LC+... a very basic question

I think some have missed the point. It's not a question of which operating system is best, but rather, which is best for you. In my case, LC+ is perfect. I have a small layout and can't run most scale locos. I really like scale locomotives but I refuse to pay Legacy prices. LC+ gives me wireless remote control at an affordable price for locomotives that fit my layout. I'm sure there are many more like me. 

Is LC+ better than Legacy or DCS? In some ways yes and in other ways no. Again, it depends on the needs of the person asking. David asked, what's the point of LC+. It provides wireless remote control with some advanced features on post war size, semi scale locomotives. You can run an LC+ loco on your layout but you would probably be happier with a Legacy loco.

I think LC and LC+ are here to stay but they will not replace Legacy/TMCC any time soon. O gauge is not a one size fits all hobby. I have one LC+ loco. I love it and will buy more. It may not be right for you but it's perfect for me.

Now THAT's what I'm talking about.  In our family rooms and home theaters, we deplore having "too many" remotes.  So why would I wanna have so many in the train room? 

I can see LC+ capturing its share of users out there.  And that's fine.  But as delivered right now, it just seems to have limitations that are already solved by the existing command control systems.  

That's pretty much what prompted me to start this thread initially.  I thought perhaps I was missing something, but apparently I'm not.

David

Exactly! Excellent post.

We all have choices and our own specific train interests, needs, and requirements. Along with corresponding spending levels.  Run and use what works best for you.

LC+ is a real winner for Lionel and looking forward to hearing more about it at this York and beyond (Hints were dropped in the Lionel podcast about upcoming tech announcements related to LC+).   

Not me.  I like having a bunch of remotes, one per loco.  No having to push some buttons to select a loco, just pick up the loco's remote and use it.  I much prefer it.  I used Legacy for the first month or so I was back in O-gauge, but then y went to conventional only, until LC+LC+.  The Legacy setup went in a closet and I gradually gave away this and that piece of it to friends whose equipment died, etc. 

Anyway, it is simple, robust, and hassle and complexity free, so I love it.  

I view the whole - they are so simple and I'd rather have one big remote than all those as sort of like the arguments I heard from mainframe computer roponents when PCs first came out.  But to each his own. 

Exactly, everyone has to find their own comfort zone with their trains, layouts and price points they are comfortable with. No one system is 'better' than any other and there is no 'right' system, it is all in what you like. I think the manufacturers really are trying to provide something for everyone, so we can all be happy at our own comfort level. LC & LC+ is just another option.

I also agree with some of the other posts, from reading threads here on the forum, that some of the confirmed conventional folks have tried LC/LC+ and liked it. Also some of the confirmed command control folks have tried LC/LC+ and liked it, so it seems to appeal to folks from both camps as well as new first time buyers of train sets. Seems as though it has been a big success and maybe more so than Lionel had originally thought, or maybe they did anticipate the broad appeal?

As I said earlier I am also firmly in the command control (DCS/Legacy) camp and still on the fence about LC & LC+. I won't rule them out completely, but so far they have not peaked my interest enough to make a purchase and I don't see that happening anytime soon, I will probably stick with the Legacy and DCS controlled trains as that is what I like.

The one thing I do see as a big advantage with the multiple remotes is for folks that have more than one child that wants a train set (or even adults that have multiple visitors over that might want to trains?). They don't have to fight over who gets to control the trains, they each have their own control (providing they have sets with different engines). Not suggesting they destroy their trains, but if the trains would hold up it could make for some very interesting Gomez Addams train operations. Of course, I never abused any of my toys when I was a kid.

It also makes sense for clubs or shows where the visitors are allowed to operate the trains on a display layout. More remotes to supply to more people at the same time. I think it would sometimes help get people interested if they got some hands on operation time. May be a good promotional tool for LHS's too, they could give prospective buyers some hands on to promote a sale.

