LionChief control from TMCC? Version 2.0 - More questions (Updated 5-27-18)

Just a bit of an update and my take away so far.  Some new questions at the bottom.

_{1. What is the price point people would find reasonable for this product?  In the simplest implementation I can do right now the bridge would allow control of up to three LC/+ locomotives from your Cab1/2.  the hardware needed to accomplish that, however leaves plenty of room for expandability.}  

_{2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  I am not entirely certain, but expect that it would add around $10 to the cost to provide for expandability.  In exchange it will cost about half as much as the first bridge to add another module to control three more engines.}  

It looks like most folks think $50-100 would be a reasonable price, with $150 being top end.  Since my expected parts cost is well over $50, I don't see that as a possibility.  I need to design a proper PCB and price out parts for the final design before I'll know exactly how much it will cost to build each unit, as well as knowing some of the other things below to settle on a final design.  I have 2 major options at this point.  I could use an expensive microprocessor that would allow for expandability and other features, or I could use an inexpensive one that could only ever control 3 engines.  I need to test some compatibility with LCS before I can fully commit to one option or the other (more on that below). In any case, Right now, based off known and estimated parts and labor costs, I'm expecting I could offer the basic, 3 engine model for around $120 and the expandable version for about $140.  I hope to reduce those estimates, but that's where I am right now.  

_{3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed.  I won't know for sure until the code is written, but may run into other issues with a single master device controlling so many engines.  Would a unit that can only be expanded to control 12, or 6 total engines be acceptable?}  

It looks like 18 engines will be the limit at this time.  I may have to reduce that to 15 or 12 as I write the code, but with what I have so far, 18 seems to work.  Of course, if someone needed to control even more LC/+/FC engines at once, they could use a second bridge device that could support up to another 18 engines.  perhaps worth making note, you don't need the bridge to have a channel for every LC engine you own, just however many you want to run at the same time.  

_{4.  Are tactile, physical buttons and switches on the device for programing preferred or wanted?  The implementation i'm currently working with uses the cab1/2 remote for most programing with perhaps 2 buttons on the bridge it's self.  Do people prefer to use buttons or switches on the bridge to program it, or is it ok to program from the Cab remote?}

It looks like some folks prefer the physical switches and buttons, but it's my estimation that more people would prefer a lower cost and the ability to control more engines.  Since everyone that will use this product has a cab1/1l/2 i'm going to make the programing from the remote. I already have that part of the program code working right now.  At the moment the bridge has a set of dip-switches to set its programing address, but I may do away with those as well.  at present the programing method is as follows.  

ACC =>

(Two digit bridge programing address) =>  

AUX1 =>  (Number 1-9, for which LC Channel you want to program) =>  

AUX1(LC 1-9)  (AUX2 for LC 10-18 (adds 9 to number pressed) ) =>

ENG =>

(Two digit TMCC engine address desired) =>

SET 

This sequence is pretty straight forward on the CAB1.  Is it equally simple on a cab2? 

_{5.  Is there anyone in the Metro Detroit area that has a functional layout  with Legacy AND LCS that might be willing to volunteer some time to help do some testing to insure the bridge is fully compatible with those systems?  (DCS as well  would be nice.)  It is my intention for the bridge to be installed with the 9-pin serial port on the command base, and for any additional serial devices to then plug into a second serial port on the bridge device.  I can think of no reason this won't work, but need to test it.  It would also be nice to test the bridge with Legacy and DCS for compatibility.  Once any obvious bugs are worked out, I'll probably look for a couple "beta testers" to try the device on their layouts.}  

For the sake of clarity I want to be certain that I understand the point of this thread. The goal is to operate LionChief locos from the TMCC/Legacy controller instead of the LionChief controller or a bluetooth smart device.

BOB WALKER posted:

For the sake of clarity I want to be certain that I understand the point of this thread. The goal is to operate LionChief locos from the TMCC/Legacy controller instead of the LionChief controller or a bluetooth smart device.

