The Hoops We Jump Through

[G3750]

I remain amazed at the things we deem "essential" to do to run trains under command control. Having been in the technology field for 36+ years, I remain a believer in the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). A technological solution should be as simple as possible (but no simpler), appropriate to the problem it seeks to solve, not a burden to maintain, and as well documented as possible. The esoteric I relegate to the experimental aspects of the hobby. In my (apparently minimalist) worldview, a command system must be a bread-and-butter, utilitarian, dependable, and reliable entity.

And so when I see a thread like this and I just shake my head.

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/pro ... 9129616341

George

[Roy]

Why mess with command control at all?

[G3750]

Why mess with command control at all?

Roy, that's a reasonable question with some good (IMO) answers:

• Finer granularity (speed steps) control over your locomotives. There is a real difference between working a lever and the kind of fine speed control possible with TMCC, Legacy, or DCS (when it works). DCS has something called Scale MPH, which is a brilliant concept. It allows locomotives of different types to run as a consist. Legacy has something similar. TMCC supports consists of identical locomotive types.
• Individual control of locomotives without the use of isolated blocks. In a command system, you individually control the locomotive, not the track voltage. Someone can be switching cars in a yard while you are running a mainline train. And with a Block Power Controller, I can control power to individual blocks on the layout. I can turn off yards or sidings with a button.
• Simplified wiring. Conventional block control requires more complicated wiring with toggle switches for each block. Command control allows me to eliminate the control panel.
• Better control of accessories. With TMCC, a component called an accessory motor controller (AMC) can provide finer grained control of accessories than is possible conventionally. The accessory will operate better (more smoothly).

Those are just a few reasons why I like command control. Most people who experience it will not go back to conventional control.

Good question, Roy.

George

[Roy]

Thanks for the reply, George. Personally, I think we're barking up the wrong tree, viz.:

*Finer granularity (speed steps) control over your locomotives. There is a real difference between working a lever and the kind of fine speed control possible with TMCC, Legacy, or DCS (when it works). DCS has something called Scale MPH, which is a brilliant concept. It allows locomotives of different types to run as a consist. Legacy has something similar. TMCC supports consists of identical locomotive types.

In a real locomotive, as in your car, you're directly controlling the power applied to the wheels, not the speed. You don't need command control, to m.u. similar engines. In the real world, if you double-head a Big Boy with a Northern, your gonna need two complete engine crews, so it just doesn't happen - except for show.

*Individual control of locomotives without the use of isolated blocks. In a command system, you individually control the locomotive, not the track voltage. Someone can be switching cars in a yard while you are running a mainline train. And with a Block Power Controller, I can control power to individual blocks on the layout. I can turn off yards or sidings with a button.

Real railroads use track blocks. Besides switches, one can use relays to control power to track blocks. You can still easily switch yards, while running multiple trains on various mainlines, without any command control complexity.

*Simplified wiring. Conventional block control requires more complicated wiring with toggle switches for each block. Command control allows me to eliminate the control panel.

The layout wiring may be simpler, but the system wiring is far more complex. And command control circuitry is beyond the ability of any individual to repair or tinker with.

*Better control of accessories. With TMCC, a component called an accessory motor controller (AMC) can provide finer grained control of accessories than is possible conventionally. The accessory will operate better (more smoothly).

You can run each accessory with a dedicated variable voltage transformer or power pack. The market is so glutted with such, from starter train sets, that they are dirt cheap.

Most people who experience [command control] will not go back to conventional control.

We can't help people with command control hardware problems, other than to give them an address to send their circuit boards to.

[G3750]

I think you may have misunderstood my first point.

MUing engines is one thing that may not be critical to many. It’s not particularly important to me.

But slow speed switching using a transformer handle is a real PITA after you have used a hand held remote with many speed steps. Plus you can fire couplers with the remote.

Have you run trains using a command system?

George

[Neil]

I agree this seems a major cluster you know what. I think the development of DCS (and to lesser extent TMCC) was designed with the assumption that almost everyone would use one TIU. The idea of huge club layouts did not really enter into things 20 years ago. When these systems are deployed in ancient buildings with totally 1910 electrical systems and on layouts several hundred square feet in size, the initial design parameters are far exceeded.

In the case of DCS it was underengineered and inadequately tested before release because MTH was in a panic at being 6 years behind Lionel's TMCC. Without a few hobbyists like the late Barry Broskowitz to debug and troubleshoot the system, MTH's business would have been close to dead in the water. It's taken them 20 years and they are still in the wilderness with a slightly more functional and reliable system, but still far from consumer friendly and fully reliable. TMCC is much more reliable and simple. Legacy a bit less from what I can tell. LionChief is more reliable and simpler than any of the other systems I've played with, for what it's worth, as someone who doesn't have a large, complex layout.

[healey36]

The huge upside, as I see it, is the ability to run multiple trains over the same track, each individually controlled. You can do it using blocks, but it's a PITA. Digitizing the control aspect was huge. The ability to uncouple on command, not at fixed locations, is another welcome feature, and there are probably many others. A buddy of mine had a small DCC-enabled N-scale layout...we had a lot of fun with that. Lots you can do with not much real estate.

[jlong]

Cloning? WIU? Super TIU????

My head hurts just reading it all.

[ScaleCraft]

Part of the issue with at least post-war design is gearing and three pole motors. I have identical engines, one three-rail, three pole...the other two rail, five pole. Differences in slow speed operating characteristics are noteworthy.

