out there (laws regarding IP is murky, but in general it has held that functionality itself is not patent-able, but the underlying hardware is. A third party firm like ERR selling boards would be another matter, they would have to go through a lot of work to make sure they didn't infringe on or use the same technology as the boards Lionel itself was using. These days they might have to worry about 3rd rail and the err boards (meaning someone new, obviously). If it was truly free and open Atlas could have built its own boards as could weaver, but likely the cost of making sure they were legally not infringing on Lionel boards and the cost of defending them made it cheaper to buy them from Lionel.
@bigkid posted:I agree that Lionel publishing the interface specs for TMCC was much better than what MTH did, I wasn't criticizing Lionel at all. MTH in adding TMCC control to DCS was able to do this because the interface spec was out there (laws regarding IP is murky, but in general it has held that functionality itself is not patent-able, but the underlying hardware is. A third party firm like ERR selling boards would be another matter, they would have to go through a lot of work to make sure they didn't infringe on or use the same technology as the boards Lionel itself was using. These days they might have to worry about 3rd rail and the err boards (meaning someone new, obviously). If it was truly free and open Atlas could have built its own boards as could weaver, but likely the cost of making sure they were legally not infringing on Lionel boards and the cost of defending them made it cheaper to buy them from Lionel.
I agree you can't copy the Lionel boards, but making a simple 455khz FSK receiver isn't rocket science, so coming up with an original design shouldn't be impossible. 
GRJ, probably not, I would assume (not being an engineer) that you could implement the controls in ASICS relatively easily, though if Lionel wanted to be a nasty customer they could ask to see the code they implement and make sure it isn't the same as their firmware code in their boards. In the end what likely kept anyone from building their own boards was the cost of litigating it if Lionel decided to press the case. Even the threat of legal action is costly, to say the least.
I met someone years ago who worked at Phoenix Technologies, the company that built the BIOS that allowed for IBM PC clones, and the process they went through to make sure their firmware code was in no way even closely similar to IBM's was pretty amazing (obviously, a very different beast in terms of complexity). Not surprising, given that IBM's legal team would like nothing more than to put an upstart out of business before it started.
This is certainly a concern, I actually worked on a avionics replacement project that had a similar issue. We had to create a new fuel system controller using only the functional operation description and interface specifications as those was not proprietary to the previous product.
It was an interesting exercise proving that we didn't use any of the prior electronics or code, even though we had possession of the previous product. Of course, the company I was consulting for did have their own lawyers and could afford to fight the battle, but the battle never came.
Reading all of the above, and admittedly not understanding all of its complexities, what would prevent anyone from producing a batch of the Cruise Commander Lite (CC Lite)?
@modeltrainsparts posted:Reading all of the above, and admittedly not understanding all of its complexities, what would prevent anyone from producing a batch of the Cruise Commander Lite (CC Lite)?
Since the licensed part is the R4LC, absolutely nothing. However, you'd have to recreate the wheel, i.e. do the design yourself and also all the code. In speaking with Jon Z. the code for the Cruise Commander and thusly the CC-Lite was non-trivial. Jon also has extensive experience with all the moving parts involved as well.
The obvious route would be to try to get a license from Lionel to product the CC-Lite. Scott at 3rd Rail didn't see interest in the quantities necessary for a production run, so I suspect that's another stumbling block. Apparently, while there is some interest in the CC-Lite, there's not enough to justify a quantity run of sufficient size to keep the costs reasonable.
I'm somewhat familiar with the problem of small production runs, most of my electronic products have small runs, and thus are more expensive than they could be if I were making thousands. However, I simply don't have the resources to do a large production run of a board and sit on it for years while the inventory is slowly depleted.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Since the licensed part is the R4LC, absolutely nothing. However, you'd have to recreate the wheel, i.e. do the design yourself and also all the code. In speaking with Jon Z. the code for the Cruise Commander and thusly the CC-Lite was non-trivial. Jon also has extensive experience with all the moving parts involved as well.
The obvious route would be to try to get a license from Lionel to product the CC-Lite. Scott at 3rd Rail didn't see interest in the quantities necessary for a production run, so I suspect that's another stumbling block. Apparently, while there is some interest in the CC-Lite, there's not enough to justify a quantity run of sufficient size to keep the costs reasonable.