That is correct.  The purpose of this device is to allow control of LionChief/LionChief Plus/FlyerChief engines from TMCC/Legacy/LCS control systems.  

The target audience is not the average LionChief user with a couple locomotives, but rather those that already use TMCC/Legacy and have been adverse to running LionChief because they can not use the control system they are already invested in.  While the LionChief App and Universal remote have made running multiple LC engines more manageable it is still no comparison for the folks that are used to having control of their entire layout in their hand.  The two primary markets I see for this bridge are going to be 1.  Folks that are already invested in Legacy for their layout, but would enjoy being able to add LC/+ to their roster.  2. folks that are running on a budget and find new LionChief/+ engines to be an attractive alternative to buying used TMCC engines.  

It's been more than 2 years now since the first time I started working on this so the desirability may have shifted, but it seems enough people are interested to make it worth the time, for those that want it.  More or less, LionChief is the only thing Legacy can't control, and I aim to fix that.  

JGL

FWIW, it's my understanding that you need a minimum of the SER2 to use Legacy serial commands, but I believe you can connect directly to the base to use TMCC serial commands.  There are a number of products that already use TMCC serial data, and they worked with Legacy before the LCS system came out.  Since none of the LCS stuff existed at that time, it seems that you can connect directly.  Again, Rudy is the guy to ask for sure, I'm about 98% sure.

JGL

It's been more than 2 years now since the first time I started working on this so the desirability may have shifted, but it seems enough people are interested to make it worth the time, for those that want it.  More or less, LionChief is the only thing Legacy can't control, and I aim to fix that. 

I would like to try a DIY kit beings I have UR already.

JohnGaltLine posted:

 

 

If a SER2 is required to use the bridge with LCS, does that affect the price people are willing to pay?  ex, a ser2 costs about $40. If the bridge costs $130 is the $170 total too high?  

 

 

While a SER2 would probably not be required because you are using the TMCC code set, some folks will have these and will need to be tested just to make sure there are no unforeseen issues.

Not a bad idea to test in that environment, but I'd be very surprised if there are any issues.  The TMCC stuff I've connected through the SER2 has all worked seamlessly, just like it did without it.

An LCS SER2 would be required if ANY other LCS components are present. However,

gunrunnerjohn posted:

you need a ... SER2 to use Legacy serial commands, but I believe you can connect directly to the base to use TMCC serial commands.  There are a number of products that already use TMCC serial data, and they worked with Legacy before the LCS system came out.  Since none of the LCS stuff existed at that time, it seems that you can connect directly.  Again, Rudy is the guy to ask for sure, I'm about 98% sure.

That's right.

I thought I'd answered this earlier, so I'll elaborate.

For a layout where there are NO LCS components present, a device like the one JohnGaltLines has proposed could be connected directly to a Legacy Base or Base-1L serial port. It could then send or receive TMCC commands, and an LCS SER2 would not be NOT required. However, if a device wanted to use the Legacy command set, an SER2 would be required. 

Now let's consider a layout where one or more LCS components ARE present. When LCS is in the picture, the communication between the command base and the LCS components is more sophisticated. You CANNOT insert a "pass-through" serial device such as the Z-Stuff data driver between the command base and the LCS DB9 cable and power supply. It won't work. The SER2 was designed specifically for this purpose and would be a requirement to use JohnGaltLines's proposed device if any other LCS components were present.

I knew you were the guy to ask.

Railsounds posted:

I thought I'd answered this earlier, so I'll elaborate.

For a layout where there are NO LCS components present, a device like the one JohnGaltLines has proposed could be connected directly to a Legacy Base or Base-1L serial port. It could then send or receive TMCC commands, and an LCS SER2 would not be NOT required. However, if a device wanted to use the Legacy command set, an SER2 would be required. 