I have come to O 3-rail by way of other scales (first HO, then N, O 2-rail, S, and most recently On30), and was an early adopter of DCC with my Digitrax Challenger system purchased in 1993, followed by a Lenz System in 1995. My HO club uses Digitrax, and my On30 club (plus my home layouts in S and N) use Lenz.

I was never a fan of 3-rail or non-scale model trains until I saw the LionChief Plus steam loco being demonstrated at my LHS. I was impressed by it's ease of operation without needing to remember all of the button sequencing used by other command systems, including DCC. I agree with Lee in liking the one controller for one loco concept, but I can see that this might be a problem if one has a large number of locomotives (been there, done that, in all the other scales I've been involved in). My 3-rail layout, though, is really not much more than a test loop, and so is too small to justify me having that many trains, so having a lot of remotes to deal with just isn't a problem. I will be mostly operating my O 3-rail trains on the club's modular layout, and the fact that I can run my LC+ locos on that layout without having to change whatever control system is being used at the moment, is a big advantage.

I find that as I get older, I have more and more trouble remembering what the correct button sequences are to run with a particular control system (they all seem to be slightly different), but using the LC+ controller is straightforward and intuitive. If a universal LC+ remote were to become available, I might buy one just to have as a spare or diagnostic aid (depending on it's cost and complexity), but not having one is not a deal breaker for me. I really like my LC+ Mikado, a lot. So much, in fact, that I am able to overlook the fact that it is only semi-scale rather than being fully scale-proportioned, and for me, that is something! I have now even purchased a LC Thomas set to run on the club layout at shows when there are kids present.

Since I do have a DC/DCC S Scale layout at home (with hand laid Hi-Rail code 148 track), I'm really looking forward to seeing the future "FlyerChief" releases in that scale.

Bill in FtL

Joe I agree with your point, but you start talking about system, then defer that your reason for LC+ is the semi Scale and cost, which really has nothing to do with LC+.  Lionel has been making semi scale engines in Conventional and TMCC for decades.  At reasonable cost.

Attached is a picture of the 4-6-2 TMCC/RS 4.0 from 2000, I also have the NYC Hudson TMCC/RS 4.0 which is almost like the PW 2056 as far as size.  Beautiful die cast tenders and all.  These are the models Lionel is using to make the current LC+.  These listed a $400-$499 but sold for $250 in the day.

I get the conventional operator or the single remote guy.  I just don't get how the TMCC Cab-1 is too complicated, but running 4 or more trains with remotes with almost as many buttons isn't.  That all.

I also stand that the young adults can handle all the complicated electronics, and they want all the features.

I guess we need to revisit this in 2-3 years.   G

When the major issue with LionChief spelled out in the forum is the number of remote controls, it appears that Lionel has a winner here.

Here's an interesting premise to dwell on: If LionChief had come first, would Lionel ever have introduced TMCC or just kept adding features to LionChief.

My assumption is Lionel must have considered some form of radio control at the time. After all, four and six channel RC airplane systems were well established long before TMCC was introduced but for whatever reason Lionel, as well as MTH and the DCC consortium, decided to send train control signals through the rails. We'll probably never know.

I would guess the decision was made because the 27Mhz and 49Mhz radio controls that would have been cost effective at the time were susceptible to a lot of interference from silly things like brushes in pullmore motors.  I know That I had to work my train running into odd hours much of the time in the 90's because they caused the tv, and especially VCR to record static when running.  Not so much of an issue with digital signal used now.    Instead Lionel went with a system that was cheap and simple from an engineering perspective.  LC+ i the same sort of tech 30 years later.  The 2.4GHz transceivers used are so cheap they are practically giving them away, about a dollar in quantities of one.  Where as the I think 900MHz band that was used for RC planes was quite expensive just for the radios at the time, and I don't think Lionel could have afforded set the price point much higher when the lower cost option would provide more reliable operation.  Also consider that digital encoding of signals was not in common use, you needed a system that would not send garbled data, AM Radio worked.  The 2.4GHz radios of the sort used in LC+ use redundant error checking and delivery confirmation, unless they get the whole data package they don't pass it on.  

