With Legacy How do You Handle Emergency Stop

Not sure what the question is, but you press the Emer Stop button on the CAB2. Of course you have to have the base plugged in. The Legacy Emer Stop will stop any TMCC engines and also kill power if you are using a TMCC connected ZW or TPC type power supply.

Because I started with MTH, my power supply is a Z4000. So, I guess I'm partially covered in that the Legacy base will issue a stop command? If the locomotive doesn't respond to the command, then I'm in trouble?

You can connect the Legacy base to the TIU and you will not lose any Legacy features by having them connected. You will not be able to access the Legacy features from the DCS remote, you need to use the CAB2 to access the Legacy features, but there is no harm in connecting the two.  With the two connected you can run TMCC and Legacy engines (TMCC features only) via the DCS remote if you wish to. 

It would be helpful to know how you have your layout powered / wired.  The DCS emergency stop cuts all track power at the TIU.  The CAB2 emergency stop  (Red triangle in the lower left of the controller) sends a signal to stop all TMCC and Legacy engines but leaves power on the tracks (unless your setup is powered with something that understands the signal - TPC, ZW-L...) and as such your DCS engines would continue on.

I have the 2 outputs of the Z4000 wired independently to the 2 fixed inputs on the TIU. I have the Radio Shack power supply connected to the TIU auxiliary power input. I only run command controlled locomotives. Basically, my question was, what happens when I press emergency stop on the CAB2, given that there was no way that it could cut track power with a TIU and Z4000.

FYI, E-Stoponthe DCS Remote will turn off power to all TIU channels. Anything running on tracks connected to any TIU channel operating  in non-Passive TIU Mode will just stop.

This and a whole lot more is all in “The DCS Companion 3rd Edition", available for purchase  from many fine OGR advertisers and forum sponsors, or as an eBook or a printed book at OGR’s web store!

Keith,

   I run both Legacy & DCS also, however I have an additional e-Stop set up for the entire layout, using the Etekcity Remote Outlet Switch, which has 4 mini Remote Controllers, that I position thru out my layout, hitting the off button on any of these RC's shuts down the entire layout power, including Legacy & DCS.  Something you might want to think about incorporating on your DCS/Legacy Layout. It works perfectly.

PCRR/Dave

If I understand correctly, if you have Legacy/TMCC connected to your DCS system, then press ing the stop button on the DCS remote will stop DCS AND Legacy/TMCC, as the TIY will send the halt command to the Legacy/TMCC base.  

On the other hand, pressing halt on the cab1/cab2 will only stop TMCC/Legacy engines, as there is no way (without reverse engineering the data protocol of the TIU) to send commands to it from the outside world.  

I like Dave's solution here of hanging a fob around your neck that can shut off all power remotely.  Another option could be to build a device that monitors the Legacy/TMCC data and when it sees a halt command switches a relay to shut off all track power.  if building such a thing is out of your comfort zone, you could use an output on an accessory controller to power a larger relay that controls track power, thus when you press halt the accessory turns off and disconnects track power, it's a bit convoluted, but would do the job. 

Of course, MTH could have at least made the TIU respond to halt commands if they wanted to, and I can't think of a good reason not to have done so.  

JGL

You can use an already existing device to control the track power with the emergency button on the Legacy CAB2.  Just wire the track(s) center roller power through a Lionel SC2, it can handle up to six 15 amp circuits.  When you hit the emergency stop, they'll all drop power.

I've seen a few good answers here. I guess, I should have said, how do I emergency stop a Legacy locomotive, while running from an MTH power supply and TIU while using a CAB2.

Pull the plug!

Oman posted:

I've seen a few good answers here. I guess, I should have said, how do I emergency stop a Legacy locomotive, while running from an MTH power supply and TIU while using a CAB2.

If you look at your Cab-2, you should see the small red triangle, which is the Emergency Stop button. That said, in our case I have EVERYTHING powered to one common wall outlet, that is controlled by only one wall switch. Thus, in a "dire emergency", a person can simply flip the wall switch OFF, and the whole darned layout goes DEAD!

Yeah, there can be a whole lot of carnage before you get to that switch. 

Oman posted:

Yeah, there can be a whole lot of carnage before you get to that switch. 

Nope. That has yet to happen. Besides, there is always that "REVERSE" button that stops THAT locomotive in its tracks, no matter whether the operator is using a DCS hand held or a TMCC/Legacy hand held.