Now let's consider a layout where one or more LCS components ARE present. When LCS is in the picture, the communication between the command base and the LCS components is more sophisticated. You CANNOT insert a "pass-through" serial device such as the Z-Stuff data driver between the command base and the LCS DB9 cable and power supply. It won't work. The SER2 was designed specifically for this purpose and would be a requirement to use JohnGaltLines's proposed device if any other LCS components were present.

I understood that the SER2 is required to speak to serial devices when the LCS system is in use. I was also aware the SER2 was needed to inject commands from the Legacy set, but didn't realize it was needed to read out-going legacy commands.   I'm mostly curious about why.  I'm going to move forward with this project with the assumption that the SER2 would be required for LCS layouts.  _{(For clarity on the technical end, the bridge only needs to read standard TMCC commands.  it doesn't send anything back to the base, and the TMCC standard command set offers far more options than are needed to control an LC locomotive.)}

I'd still be interested in a technical answer as to why data could not be read in between the LCS cable and legacy base.  As asked before, is the baud rate changed or a non-RS-232 standard used?  Are additional pins of the db9 used for other functions?  if so are they used under RS-232 standard, or are they used for a non-standard function like pin 9 on a TIU?   

None of it matters for this project, but I'm the sort of person that like knowing how stuff works.  

JGL

The new device discussed in this thread would have to communicate directly with a LionChief loco. This can be done via the original LC RF frequency or bluetooth.  Although using bluetooth would only work with later LC locos, it's still an interesting choice. Any opinions?

Questions about implementation for the bridge, Round 2:

With the basic hardware questions more or less sorted out I have some questions on some aspects of functionality.  LionChief engines have a smaller feature set than even basic TMCC engines, so I'm trying to figure out how, or if, I should make use of commands that don't exist on LC engines.  

The following commands work as you would expect from TMCC engines:  Whistle, Bell, Direction, Boost, Brake, Front Coupler, Rear Coupler, Momentum settings and HALT.  

The speed knob generally works as one would expect, but I found it changes the engines speed rather suddenly so I added a sensitivity setting that will adjust how much input is needed to raise or lower the speed step.  I have not yet decided how to let users change the sensitivity but expect it will not be overly complex from the CAB remote.  

Sound volume can only be adjusted on LC+ engines when they are not moving.  With that in mind, the 1 and 4 number buttons will raise or lower the volume one step per push of the button, if the engine is stopped.  There is a limitation here that the bridge will only remember the volume that it last used, so if you use the original remote to change the volume, the next time the bridge is used to adjust volume, it rill change to it's last stored value.  In addition, if a different LC+ engine is reassigned to that address it will use the previously stored volume level.  This is because the bridge has no way to know if changes are made to an engine that it does not send out.  

The 2 button will activate the LC engine's announcement feature.  

The 0 will reset the engine to a starting state like a TMCC engine, with one exception.  The bridge has no way to know if the bell is ringing or not on an LC engine, so the bell will continue ringing or not ringing when 0 is pressed. (This also effects the HALT command.  The bell will remain in whatever state it's in.) 

This leaves several buttons free with no features assigned to them:  AUX1, AUX2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.  

LC/+ engines do not provide for remote control of lighting, smoke units, or which sounds are played,  so these buttons won't work for their normal TMCC functions.  They could be used for other things if desired, however.  

Are there any functions that an LC/+ engine is capable of that people would like added?  

So far the ones I'll probably add are using AUX 1 (or maybe Aux2?) to activate the crew announcements just to have a bigger, easier to use, button for the function.  second is perhaps using the 3/5 buttons to increase and decrease the sensitivity of the speed control knob.  Other than that I'm unsure what else is useful.  Maybe a built in grade crossing whistle?    

The next question is more on the technical end.  Right now I'm only planning to have relative speed commands work.  This means for folks using Legacy the engine will have to be added in CAB-1 mode.  Will this work properly or is there any advantage in adding support for absolute speed steps?  I don't know enough about how legacy uses absolute speed steps in TMCC mode and am unsure what advantages this offers.  Also unsure if the cab1L/base1L use absolute or relative commands, and need to figure this out for compatibility.  

