LIONEL TO SEEK COOPERATION ON TMCC 2 STANDARD

[Anonymous]

Posted on the Coil Couplers web site.

A Look At Some Popular Misconceptions
About The Fate Of TMCC...
by Clyde Coil
November 23, 2004

Hey operators
Yer probably wonderin' about TMCC's future. DANG! I know some folks are concerned. My old train reporter friend, Z.W. Messengetti, found a piece of paper the other day. Looks to me like some folks should be concerned, but if yer into LIONEL, it looks A-OK! YER DANG TOOTIN!

List of Myths:

LIONEL is going under.


TMCC is technologically obsolete.


TMCC is not capable of 2-way communication.


K-LINE has a new system that will always work with TMCC.


K-Line's TMCC modifications will always work with TMCC.


DCS will always be able to control LIONEL TMCC locomotives.


Third Rail's TMCC modifications will always work with TMCC.


ATLAS O's TMCC modifications will always work with TMCC.


Train America's modified products will always work with TMCC.


LIONEL TMCC improvements will not control any LIONEL ever made.


LIONEL TMCC improvements will not retrofit to existing TMCC equipment.

[nblum]

John , I don't read this as TMCC is going to be a closed standard. I read it as Lionel is saying this is our technology and you build on it with our cooperation and assent or there are no guarantees that Lionel's new versions will operate with your gadgets. Lionel and its licensees have had "issues" in the past over such freelancing, and I believe Clyde is simply stating that Lionel is the 800 pound gorilla on this bus and everyone must play nice with us or else. There is, of course, no guarantee that Lionel will provide second generation TMCC features to licensees. I 'm sure that will depend on the marketplace, the outcome of the lawsuit, and whether MTH ever gets around to licensing DCS to others. That would be a strong impetus to license the Lionel system unless it was so superior to the existing technology, which seems unlikely, IMO. But we shall see:).

[Anonymous]

Neil, I agree with your analysis Those who play nice with Lionel will come along for the ride. Those who do not (oh, well) Lionel is asserting its natural position as leader of 3-rail.

[Big_Boy_4005]

I certainly hope nothing changes, as far as the open standard goes. Yes, that's what makes it possible for DCS to control TMCC engines, but that is also what makes it possible for me to use a computer to control my trains. I hate propriatary systems.

[Anonymous]

One thing is dead certain. "TMCC 2" engines WILL require a "CAB 2 " for full functionality. I'm sure that definite steps will be taken to render a DCS handheld useless for the purpose, Perhaps Lionel will sell an interface for computer operation.

[nblum]

I think, and this is just an educated guess, certainly it will be backwardly compatible, thus "TMCC 2" engines will still function as expected using the cab-1. My other guess is that computer operation will still be feasible, but Lionel will require licenses for computer software development and not allow MTH access to the codes without a license fee. Individual purchasers will almost certainly have access to appropriate computer codes or be able to purchase appropriate software.

I do hope they continue to license the basics of the TMCC system to all willing manufacturers to preserve at least one relatively open, single standard of control system, in so far as possible. Not to do so would not only be uncollegial, but not in the best interests of the long term health of the hobby and industry.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Features and functions beyond the basic control mean nothing for my operation. Speed and MAYBE basic sound are all I ask. Lionel doesn't need to sell an interface for computer operation, unless you mean software. TA Studios is working on that, but I may have to write my own anyway, because of my detection and signal system. Lionel has been meaning to write software since day one. The hardware system is just fine.

[Anonymous]

Certainly a CAB 1 will operate a TMCC 2 loco with all TMCC 1 features. and MAYBE a DCS handheld will be able to do this as well, but the NEW features will require a "CAB 2" or a computer interface which may well be "firmware" as in a small plug in adapter similar to what is known to geeks as a "dongle"

[Anonymous]

Clyde took down "myths" and put the old hi rail times back issues back.

[AlanRail]

You guys are reading too much into this AS USUAL!

I predict that Lionel will not set up a closed system; it would be just plain dumb.