John,

If I understand correctly, if you have Legacy/TMCC connected to your DCS system, then press ing the stop button on the DCS remote will stop DCS AND Legacy/TMCC, as the TIY will send the halt command to the Legacy/TMCC base.  

It isn't necessary to have the DCS TIU and Legacy (or TMCC) Command Base connected together in order for E-Stop on the DCS Remote to stop everything. It cuts all power going through the TIU to the tracks. Period.

Of course, MTH could have at least made the TIU respond to halt commands if they wanted to, and I can't think of a good reason not to have done so.  

What are you talking about? The DCS system's E-Stop already shuts down all track power. What else would you want it to do?

Barry Broskowitz posted:

It isn't necessary to have the DCS TIU and Legacy (or TMCC) Command Base connected together in order for E-Stop on the DCS Remote to stop everything. It cuts all power going through the TIU to the tracks. Period.

Of course, MTH could have at least made the TIU respond to halt commands if they wanted to, and I can't think of a good reason not to have done so.  

What are you talking about? The DCS system's E-Stop already shuts down all track power. What else would you want it to do?

Right you are, assuming you have the DCS remote in your hand.  Given the fact that the DCS remote will not control all the features that are accessible with Legacy, however, it just might be possible that you left the DCS remote on the other side of your layout and have a Cab2 in your hand.  

What more that I would want is an update to the TIU firmware that allows it to detect incoming serial data of 0xFEFFFF, and when it does so, issue a DCS stop command.  Thus pressing the halt command on a cab1/2/1L would halt DCS engines as well as TMCC/Legacy ones.  

I assume this was the original question, 'what do you do if you have a legacy remote in your hand and need to stop the trains?  It seems, as GRJ confirms, that running each power block through one of the relays on an SC2 would accomplish this, as pressing halt would turn all the relays off.  

JGL

Another straight forward method of implementing an E-Stop is to cut power from the source.  For my layout I have a simple circuit that cuts off power from my Z-4000. Several E-Stop buttons are mounted around the layout.  Also wireless fobs are used to also cut off power. Pressing any button shuts down all ac power to the tracks without affecting the TIU in any way. To stop an engine that is directly controlled by my WIFI tablet I use the "Shutdown" button on the tablet (not the E-Stop button) for emergency operation.

Since I use Passive Mode the TIU outputs are always connected to the track. No AC power is connected to the TIU inputs.

E-Stop circuit module is shown. This system also includes 10 amp circuit breakers.

John,

What more that I would want is an update to the TIU firmware that allows it to detect incoming serial data of 0xFEFFFF, and when it does so, issue a DCS stop command.  Thus pressing the halt command on a cab1/2/1L would halt DCS engines as well as TMCC/Legacy ones.  

That would be a singularly bad idea from an MTH perspective. One of the selling points of DCS is that one can operate TMCC/Legacy engines from the DCS remote. It would be counter to that to encourage use of a Cab-2 or Cab-1.

I assume this was the original question, 'what do you do if you have a legacy remote in your hand and need to stop the trains?"

That's an easy one. Use the DCS Remote, instead!  

JGL,

   This is why after the one run away on the 2nd level, I have the ETEKCITY Remote Outlet Switch with the 3 or 4 mini RC's placed around my layout, I simply reach down and press a button on one of the the mini RC's, to kill all power to the entire layout, if I ever have another run away, especially while holding the Legacy Cab2.

PCRR/Dave

Barry Broskowitz posted:

 

That would be a singularly bad idea from an MTH perspective. One of the selling points of DCS is that one can operate TMCC/Legacy engines from the DCS remote. It would be counter to that to encourage use of a Cab-2 or Cab-1.

I assume this was the original question, 'what do you do if you have a legacy remote in your hand and need to stop the trains?"

That's an easy one. Use the DCS Remote, instead!  

If this is a 'selling point' it is a bad one.  The inability to communicate with the DCS system from the outside world is the reason that I refuse to purchase it, or any of the associated products.  It would have made since had they been the first company to market with a system for command control of trains, as a way to protect their investment and force folks to purchase their product, but unfortunatly, DCS was released years after the competing O gauge system, and more than a decade after the first DCC systems... Both of which were open source, setting a precedent that if you wanted to write your own software it could communicate with your trains.  As a relative latecomer, you'd think it would have been good business to offer all of the features of competing products.  On the other hand the number of people that care about being able to speak to the system from the outside is probably very small.  