Is it worthwhile to add support for the 'stall' function?  This may or may not be useful for non-plus LC engines but requires a fair chunk of programing to make it work so I'm only planning on adding it if it's something people really do use.  

Last, should 'TR' train (lash-up) commands be supported.  As noted in an earlier post, I'm unsure about this as LC/+ engines will not play nice with TMCC/Legacy engines in the same train.  Speed steps are unlikely to match up very well even between various models of LC/+ engines and as with any engines running at different speeds this could cause damage.  Additionally, supporting (TR)Trains will take up a bunch of program space, as the code had to be pretty much duplicated for each engine that can be part of a train and needs additional parameters to assign front/middle/end unit and starting direction.  If there's room I'd like to have the option on all engines the bridge can control, but if I run out of space would it be acceptable for TR commands to only work on the first three LC/+ engines the bridge controls?  

Thanks again for your input. 

JGL

I guess my short answer is keep it reasonably simple and inexpensive.  If you try and meet everyone's needs/desires you will drive yourself crazy and the product will be more complex and expensive than most people need.  Shoot for no more than 1 standard deviation around the mean in meeting requests/demands for functionality.  It's a hobby .

Landsteiner posted:

I guess my short answer is keep it reasonably simple and inexpensive.  If you try and meet everyone's needs/desires you will drive yourself crazy and the product will be more complex and expensive than most people need.  Shoot for no more than 1 standard deviation around the mean in meeting requests/demands for functionality.  It's a hobby .

In the cases of my most recent questions, these are things that don't have any effect on the cost of production. It's more that I'd like to make the most useful device for people if the cost is the same either way.  Providing updates or such is likely to be more trouble than I want to deal with, so I'd like to offer as much functionality as possible from the start, as well as making sure the thing works as intended in every environment.  

JohnGaltLine posted:

Questions about implementation for the bridge, Round 2:

With the basic hardware questions more or less sorted out I have some questions on some aspects of functionality.  LionChief engines have a smaller feature set than even basic TMCC engines, so I'm trying to figure out how, or if, I should make use of commands that don't exist on LC engines.  

The following commands work as you would expect from TMCC engines:  Whistle, Bell, Direction, Boost, Brake, Front Coupler, Rear Coupler, Momentum settings and HALT.  

The speed knob generally works as one would expect, but I found it changes the engines speed rather suddenly so I added a sensitivity setting that will adjust how much input is needed to raise or lower the speed step.  I have not yet decided how to let users change the sensitivity but expect it will not be overly complex from the CAB remote.  

Sound volume can only be adjusted on LC+ engines when they are not moving.  With that in mind, the 1 and 4 number buttons will raise or lower the volume one step per push of the button, if the engine is stopped.  There is a limitation here that the bridge will only remember the volume that it last used, so if you use the original remote to change the volume, the next time the bridge is used to adjust volume, it rill change to it's last stored value.  In addition, if a different LC+ engine is reassigned to that address it will use the previously stored volume level.  This is because the bridge has no way to know if changes are made to an engine that it does not send out.  

The 2 button will activate the LC engine's announcement feature.  

The 0 will reset the engine to a starting state like a TMCC engine, with one exception.  The bridge has no way to know if the bell is ringing or not on an LC engine, so the bell will continue ringing or not ringing when 0 is pressed. (This also effects the HALT command.  The bell will remain in whatever state it's in.) 

This leaves several buttons free with no features assigned to them:  AUX1, AUX2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.  

LC/+ engines do not provide for remote control of lighting, smoke units, or which sounds are played,  so these buttons won't work for their normal TMCC functions.  They could be used for other things if desired, however.  

Are there any functions that an LC/+ engine is capable of that people would like added?  What you have sounds good.

