Resisting new ideas, technology and products

[Anonymous]

I've been looking at changing my old Lionel tubular track to their FasTrack, mostly because of the new track sections that are in the new catalog. I have to admit though, I feel like the guy who used to build his own radios and complained when they switched from crystals to transisters. I just can't do it right now. Maybe in 2005. Anyone else feel this way in our hobby? I'm sure there's a lot of people here that hate TMCC and use only conventional engines. I dunno...maybe it's just me.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Hello again Jack, as you may have noticed I'm a bit of a night owl.

I see that you have chosen a wait and see additude on the Fastrack, and I think that is a wise choice. See what Lionel does in the next year or so. If they get all of the pieces made, and solve the issues that we have discussed, and you don't mind the cost, then maybe it wil be the right choice for your needs.

I am a very high tech kind of person when it comes to trains. I will be using TMCC exclusively, as well as a system called CMRI, which stands for Computer Model Railroad Interface. So far I have only run across one other person that is into such high tech control with Lionel trains. My plan is to do some full automation using the serial port on the TMCC command base, in addition to regular TMCC operation.

I like technology, I just like to make sure it works before investing heavily. TMCC works for the most part. There are some minor bugs, but they can be fixed, so I'm all in.

[Anonymous]

Jack,

I have an 8-½ foot long oval of FasTrack, and it looks realistic with wood ties. However, I don’t plan on expanding it until someone figures out how to deaden the noise. We have two Lionel engines with TMCC, and my boy uses that feature. But truthfully, I turn off the smoke and rail sounds when run the trains.

Richard
KD6FB

[Anonymous]

Hello Big_boy,

I am in the process of desinging a new layout and also am thinking of adding computer control to a TMCC enabled layout. Right now, I am trying to decide how to sense the positions of the trains on the layout. The options are: optical sensors, magnetic reed sensors, power block current detection, and isolated track sections (3 rail only, my layout is 3 rails). Currently, I am leaning towards magnetic reed sensors with small magnets locatec under the engines and cars.

I noticed that you are from St. Paul. I am originally from Minneapolis and have a brother in Minneapolis who is into trains as well.

Daniel Lang

[brianel027]

I'm kind of with Big_Boy on this in the sense that the technology/products needs to be perfected before it's shipped out. Thing is since the stuff is made overseas, it's harder to monitor the assembly line, and the smooth boat ride across the Pacific and container ride across the U.S. can't help... the consumer these days has become the test lab. I see this with all sorts of products.
I'm not into the technology the way Big_Boy and others are. BUT I won't knock their choices either. It's what they choose and the more choices, the better. I don't hate TMCC. But I do read about all the problems, all the return hassles, the high level of defective units - and that's not at all appealing to me.
I also find some small irony in that Neil Young has always had a keep-it-simple kind of approach when it comes to making music. I read an article recently where he was on a rant against the corporate end of the music business: ClearChannel, etc. Yet here's the guy who has helped bring computer technology to trains. I do know why, and I'm not knocking that. I personally loved Neil's brilliant computer altered album "Trans" which was very poorly received and sold likewise. I remember one critic saying he should have been tarred and feathered for making that album... just goes to show human beings, when they get used to something, don't always like change.
Neil Young was also one of the most outspoken critics of compact discs at a time when compact discs were rapidly dominating sales. Another small irony. The music business has changed for sure: it's 75% business and 25% music. Just as the train business has changed too. It's about money. Toy trains are no longer toy trains.
I don't think you'll see companies back away from the technology either. Lionel does offer a few token low-tech items. But since Lionel developed TMCC, they want to sell TMCC. So it's not going away. But Williams seems to being doing better these days too - so obviously there's a market for the non-tech trains.
I'll continue to hope for more non-electronics loaded trains... that's what I like. But I'll also continue to hope for improved quality and reliability from the trains that do have the electronics.
But things never stay the same. I'm sure the guys that made horse shoes and carriages weren't too happy about trains. Just as the railroads weren't too happy about automobiles and tractor trailer trucks.
Another irony is the same computer revolution in our trains that I prefer to avoid is the same computer revolution that makes it possible for guys like me to find and buy trains made with the technology of a horse shoe: eBay!

clip clop clip clop clip clop - riding my old horse into a uncertain sunset...

