Lion Chief Plus performance

Good question and hope you get an answer.

I now have three LC+ locos and have no issues at all. My layout is probably not as complex as yours. I've actually walked around my basement (a decent sized space) and gone into other rooms, shut the doors,  and the remote successfully communicates with the loco.

I operate my LC+ on a 12 x 28 layout with several tunnels.  It works perfectly for me.

Al

When I had an LC+ Engine, I would get spotty performance if I stepped outside my walkout basement. Maybe with new batteries it would have been better but I was surprised that just stepping outside, with windows and doors open, it was so bad. Guess brick walls don't help!!!

The National Capital Trackers do a show twice a year at the College Park Aviation Museum. We successfully went to the other end of the atrium where the layout is and had no operational issues. That is approx. 200-250 feet.

Your mileage may vary...I suspect you wouldn't have any issues. 

I'm going down to Pat Marinari's place tomorrow, I'll take my LC+ Camelback and see how it works there.  He has a pretty good sized layout.  That might be an interesting experiment.

LC and LC+ signal range will almost always be better than TMCC because it is a single transmitter(the remote) to receiver(in the loco) link operating at a high frequency, whereas TMCC is a two step propogation system using the track as part of the antenna. One of TMCC's issues was that the receiver antenna in the loco was limited in size and could not be completely optimized for the frequency used for that hop. 

Well, at the San Diego 3-Railer layout, since we are in a basement at the San Diego Model Railroad Museum, we have reception perfectly, but 90% the owner is following their train around the layout. I have seen with our Kids Club with just LC locos put 3/4 full throttle and it has no issues, and they are sitting. LC+, Haven't seen one yet but hopefully I will get one or see another member purchase one.

Well, I took my Camelback down to Pat's place, but ran into a problem.  I'm not used to lugging a remote for each engine, so the remote was back at my place! Needless to say, the test didn't get done!

LionChief and LionChief Plus operate on 2.4 GHz radio frequency, digital spread spectrum.  In almost all instances, this technology is more bulletproof and reliable than any other O three rail command system.  Range should be in the 50-100 foot range, but like all radio frequency signals, subject to attenuation by various metal and other structures, and variable penetration through various obstacles.  Just like FM radio reception, for example.

Should be less susceptible to layout size and complexity, by far, than Legacy/TMCC and DCS.  Only way to know for sure is to try it on your particular layout.  I would be surprised if there are problems.  It's more like a radio control car than a typical command system for trains.  No likely sensitivity at all to geometry of wiring, bridges,  tunnels (unless made out of lead or metal wire or similar stuff), track configuration, condition of the battery in the loco (there is none), switches, and so on.  I have yet to hear of any interference or other problems with these systems, and that is also the experience of all radio control airplane, boat and car hobbyists with their similar systems.

LionChief Plus on my layout & You Tube Channel

Hi Wades Toy Box 

     You may find this video helpful, I am a big fan of LionChief Plus. Like the speed control and I can hand the controller to a visitor to my Train Room and have them operating trains in minutes.

     Hand them my MTH / DCS controller and have have to spent more time getting them up and running and they still do not get it. Try to explain the soft keys and what they do.

     I have two more LionChiefs Plus on Lionel built to order program.

Gary - Cheers from The Detroit and Mackinac Railway

Just for fun, I just ran a test:   55 ft distance, through three interior walls and one wall lengthwise.   LC+ Mikado.  No problems, tested all features OK.  5 month old batteries!   Impressive.

here is my first lionchief plus steam engine running at the club layout. I took the remote upstairs to the HO layout and walked around it and the remote was still able to control the pacific. This building is 75+ years old with old plaster lathe walls.

Essentially the same thing I did yesterday with my B&O NW-2 switcher.  Excellent results.

Reading the recent postings on this topic praising LC makes me think about one of my earlier musings: What would the OGauge RC world look like today if Lionel had started out with LC instead of TMCC. Do you think there would ever have been a TMCC in that instance?

If Lionel had started out with LC using twenty year old technology, it's hard to say.

They would be bankrupt.  There would be no railroads and elaborate layouts.  Everything would be manually controlled accept a few engines.  Unless your saying everything would have a remote including operating items and switches.

It probably would have started as 900 MHZ or maybe 27 MHZ.   Everything remote control would have become obsolete overtime with frequency changes.    G

"if Lionel had started out with LC instead of TMCC."

Well, they couldn't have because off the shelf, inexpensive digital spread spectrum radio control wasn't available twenty years ago.  2.4 GHz radios now available are much less susceptible to interference, glitching and signal attenuation problems than are 27 MHz analog, for one thing.  So it's a little like asking if we didn't have seatbelts, airbags and modern chassis design, what would be the annual death toll on the highways.  It would be higher, but whether it would be 10,000, 20,000 or more deaths than the 30,000+ we have today is impossible to know.

