I love the variable momentum feature of Legacy. It gives a great deal of control to locos and realistic control but...

Please Lionel you have to let those engines continue to ramp up or down when they are deselected from the remote. This was one of my dislikes from the start and it still is a sore spot. I shouldn't have to toggle back and forth for an engine to continue to a set speed that I dialed in before switching to another. Too many times now I have watched an engine sneak up on another because I selected a slower speed, switched to another and slowed that one down and the first engine continued on the speed it was on when I deselected it. My mind expects it to continue to slow.

This needs to be addressed and since I have a smaller layout with multiple trains on one track it is crucial that when I set a speed change in motion it continues until it gets there whether it is selected on the remote or not.

Marty, that is why I purchased a second controller. Both momentum and target speeds are lost(stop changing speed) when the engine is not active. Ugh!!!!

How many engines do you want the remote to handle concurrently?

quote:

Originally posted by penn station:
How many engines do you want the remote to handle concurrently?

I don't want it to handle them both at once but when I set a speed command in motion, it should execute it in it's entirety until done regardless of whether it is the currently address engine on the remote or not. It's not a question of dual command but one of finishing the requested action.

This is a macro operation that is happening in the remote. When you select another engine the remote would have to continue managing the first engine in the background. If you switched to a third engine then potentially two or, by extension, N engines would have to be managed in the background. Each of these processes would be generating speed commands to the respective engines.

This is all doable up to some limit but if the current design only covers single tasking it could be a big change to transition to this.

quote:

Originally posted by penn station:
This is a macro operation that is happening in the remote. When you select another engine the remote would have to continue managing the first engine in the background. If you switched to a third engine then potentially two or, by extension, N engines would have to be managed in the background. Each of these processes would be generating speed commands to the respective engines.

This is all doable up to some limit but if the current design only covers single tasking it could be a big change to transition to this.

It needs to be done. Advanced momentum has created this issue. What is the point of having it if it cannot be applied across the layout. I could live with a two or three limit on continuous control. But then again couldn't this happen in the base? If you have 5 operators each controlling an engine and sending a speed change the base is sending those commands so couldn't the base cache' the command and send it out.

quote:

This is a macro operation that is happening in the remote. .... If you switched to a third engine then potentially two or, by extension, N engines would have to be managed in the background. Each of these processes would be generating speed commands to the respective engines.
This is all doable up to some limit but if the current design only covers single tasking it could be a big change to transition to this.

I agree with Marty that it should be at the top of the queue. As you stated it will require a redesign of their O/S to permit the base to issue some commands and communicate with the engine independantly of the handheld. This will not be a trivial rewrite. I get around this issue by having multiple engines identified as a "lashup" and then I control each engine individually when necessary. Also having a second controller does help but then you are back into the issue that the buttons on the controller (and its configuration) make it interesting to handle two controllers simultaneously. It also precludes having those trains and engines from being MU'ed which will limit sales to me until it is fixed. More than half of my 30 plus trains are double and triple headed.

Marty
If your main issue is that one engine will catch up with another, just add block control to youe small layout

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Stefl:
Marty
If your main issue is that one engine will catch up with another, just add block control to youe small layout

It is a function of the system not the layout. If the word comes that this is the way it is then I'll reluctantly live with it but an engine should be able to complete a given command either via the base buffering that info or the remote.

Friends,

We have a way to operate a legacy loco that supports the locomotive continuing to the target speed with the selected momentum. This functionality is built into the loco, thus the cab2 won't have to select the loco for the loco to continue to target speed.

There are some downsides to this mode of operation, however we will consider this functionality as an option in the future. No changes would need made to the hardware in the loco or cab2 for this to be activated.

The future is exciting with Legacy!

Thanks Jon. You could see where this could be an issue I hope. I also hope the downsides aren't too much of a fun sponge. I just got playing again this week after cleaning up the trestle area and nearly had another rear ending because I set the second loco to restricted, switch to the first set it to restricted...never went back to the second and because it didn't keep slowing almost crashed into the first.

Marty I also use my second remote for this. Just set it down and grab the other to run a second train. I am using 4 remotes at this time. It is a no hassle way to run because Legacy is not as easy to switch from engine to engine for me. TR use is fast since I only have 4 trains to remember,TR-1,2,3,4. I find scrolling to find the second engine a drag...

After thinking about this some more, I'd be happy to be able to do this with at least 2 engines.

I agree that as the number of supported locos goes up the number of people who need it goes down pretty fast. Two is a minimum and probably covers a big part of the requirement.

I thought a big benefit of doing it in the remote/base is it worked with TMCC locos too.

quote:

I thought a big benefit of doing it in the remote/base is it worked with TMCC locos too.

Agreed. Didn't think of that.

Cam, We can send the commands in different ways for a TMCC loco VS a Legacy Loco. When you select the TMCC or LEG mode in the cab-2, the cab-2 will simply use that setting to determine how to send commands.

Jon

Seems like you guys are on top of it. Thanks! I think I speak for all of us enjoying Legacy when I say thanks for a great product and continued support.

Ditto!

Hi all,

quote:

We have a way to operate a legacy loco that supports the locomotive continuing to the target speed with the selected momentum. This functionality is built into the loco, thus the cab2 won't have to select the loco for the loco to continue to target speed.

Jon, since you mention Legacy engines specifically, can we assume this potential correction will not apply to TMCC engines since their momentum feature is part of the cab-2/cb-2? I agree with Marty that this should at or near the top of the list for improvements.

Dave,

There are ways to queue commands in the cab-2 and the Legacy locos have features we have not activated to date. As I mentioned, we have trade offs when we activate features, so to be specific about how/if we make a change in this area of operation is frankly not possible to comment to with any certainty.

Try this: record a loco moving around your layout, stop, blow the horn, resume, etc. Then play the recording, and while this loco is running the playback, switch to another loco and control - see what happens...

Cool. I did want Jon suggested, and recorded a long session with my Big Boy. While it was playing back I ran a lash up and a single loco on other tracks. Works fine.

So the playback function could be a background event while real timing with other trains! Now that is cool!

Marty I am joking of course but it occurs to me when jon gives us Legacy sleeper cars that have real flushing toilets in them YOU will be the GUY who complains the water does not first change to yellow... Hmmmm..

Real pee! Real poo! Seriously I just see where this can really be a much better system if it could keep polling the other engine to slow down or speed up based on it's last command.

Marty
There is a solution to this problem. We recognized this from the outset and have been comparing the options for improving this part of the operation. We agree with you and think 2 or three engines should be able to continue what they were previously ordered to do, whether they are currently selected or not. I am sure this one of the improvements John has been investigating. We are taking the time to do it the best way for your future operational enjoyment.

Thanks for your input and valued support. We are listening. The best is yet to come. Lionel Legacy is a long term commitment.

ny