Still, it seems like it would be good business and marketing to say "We care about your trains, and since we know some folks may be using the other system connected to ours, you know, like we show you how to do so you can run their trains with our system, we think it only fair that when you are about to have a wreck and press the halt button, our supposedly superior system will also halt its trains so you don't damage anything."  

On the topic of using the DCS remote instead, that is acceptable first, only if you don't want access to all of the Legacy features, and second, some people prefer the cab2, or cab1L, or even original cab1, and would prefer to use those remotes when possible.  Others actually dislike the design or reliability of the DCS remote for various reasons. 

I understand the desire to say , pretty much, "if you just use the DCS remote instead, you won't have a problem" but this is a non answer to the issue of what to do when someone does not want to use the DCS remote, for whatever reason.  So far the two best solutions I've seen to the actual question are Dave's wireless key fob to shut off power, and the SC2 method to shut off track blocks.  

JGL

John,

On the topic of using the DCS remote instead, that is acceptable first, only if you don't want access to all of the Legacy features, and second, some people prefer the cab2, or cab1L, or even original cab1, and would prefer to use those remotes when possible.  Others actually dislike the design or reliability of the DCS remote for various reasons. 

Swell!

DCS was designed to operate only MTH engines. In spite of that, DCS does anincredibly better job of operating TMCC and Legacy engines than either of those systems do of operating MTH DCS engines.

Oh, wait, neither a Cab-1 or Cab-2 an operate DCS engines at all in command mode!.

Tell me, how well can I run DCS engines in command mode from a Cab-1 or a Cab-2?

The answer is, "I cannot operate them at all."

Further, can I shut down all of my engines or track power from a Cab-1 or Cab-2?

The answer is, "I cannot shut down my MTH engines, conventional engines or track power at all."

MTH's system appears to be more open, where it counts, than any other system: DCC, TMCC or Legacy.

Barry Broskowitz posted:

DCS was designed to operate only MTH engines. In spite of that, DCS does anincredibly better job of operating TMCC and Legacy engines than either of those systems do of operating MTH DCS engines.

Oh, wait, neither a Cab-1 or Cab-2 an operate DCS engines at all in command mode!.

Hardly a fair comparison, the only reason that hasn't happened is MTH won't let the protocol out.

John,

Barry, 

You have just made my point for me.  Thank you.

Other systems are open, which allows DCS to talk to them and operate their equipment.  DCS is closed and does not allow other systems to speak to it, thus it is impossible to be taken as a serious option for folks that wish to use computer control for their trains.  Your comments are sort of like saying a door is more open because it is locked.  

While I am of the belief that DCS is, at best, of equally obsolete technology as competing systems, even if it was using modern technology and provided hundreds of times more features, and even if it implemented them all perfectly, it would still not be an option for anyone that wants to plug a computer into the system to control things.  

JGL

P.S.  I am aware of a gentleman that occasionally posts here on the forum that has cracked many of the various protocols for communication between the TIU and the outside world.  With the information he has provided I COULD use DCS if I wanted to.  I simply choose to let my dollars talk and buy product with an openly published command protocol.  

As an addendum, MTH still holds a patent for the idea of using shift registers to input data to their trains and even if the command protocol were released they could prevent anyone from bringing competing product to market.  Here we are simply talking about speaking between systems, not producing product that runs on the competing system. 

JGL

Barry Broskowitz posted:

John,

Hardly a fair comparison, the only reason that hasn't happened is MTH won't let the protocol out.

Fair? What's that got to do with business.

Regardless, look what indiscriminately releasing the TMCC protocols did for Lionel. It allowed K-line to eat Lionel's lunch by undercutting them on engine prices.

Lionel has become smarter and isn't letting the Legacy protocols out into the wild so as not to repeat their previous business mistake. Rather, they and MTH both are being very careful about to whom they license their "crown jewels".

Stop thinking about business situations like a hobbyist.

Barry, you're the one that brought up the topic saying that Legacy can't control DCS locomotives, I'm just point out the obvious reason why.  I didn't question then or now if it was a good business decision for them or Lionel.  Oh, and of course, you are mistaken about the Legacy protocols.  As long as you buy an inexpensive SER2 box, the full set of Legacy protocols are published, see for yourself: Legacy Command Protocol

You should not inject a "business decision" into a simple discussion of technical issues and solutions.  The fact remains, you can access the protocols for all the other major command systems, just not DCS.

