These are really useful responses, and I thank you. I didn't put an email in my profile, as @Alan Mancus pointed out -- that was an oversight on my part. A couple people observed, correctly, that my initial question seemed to ask more than the original features of command control offer, while others pointed out that SBC*'s offer a lot more options. One epiphany I had while reading these responses, Lionel's manual for Legacy Control, and third party blogs, is that I don't want more than the original hardware/software offer. Or, at least, not yet. If neither the technology nor the paradigm for command control, be it TMCC, Legacy, or DCC (which I incorrectly referred to as DCC in my first post), have changed, it may be that they do so much and do it well enough that a change is not actually needed? That may be a myopic outlook, but I'd love to set up a Legacy system out of the box before I go looking for more functionality. Okay, why haven't I? Probably because the price of a new Legacy set is akin to a weekend in New York, and I love my travel as much as I love my trains. This brings me to my final question in this thread (for the moment, at least):
Does Legacy or DC lend itself to a scenario where I can address the engines, but the layouts change with a high level of dynamism (ie, I put up a new layout, and break it down a week later, start all over again)? Or do these systems depend on a static layout?
