anyone looking into LCC these days?


BigE

BigE

Active Member
Just curious really. Currently my only DCC bus load is just for the engines. All my accessories, lights and turnouts, are powered with my old DC power pack.
E
 
I got an email from MR yesterday and watched the video from the National Train Show. Cody did an interview with the guy promoting LCC, and that was the first time I heard of it. I think it deserves further investigation.
 
josephbw said:
I got an email from MR yesterday and watched the video from the National Train Show. Cody did an interview with the guy promoting LCC, and that was the first time I heard of it. I think it deserves further investigation.
Click to expand...

I watched that exact same video this morning in fact which is what prompted this thread post!!!
Did he mention a website? I got distracted for a moment and missed it if he did.
I have read through a lot of NMRA specs and at a glance it appears to be just another communications protocol.
That's all fine but I want to see some actual implementation - even if it's just a proto-type/proof-of-concept.
E.
 
I think he did mention a website, but in my search this morning I couldn't find anything other than standards and possible uses for LCC. My internet is so slow that videos play for a few seconds, then stop and start so much that it's hard to maintain continuity through the video. Especially when you have DPA (Don't Pay Attention). :D

Joe
 
Ok Joe, I watched it again - this time paying attention.
He was interviewing Gerry Leone - VP at NMRA.
He didn't mention any websites except to say watch for upcoming articles in the future.

However he did mention it was all started by a group called OpenLCB.
I found their website:
http://openlcb.org/

I haven't poked around there yet.
E.
 
The OpenLCB guys are the group that developed the application that the NMRA has standardized as LCC. I spent some time reviewing their (NMRA's) site as well as the OpenLCB site. Mostly what and how, no real world examples. I haven't found any other sites showing actual implementations. I'm taking a wait and see attitude. So far, DCC accessory decoders can do everything I need to do that LCC purports to do.
 
Can somebody please explain to a cave-dweller like myself, what exactly is LCC? I tried a google search and nothing mrr-related came up...
 
LCC = Layout Command Control.
I think the idea was to take the load off of DCC after people figured out they could power all kinds of stuff - lights, effect, turnouts, etc.
Let DCC stick with running trains and nothing more. Let LCC take care of the rest of stuff and take the power load off of the DCC bus.
That would be my "Reader's Digest" version of it.
E.
 
Thanks Eric - makes perfect sense to me now!

I have a separate wall wart that powers my tortoises, and another that powers my signals. Nothing fancy though - they are all directly wired to DPDT switches in the fascia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CSX_road_slug said:
Thanks Eric - makes perfect sense to me now!

I have a separate wall wart that powers my tortoises, and another that powers my signals. Nothing fancy though - they are all directly wired to DPDT switches in the fascia.
Click to expand...

About the same with me. I use an old DC pack for all that stuff.
E.
 
At this juncture, I see NO NEED for yet another system.

WHY?

I am planning to use DCC for my carnival. I plan to use my recently acquired Bachmann EZ DCC (basic/limited function) unit to control my carnival rides, lights and sound. Using DCC for it will greatly simplify wiring and control.

Who said DCC motor control is for running/controling LOCOMOTIVES only? With current DCC decoders and controllers, I can not only control lights but have special effects as well. Using the same decoders as I use in locos also simplify things, no need to keep a stable of incompatible decoders on hand. Since almost all my decoders use the same compatable plug/jack/wire-harness, if I need one and none on hand, just unplug a decoder out of a ride or loco and plug it in where needed at the moment.

I use Digitrax DN 135, DN136 and SDN-136 (w/sound) and they are ALL completely interchangeable. (of course a non-sound decoder does not make sounds).

JD
 
arealgijoe said:
At this juncture, I see NO NEED for yet another system.

WHY?
Click to expand...

Because some folks have numerous devices on their layout for control and sensing. The DCC bus was not designed for this purpose and it is fairly easy to overload the bus.

I have two Digitrax controllers on my layout, one for locos, one for everything else which includes (in round numbers) 70 relays, 50 turnouts motors, 50 four-aspect signals, 35 electro-magnetic uncouplers, 70 occupancy sensors and 50 position sensors.

That is only possible because Digitrax has their own LCC like bus called LocoNet.
 
fcwilt said:
Because some folks have numerous devices on their layout for control and sensing. The DCC bus was not designed for this purpose and it is fairly easy to overload the bus.

I have two Digitrax controllers on my layout, one for locos, one for everything else which includes (in round numbers) 70 relays, 50 turnouts motors, 50 four-aspect signals, 35 electro-magnetic uncouplers, 70 occupancy sensors and 50 position sensors.

That is only possible because Digitrax has their own LCC like bus called LocoNet.
Click to expand...

And.... from I can tell a layout like this is EXACTLY why LCC was invented so as to take that load off the DCC bus.
E
 
Not wanting to be a fly in the ointment here; but, if this LCC is purely for running/powering accessories (fundamentally) why even bother with it when an old DC power pack or wall wart (which most of us have laying around) does the job?

Personally, unless I am missing something, this seems to be a case of someone fixing something that isn't broken. Making something more complex than it needs to be and, essentially a DC power source with a fancy name tag to try and make it sound impressive.

I'll be sticking with my "old fashioned" DC Power Sources for my accessories. Something that has been proven and works.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"...from I can tell a layout like this is EXACTLY why LCC was invented so as to take that load off the DCC bus..."
Click to expand...


Then use a separate "NON DCC" Bus for your accessories - simple.

This is nothing more than someone jumping on the band wagon trying to make money of something that is not needed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wombat457 said:
[/COLOR]

Then use a separate "NON DCC" Bus for your accessories - simple.

This is nothing more than someone jumping on the band wagon trying to make money of something that is not needed.
Click to expand...

What is a "NON DCC" bus?

All of the devices on my layout that I listed are either controlled by the system or report status to the system. This isn't simply a case of powering stationary controllers/sensor.

And since LCC is simply a proposed standard by the NMRA it's up to other folks to design and manufacture the equipment.

There are already many similar but incompatible systems out there which is evidence of the need for such systems.

The hardware I use on my layout is made by RR-CirKits and is all based around something they call the Simple Serial Bus which is protocol compatible with LocoNet but only uses three wires instead of four or six.

An attempt to create a standard so devices from all manufactures would work together is a good thing.
 
So, as a 'newb' this boils down to me as an issue of just separating the track power from whatever doo-dads anyone may fancy with a separate power bus. How you control that power seems to be getting an industry of its own now and also seems to have the same "differing tastes" issue that permeates all the other aspects of this hobby.

Different schools of thought on the 'right' way to control and power accessories, another battlefront of the 'experts' in the making!!!

That the gist of it?
 
wombat457 said:
Not wanting to be a fly in the ointment here; but, if this LCC is purely for running/powering accessories (fundamentally) why even bother with it when an old DC power pack or wall wart (which most of us have laying around) does the job?

Personally, unless I am missing something, this seems to be a case of someone fixing something that isn't broken. Making something more complex than it needs to be and, essentially a DC power source with a fancy name tag to try and make it sound impressive.

I'll be sticking with my "old fashioned" DC Power Sources for my accessories. Something that has been proven and works.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I'm with you on this Tony.
I'm just curious what the hubbub is about.
Or maybe what "they" are trying to make it be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top