JGL,

Other systems are open, which allows DCS to talk to them and operate their equipment.  DCS is closed and does not allow other systems to speak to it, thus it is impossible to be taken as a serious option for folks that wish to use computer control for their trains. 

Yeah, just like Legacy and any other system from a serious provider that wishes to provide a viable, secure product.

it would still not be an option for anyone that wants to plug a computer into the system to control things.  

On the contrary, it is. Exactly such a system exists today, and has for several years. Further, it works quit well.

I COULD use DCS if I wanted to.  

As I suspected all along, you're just a guy who throws rocks but hasn't bothered to actually use the system that he so quickly criticizes.

You also should stop thinking about business situations like a hobbyist. You should also refrain from discussions where you have zero experience with the products being discussed.

John,

It would appear that the protocols to which you refer are for use by licensed Lionel LCS Partners. They are copy written and not for use by anyone who isn't so licensed by Lionel.

The fact remains, you can access the protocols for all the other major command systems, just not DCS.

Accessible doesn't mean usable to create product that is sanctioned by Lionel. Go develop and market an engine with Legacy control in it, and compete with Lionel for sales. Just be sure to have your lawyer on speed dial.

The fact that the protocols are published doesn't automatically place them in the public domain.

This will be my final reply to Barry in this thread.  

I have no rocks to throw here.  I have been very clear now and in the past that I think all the systems currently on the market have faults.  

The problem is that it makes no difference to me whatsoever what DCS CAN DO, if it CAN NOT DO the single most important feature FOR MY NEEDS.  

MTH has chose to be the only major system on the market that does not allow end users to communicate with it, and because of this, it is not a viable choice for me and thus purchasing the system would be a waste of money.   I have ZERO use for a system that I can not speak to.  

On the topic of "I COULD use DCS" yes, I could, thanks to many months of work by another user of the forum who has painstakingly cracked the serial protocol as well as the communication between the remote and TIU.  I already addressed this above, however, I choose to buy product that offers the features I want right out of the box.  

JGL

EDIT:  When folks make rapid fire replies without waiting for other to reply between it makes for a useless gibberish, is completely disrespectful and in no way promotes useful conversation.

I find it absolutely disgusting that someone that credits themselves as an ambassador of a product could be so closed minded about what faults exist with said product and unwilling to talk, even to the point of being combative when discussing possible faults or ways to improve the system.  

Fin.

This will be my final reply to Barry in this thread.  

Good news!

Once again, from a typical DCS cheerleader, no objectivity to the post, why am I not surprised?

First, who said the Legacy protocols were in the public domain?  I said they were freely accessible. Since there is a public link to the protocol document, I think that is certainly true.

Let's see, from the LCS page.

Today, LCS Partners are helping to grow and enhance the Layout Control System. Each developer brings their own unique perspective to software-based control of your layout. And there’s room for more! Interested individuals, clubs and companies are all welcome. Are you interested? Please send an email and we’ll get back to you with details. Write us at: lcs-dev-support(at)lionel.com and please replace the (at) with the @ symbol before you send.

I don't see anything remotely resembling that level of access with DCS protocols.

It would appear that the protocols to which you refer are for use by licensed Lionel LCS Partners. They are copy written and not for use by anyone who isn't so licensed by Lionel.

Where are you getting your information?  We've had frequent threads on the release of the protocols, and AFAIK, they're available for anyone to use, certainly for personal use.  As to a commercial entity using them in a product, I don't have any current information, but suffice to say it's at least possible for such a commercial entity to build a product using the Legacy protocol.

John,

It would be easier to teach a pig to sing than to have you see the obvious.

I see the obvious, you are blindly defending an indefensible position.  No worries, I'm outta' here, I'll let you wallow in your misconceptions.

I'm outta' here

More good news.

All DCS needs is a longer cord so it will reach the bottom of the lake .

Guns & YAMAHA226,

   Man that is pure garbage, I run both systems and they both work great especially together.  In reality DCS controls 95% of Legacy and Barry is correct, it does not work the other way around, no matter the business reason.  I use both the Cab2 and the DCS Hand Held Remote Control, the one thing the DCS Hand Held can not due, is control wireless FasTrack Command Control Switches, the Legacy Cab 2 does this for me however.  Both have their Engineering limitations, the very best way to run IMO is with both systems.  The WIFI at this time is limited, until it can fully control both DCS & Legacy at the same time, I will not invest in it.

PCRR/Dave

Dave, 

While both systems do what they are supposed to do, both fairly well when set up in an optimal configuration, they are both using obsolete technology.  