Also, as it seems many people above skipped past, here's a summary of some things above:  LionChief, as currently implemented is not intended for people that already use TMCC/Legacy/DCS.  If you use one of those systems, and are comfortable with the use of the system, you probably won't understand using LC+ any more than you understand why some people are so militant on sticking to conventional operation.  You might like it for various reasons, but you're not who it's made for.  

Who it is made for are going to be three groups.  First are your people that could have just as easily bought a G-gauge or an HO, and the remote offers some little added reason to buy O for their first and possibly only, train.  I would say this is probably the biggest market for LionChief and the smallest for LC+.  

The second group are going to be people like me.  Always interested in TMCC/etc but cost involved kept me away.( it's not just the system, but all the little add ons to fully integrate.) Putting a simple remote in my hand on the polar express 10 Year anniversary, that I wanted anyway, ignited a fire  to finally throw in with TMCC. I think Lionel know that there are a lot of guys they can rope into Legacy by giving them just a taste with LionChief.  (I'm too broke to go that route.)

The third, and by far the largest market for LionChief/+ is the folks that just don't want TMCC/etc.  These people may have given it a try, but prefer conventional control.  Some of the reasons include being a "purist", Not wanting any fancy electronics, wanting it simple, or the simple fact that while TMCC seems simple enough to you or I, to other people it is not.  I have trouble understanding that point of view until I think of my grandmother and how I've had to explain how to change channels on the TV remote, and come over to help when she accidentally pressed some feature button.  For whatever reason, there are an awful lot of people that just do not want TMCC/Legacy/DSC, They want conventional only, and this is where I think someone was a genius at Lionel.  By phasing out true conventional only operation, you force people to buy a product that CAN be used conventional, but that also offers some neat features with a remote.  your conventional guy gets to use some remote features in a very easy to understand remote control.... there are pictures on the buttons!  In the end, some of these folks might just like using the remote, and if you read some of the above posts, you'll find some of the biggest fans of LC+ are guys that ran conventional before.  

There is some more info in above posts on the direction I think LC will take in the future and some technical aspects, but this patch of rambling is more or less a summary of who LC+ is for.  The guys that run Legacy layouts can, and probably should, dismiss LC like they would a MPC DC starter set.  it's worth knowing it exists, but it's not likely something you need.

An historical note.  LionChief and LionChief Plus couldn't have come along in 1995 or so, when TMCC was introduced, because inexpensive 2.4 GHz receivers and transmitters using spread spectrum technology were not invented yet .  As pointed out above, the R/C systems of the time were expensive, subject to interference and not digital.  They were analog with all the disadvantages and limitations for multi-tasking using a simple transmitter and receiver.

This (LC and LC+) is inexpensive technology with great capabilities and increased bandwidth that simply is much more recently developed and commercialized than the technologies that went into TMCC and, about 6-7 years later, DCS. It could conceivably replace TMCC/Legacy down the road as it is robust and has tremendous capabilities.  It may not do so, but it could.

Hi David 

  Over here at the Club we have new members that have the LC+ engine.

these are new members just getting in to model railroading.

  It makes for a great entry level engine for new members that can't aford the 

Legacy or tmcc equipmen But want to get involved in the hobbie.

 It makes for agreat start Getting new guys involved in the hobbie.

Actually, I did list some of the LC+ features, though not as clearly as I should have. LC+ locos feature wireless remote control without block wiring, constant speed control, fan driven smoke, good sound with easy to adjust volume, remote couplers, and a very easy to use remote, plus the ability to run conventionally. All I said above was "some advanced features" which wasn't very specific. Legacy/TMCC users have all these features and more so LC+ probably wouldn't appeal to them.

i have never used TMCC or Legacy so I don't know how easy or difficult they are to use. I have used DCC with N scale for years and guess TMCC/Legacy would be similar. LC+ gives me the command control features I most want without having to buy a CC system. I also don't have to pay Legacy prices for scale locos, many of which won't run on my layout. 