People still use 72 and 75 MHz analog radio control systems, and even 27 MHz, but it's a small minority of those using radio control cars, boats and airplanes.  All new stuff is 2.4 GHz digital and its more reliable, much lighter in weight,  much less expensive, and, in general, truly amazingly wonderful compared with what went before.  So I'm glad LionChief has come along, and know it will possibly become the dominant system in three rail trains made by Lionel eventually. It has the ability, in principal to do literally everything TMCC and Legacy do with more reliability, less expense and less weight.  It's probably just a matter of time, but whether that's going to be 5 years, 10 years or more is anyone's guess.

I certainty hope not, sorry.  Legacy is far better.  In those videos, there is only 2 chuffs per rev, the sounds are tinny, and the bell stopped to play the crew talk, then started again when they were done talking.  I do admit they look pretty and run nice, but I don't like the one remote per locomotive thing (And no, the one remote for 3 locomotives due to the new multi remote doesn't help.).  I also don't like that you can't adjust speed change delay when turning the knob.  Children expect the locomotive to respond right away.  I bout the Thomas LC trains for my 2 year old, but he'd rather drive my Legacy locomotives with a Cab-1 because I can turn the momentum off (And speed limit on so he can't make it fly off of the table.) so they respond as soon as he turns the knob.  And he can have the bell and whistle and talking all play at once.  I really wish Lionel would offer these locomotives in the LionMaster line so that I can have Legacy control.  I'd happily pay another $100 for it.  Otherwise I'll wait and find one that's going super cheap and convert it to TMCC with ERR boards.

LC+ has better sound and more features, but they're certainly not a Legacy locomotive, and probably will never be mistaken for one.

It is important to realize that the sound system in LionChief Plus is specifically chosen to be less expensive than that for Legacy.  It's not inherent in the technology.  LionChief Plus could be made every bit as functional and with high quality sound as Legacy should Lionel choose to use this technology for an increased complexity, increased capability system.  The sound system and all the operating features are not fixed in any way, and not limited by the LionChief and LionChief Plus communication technology. It is every bit as capable as Legacy in potential should the hardware in the loco and the software in the transmitter and receiver be upgraded.  There is also no reason you could not produce a remote that can control 99 locomotives using LionChief Plus technology, just as with Legacy.  You just have to have consumers willing to spend the money to pay for such a remote .

There always seems to be several ways to look at things.  Hey here is a new technology what do I want to do with it?  Or as Lionel seems to have done when TMCC was created, write a capabilities need document.

How do I want to run trains and what do I want to be able to do with them.  Then you look at what technology you have and create it.  TMCC can do more than, MUCH more, than LC+ can do from a train control perspective and it is 90s technology.

Some of you seem bent on redefining what operators want.  LC and LC+ fits into a select segment of the market and it may fit other niches such as reduced cost, new product marketing, and of course it comes with newer tech so there are other potential benefits.  

It would not surprise me if an LC board cost as much to make as a Legacy board.  But there is more R&D, and software code for Legacy, and based on what it does they can charge more.

There are only a handful of post about the enjoyment of LC+, yet some how that is a marketing success story that will kill Legacy.

Maybe that will happen, but it has to evolve into a product that can control multiple trains, loops, accessories, switches from a single remote, while supporting computer, tablet and phone control of those items.  Until that happens, I think Legacy and DCS still have a secure place in the market, and the majority of trains produced will be Legacy and PS.

Can LC+ kill conventional trains and operation.  Probably.  But I can still do more with a single CAB-1 and a Power Master then with LC+.  Lets remember a single one time purchase of a CAB-1 and Command Base was just $99.  Amortize that over 5-10 TMCC trains and 4-5 loop layout.   G

"TMCC can do more than, MUCH more, than LC+ can do from a train control perspective and it is 90s technology."

Sure, but that's by Lionel's choice, not due to any intrinsic limitation to the LC+ technology.  From a signal transmission standpoint, primarily by being relatively bullet-proof, LC+ is more robust, and as capable if not moreso than TMCC and Legacy.  It's up to Lionel and the consumer public what the system becomes or doesn't become.  I doubt very much that they will obsolete Legacy any time soon.  Too much in the way of sunk costs. But over 5-15 years, who knows what might happen? 

