This wouldn't be a DCC address, as such, and the range of addresses for these trackpieces wouldn't conflict with any other DCC addresses. Suppose they were to add a new trackpiece which can be used in place of an existing trackpiece, but which is configurable with an address. Here's a thought on how LD might be enhanced a little. You only add the interconnections for your convenience, not RMвЂ™s). Quite powerful but still without the system knowing where anything is (remember, your RM would operate exactly the same if all you had in your RM layout were all the points piled in one corner, all the signals and accessories piled in a second corner, and all the pieces of rail containing a sensor piled in a third, no connecting pieces of rail anywhere in sight. Then looking at the list of commands, you will see that can make a lot of conditional decisions based on a detection (what loco, locos or all locos and what direction and what signal/point state) and then action what to do with particular locos, signals or points, or to run a program. You must supply all the position information based on where you know the sensors are and where on what routes your locos and trains are running.

But it is none the wiser on where anything is because it doesnвЂ™t know where the sensors are.

What LD adds that isnвЂ™t available now is that the system via the sensors makes detections of what LD ID is passing a sensor and in which direction. It never know where anything is, even under LD. Let me emphasize the one simple and unbreakable logic of RM. That said, this discussion seems to me to be getting it correctly. Also if you go back and look at the forum at the time, there is quite a lot of discussion on the logic of the commands. Has anyone checked that the drop-down list still matches the PJ list? These commands were listed progressively in at least a couple of RM revisions and the current list replaced a less extensive previous list.

Rocrail staging