TMCC vs Legacy - how does it feel to go from Legacy back to TMCC?

@Norton posted:

I am using a Legacy R4LC with the rare Legacy DCDE available for a few months, now NLA. The only reason I went with Legacy here was to be able to drive the Vision 700E RS6 board. This before you could buy RCMCs outright. So far no luck having tried all versions of R4LCs and building an interface to invert serial data to the IR transmitter. Ironic if all I needed to do is put in a TMCC feature code.

I have that back-EMF Legacy board as well, I bought a couple of them when they were still available.  It's really odd that you don't get the results I'm getting, I wonder if different RS6 boards react differently?  With a Legacy receiver and motor driver, I can't imagine why the RS6 board isn't working, you'd think that would be a shoo in.

Maybe the 691RCDR104     RCDR / RADIO RECEIVER (S04 code) that is used in the LM T1 Duplex might work, that works with the RS6 board I have here.

Then again, there may be all sorts of oddities, I got the sense that things were pretty fluid with the sound boards right around this time period.

WAIT!  I see the problem!  The VL Hudson uses the RCMC and not the RCDR or the R4LC.  The command structure changed for triggering sounds with the RCMC, and it's not backward compatible!  I ran across this trying to use the RS-Lite boards, and Jon Z. told me that the command structure changed and the sound boards no longer had "modes" like ringing the bell and stopping the bell on their own.  Now they get every sound command from the serial data, which makes it much easier to keep things from getting out of sync with the sounds and the action.  Since the VL Hudson uses the RCMC, the RS6 board must have different command structure to support it.

The implication being, not all RS6 boards are alike. Well, I will try the Aux4 feature code anyway just to see.

Pete

Certainly worth a shot Pete, but seeing the RCMC in the VL Hudson tweaked my brain cells about my conversation about the different serial data protocol for newer Legacy.  I didn't realize that any RCMC equipped locomotives were still using anything but the RS-Lite boards.

@0-Gauge CJ posted:

I have gone back and forth about posting this, as it feels like a dumb question to ask. The differences between Legacy and TMCC are pretty well documented, so there's no reason to ask this question, right? Let me explain.

When the scale model bug bit me, I wanted to stick to Legacy engines, the idea being that I wanted to have all of the latest features avaliable to me. However, there are some locomotives I would really like to have, but the Legacy versions are either too expensive on the second-hand market, they are highly sought-after items and disappear before I can buy them, or they haven't been produced as a Legacy model before.

As time has gone on, I have gotten a better understanding of what I want and use in my models. For one, I've discovered that I have never bothered with any of the extra sounds and nice features (eg, depleting coal, refilling water, etc.). I also don't really use the crewtalk features. Sound is important to me, but the only sounds I really care about are the steam chuffing (including 4 chuffs per revolution), whistle, and to a lesser extent the bell. I also like slow starting and running too. I've also discovered that for some Lionel models, the tooling hasn't changed between TMCC and Legacy versions, just the electronics and feature set. Thus my attention turns to the TMCC version.

But before I go out on a limb and make a purchase I might regret, I want to ask: those of you who run both Legacy and TMCC, does having Legacy spoil you? Does TMCC feel like a downgrade when you run a TMCC engine? Or do you alternate between the two without being bothered? Because quality sound is important to me I am thinking I would limit my TMCC selection to railsounds 4 or later (I've found some old videos of railsounds 4 engines, I think it sounds good). I know Gun Runner John's chuff generator can provide 4 chuffs/revolution too, so with some tinkering I can address that on any engine I buy.

I realize this question is pretty subjective, but I am hoping to get some concerns laid to rest, maybe get some new insight too. Thanks for your time.

Hello 0-Gauge CJ,

A little over half of my locomotives (Steam and Diesel Electric) are Legacy (TMCCII), and the rest are TMCC. First, my TMCC models are physically the same level of detail as their Legacy counterparts, so the differences are mostly functional. My TMCC's are mid year 2004 through 2010 and none have been modified yet. The most noticeable differences are functional, speed control and sound. The most noticeable is the speed control. Legacy has many more speed steps than TMCC, like 100 steps Legacy w/Odyssey II vs 32 steps TMCC w/Odyssey. Because TMCC has fewer steps it doesn't adjust speed as well as Legacy and therefor will slightly slow down going up grades and speed up going down grades. Legacy seems to maintain an exact speed up as well as down a grade. If anything, TMCC is more prototypical because it does slow down up a grade. The speed up down the grade is minor, and neither of these bother me. Crew talk on my 2004 and 2005 Santa Fe EMD F3 ABA sets is minimal, but I don't use it much anyway. I'm happy with either TMCC or Legacy.

My 2004 TMCC Western Pacific 485 GS-66-77 Northern 4-8-4 chuff kinda leaves a lot to be desired, but the crew talk is fantastic and up to Legacy standards. I do plan to upgrade WP GS 485 with a Super Chuffer II and Chuff generator, as it is currently about 1 chuff per revolution compared to my Legacy SP Daylight GS-2 which is 4 chuff per rev.