I'm somewhat familiar with the problem of small production runs, most of my electronic products have small runs, and thus are more expensive than they could be if I were making thousands. However, I simply don't have the resources to do a large production run of a board and sit on it for years while the inventory is slowly depleted.
Yep, that is the thing, people sometimes forget that this is a low volume business. If there was a market for a thousand or 10,000 boards for TMCC or whatever a year, a company might take the chance to produce a work alike product to the 'real deal', go through the reverse engineering, find someone to make it for them, etc. It is kind of like when people complain about the cost of a vision legacy engine and point out how cheap tv sets are or other consumer electronics, they kind of don't understand that our beloved trains doesn't have a million people,even a hundred thousand, buying this stuff, just not enough demand.
Hey thanks all the info Hey G3750 I live on the last 200 miles of the Pan Handle
@gunrunnerjohn posted:AFAIK, it's perfectly legal for anyone to take the published TMCC specification and build and sell their own hardware. Not the same with Legacy, Lionel has released the specifications, but retains the control.
The patents have probably long since expired, but that would be the only other thing preventing someone form building compatible hardware. The other thing is, they likely could not use any of the Lionel terminology.
Example: "Acme TMCC Boards" would probably get a letter from a lawyer.
"Acme TMCC-compatible Train Control Boards" might too.
However, "Acme 3-rail Remote Control Boards" with a feature listing of "Compatible with Lionel TMCC Remotes and Command Bases**" along with a note "** Lionel, TMCC, and TMCC Command Base are registered trademarks of Lionel Trains LLC..." etc. etc. would probably be OK.
@rplst8 posted:The patents have probably long since expired, but that would be the only other thing preventing someone form building compatible hardware. The other thing is, they likely could not use any of the Lionel terminology.
However, "Acme 3-rail Remote Control Boards" with a feature listing of "Compatible with Lionel TMCC Remotes and Command Bases**" along with a note "** Lionel, TMCC, and TMCC Command Base are registered trademarks of Lionel Trains LLC..." etc. etc. would probably be OK.
Is that "probably" as in being in Texas and saying "these are probably not killer bees".
@Don Merz 070317 posted:Well BIGKID, MTH used the published TMCC specs to enable DCS to run TMCC equipment. AFAIK, MTH did not have to buy anything from ERR or Lionel. I call that "open source". But maybe this is just semantics.
Don
This is mostly semantics, but "Open Source" usually has a specific connotation whereas not only is the source code and/or design specifications "open" for all to see, but anyone is also free (unencumbered by licensing costs) to use said source code and/or designs - AND to extend them and republish them. In fact in some open source licenses, the republishing is mandatory to promote sharing and continued development of a standard, piece of software, or design.
Open Architecture on the other hand probably better describes Lionel's business model with TMCC. They publish standards and people are allowed to participate after paying licensing fees. Certain parts of the standard may not require anything (such as communications) which is all that the MTH TIU does. It doesn't actually "implement" TMCC - it just talks to the Command Base via a serial cable.
These are both opposed to the "trade secret" model where all parties involved may not only have to pay fees for use, but also sign non-disclosure agreements baring them from publishing or discussing any of the designs or protocols with anyone else but the intellectual property owner.
@bigkid posted:Yep, that is the thing, people sometimes forget that this is a low volume business. If there was a market for a thousand or 10,000 boards for TMCC or whatever a year, a company might take the chance to produce a work alike product to the 'real deal', go through the reverse engineering, find someone to make it for them, etc. It is kind of like when people complain about the cost of a vision legacy engine and point out how cheap tv sets are or other consumer electronics, they kind of don't understand that our beloved trains doesn't have a million people,even a hundred thousand, buying this stuff, just not enough demand.
This is why I've made a push for commoditization of the hardware and controls. Most of what a model train locomotive can do has already been decided and mapped out. Speed control, sound activation, relay control of lights, smoke, couplers. That's 99% of the feature set. Most new features are just simply more relay activation items (swinging bell, depleting coal load, additional smoke units). There has definitely been some innovation in the sound features - but that is all software that should be easily reprogrammable. Note, I didn't say easy to make - but easy to reprogram, i.e. just a firmware flash. Therefore, picking a standard architecture that will be available for some time seems like a no brainer. Arduino seems like the most fitting candidate right now, but I'm sure there are others.