DCS has two and a half major advantages; two way communication, which allows the engines to send information back to the user is the first.  Second, DCS is less expensive out of the gate, It gives you more functionality out of the box than Legacy, especially if you want to run any conventional engines.  AIU's are also more cost effective then their Lionel counterparts.  The half point to DCS is that it allows you to opperate many of the features of TMCC as well, though only if you have all of the needed TMCC equipment.  It is only half a point because this is not really a feature of DCS, but one of TMCC/Legacy, which allows other systems to talk to it.  For most users this is enough, for some it is not.  On the negative side, DCS uses a system to transmit data that is not very good compared to alternatives.  Sending high speed serial data through the track and pick up rollers is looking for trouble.  Most of the problems with this have been addressed by using the so called 'star-wiring' method, which reduces errors from redundant signals.  It is serviceable technology, but it is by no means a good way to get the job done.  The best conclusion I've been able to come up with as to why the system was designed this way is that it was intentionally built to be patentable by using a system different enough from TMCC and DCC, without a care that it was using tech that was problematic and obsolete two decades before it was released.  

Legacy, and TMCC which uses the same method to deliver information to the engines, as a number of advantages as well.  First, Legacy has a more robust set of features.  Legacy/TMCC also becomes more cost effective when running large conventional layouts as it's PowerMasters do the same job as TIU's for around 2/3 the cost.  The open protocol mentioned next also allows technical minded folk to build their own accessory/switch/block controllers for pennies on the dollar if they so desire.  TMCC especially, and Legacy more recently have openly published command protocols that allow end users to develop their own interfaces with the system.  Competitors are also allowed to licenses the system which has brought a large amount of innovation to the system.  In addition this openly available command protocol allows competing systems to operate TMCC systems.  As with DCS, TMCC/Legacy has some problems.  The 455KHz radio signal is almost as obsolete as one wire serial, having reached its heyday in the 1970's when it was used for remote control light switches.  The AM radio signal is affected by interference, and requires a good signal from both the track and the ground plane around the layout, which can be problematic on large and/or multi-level layouts.  The lack of two way communication has not stopped the system from working quite well, but it would be a nice addition.  A minor annoyance with Legacy is that additional equipment is needed if one wants to have outside control of all the Legacy features(SER/LCS modules).  

Both systems have the problem that they require signals from the track, which excludes them from dead rail operation all together.  DCS also need the track to be fairly clean to ensure a good signal.  

Both systems use technology that was obsolete before they were released, but were cost effective at that time.  15-20 years later, there are other options available that cost less to implement than either of these systems.  We are now stuck dragging around the boat anchors of tech being pushed to it's limits when it could be replaces with much better systems with much lower price tags. I feel Lionel really missed the chance with Legacy to move away from the track signal.  They could have just as easily offered a serial cable to connect to the TMCC base to allow backwards compatibility, and released the new system with digital radio communication, eliminating the problems with the system.  Doing so would have made Legacy engines incompatible with TMCC, however, which is why I suspect no such move was made.  This could have been handled, however, by making the engines accept either the new radio board, or a R2LC; or a 'legacy bridge' could have been offered that would repeat tmcc commands over the new protocol.  

All in all MTH has gone the route of the PowerPC macintosh computer.  If you also buy all the pc software you can run much of the most popular PC programs on a Mac, but not all.  It allows folks to see if they like your system as well, and they may shift away from PC toward Mac.  Unfortunately, PowerPC was never a good choice for software designers and developers as there was no point in spending extra money for the Mac side of the machine that they were not free to develop for, and the PC side was less powerful than a less expensive PC computer.  With a closed system like MacOS, or DCS you have a limited development base and stagnation, where as with an open environment like PC or TMCC you have outside development pushing the capabilities of the system and customizing it to better suit the user's needs.  

To Yamaha's comment, both systems are anchors, Lionel just has a more useful anchor at this time.  

JGL

JGL,

It's hard to take you very seriously if you've never built and operated your own DCS layout.

Everything you say is opinion and assumption, parroting and rephrasing what others, who may or may not know of what they speak, have said.

While you seem like a relatively intelligent individual and I might even say that I believe that you mean well, you lack any real experience with DCS as a layout builder or operator. This makes most of what you say regardijng DCS operation as conjecture that really cannot be taken as actual fact.

Well, I guess I can reply to this a bit...