So far the ones I'll probably add are using AUX 1 (or maybe Aux2?) to activate the crew announcements just to have a bigger, easier to use, button for the function.  second is perhaps using the 3/5 buttons to increase and decrease the sensitivity of the speed control knob.  Other than that I'm unsure what else is useful.  Maybe a built in grade crossing whistle?    That would be nice.

The next question is more on the technical end.  Right now I'm only planning to have relative speed commands work.  This means for folks using Legacy the engine will have to be added in CAB-1 mode.  Will this work properly or is there any advantage in adding support for absolute speed steps?  I don't know enough about how legacy uses absolute speed steps in TMCC mode and am unsure what advantages this offers.  Also unsure if the cab1L/base1L use absolute or relative commands, and need to figure this out for compatibility.  

Is it worthwhile to add support for the 'stall' function?  This may or may not be useful for non-plus LC engines but requires a fair chunk of programming to make it work so I'm only planning on adding it if it's something people really do use.  Not sure if I would use it?

Last, should 'TR' train (lash-up) commands be supported.  As noted in an earlier post, I'm unsure about this as LC/+ engines will not play nice with TMCC/Legacy engines in the same train.  Speed steps are unlikely to match up very well even between various models of LC/+ engines and as with any engines running at different speeds this could cause damage.  Additionally, supporting (TR)Trains will take up a bunch of program space, as the code had to be pretty much duplicated for each engine that can be part of a train and needs additional parameters to assign front/middle/end unit and starting direction.  If there's room I'd like to have the option on all engines the bridge can control, but if I run out of space would it be acceptable for TR commands to only work on the first three LC/+ engines the bridge controls?  Could be useful for operating car in a train with Lion chief Plus engine, but could be left off.

Thanks again for your input. 

JGL

 

See notes above in red.

John

Stall might be useful for the LC (not plus), but I don't know if it's worth the effort to put it in.

I would pass on the stall.

Ray

Truthfully, I won't buy LionChief because I don't need another remote, want to be able run all the locos I have and the two currently are no compatible. Would I consider your changes, maybe, providing that it won't become obsolete in a few years. I have TMCC currently and only use a few features which are nice to have but as far as the entire system or Legacy it ain't gonna happen. I just want to enjoy the trains not play computer geek. Currently I am looking at adding TMCC to a few conventional locos from other manufacturers that I bought a few years ago. I know some features won't be available but that's cool. The grandkids would be able to use them and have fun. As to how many LC locos I would be if your system came about maybe 4 or 5 so capability of 100 doesn't mean much to me the cost does. Somewhere between $50 and $100 would be palatable, the lower the more taste it would have. THanks for your efforts.

JGL, are you still working on this?

I don't understand why Lionel came out with the LionChief stuff...You don't gain anything in features that TMCC already had. We had TMCC in a lot of semi scale sets and starter sets up until Legacy. Why basically restart from scratch with a concept that was already there but is worse than what we had before. I understand that electronics get outdated.... they could have just updated the circuit board to fit and accommodate the smaller components for todays equivalent.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind it.    

I'm tired of all these different system and closed systems. That's why I'm converting my older things to DCC.

The LionChief signal delivery system is fundamentally more robust than any of the track signal systems. This might be Lionel's rationale.

BOB WALKER posted:

The LionChief signal delivery system is fundamentally more robust than any of the track signal systems. This might be Lionel's rationale.

It may be better, but still you could have improved that in the old design. Take the new Bluetooth/LEGACY Locos...all it is a Bluetooth receiver that is plugged into the RCMC board. Just another form of a "Radio Receiver" to input serial data.

BOB WALKER posted:

The LionChief signal delivery system is fundamentally more robust than any of the track signal systems. This might be Lionel's rationale.

I keep hearing that, but it doesn't really play well.  While there may be advantages to the BT protocol in a theoretical way, There's certainly nothing that is done with the BT link that isn't done as well or better with TMCC and/or Legacy.  We needed another protocol like a hole in the head.