Post war locos with TMCC would require a TMCC system, LC+ doesn't. It just works for me in spite of it's limitations.

I think the main and biggest reason LC+ was introduced was/is: Cost of the control circuity. It is a lot cheaper to make the LC+ than it is to make a Legacy/TMCC compatible  sub system.

Just over 10 years ago, Model planes and helis used the 72-75 MHz band as a carrier frequncey. This 72-75 Mhz was ok but it was susceptible to interference. There are many Radio stations with huge transmitters on 72-75 Mhz and it used to be a major problem for us to fly near any such transmitters. Many people crashed their very expensive plane models due to interference.

The cell technology has been using 2.4 Ghz for decades, later the R/C industry got permission to use a small area of the 2.4Ghz spectrum for its R/C control. I remember very well how 90% of the R/C modellers resisted this new technology and kept on flying, and crashing due to interference, on the 72 Mhz. Personally I like technology so I and a few others jumped on the this new 2.4 Ghz frequency band and never had one single interference issue. R/C Manufacturers (Futabs, JR, Airtronics...etc) struggled to make the older expensive ($1000+) transmitters compatible with the new 2.4 Ghz. They had to compromise their designs some what for compatibility reasons to keep people using their already invested/expensive older equipment.

Fast forward 10 years+, now there are 2.4 Ghz R/C systems that are less than 10% of the cost of the older systems and they can do more AND they pretty much have no interference issues. Now crashing your Turbine powered jet that can do over true 200 MPH is due to dumb thumbs or other mechanical/electrical issues but almost never an radio signal interference issue.

I suspect the same is happening with Lionel and MTH, there is perhaps a certain amount of customer resistance to change from the conventional, DCS and Legacy systems to a newer R/C control such as the 2.4 Ghz and hence they have to keep the older systems running at a higher cost to them and to us.

As has been mentioned before here, the cost of 2.4 Ghz systems is so low it is actually ridiculous. These R/C systems can do so much it is unbelievable. I have a 10 year old Futaba 14 channel computerized transmitter (50 models capable , expand to 100's with a memory chip) that runs on 2.4 Ghz (used to transmit on older 72 Mhz, but was retrofitted for 2.4 Ghz) which I used for demonstration flights of my Turbine jet in Europe, USA and Asia and had no issues at all with interference nor any problems with country FCC rules since the 2.4 Ghz specs are fairly internationally controlled.

Personally, I think Lionel and MTH have missed a major opportunity to change over to R/C control of O scale (and other scales) trains. The advantages out way the disadvantages by far, BUT, resistance of the end user "may" have deterred them from changing over.

A simple cheap, cheap receiver can be installed in the loco with an on board Li-ion or Li-Poly rechargeable battery  for power and the sounds and controls are almost limitless. Charging the batts can be done on a siding while you run other trains...

Guess what, no issues with power losses in the rails, no wires, no blocks needed, no $500-$700 transformers, no signal DCS/Legacy signal problems either...imagine that!

Remember these are systems, not individual devices.

TMCC and DCS were designed so and individual or a group could run a RAIL ROAD. (Engines, Tracks, Switches, Lashups, Accessories, Routes) let alone control the functions of the device.  Incremental smoke and volume control, lighting control and effects, sound control and effects like quillable whistle, crossing sounds and such.

LC+ right now is about an individual controlling an Engine.  Big difference.

So I do not think Lionel or MTH Engineers would have adopted an LC+ System over a DCS or TMCC System approach.

As far as what the carrier is or how it is broadcast so be if, but tech changes all the time.  RIght now as demand occurs the basic old TMCC and DCS tech still adapt because it is modular and can interface with other devices.  So as we move into wifi and phone tablet use the TMCC and DCS remotes can be changed to a different device, and the base stays the same.  THINK SYSTEM not Device.