I hope this helps a little.

Scott

I'd be running a CAB-2 Legacy remote, IF I COULD EVEN BUY ONE USED.

LIONEL, HOW ABOUT GETTING OFF YOUR *** AND MAKING A FEW THOUSAND LEGACY REMOTE SETS, INSTEAD OF LETTING EBAY PRICE GOUGERS RIP YOUR CUSTOMERS OFF?

Geno

@72blackbird posted:

I'd be running a CAB-2 Legacy remote, IF I COULD EVEN BUY ONE USED.

LIONEL, HOW ABOUT GETTING OFF YOUR *** AND MAKING A FEW THOUSAND LEGACY REMOTE SETS, INSTEAD OF LETTING EBAY PRICE GOUGERS RIP YOUR CUSTOMERS OFF?

Geno

Hi Geno, try not to blame Lionel, they are at the mercy of electronics shortages around the world just like enterprise computing, PC's, printers and laptop manufacturers, as well as automobile industry. As matter of fact General Motors is shutting down all of its manufacturing facilities for two weeks due to electronics shortages! We are all suffering from those shortages. Bummer man, I feel your pain!

Over the years, I've noticed quite a few differences between the control and feel of TMCC vs legacy locomotives. For instance, I often come to appreciate the older TMCC sound-files used that have more unique sounding horns, bells, and crew talk/tower com. But the quill-able feature of Legacy horns and bells is certainly a plus too. In my video below I describe these and many more differences... I hope this helps O-Gauge CJ!

@72blackbird posted:

I'd be running a CAB-2 Legacy remote, IF I COULD EVEN BUY ONE USED.

LIONEL, HOW ABOUT GETTING OFF YOUR *** AND MAKING A FEW THOUSAND LEGACY REMOTE SETS, INSTEAD OF LETTING EBAY PRICE GOUGERS RIP YOUR CUSTOMERS OFF?

Geno

Sent you an E-mail

@72blackbird posted:

I'd be running a CAB-2 Legacy remote, IF I COULD EVEN BUY ONE USED.

LIONEL, HOW ABOUT GETTING OFF YOUR *** AND MAKING A FEW THOUSAND LEGACY REMOTE SETS, INSTEAD OF LETTING EBAY PRICE GOUGERS RIP YOUR CUSTOMERS OFF?

Geno

Hi Geno, do you need the Legacy remote 991 with base, or just the hand held remote 993? I found a 993 remote at Western Depot in California for $333.00 brand new. But, you probably need the 991. Just thought I'd mention it.

Not a dumb question at all.  I think like most of us who operate, we just like to run trains.  I don't have a preference of one system over another as long as my trains run without major issues. 

There is something to be said about the simplicity of TMCC.  Personally I find the Legacy remote to be poorly designed, but then again I don't use it enough to be comfortable with it so that it my problem more than a problem with the system.

The Legacy remote has a lot of functionality, and the only thing I really have against it is the size.  If it were a bit smaller to make one-handed operation easier, I'd be quite happy all around.  The comment about it being "complicated" is not totally unjustified, they tried to pack a lot of features in and make them work well.  The two sliders for train brake and the quilling whistle are cool features, and functionality that is sorely lacking on the MTH remote.  OTOH, the MTH remote is easy to operate one-handed.

If you like the Legacy sounds and want to have realistic labor as you run, the CAB2 is your ticket.

WesternPacific2217,

I need the CAB-2 remote and charger.

@72blackbird posted:

WesternPacific2217,

I need the CAB-2 remote and charger.

You may be misunderstanding.  Do you already have a Legacy command system?  If not, you need the #990 Command System which consists of the Legacy Command base and the CAB2 Legacy Remote.

The #993 Expansion System consists of the #993 Charging Base and a CAB2 Legacy Remote.  If you don't have a Legacy Command Base, this will be of no use to you.

gunnerjohn,

I know I need the Legacy command base along with the CAB-2 remote (#990).

@72blackbird posted:

gunnerjohn,

I know I need the Legacy command base along with the CAB-2 remote (#990).

Just trying to clarify, you said you needed the CAB2 and Charger, that's the #993 Expansion set.

I see the #990 Command sets are indeed in short supply...

@72blackbird posted:

gunnerjohn,

I know I need the Legacy command base along with the CAB-2 remote (#990).

Geno, my apologies, my last message to you was not complete. I usually write postings in MS Word and copy and paste them into OGR, but apparently I did not select the whole message!!! Plus, I typoed the #990 and had 991. Good thing John posted with the differences between the #990 and #993. If I see a #990 for sale new, I'll let you know.

Thank you all for the input! The consensus points to TMCC still being a great option. I'll keep an eye open for them. Thank you all again for the great insight!