Most of what I see is trying to cost reduce the production of model trains.  Great, but we're not seeing the benefits of the cost cutting, they're still rocketing up in price!

Hasn't Lionel just integrated TMCC into a new version of LC+?  G

gunrunnerjohn posted:

BOB WALKER posted:

The LionChief signal delivery system is fundamentally more robust than any of the track signal systems. This might be Lionel's rationale.

I keep hearing that, but it doesn't really play well.  While there may be advantages to the BT protocol in a theoretical way, There's certainly nothing that is done with the BT link that isn't done as well or better with TMCC and/or Legacy.  We needed another protocol like a hole in the head.

Most of what I see is trying to cost reduce the production of model trains.  Great, but we're not seeing the benefits of the cost cutting, they're still rocketing up in price!

Fair point, but I think that what Lionel may achieve is reducing the complexity associated with running trains and thereby increase the appeal of O gauge.  These improvements will be least noticeable to advanced hobbyists such as yourself that are fully immersed in Legacy. Fast Track with plug and play functionality runs in the same direction, marketing wise.  I think it is a great thing for that segment of the hobby that is not the most entrenched or die hard.  

It may also achieve in some sense a single standard for O gauge as compared to the rival DCS and TMCC/Legacy systems we have had to deal with for the last 20 years.  For new or recent entrants there will be a more unified standard with Bluetooth, and thus operable with any device with an app.  No more stack of DCS, Legacy, and TMCC controllers.   

Finally for Lionel a Bluetooth based standard has the potential to eliminate the “snowflake” issue with the guts of a lot of TMCC based locos.  While DCS isn’t perfect, any DCS locomotive and be upgraded/repaired with the PS3 boards, as you know.  I suspect and hope that once the LC+ with Bluetooth is more widely in circulation the guts will be available for the repair and upgrade of other locomotives.

JD2035RR posted:

JGL, are you still working on this?

I'm still planning to finish this at some point, but the job that pays the bills has been taking most of my time lately so I haven't gotten much work done lately.  I'm Hoping I'll get back to it in about a month when work winds down.  It hasn't been practical to bring engines and electronics on the road with me.  

That said, I've solved most of the major hurdles already and what's left is mostly just filling in the code for specific functions. There are some short comings of the method I'm using, which I'll cover in a future post once everything else is working, but mostly it has to do with the bridge not being able to issue commands to two LC engines at the same time, so things like momentum will only work on the engine you are actively controlling.  

Bruk posted:

I don't understand why Lionel came out with the LionChief stuff...You don't gain anything in features that TMCC already had. We had TMCC in a lot of semi scale sets and starter sets up until Legacy. Why basically restart from scratch with a concept that was already there but is worse than what we had before. I understand that electronics get outdated.... they could have just updated the circuit board to fit and accommodate the smaller components for todays equivalent.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind it.    

I'm tired of all these different system and closed systems. That's why I'm converting my older things to DCC.

Burk, I think you've fallen into the same trap as many others on this.  LC/+ doesn't and was never intended to replace TMCC.  That was what Legacy did.  Instead, it replaced conventional only engines, at first in the "inexpensive" starter sets, then across the product line for conventional.  While there is much debate around here on the underlying technology, in the actual implementation, LC/+ is just a modern version of conventional.

GGG posted:

Hasn't Lionel just integrated TMCC into a new version of LC+?  G

Not that I'm aware of, though you can get many of the same features when using the bluetooth app...on an individual engine basis.  As far as I can tell, at present the app and LC/+ engines in general; are mostly designed to run a couple of them, rather than the TMCC or Legacy systems that are designed to run an entire layout. 