I don't particularly need or want LC or LC+ to replace Legacy. I was making the obvious point that the technology is actually capable of doing so, and has some real advantages over TMCC and Legacy in terms of reliability and simplicity right now.  It's strikingly less subject to communication glitches and frustration than DCS in my experience,  and those of others I know.  Essentially zero signal transmission problems versus some problems in some situations.  For many hobbyists, especially novices, that's huge.  If some serious hobbyists,  and those with a financial stake in current product are in denial about the quirks of DCS, well, so it goes, to quote the late Kurt Vonnegut . 

Meanwhile, history is happening.  Legacy and TMCC are going to be a smaller and smaller proportion of total locomotives sold as time goes on.  LC and LC+ represent the introductory set market and the "next step after the starter set" market.  That's hundreds of thousands of locos per year.  Legacy represents a fraction of that (I'd guess tens of thousands).  PS3 locos represent an even smaller market segment by far, judging from a variety of indicators.  So over the next five years, there will probably be 5-10 times as many locos produced with LC and LC+ as with Legacy or PS3.  In the long run, that's going to have some effects on the industry is my guess.

Guys that have walls full of locomotives, would also have walls full of remotes

Then it is bankrupt time.  If the market goes pure toy with throw away stuff in start sets, it will be the end in my opinion.

The days of the set is significantly down at the hobby shop level.  Maybe internet or direct sales are more for Lionel, but your figures seem overly optimistic marketing numbers.  Time will tell. 

Also the bullet proof may be a little premature as I hear the repair rate on LC+ is up, especially when compared to a Legacy combined board.  G

"If the market goes pure toy with throw away stuff in start sets, it will be the end in my opinion."

Not sure where you derived this claim from. My comments were that the technology, 2.4 GHz spread spectrum, was superior in performance, reliability and modest cost compared with Legacy and DCS.  No one, least of all me, has said anything about the disappearance of scale high end models, which nonetheless form a small proportion of the total dollar business. 

Sets not only are not disappearing, they are the base of Lionel's resurgence and continued dominance of this small niche hobby.  And they do sell over a hundred thousand of them each year from industry estimates I've seen.  Our local hobby shops sell a lot of sets around Christmas.  Not like Gimbels or Macys did in the 1950s to be sure, but very large numbers compared with any given catalog's Legacy loco numbers.  One of the reasons that Lionel is still advertising in the hobby and non-hobby media and promoting new blood in the hobby is in support of their set business, without doubt.  No one else has that drawing power from their brand.

The technology is bulletproof, particularly when compared with some competing products.  That's not to say there aren't going to be mechanical failures or a bad lot of chips/boards.  Anyone familiar with the R/C airplane/car hobbies knows this technology has essentially wiped out all other competing approaches. And that is because it is rock solid and as close to foolproof as can be.

So it's not the LC/LC+ tech that is good, it's the frequency chosen for signal transfer that is bulletproof.  So it's more likely that whatever Lionel uses to replace Legacy (Like they did with TMCC.) will be using the same, or better, frequency.  This is not LC tech, just simple radio tech.  At some point they could even offer to upgrade the Legacy base and remotes with the new frequency and now your points of LC are mute.

I started out with lionChief recently and I love the system. I do think there will be more upgrades to the system as time goes by. The simplicity of operation was the deciding factor for me. I won't rule out ever buying a Legacy engine, but I would probably use my base 1L controller to run it, as I'm using it to control my remote switches.

"This is not LC tech, just simple radio tech.  At some point they could even offer to upgrade the Legacy base and remotes with the new frequency and now your points of LC are mute."

Not exactly.  While I'm no electrical engineer, the LionChief system is a more sophisticated radio control system than TMCC, Legacy or DCS.  The receiver and transmitter are a later generation that actually digitally encodes the identity of the transmitter so the receiver ignores all signals not from the "bound" transmitter.  So it is strikingly less subject to interference and "glitching."  Could the Legacy or TMCC system be updated to use this technology?  I'm not sophisticated enough to know the issues, but it would involve lots of new hardware and software, which means money.  LionChief has as one of its attractions  that it is very inexpensive because it uses off the shelf technology being used in many other radio frequency communication applications in the consumer and commercial sectors.  I'm sure if it is cost and functionally advantageous to use 2.4 GHz digital spread spectrum radio control (as in LionChief and LC+)  in the next generation of Legacy they will do so.

It looks like the message is now getting through. There are two distinct factors in any wireless remote control system. Factor one is the method of getting the signal from the remote control transmitter to the receiver in what you are trying to control. This includes the chosen radio frequency and to some extent the signal modulation method. In this factor, LC has the edge as being more robust in general. Factor two is how many different functions are to be controlled and how these are hard wired and user programmable. Here, TMCC/Legacy have the edge with more overall functional control capabilities. Because of the enormous volume of electronics manufacturing, costs of the components for both systems have decreased dramatically. I would venture a guess that future R&D in our hobby will most likely center on LC type systems.