As far as cost, producing a few thousand a year trains, versus 1 million plus RC cars/trains drives cost far more then the device itself.

Also remember the basic simple code to do a few things.  Versus many different complex functions.

Frankly, the price is set for what they can get for it, not really a margin over the cost to manufacture.

Lastly, DCS is two way communication.  The engine talks back to the system.

So I am still confused on what the argument is when folks think this is the greatest device made.  Specially some one else made it first and with a universal remote and a display screen. 

Picture is the latest remote, the previous one was smaller.  G

Ironically I’m considering investing in Legacy only to operate conventional engines on our small displays.

Building small displays forces one to be selective about the equipment that can be included in the limited space available and when operating conventional engines with command control it’s not just a matter of a base unit to the track. Until recently for each individual loop you run through the remote you needed one PowerMaster brick to regulate the voltage from each power source.

The ZW L alleviates the need for PowerMasters. Still, in terms of conventional operation you’re talking about over $1,000 just to get the power and control to four loops of track regardless of the method you choose.

Time, space, simplicity and economics are major considerations for many traditional operators. LionChief streamlines the set up, requiring only the wiring to supply power to the track. There’s no additional equipment needed to get up and running and the engines are moderately priced. This makes Lionel Trains a more appealing discretionary luxury.

Because of the economics involved in supplying replacements and the obvious manner it would compliment the product line and allow expansion, I suspect a programmable multi channel LionChief remote will be offered within the next year. If or when that happens more traditional operators may begin to upgrade their engine rosters, buying new instead of using the secondary market. And becoming spoiled using the remotes may encourage some of them to compliment their systems with a command control system solely for operating their conventional engines. Unfortunately or ironically if you want to operate conventional engines through a remote you’ll still need a command control system.

It wouldn’t surprise me if within four years Lionel upgrades the Legacy system to answer its users demand for  another brick to translate the LionChief signal.

I feel the same way.

Plus, I am happy with MTH prices for Rail King and RK Imperial engines w/ PS3.

Thus, LC+ offers nothing to me (conventional) for roughly $350.

However, for conventional operators it "might" make sense...

But then, why not just buy a Williams Engine? You can upgrade them easily.

IMHO, LC+ is a great option for new people into the hobby or even better, conventional operators looking for more realism (sound etc) without having to perform an upgrade.

I would go CAB-1L with Legacy power masters.  No need for the full blown Legacy to run engines that are conventional.

OR, MTH Z-4000 with the Remote for the transformer.

OR, going used and probably very cheaply a TMCC CAb-1 hand held and the TMCC Power Master.  No need for a command base.  Great method to control conventional engines.  Expandable up to 9 controllable tracks.  Just get a backup Cab-1.  G

You make very good points, G, and that's why LC+ is not right for everyone. I may add a DCS system in the future so I can run Rail King locos. I've been thinking about it but right now LC+ meets my needs and desires. If I do eventually add a DCS system I can still run my LC+ locos so nothing is lost. Plus, if I do go with DCS I can run one train on a DCS throttle and another with LC+ so I have nothing to lose. 

One advantage for all is that LC+ will run on Legacy and DCS layouts so they add more throttles for individual control at no additional cost. An LC+ loco can be run on a TMCC/Legacy/DCS layout with no modifications. It can be run on a conventional layout by throwing a switch on the bottom of the loco. It's not meant to replace other operating systems. If the thread starter, Dave, wanted a loco that is LC+ he can use it on his layout right out of the box.

LC and LC+ are compatible with TMCC, Legacy, DCS and conventional controls. It's not a question of replacing the current control system. I don't see a downside to LC+ locos. 

This is a very interesting topic. Lots of very good reading and opinions. My question is this; is there a good way to do lash-ups with multiple Lionchief engines? I imagine you would have to do your best to adjust the speeds the same. Has anyone tried this? Does it work reasonably well?