To hit on several other comments about the tech, the radio it's self is a much better system, whether bluetooth or the previous 2.4GHz used in LC/+ before that. The thing is, in the bluetooth version, it's no longer about the radio, but instead about the massively powerful computer that comes free when you use that radio.  Basically what you have is someone that realized, "Hey, we're spending $2 on parts for a radio anyway, right?  how about we buy one that can do a whole lot else so we don't need all these other parts?"  All that said, once again, while many like it better for whatever reasons they have, LC/+ is really just the modern version of the conventional line, and isn't intended to compete with Legacy.  In fact, I suspect it was intentionally hobbled to make it less appealing to legacy buyers.  

I'm not a huge fan of Bluetooth over other standards, but it is fairly cheap, and very easy to use, so I get why it was used.  I would have preferred a mesh standard that could be used in whatever legacy 2.0 is.  

If I forgot to address any questions, I'll try to check back tonight. 

BOB WALKER posted:

For the sake of clarity I want to be certain that I understand the point of this thread. The goal is to operate LionChief locos from the TMCC/Legacy controller instead of the LionChief controller or a bluetooth smart device.

According to the catalog, direct quote from page 76:

"LC+ 2.0 - operate with Bluetooth using Universal or LionChief App on your smart device OR via your TMCC/Legacy Cab OR conventional transformer."

Rusty

It would be cool if LC+ 2 worked with TMCC, that would be a significant feature.  Of course, JGL would have wasted a lot of time getting that feature working.

I'm glad I only have one LC+ locomotive, if I want more, I can use my TMCC/Legacy.

Isn’t the new Lionel version only LC+? JGL’s upgrade would still be needed for LC and existing LC+?

"Isn’t the new Lionel version only LC+? JGL’s upgrade would still be needed for LC and existing LC+?"

My understanding from other people's description of the new catalog is that LC +2.0 will allow control by conventional, Lionchief remote, universal remote, Bluetooth (with the app) and TMCC/Legacy.  Older LC and LC+ are going to need retrofitting with the new board(s) if they are made available, I assume, to have this functionality.

Still, LC 2.0 appears to answer to finally address the unhappiness that LC+ doesn't work with existing TMCC/Legacy systems (they do, but you need a separate remote).

Rusty Traque posted:

According to the catalog, direct quote from page 76:

"LC+ 2.0 - operate with Bluetooth using Universal or LionChief App on your smart device OR via your TMCC/Legacy Cab OR conventional transformer."

Rusty

Can anyone provide a link to this catalog, or any other official information related to a LC+ 2.0?  I haven't seen any of this if it's out there.  For what it's worth, the description quoted above is perfectly fitting for all LC+ engines that have been made with the exception of bluetooth control.  You can control all of them with the included remote, the universal remote, conventional, and with TMCC/Legacy if you have the ability to control conventional engines.  

If they are making a change, it doesn't hurt my feelings.  I've said from the start that at any time they wish to, Lionel could make a bridge that works better and costs less than any I could make.  Not wanting to speculate too far without having seen anything more than the information in this thread, I can't see any way that TMCC/Legacy control could be added to LC/+ engines in a cost effective manner without using a bridging device.  In theory, the cab2 remote could be made to talk directly with LC/+ engines over the radio it uses to talk to the command base, but this would depend entirely on the design of the cab2, if it could support this.  Additionally the LCS system could, in theory, be hacked to do the same.  In practice, I don't see that being practical either.  I suppose the designers could add a pin header to the LC boards that would allow you to plug an R2LC in to it, but that seems like a step backwards.  Then again, why sell a single bridge when you can sell an upgrade for every engine instead?  

Again, all speculation here, so if anyone can provide me official documentation, I'd appreciate it.  

I predict you'll see no update for existing LC or LC+, they'll obviously want to sell you a new locomotive, not upgrade one you have.

JGL, the catalog isn't up on Lionel's website til Wednesday morning. There are tons of hard copies in circulation and people have been snapping shots of various pages, but they are kind of hard to read. I was going to post a link to the topic where the pictures were posted, but they have all been removed at Lionel's request. You'll just have to wait til Wednesday or find a hard copy.