I think we're almost to the point where a gum stick (Wrigley's not Trident) sized board is capable of all the processing that TMCC, Legacy, DCS, and DCC do. Pair that with an open source codebase, enough data I/O lines to control a relay board, and a motor controller (also commodity versions of these out there) and I think the hobby could "get past" any of this hardware incompatibility.
No one has needed a license or a lawyer to power up a model with an AC or DC motor for at least a century. At what point will "command control" become like that? Soon I hope. Otherwise, with all of the issues with parts availability both board assemblies and individual chips, this hobby is going nowhere and will be stuck with 1950s technology for the average user.
@rplst8 posted:No one has needed a license or a lawyer to power up a model with an AC or DC motor for at least a century. At what point will "command control" become like that? Soon I hope. Otherwise, with all of the issues with parts availability both board assemblies and individual chips, this hobby is going nowhere and will be stuck with 1950s technology for the average user.
rplst8,
You're getting carried away, but only because you're a little early.
1.) Try getting a critical mass interested in using an Arduino-based solution, or even DCC. Very few will want to have surgery done on their existing models. That's 121 years of product needing to be altered. Ok, now I'm getting carried away -- how about the last 75 anyway? You are correct in that current electronic parts will be very hard to come by at some point, but we aren't there yet.
2.) For at least the last 25 years roughly neither you, nor anyone else, can start a new car, or even get inside it, without invoking a software license from the manufacturer. Are you aware of that? The salesman probably didn't tell you about it and it isn't widely published but it is technically true. You own the car you bought, except for the software in it. That you are only licensing. The same situation applies here as well.
3.) This hobby, more than most, has always been about going "somewhere". Even if it seems that we can't do that, for whatever reason, we'll find a way. We always have. It's not dead yet, and a little problem like expired electronics won't stop it.
Keep up the push for an all-encompassing solution, Arduino or other. We'll need it some day. You're just a little too soon; and for that reason you may feel that your words are falling on deaf ears, but one day they won't be.
Mike
@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:You are correct in that current electronic parts will be very hard to come by at some point, but we aren't there yet.
Well, try buying a TMCC R2LC from Lionel to fix an existing engine, then tell me that current electronic parts aren't getting hard to come by. 
You're right about that of course John. My point is that the shortage isn't yet widespread enough to cause big pain. Once it does then things will finally be ripe for change.
There'll be a big opportunity for a broad and functional solution. I put my money on my favorite term, elegant simplicity. Currently neither Legacy nor DCS are simple; LionChief, +, and 2.0 aren't helping; and DCC certainly might be conceptually simple, but is not elegantly so.
What comes next?
Mike
@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:2.) For at least the last 25 years roughly neither you, nor anyone else, can start a new car, or even get inside it, without invoking a software license from the manufacturer. Are you aware of that? The salesman probably didn't tell you about it and it isn't widely published but it is technically true. You own the car you bought, except for the software in it. That you are only licensing. The same situation applies here as well.
Yes, and probably even worse is the situation with farmers that are unable to repair their tractors. To those uninformed on the subject, do some reading and tell me it's not the most unfair thing about "big business" and consumers going on right now. I'm very hopeful that right-to-repair laws will overcome these hurdles. The EU has made major inroads here, and like most things the lowest common denominator will likely win, and then it will be come common-place everywhere.
Keep up the push for an all-encompassing solution, Arduino or other. We'll need it some day. You're just a little too soon; and for that reason you may feel that your words are falling on deaf ears, but one day they won't be.
I should probably start working on it and quit talking about it.
Do it.
M.H.M.
@rplst8 posted:I should probably start working on it and quit talking about it.
Doing the locomotive control is one thing, the major stumbling block is getting quality audio to match.
It's so easy to throw software at things today in an effort to make them better. In almost every case though, following this approach makes things more complex instead of simpler.
For this reason it's important to revisit everything when doing a redesign, including mechanics, electricals, electronics, and software because they all must fit together well for the outcome to be elegant and simple at the same time.
Audio is a prime example. You definitely can't make audio better without considering the mechanical, electric, and electronic means necessary to generate big, quality sound from a small package well before adding any software. Physics won't allow it.
