Hitting this thread late but here's some thoughts:
On the original subject, Is the naming confusing? I suppose it could be for those not familiar with the product lines and features they offer. To me the most confusing, and in my opinion idiotic, naming Lionel ever used was "Legacy" which in every other product ever made means last generation or outdated technology. Ex. legacy support for floppy disk drives on modern computers. The naming scheme with Lion Chief seems fairly straight forward to me. Lion chief is an entry level product that uses constant track power and can only be controlled from it's included remote*. LC+ added the option of transformer control effectively replacing conventional engines in the product line as well as adding some features only found in few conventional engines such as speed control and remote control of couplers. LC+2.0 seems straight forward as well from what little information there is. It does everything LC+ does in addition to being able to be controlled by TMCC/Legacy systems.
Over all, Lion Chief branding has replaced any previous branding for conventional products and by adding support for TMCC it will open these products up to the full command operators that would have been previously opposed to needing another remote.
*LC/+ can also be controlled from a universal remote, and all newer models can also be controlled from an app on smart phones over Bluetooth.
ed h posted:Even more confusing in that the original LionChief and LionChief Plus were not Bluetooth.
Not really. Bluetooth is nice and easy to use, making a phone app really easy to implement, however I suspect that no one ever thought of that when making the first LC engines. Instead, I suspect, that the switch to Bluetooth was made at some point in the engineering process when someone realized that the cost of a 2.4 GHZ transceiver and a separate microprocessor was actually more than using a BLE module. ( Prices for these modules have become insanely cheap over the last few years, where as 10 years ago a similar product might cost well over 50 dollars, they are now about $2.) Additionally, Bluetooth has a licensing fee. You have to pay to use the tech and the logo. Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of the choice of using Bluetooth, as it is an amazing point to point protocol, but garbage if you want to have many devices talking to each other, such as in a full layout control system. Lionel will have to step away from Bluetooth if they want to use modern technology in whatever Legacy 2.0 will be.
carsntrains posted:Jeff T posted:Landsteiner posted:This system is more reliable than Legacy and TMCC in certain ways, a lot less expensive and uses parts that are not going obsolete because they are 10-20 years old.
First, I'm NO expert, but those seem like some big assumptions to me.
You dont have to clean the track all the time. Its only there to pass electricity with LC control or blue tooth!
My question is. Do the LC 2.0 engines run on DC? If not they arent LC at all. Should be called legacy light.
Jim
This is just speculation as I've not seen anything one way or the other, however I don't see any technological reason that they could not run on AC or DC. The AC is needed for the TMCC signal, but it is not difficult for modern electronics to detect if AC or DC is supplied and detect of the track signal is present or not. As far as I'm aware the reason TMCC products can be damaged by DC power is that they use Triacs for power control, which "require" ac to work correctly. (Fellow electronic nerds know what I mean here, keeping it simple for normal folks)
I'm Happy with LC+2.0 for the name. it's LC+ with more features added. Until product ships I don't think anyone will know just how much of an improvement it is, but I'm hopeful that it will compete with original TMCC equipment as there is no technological reason for it not to.
H1000 posted:Hiawatha98 posted:The question is why didn't Lionel introduce LC+2 from the very beginning instead of Lionchief.
DITTO.
All of the technology involved has been available cheaply for years. It's not like they had to wait for Bluetooth 4 to be released before the product could move forward. Bluetooth standards from 15 years ago can easily achieve the same goals being implemented in current LC products.
As addressed before, while the tech has existed for about 2 decades now, the innovation of the jellybean BLE module for $2 is fairly recent. That same tech was much, much more expensive just a couple years ago The next best option, and one I would have preferred, Xbee, costs 10 times as much, and even a year ago cost 35 times more. The same holds for BLE, where earlier iterations of Bluetooth product cost $70 per transceiver.
Stone Rhino posted:Again, this boils down to the universal remote being truly "universal". A BT to TMCC signaling would be dynamite. Like how we had a cable that lets us use TMCC and Legacy base at the same time. Throw into this the PowerMaster unit? Run conventional trains without modification. Brilliant!
carsntrains posted:Stone Rhino posted:I'm a bit new to this stuff. But what is a reverse and coupler lockout?
Jim,
Lock-out's are like flipping the E-Unit/Reverser switch on a post-war. This keeps the engine in the direction you desire every time you cycle the power. On CAB1/TMCC, this is not possible when in command mode (conventional only). On CAB2/Legacy, this has been explored but not committed (Only in conventional mode does the direction lock work).
LC and LC+ kid friendly? Sure is! But having these light-weight plastic trains that travel 10MPH on a surface? In reverse? Hmmm, this is looking like an accident waiting to happen. Even at a paltry 6V DC, these units will power down the track. I had to install mechanical stops into the LC Thomas set remotes to cap their top speed and restrict reverse speeds. I've seen kids go white knuckle to try and turn them to full speed and reverse.
The LC app lets you cap speed (which is not kid-resistant), but not direction or prohibit coupler use.
Changing track voltage won't effect the LC/+ engine's top speed until/unless it is low enough that there simply isn't enough power for the motors to pull the train. EX, a LC+ engine may reach full speed at 8 VAC without a problem if it's pulling nothing, but put 10+ cars behind it and it will not reach near that speed. In the Plus engines, the electronics will work their hardest to make each speed step the same speed no matter the voltage, until they run out of power.
Allin posted:They just add a module to TMCC for the optional remote and Bluetooth would be my assumption from what I have read, given TMCC already supported add on boards.
My guess would actually be the other way around. It would be a whole lot cheaper to just add a R2LC to the LC/+ Bluetooth guts. The 'brain' in LC electronics is inside the Bluetooth module.
On the other replies about sound, with the cost of multi channel mp3 decoders falling rapidly, it would not surprise me to see an all new board that uses this tech. Give the increased prices, though, I also wouldn't be surprised to see the old tech. have to wait and see.
tncentrr posted:Maybe one of our Youtube Masters will make a thorough and complete video exploring this new control system and how it will be used with other control systems. Perhaps Mr. Siegel or Mr. McComus would do this as a service to the hobby in general?
I'm sure someone will do so, but really what more is there to say that isn't already covered in the countless videos already out there on how to use TMCC or how to use LC/+?
Final thoughts for now: I suppose the raised price tag will push these engines out of my price range as they are now getting pretty close to lower end Legacy stuff. It won't really bother me if they continue to offer LC+1.0 at more reasonable prices, or if LC(not Plus) 2.0 comes out at reasonable prices with cruise control and couplers. (not gonna hold my breath on that.)
The fact that these engines don't come with remotes doesn't bother me, since ( I expect) most people in this market will already have a TMCC/Legacy system, a universal remote, or if it is their first engine likely a smart phone. I don't think not having a remote will be a deal breaker for many folks... It still seems like cheeping out on the part of Big L.
Over all I like LC2 from what I see, just think they are pricing out folks like myself that would happily spend $300-400 on a brand new engine, but might go back to buying used TMCC engines for $200 when the next best option is $500+
JGL