If anything, judging from the response against MTH when Proto-1 was made obsolete with Proto-2 and as a result now MTH has Proto-23; LIONEL will make "TMCC-2" downward compatable with TMCC, DCS and its other licensees Kline and Atlas.

To do otherwise is financial suicide in this market.


Alan

[Anonymous]

There will be backward compatibility but the NEW features will only be available to CURRENT Lionel partners.

[AlanRail]

JB

As you may know already, MTH did not make Proto-1 compatable with Proto-2; Proto-2 was REALLY NOT downward compatable. It would have been nice for MTH to have a subset built-in to the TIU that would have recognized Proto-1 engines and as you say made them compatable EXCEPT with the Newer features in Proto-2.

Instead now they are selling Proto-2 upgrade kits; hopefully Lionel will learn the lesson and build in a TMCC-1 subset command base into TMCC-2 that would not have the newer features.

Let's hope and pray.


Alan



Alan

[Anonymous]

Alan, a careful reread of the last two myths will assuage your fears. I interpret them as saying that a "CAB 2" will control a TMCC 1 Loco with full TMCC 1 features and that kits will be available to upgrade TMCC 1 locos to full TMCC 2 status.

[Bucksco]

Let's see if they produce (or even announce) a new version before asserting opinions about its characteristics!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AlanRail

JB

As you may know already, MTH did not make Proto-1 compatable with Proto-2; Proto-2 was REALLY NOT downward compatable. It would have been nice for MTH to have a subset built-in to the TIU that would have recognized Proto-1 engines and as you say made them compatable EXCEPT with the Newer features in Proto-2.

Instead now they are selling Proto-2 upgrade kits; hopefully Lionel will learn the lesson and build in a TMCC-1 subset command base into TMCC-2 that would not have the newer features.

Let's hope and pray.


Alan



Alan

Hello?? Proto 1 engines are nothing more than a conventional engine with sounds. How in the world was MTH to make DCS "detect" a conventional engine? Comparing PS! engines to PS2 engines is just like comparing Railsounds equipped Lionel engines to TMCC + Railsounds equipped engines. Plain old Railsound engines cannot be run from the Cab-1 and Command base without the use of a power master since it is JUST a conventional engine, just like a PS1 engine is.

BTW, since PS1 engines are JUST conventional engines, then in effect MTH DID make DCS 100% backward compatible with PS1, because it controls ALL conventional engines natively.

You guys that trip all over this PS2 and PS1 issue are a hoot. People that bought PS1 knew they were a conventional engine, thus why would they expect command control. And now MTH gets the shaft from most of those people because they make the parts available to make the PS1 engines in to PS2 engines.

You can tie yourself to what ever brand you want, I'll run them all.

Rod

[Anonymous]

Just remember there is one area on the cab one that hasn;t been used yet and that is aux 2. Outside of the on off light there are still 8 more buttons to do other things, plus I would guess the on off the the headlight will find something more important to use it for.
I would think a new cab one may come out with a face like mth but there is no reason to change if you do not want to.
I just found out this weekend at a train show after you have shelled out the mega bucks for a DCS handheld and a tiu, you are still limited to only four seperate main lines without going to another tiu. I have 6 seperate mains now with command and six differend power supplies on each one and my 89 dollar investment in a cab one and command base still do the job just fine. dave.

[Anonymous]

The only people who will be left behind by this are those who use DCS exclusively. Since it is doubtful that MTH will come to agreement with Lionel on TMCC 2, DCS users will have to invest in a CAB 2 to unlock TMCC 2 features on their locos. as for the TMCC licensees, I'm sure that they'll work with Lionel to build compatible products. This is as it should be.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the TMCC user community needs to organize an independent TMCC Users Group. Any Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Clydes rant is nothing more than jibberish, look if he has any information just come out and say so and stop all these cryptic games. Look Clyde if you don't have any information then just keep quiet, these guessing games by you and other people are a waste of space and time.