Mike
@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:You definitely can't make audio better without considering the mechanical, electric, and electronic means necessary to generate big, quality sound from a small package well before adding any software. Physics won't allow it.
Mike, I still think the largest hurdle to a new full-featured control system entry is the sound files. The major manufacturers have spent years and tons of money developing the sound files we take for granted in their products. However, a new entrant to the control system sweepstakes will have all of that ahead of them. Truthfully, generating decent sound from a small package isn't all that hard, most of the higher end laptop computer makers have mastered getting big sound out of very small spaces.
Here's one of many examples of Laptop speakers, this one has a very surprisingly high quality sound and good volume for it's size.
Attachments
@rplst8 posted:Yes, and probably even worse is the situation with farmers that are unable to repair their tractors. To those uninformed on the subject, do some reading and tell me it's not the most unfair thing about "big business" and consumers going on right now.
I have great experience with farmers being able to repair their own equipment. Farming is kinda of my free-time second job and semi-retirement plan. I don't want to steer this tread too far off course, but you do need to consider that when a repair on on $1200 iPhone goes wrong and destroys the phone, Apple can easily eat that cost. When a repair goes wrong on an in-warranty $600,000 harvester and it burns to the ground, someones gotta pay for that...
Amazing what sound they can get out of tiny speakers however they use a long excursion cone with a rolled suspension of some type around the edge. One of the problems with many long throw speakers is the foam suspension will deteriorate (rot) with age. Some (few) have a cloth permeated with silicone suspension which seems much more permanent. Others have a thin rubber suspension which seems almost as stable as the cloth/ silicone suspension. In the past I managed to tear some of the rubber suspensions by driving speakers too hard. I have big speakers with this type of cloth suspension which are fifty years old and function as new where every speaker I own with a foam suspension has long since died or had a replacement suspension surround installed. For use in model locomotives it is doubtful that they are going to be over driven so the main concern is foam. Don't use it or buy it unless you buy a spare and it will likely rot by the time you need it. If possible check with the manufacturer whether the suspension is foam. j
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Mike, I still think the largest hurdle to a new full-featured control system entry is the sound files. The major manufacturers have spent years and tons of money developing the sound files we take for granted in their products. However, a new entrant to the control system sweepstakes will have all of that ahead of them. Truthfully, generating decent sound from a small package isn't all that hard, most of the higher end laptop computer makers have mastered getting big sound out of very small spaces.
I actually think the sound files are the easy part. There's no shortage of videos on YouTube that are marked as Creative Commons. Those can be used to extract sounds from. There's definitely processing to be done on them, specifically to get chuff, diesel engine, horn, and whistle sounds to repeat. Some care has to be taken on where to cut the sounds so that the a repeating element is seamless. Quillable whistles are a little harder still, requiring the transitions between full, half, and no "choke" for lack of a better word. That said - if the platform is open source then anyone could contribute. If you want a particular sound - go visit your local tourist railroad, record it and turn it into a file!
The whole sound file business isn't a money maker for MTH or Lionel. Well, they don't sell sound file "upgrades" anyway. Actually, in the case of MTH, they've advertised the ability to download their sound files for free and change them on their locomotives. Given that, I don't know why they've invested so much effort in it. Just give people the tools to reprogram the hardware (check for MTH) and a specification then people will provide their own. And after the sound file format was reverse engineered hobbyists started doing exactly that. Impossible for RailSounds/Legacy, from what I know of it anyway. I've done a few of my own engines (I shared my "upgraded" Allegheny a while back) and the only reason I haven't shared the files I've made is that there are other sounds in the file - plus other stuff I don't own a copyright to.
My guess is that most of the cost of the sound file engineering was related to the limited capabilities of the sound hardware at the time, a lack of resources of digital recordings in the public domain, and probably the cost of licensing those recordings from the people who made them - and probably early on, digitizing them from whatever source they were in. It's trivial, and low cost to get CD quality audio from a computer chip today. Most system-on-a-chip platforms give this away for free. Add to that the extremely low cost (comparatively to say the late 1990s) of digital audio recording hardware, and the absolute plethora of free software out there to manipulate digital audio, the barriers to entry have been lowered QUITE a bit.
