Having fun with a conventional / TMCC compromise

[jimhaleyscomet]

There is a passionate (but not heated) discourse about command vs conventional in the following thread.

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/923401/ShowPost.aspx

I agree with both sides!  Still I wanted to point out that there is a reasonable compromise, it just has semi-high initial costs for the sound/controls.   A $100 sound car gives 50% of the top of the line operating benefits applied to all your locomotives for a reasonable cost!  Run your conventional engines with a new ZW and Cab 1/Command base for remote control and speed limited operation and combined you have 80% of the benefits of command control without having to fork over tons of money for each engine.   Or one can do it cheaper with a TPU or powermaster instead of the ZW (about $200 total) while using an existing transformer.   Would this work with the CW-80?  Perhaps one of our group knows if it is a robust approach! 

Ideally Lionel would replace the CW-80 with a mini-ZW with command base / powermaster built in.  Could it really cost that much more than a CW-80 to manufacture?

If Lionel really wants a killer expandable starter set they should package a sound car, mini ZW- powermaster, and Cab1 in a set they sell for $400 retail.  Or perhaps they could sell a powermaster / Cab1 set similar to the $100 expansion sets.  That would really increase TMCC penetration!  As it is now you purchase cab 1 for $100 then you need to layout another $100 for powermasters or buy more expensive command control engines.  Most folks have a hard time justifying the first $100 and it was years before I justified the second expense. 

MTH sells few sets with just Loco Sound, most are PS2.  PS2 requires a $250 controller to access all the features.  Lionel should consider a similar approach without the need for the additional $250 outlay.  Sell a conventional loco / mini-ZW-powermaster set for about $400.  Or, if Mike is smart, he will drop the starting voltage on the PS2 system so it works better with conventional engines.

TMCII is just around the corner so it may be too late for Lionel.  Still one can dream....right?

Jim H

[dwiemer]

Jim, with the purchase of my latest engines, the K-Line F3s, I now have a engines that are TMCC.  I have absolutely no command equipment otherwise.  I will see what transpires over the next few months, but I may end up taking the plunge.  I love conventional control and some kind of compromise would be for me.  You bring up some good points and I hope that Lionel does go with this thinking.

Dennis

[phillyreading]

Jim,

I have just purchased an MTH PS-2 system and the price has gone up to $280.00, and it is Proto 3.1.  So far I have yet to get it to run anything in conventional mode, I am unable to access the conventional mode. Far as I am concerned Mike Wolf has a lot of work to do on the DCS system!

From what ChiefEagles mentions the Lionel TMCC system seems to be much better.

Lee F.

[jimhaleyscomet]

Philly,

Are you  going through the variable ports, V1 or V2?  Also, do you have the DCS track control unit separately powered with an MTH brick?  Then you must increase the voltage for V1 on the hand held controller.  Hope this helps.

Jim H

[Anonymous]

Jim's comments regarding the new ZW / CAB-1 are on the money. They make conventional running very enjoyable. Setting the stall so you can stop the loco without cycling the e-unit is very nice as well as the fine speed control.
I also like the Mini ZW/Powermaster concept.
The one area where command can really shine though is in a temporary Fastrack layout with multiple locos parked on stub sidings. With the new Fastrack switches using track power you can really have a complex, multi-train, floor layout with very little wiring.
Conventional however, still requires cutting the power to those sidings.

[cmrj]

I have a conventional rebuilt ZW, comand set, TPC400 . I run both conventional and TMCC ,.
with no problem . I have to change back and forth for  my 5yr old son, after that he take's over .
   Mike

[luther_stanton]

I think TMCC is great.  I started with conventional and was disappointed by the lack of slow speed performance - it was either full speed or stop.  Well, I guess I exagerate some . I was not looking for 2mph speed - just enough control to stop at something like an Icing Platform.  Alas, who knows, perhaps I was doing something wrong; I only tried 2 engines and both were modern, lower end models.

Anyway, I got a TMCC set up.  It is great.  I have converted 100% and have not run conventional since.  I upgraded all but a few of my conventionals to TMCC.  I have been thinking of perhaps running them conventional w/the CAB 1 but I really am not motivated to remove all my TMCC locos from the track.  I added SC-2s to control accessories and TPCs.

I have read many of the "really really long posts" of how expensive TMCC is or how poorly it has pentatrated the market.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I think that we are all the wiser for listening to alternative view points.  However, personally I am glad something like TMCC is available as it makes my experiences much more fun.  Also I am fortunate enough to have employment and a wife that will allow me to spend the money to purchase TMCC engines.

Just my few cents - and I tried to kept it short!

- Luther

[ChiefEagles]

I have a conventional rebuilt ZW, comand set, TPC400 . I run both conventional and TMCC ,.
with no problem . I have to change back and forth for  my 5yr old son, after that he take's over .
   Mike

I use the same [got two PW ZW's, TPC, Command Base and CAB1].  Love it. 

[jimhaleyscomet]

Luther,  I do not think you have to remove your TMCC loco's to run conventional.  It is just the upper speed will be limited by the conventional voltage setting. 

Jim H