[Anonymous]

Brian,

While I type this message on a 1.8 GHz laptop I have an old 1986-1987 vintage Lionel 0-4-0 Switcher circling the track beside me. I have it pulling a few cars backward, and there is something about watching the large lamp on the rear of the tender that will never be replaced with high tech toys. That is probably the reason that the old Lionel stuff is bringing such a high price at the train shows?

Richard

[Big_Boy_4005]

Daniel, if you havent chosen your track yet, I would suggest Gargraves or, if you want to spend a little extra Atlas. It is not just for their appearence that I recommend these, but for the fact that all three rails are isolated, making detection simple. The CMRI system can directly accept the ground signal as an input, and control signals, turnouts, and anything else that you can think of.

You will have to write your own sofrware for CMRI, but the system's designer has a manual and a book that have samples so you wouldn't have to start from scratch. I think there is a company working on some to handle the TMCC commands, but it isn't on the market yet.

If you want to discuss this further, you can email me, and I'll give you all the details that I have.

[restoman]

I my self enjoy technology, computers, Palm pilots, HDTV, CD and DVD, Being a musician I've even set aside my traditional drum set for a go on a Roland electronic set. However , Ironically I am also into antique and vintage train restoration. I'm also admittedly a little frugal when it comes to train purchases. Bottom line is I enjoy running trains the old fashioned way. Realistic scenery followed by traditional rolling stock. Large control panels enabling me to throw switches like a mad man. My switches are wired to be non-derailing and I use relays to prevent train wrecks. I would rather purchase Two decent engines to lash up a freight than spending the same amount of money on one engine equipped for TMCC. And guess what , with all my wiring I can still run several trains on the same line and I have less money invested than some of my counterparts with electronic train control. I respect Big Boy for his love of Tech. but there is nothing wrong with anyone out there wanting to run trains the nostalgic way.

[pbjwilson]

I used MTH track under the Christmas tree for the first time this year. It just did't have the nostalgic look that the traditional tubular track does. Next year I'll use the Lionel! I don't really understand the "new track'' craze. I like the look, and sound of the tubular and it's cheap!


Paul the Painter

[brianel027]

Painter Paul, look through the topics here for the ones on FasTrack... there's one started by Amtrak Jack. Read that and you'll figure out the new track craze isn't all it's cranked up to be, at least with FasTrack. I gotta admit, the Atlas O track is mighty nice. A little pricey for my budget, especially the turnouts. So I'll stick with 027 despite it's limitations. My next choice would be Gargraves.

It's not that I'm dead set on the "old" stuff. But tried and true, I know the old stuff works as it's suppose to!! You can't say that for all the train stuff made today.
And Gargraves is made in the USA - a real rarity these days.

[Anonymous]

I love the new fattrack for one reason, and that is its quick setup. The tubular takes a while to put together, and if I want to throw up a quick setup to run in my sons room, I just pick the entire oval of the wall where it hangs, and lay it down. Connect the wires and I am ready to go.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RedCaboose522

I love the new fattrack for one reason, and that is its quick setup. The tubular takes a while to put together, and if I want to throw up a quick setup to run in my sons room, I just pick the entire oval of the wall where it hangs, and lay it down. Connect the wires and I am ready to go.

And that's all it was meant to be used for. Us with permanent layouts will not want it. Trains are too loud on it and you can't even hear the railsounds. See my thread:

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12436

[Anonymous]

You want sound? How about a 381 pulling a State Set through a HellGate bridge?
Or a 408E pounding over a tubular track diamond (crossing) pulling a string of
Large series freight cars? THAT'S SOUND! And on a WOODEN TRAIN TABLE!