I'm not trying to take anything away from the amazing stuff that Lionel and MTH pioneered with sounds and stuff. It is 100% what attracted me to 3-rail O-scale when I switched from HO. But given the progression of technology, I think any company trying to "roll-their-own" is probably not doing themselves any favors. That said, I know that as a business, for them to switch gears they have to consider how much they've already invested vs. what it would cost to "re-tool" so to speak.
@rplst8 posted:I actually think the sound files are the easy part. There's no shortage of videos on YouTube that are marked as Creative Commons. Those can be used to extract sounds from. There's definitely processing to be done on them, specifically to get chuff, diesel engine, horn, and whistle sounds to repeat. Some care has to be taken on where to cut the sounds so that the a repeating element is seamless. Quillable whistles are a little harder still, requiring the transitions between full, half, and no "choke" for lack of a better word. That said - if the platform is open source then anyone could contribute. If you want a particular sound - go visit your local tourist railroad, record it and turn it into a file!
We'll have to agree to disagree on the ease of generating quality sounds. I'll believe you when I see the product and hear sounds that come even close to Legacy sound quality.
Figured I'd necro this thread (since it previously continued on for four years, anyways).
I currently have 5 TMCC locomotives and two Legacy Amtrak locomotives I just bought (with Bluetooth). Since 4 of my TMCC locomotives were in storage the past 21 years, I apparently didn't realize I left alkaline cells in some of my locomotives (and worse, in one of my CAB-1 remotes) and the batteries in the CAB-1 leaked, so it's been a challenge getting batteries to make contact. I'm probably going to do some surgery tonight, seeing if I can use parts from both to get one working remote (the other CAB-1 only accelerates a locomotive and doesn't decelerate, so there's something wrong with the reluctor wheel and the infrared sensor in the remote).
All this being said - I noticed that the #990 CAB-2 is out of stock, and prices are ridiculous on ebay. If I were to upgrade to a CAB-1L, obviously I'd need the BASE-1L. Do I still need to use the BASE-1, or does the 1L base take care of both TMCC and Legacy? Also, are there any feature upgrades between the CAB-1L and CAB-1, or are they mostly the same, save for things like additional speed steps in Legacy?
@Paul Khoury posted:Figured I'd necro this thread (since it previously continued on for four years, anyways).
I currently have 5 TMCC locomotives and two Legacy Amtrak locomotives I just bought (with Bluetooth). Since 4 of my TMCC locomotives were in storage the past 21 years, I apparently didn't realize I left alkaline cells in some of my locomotives (and worse, in one of my CAB-1 remotes) and the batteries in the CAB-1 leaked, so it's been a challenge getting batteries to make contact. I'm probably going to do some surgery tonight, seeing if I can use parts from both to get one working remote (the other CAB-1 only accelerates a locomotive and doesn't decelerate, so there's something wrong with the reluctor wheel and the infrared sensor in the remote).
All this being said - I noticed that the #990 CAB-2 is out of stock, and prices are ridiculous on ebay. If I were to upgrade to a CAB-1L, obviously I'd need the BASE-1L. Do I still need to use the BASE-1, or does the 1L base take care of both TMCC and Legacy? Also, are there any feature upgrades between the CAB-1L and CAB-1, or are they mostly the same, save for things like additional speed steps in Legacy?
Don't butcher your remotes. Get some electrical contact cleaner and small brass brush and scrub the corrosion away. I've had to do this with some Xbox accessories of my boys I recently found after years of having and exploded AA sitting in them. They all came back to life
If you get a base1L, you don't need the base1. A cab1L remote operates on a different frequency than the original, so the remotes/bases don't communicate from one to another?
I'm surprised you consider 1799 for a #990 set high, that's what a new one recently sold for on eBay🤣. It really is insane! People pay it though.
I'm stuck with my DCS/TMCC until the base 3 comes out. I didn't go cab1L/base1L back when because I wasn't that invested in Lionel engines at that time. When the cab2 came out, it just looked cheap and toy like, but I do regret not picking it up.