Granted - the following comment is all speculation as I have not seen a hard copy of the catalog. 

I like the idea of a single bridge device as JGL has experimented with rather than additional electronics (and cost) inserted into every one of of the new LC+ 2.0s. Again this is speculation, I’m not sure how the new LC+ 2.0 actually works.  1 JGL bridge device for $120 or paying an additional $50 for each new 2.0 engine.

Seems like the prices of LC+ keep creeping up. One of the draws to the LC+ Line was relatively good value - nice features at a decent price. I hope they don’t lose the attractive price point. 

Finally got a look at the new catalog and video on LC+2.0.  It looks like this will solve the tmcc/legacy control of LC engines in all future Plus models.  Without having one to take apart to see what they did, I can only guess, however deciding not to include a remote and to raise the price by $50 across the board seems to work to make it cost effective.  

It looks as though the regular LionChief engines will still only work with their remotes (+bluetooth or anything else they worked with, just not cab1/2), as well as any previously released LC+1.0 engines, so I think the bridge device will still have a purpose.  

Aside from the code that still needs to be finished, I have to make a decision between having an expandable controller that uses one large, relatively expensive, micro-controller, or making a unit that can only control 3 engines, but requires cheaper parts to make.  I may make both options available if there is enough of a demand for each option.  I have to run the numbers more carefully with exact figures, but it looks like I'll have somewhere around an asking price of $100 for the 3 engine model, or $130 for the expandable model.  

I also still need to find someone (preferably in the Detroit-Metro area) that has a layout  that can be used for testing to make sure everything works.  I'm looking for someone that is at least running Legacy, and hopefully someone with DCS and LCS installed to make sure everything works as expected.  I'll also be traveling between Detroit and Peoria, IL every weekend in March and April, if anyone along that route has a layout for testing.  

The last hang up, I think, will simply be figuring what I need to do to offer an item for sale on the forum here, as I didn't have much luck finding info for online-only ad options when I looked into it a couple years ago.  I have no need or want of print advertisements, and need to figure out how to make that happen.  

If things go according to plan, I'll be back home soon and have time to wrap this project up.  I feel like it's a niche market, but something some folks would really like.  I don't ming chalking up the design and programing time as having some fun as a hobby, but I can't actually afford to go backwards on the cost of parts and such, so the bridge will have to be priced accordingly.  

JGL

At first when I saw what LC+2.0 was, I thought, well that wipes out this project. However, there are still all older LC and LC+ engines that could benefit. I have three that I'd like to upgrade, so I could dump those cheesy remotes. I hate the batteries, and the speed control knob.

Help me JGL, you're my only hope.

IMHO, Lionel’s offering of individual LC engines without sets, will add to the need for your bridge.  

There are probably tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of LC and LC+ locos out there that could benefit from a TMCC/Legacy to LC/LC+ bridge.  I have five myself .  Thanks for your work on this.

JohnGaltLine posted:

Aside from the code that still needs to be finished, I have to make a decision between having an expandable controller that uses one large, relatively expensive, micro-controller, or making a unit that can only control 3 engines, but requires cheaper parts to make.  I may make both options available if there is enough of a demand for each option.  I have to run the numbers more carefully with exact figures, but it looks like I'll have somewhere around an asking price of $100 for the 3 engine model, or $130 for the expandable model.  

To be candid, I think anyone that has TMCC/Legacy and lots of LC and LC+ stuff to justify buying something like this would be far more likely to be interested in the full tilt model.  If you have thousands, or even tens of thousands invested in a layout, command control systems, and lots of locomotives, is $30 really a make or break deal?  Why dilute your efforts making two, for $30 this seems like an easy choice.  You could always go back and back-fill with the cheaper option if there was enough demand.

GRJ,

I’m curious, John, where would this “Unit” be placed  physically?

Fredstrains