Its called CTCSS, and it's rather old tech, older than TMCC.  And by the nature of 2.4GHz, it's a necessity because of how much there is on that band.  It has nothing to do with LC/+.  I'm no EE either, but I am an amateur radio operator, so I do know a thing or two about transmitters and receivers.  My point is that you have based proclaiming the virtues of LC/+ based on the stoutness of the signal (At least that is what I'm getting out of your posts.) which has nothing to do with the LC/+ system.  It's the same reason it's used in RC cars and planes, portable phones, wireless mice and keyboards, and other wireless devices.  It is merely the medium to carry the signal.  TMCC and Legacy use a different set of frequencies to carry the signal.  They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and hardware wise all 3 could be done on any of the 4 frequencies the 3 of them possess (With new hardware of course.).  Lionel chose the frequencies they did, and that's what we've got to live with.

You and others think LC/LC + is not significantly superior radio control technology to TMCC/Legacy/DCS.  My experience and the marketplace in radio control hobbies leads me to the opposite conclusion.  It is not about the frequency, it's the encoding and decoding technology which is superior.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Lionel and the marketplace will decide where we go from here.  In the meanwhile, you can take your LC or LC+ loco and remote to a show or modular layout or club, and be assured that it will almost certainly work regardless of the geometry, surroundings, etc.  That is not true of DCS in particular.  TMCC/Legacy can have problems in some circumstances, albeit a lot less frequently than DCS.  Importantly, a remote for LC/LC+ can be sold for $40-$50, compared with $100-150 or more for Legacy/DCS.  And that's not just because it has fewer buttons .

What I am saying is it's not a function of the LC tech.  The communications between the remote and locomotive is not LC, that is a standard used by many others that I listed before.  LC is the data being transmitted.

Think of it as a telephone line.  The 2.4GHz connection from the remote to the locomotive is the telephone line.  The CTCSS used to pair the remote to the locomotive is the telephone number.  Both of which are 100% independent from what telephones are on either end and what you say.  The remote and the locomotive are the telephones, and the LC is what you say on the phone.  This is why 2.4GHz works so well for RC planes and cars and portable phones from handset to base.

Maybe, but it does have fewer buttons and less functionality.

hello guys and gals...........

Can this system be installed in Sunset 3rd brass locomotives with Pittman motors ?

Tiffany

Not anytime soon Tiffany!

"Can this system be installed in Sunset 3rd brass locomotives with Pittman motors ?"

In theory, no reason why not.  In practice, you'd have to figure out the connections between the motor speed control on the LionChief Plus board and the Pittman yourself.  Probably beyond my skills .  Not sure whether LionChief boards have lower current ratings than LionChief Plus, and not sure whether they are even available for separate sale.  The remotes are available, but you'd want the forthcoming universal remote that can be "bound" to any given locomotive board.  I'm sure someone will get around to doing this and show us how eventually. 

"that is a standard used by many others that I listed before. "

Understood.  My point is that the 2.4 GHz digital spread spectrum LionChief and LC+ transmission/reception standard is a more reliable and less expensive technology to that which is employed in TMCC, Legacy and DCS, which are more prone to "glitching."

Hi Folks!

Well, I hope Lionel would consider offering a kit to convert certain conventional runners to LC+ (boards and remote), or a LC+ throttle/controller/transformer (sound in a speaker either on the controller or placed in the layout).  That would give any Bluetooth control system on the horizon a run for its money!

Take care, Joe.

The LC+ boards would go up in smoke with a large locomotive with any load.  They don't have nearly the current rating of the TMCC or Legacy boards.  That doesn't even broach the issue of adapting the tiny flywheel based speed encoder to the large motor.

I know you're really high on the technology, but how about tempering the enthusiasm with a little reality.

"The LC+ boards would go up in smoke with a large locomotive with any load.  They don't have nearly the current rating of the TMCC or Legacy boards.  That doesn't even broach the issue of adapting the tiny flywheel based speed encoder to the large motor."

You know this for a fact?  What I do know is that in the model airplane and car field, there are brushless and brushed motor speed controllers available at reasonable cost that can handle many times the amperage typically drawn by a Pittman or other locomotive motor.  These speed controllers constitute relatively simple and inexpensive technical modifications that Lionel or a very knowledgeable hobbyist could make should they wish to.  I think my answer to Tiffany covered the current reality quite accurately.

As for reality testing, and familiarity with the ways of new technologies, I'll let others be the judge. I'd say the problem with reality testing is with the "generals who are fighting the last war rather than the current one."