When it comes to questions of 'how do I do X in DCS' as far as things within the system, I tend to avoid them, As you say, I have no experience and am happy to leave questions on what buttons to press, or how to trouble shoot a problem, to other folks. The only real exception to this is the often asked question of how to wire a layout for DCS, where I am happy to explain the goal of making sure an engine receives the DCS signal through only one electrical path wherever possible.  While, from what I understand with the current revision of the TIU, it is not necessary to do this on every layout for DCS to work, I believe it is still the recommended method for wiring.  

When it comes to the nuts and bolts, however, I have a fair understanding of what is going on and feel qualified to discuss the merits and limitations of various methods of transmitting data from one place to another.  While I have no formal training in electronics or computers, I have 25+ years of experience in building, designing, and programing electronics and computers.  I'm not an expert, and do not keep up on every new component that hits the market, but I know my way around variations of every component found in any product that exists for our trains.  Maybe not the exact parts in use, but I know how to duplicate the functionality with easy to find parts.  While many folks are overwhelmed by the electronics in modern model trains I've found almost everything quite simple to understand, there is nothing complex about serial data being clocked into a microprocessor, compared against a truth table and pumping out the desired output.  

I have read the patent for the DCS system, and must say it is very confusing, both because it is written in patent-speak, and because some parts just don't make sense to me.  The patent-speak mostly revolves around the fact that it is written  as "this if how it works, but this is how we'd like it to work" with no actual mention of the parts or process needed to make those things work.  The non-sense mostly revolves around a section that takes quite a bit of time explaining how bits of shifted in data can then be split into smaller portions of information that the patent called chits or chips.  I'm unsure how a single bit of digital data can ever be anything more than high or low.  

I'm sure the DCS system works just fine, doing exactly what it is supposed to do as a stand alone system.  Folks that use it seem to really like it.  The problem,as I've stated many times in this thread, is that it lacks a single REQUIRED feature for me, namely the option of plugging a computer or micro-controller into it and having control of the system from an outside source.  As noted earlier, the protocol has been hacked now, allowing such control, but it is still fairly complex to do so.  In addition, the competing system supports every function that I desire.  I have no reason to invest in a second control system to do what the one I have already does.  Neither system offers all of the features I want, which has left me to design my own control system and accessory sensors and such.  Having to use my own system, I require it to speak to the control system running my engines, This is just plain easier with the competing command system than it is with DCS.  

Any lack of knowledge on how the system works, or why people like it, or dis-like it is not for lack of trying.  In various threads on this forum I have asked for technical information, with the only somewhat useful reply being to read the patent.  I've also asked quite directly, what features DCS provides that Legacy does not.  I got several replies to that, but when I then asked "which of these features do you use on a regular or semi-regular basis? " I got no replies to this question.  

There are also quirky technical issues that have been discussed on the forum, one of note being that the scale speed system is inaccurate.  With modern technology there is no reason for this beyond the mechanical limitations of the system.  To my best calculations this is between 1/3 and 1/2 scale mile per hour, total, not cumulative.  An engine set to 5 mph should vary no more than between 4.75 and 5.25 mph, likewise at 60 mph it should vary no more than 59.75-60.25 mph.  ( and  I mean real world speed timed and measured.)  Anything more than that is greater than the mechanical limits of the hardware, and there is no excuse for it.  Even traveling at 90 smph, with small drive wheels and high gear ratios, any $1.50 microprocessor can do 2000 functions between the time it takes for one tach stripe to pass to the next.  This is just an electronics and microprocessor issue, and most likely caused by lazy programing or reusing code between engines with different drive ratios.  While some what off topic, this paragraph outlines a single case where it might be worth while to ask "why can't this be fixed?" if the answer is that it is just not worth the time because no one actually cares, that is acceptable, but practically cursing someone out and getting hopping mad does not address the issue, where one could have a polite technical discussion of why the hardware and software in use is not capable of doing better.  One can criticize faults without having a dog in the fight, and without having any ill will toward the system.  

I'd be happy to do a review of DCS if anyone wants to lend me a system, a couple of engines, and all the documentation that comes with said products.   I'm sure it works nice enough for the 99% of folks that its marketed to.  The issue is that Lionel has catered to that 1% for the last 20 years with a published protocol.  

Happy to chat civilly, but not interested in rants or personal attacks.

JGL

The John Galt Line

johngaltline@comcast.net

JGL,

Whether the above is an apology or an explanation, it's accepted by me. Now, let's move on.