I have used command control, but not in 0. However, I DO have three All-Trol walkarounds for three rail, and the control smoothness over a 1033 or even a ZW are astounding...plus you can crank in momentum if you want....works up and down.

Personal Turner (opinion) is you are in a losing battle if you try to overcome inadequate mechanical design with electronic add-ons.

[chuck]

Roy said:

We can't help people with command control hardware problems, other than to give them an address to send their circuit boards to.

Actual failure of the command boards is pretty rare. I've only had to replace one unit and it wasn't even the main receiver or motor control part that had failed. There was something wrong with the way the sounds were being processed. The actual sound board and R2LC are still in the engine, I had to pull the UCUB "motherboard" probably because of a break in a trace that I couldn't find.

Diagnostics of problems with TMCC/DCS/Legacy are much more complex compared to those of basic E-unit trains and block wired layouts. Many of the end user issues are from a lack of understanding and/or ignorance of how these systems work. I can't tell you how many times I had to bite my tongue when trying to help people at the local hobby shop with TMCC/PS-1/PS-2 issues. After multiple probes to try to understand what they were trying to do my initial reaction was "You want to do what?". I never said that (out loud) but what usually followed was a detailed explanation of how the stuff really works and then either a cookbook solution or a "that's never going to happen because ...."

Almost no one reads the manuals (OK, 300+ pages is a bit much) but some of the stuff was well written and well illustrated. I was genuinely shocked at how many people f upped the one wire hook up for TMCC and I spent a lot of time explaining how/why it was important to pay attention to the startup procedures of PS-1. The ultimate irony was when a well versed old school pro would try to literally train wreck those techniques on top of digital command control. "But I installed a resistor to hold the current to keep the E-unit from cycling." There is no physical E-unit and there is always full current and voltage on the track (just like a real 1:1 electric train). You need to procure and then "program" a device to do this operation in a digital environment. Blank look or a really annoyed look because this stuff is nothing like what they had been doing for the previous 20 years.

LionChief Plus is pretty much bullet proof and is actually what most people can tolerate/use without getting too deeply involved. It treats the toy train as an "appliance". You don't really need to know how the microwave/blue ray player/washer drier works, you just need to know what buttons to push. Since you aren't expecting these devices to do much more than their primary function it's not a big deal. TMCC/Legacy/DCS are for serious hobbyists who actually want to do more. To do those advanced things you need to be willing to invest the time and effort to actually understand what's what. All of the advanced systems have their flaws/warts and learning how to deal with them is part of the "fun".

[G3750]

I agree with Neil and Chuck that Lionchief is pretty much a homerun for Lionel in usefulness and functionality. We sell a lot of Lionel Lionchief sets in the shop. And they don't come back in for command issues.

DCS remains a set of good ideas with disappointing execution. Nearly two decades and four(+?) hardware revisions later reliable operations are still a roll of the dice.

TMCC, for me, is the "go-to" command control system. While now regarded as trailing edge technology, it holds the advantage over Legacy in terms of signal strength and reliability.

Legacy has many more features (for me they are overkill) than TMCC and is still way more reliable than DCS.

George

[Roy]

TMCC, for me, is the "go-to" command control system....it holds the advantage over Legacy in terms of signal strength and reliability.

Why is that?

[chuck]

I only have one Legacy loco and I use almost none of the advanced features. I do find that the rest of my TMCC engines run way better with the Legacy remote than they do with the CAB-1.

There is a tremendous irony that the LCRU's installed since day one of their release have run in crippleware mode until the release of Legacy (unless you installed a computer interface). The engines all run in CAB-1 mode (aka relative speed steps) because the CAB-1 can't do anything else. Odyssey-1 engines can run smoothly in TMCC mode and have 256 speed steps. They run like crap in CAB-1 mode. An updated CAB-1 (with full TMCC support) should have been released around the time DCS was announced. It would have addressed most of performance issues while keeping the KISS aspects of TMCC.

[G3750]

I only have one Legacy loco and I use almost none of the advanced features. I do find that the rest of my TMCC engines run way better with the Legacy remote than they do with the CAB-1.

There is a tremendous irony that the LCRU's installed since day one of their release have run in crippleware mode until the release of Legacy (unless you installed a computer interface). The engines all run in CAB-1 mode (aka relative speed steps) because the CAB-1 can't do anything else. Odyssey-1 engines can run smoothly in TMCC mode and have 256 speed steps. They run like crap in CAB-1 mode. An updated CAB-1 (with full TMCC support) should have been released around the time DCS was announced. It would have addressed most of performance issues while keeping the KISS aspects of TMCC.

Chuck, you know much more about it than I do. But I think the only reason an updated CAB-1 wasn't done goes back to something I heard Jerry Calabrese say at an OGR Forum grandstand meeting when he first joined Lionel. He lamented the release of the command codes into the public domain. I was shocked at the time. He didn't seem to realize that act actually cemented Lionel's position as the leader in the command system niche. And it made possible the innovations from TrainAmerica, Digital Dynamics, ERR, Z-Stuff, and IC Controls. Those products, many of them ultimately acquired by Lionel and added to their product line, filled all the gaps that might have been exploited by MTH.

George

[G3750]

TMCC, for me, is the "go-to" command control system....it holds the advantage over Legacy in terms of signal strength and reliability.

Why is that?

A friend of mine who is a TMCC guru tried Legacy. He reported some signal strength issues on his relatively large layout that didn't occur with TMCC.

The Legacy signal, like DCS, is a two-way communication. I have heard (but not experienced) that Legacy may require a bit more tuning (but nothing as dramatic or problematic as DCS).

George