Dave

[nblum]

Anyone else have anything rude to say? Let's have it now and thoroughly waste everyone's time before the thread is deleted. :)

[Bucksco]

I think this thread is kind of a waste of time and breath since Lionel hasn't announced an upgrade to the system .It's all supposition.

[Anonymous]

Au contrare, JERRY CALABRESE announced that enhancments are forthcoming by Spring York. The Lion has TEETH. Besides, Clyde Coil predictions have a way of coming true. Since I believe in science, ESP is not involved therefore Clyde must be one of the "Lion's cubs". In light of the lawsuit controversy, there is NO way that those enhancements will be MTH compatible. However, those who are current TMCC partners can work with Lionel to produce products which are FULLY compatible with these enhancements Furthermore, Neil Young has in the past identified certain major enhancements to TMCC which are forthcoming. Calabrese supplied a date, What more do you want.

[Anonymous]

Lionel is acting in the hobby's best interest by insuring that all TMCC products work together now and in the future. Much has been said on this forum about the lack of command control standards in 3-rail. In 2-rail, NMRA Standard S-9 provides command control standards. Lacking such a body for 3-rail means that Lionel, as the originator of the TMCC standard needs to step forward to protect those who invested in TMCC by making sure that any new products work together with existing equipment. This is called Backward Compatibility. Furthermore, Lionel is also committed to producing upgrade kits to insure that any TMCC equipment ever made is capable of being brought up to the latest TMCC standards. As for DCS users, I think it is a safe bet that any enhancements to TMCC will leave them behind. Posters on other forums have it EXACTLY BACKWARD. Lionel is doing TMCC users a BIG FAVOR.

[Bucksco]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[nblum]

I have reason to believe that significant enhancements to the TMCC system are now in the works, and that prototypes exist and that these products will arrive on the marketplace. The enhancements I have heard of are more than mere"tweaking" of the existing system. This should not be all that surprising as in the past few years additional patents on TMCC and train control systems have been filed by the original designers of TMCC.

[Bucksco]

Niel,
how about backing up your assertions with some fact- who is your source?

[nblum]

If I told you my sources, which are not inside Lionel, but have contacts inside, I would no longer receive inside information in the future, obviously. Formal announcements will occur when a product is ready for beta testing or an introduction date is ready. I'll leave that to Mr. Calabrese. I don't think he needs my help on the running of the business. But I can assure you that I would not be posting information about anything I suspected was vaporware. I am confident enhancements are in the works now, for business reasons and marketing reasons. Do I really think Jerry Calabrese would have made the comments in the chat session if he was just blowing smoke? He doesn't strike me as that sort of guy. And I have independent confirmation that he wasn't just blowing smoke. That's all I can say right now.

[AlanRail]

Rod

It doesn't matter at all that Proto-1s are nothing but . . . anthing.

I know whole lot of people that spent big bucks to purchase expensive Premier steam engines that were Proto-1 only to have their collections obsoleted and practically made worthless with MTH's intro of the intro of Proto-2; that was not downward compatable with Proto-1;

Whatever the electronics involed, MTH should have and could have provided a subset command structure into the TIU box to deal with those engines ( as was already in the Z-1000s) or should have planned for the advances in Proto -2 when building the Proto-1s. At no time did MTH say that the Proto-2s would obsolete the Proto-1s well not until after accepting the money for the Proto-1s.

Not planning for downward compatability is just poor planning by MTH and dissing your customer base in a big way. Hopefully Lionel won't do that if they actually are comming up with a TMCC-2.


Alan

[Bucksco]

I have Proto 1 engines and they are not obsolete. I run them all the time. They were designed and sold as CONVENTIONAL engines-not command equipped!

[Anonymous]

The only thing MTH did wrong was in not making upgrade kits available for non DCS engines and announcing DCS before it was ready. I'm sure Lionel learned from thar error. If MTH had those upgrade kits and rolled out DCS when they said they were going to, they would have beat Lionel up in the marketplace. Selling those upgrade kits would have made DCS mush more attractive to those who own conventional engines.