@Rod M. posted:Don't butcher your remotes. Get some electrical contact cleaner and small brass brush and scrub the corrosion away. I've had to do this with some Xbox accessories of my boys I recently found after years of having and exploded AA sitting in them. They all came back to life
Too late. Desoldering some wires was a pain in the rear, even with a higher end desoldering gun, but I did solve my problem. On my better remote, there was a lot of corrosion/rust on the optoelectronics sensors. So I replaced that, with the one from the leaking batteries remote (iroinically, that one was pristine), got it back together, and now have a remote that doesn't have bad battery contacts (one of the tabs that presses against negative on an AA came off, because of the corrosion), and the red throttle wheel works like it's supposed to (instead of trains speeding and having no chance to slow down, even when you rotate it counterclockwise).
But otherwise - mission success. If this remote fails, maybe I'll move to the CAB-1L route, though I'm still wondering what the difference in functionality is compared to the CAB-1.
I'm surprised you consider 1799 for a #990 set high, that's what a new one recently sold for on eBay🤣. It really is insane! People pay it though.
You're surprised, or not surprised? $1799 is nuts! That's what I just paid for a new Toughbook, but my Toughbook is A LOT more full featured than the CAB2. Isn't the CAB2 just a simple microcontroller, keypad, matrix LCD and some backlit LEDs on the keypad? Otherwise relatively simple, not that much intelligence under the hood. Now if it were a full blown computer, I'd have much different opinions.
@Paul Khoury posted:Too late. Desoldering some wires was a pain in the rear, even with a higher end desoldering gun, but I did solve my problem. On my better remote, there was a lot of corrosion/rust on the optoelectronics sensors. So I replaced that, with the one from the leaking batteries remote (iroinically, that one was pristine), got it back together, and now have a remote that doesn't have bad battery contacts (one of the tabs that presses against negative on an AA came off, because of the corrosion), and the red throttle wheel works like it's supposed to (instead of trains speeding and having no chance to slow down, even when you rotate it counterclockwise).
But otherwise - mission success. If this remote fails, maybe I'll move to the CAB-1L route, though I'm still wondering what the difference in functionality is compared to the CAB-1.
The main difference is that the CAB-1L will allow you to use the quilling whistle feature on Legacy locomotives.
You're surprised, or not surprised? $1799 is nuts! That's what I just paid for a new Toughbook, but my Toughbook is A LOT more full featured than the CAB2. Isn't the CAB2 just a simple microcontroller, keypad, matrix LCD and some backlit LEDs on the keypad? Otherwise relatively simple, not that much intelligence under the hood. Now if it were a full blown computer, I'd have much different opinions.
Yes, but the components in the CAB2 are no longer available, and the unit is no longer being made. With the replacement Cab3L smartphone app and Base3 still un-released, it's your only option for full Legacy control.
@Paul Khoury posted:But otherwise - mission success. If this remote fails, maybe I'll move to the CAB-1L route, though I'm still wondering what the difference in functionality is compared to the CAB-1.
The CAB1 and CAB1L have very similar functionality, but totally different remote to base communication. The CAB1 talks on 27mhz to the BASE1 or the PM1 PowerMaster. The CAB1L talks on 2.4ghz to either the BASE1L or Legacy command base.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:The CAB1 and CAB1L have very similar functionality, but totally different remote to base communication. The CAB1 talks on 27mhz to the BASE1 or the PM1 PowerMaster. The CAB1L talks on 2.4ghz to either the BASE1L or Legacy command base.
That part I pretty much figured. I think the crystal is 27.55MHz to be specific, but I'm guessing different crystals were available if individuals had different segments on a layout and wanted overlapping systems? I guess more of my question was whether one needed to add a Legacy base in addition to the BASE-1, or if a Legacy base can still address TMCC locomotives without the BASE-1 (I was presuming yes, but wanted to be sure).
@rplst8 posted:The main difference is that the CAB-1L will allow you to use the quilling whistle feature on Legacy locomotives.
I presume the quilling feature applies to both horns and whistles alike? And if so, it'd be the equivalent to me finagling how far open the valve is on my Graham White, say with my K5LA (how many bells emit sound until it's fully open)? That's one thing that I do envy/miss on my locomotives. The older TMCC stuff had horns that would change intensity at random, but it's profoundly annoying and not very realistic. The RS-11 I picked up sounds a little more accurate, but still not ideal.
"a Legacy base can still address TMCC locomotives without the BASE-1 (I was presuming yes, but wanted to be sure)."
All TMCC equipped locos will respond to the Legacy Base, the 1-L Base or the Base 1.
