The Facts About MTH vs. Lionel

[Paul3]

Um, jnichols, is your tennis match over yet? [:D]

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[Anonymous]

Go to this website www.tonylashexpress.com and click on "Joe Bolton Layout Photos to see my Ogauge Fastrack Layout. More Photos willb e in the September issue of CTT. Enjoy!

[rrinker]

It's gotten even BETTER recently. $25 gets you the custom-fitted DCC decoders for specific locos (at least in HO). A very good top quality generic (meaning, can be wired into anything - I'm talking about an NCE decoder) decoder with 4 function outputs can be had for $12 each in quantity now. Hard to use cost of equipping locos with decoders as an excuse to not use DCC now.
There really doesn't seem to be anything that DCS does that DCC can't. The sound was the big difference, but the real problem there was more one of SIZE. It's a lot easier and cheaper to make a LARGE piece of electronic equipment than it is to make the same thing but in less than half the size. We needed to let technology catch up a bit is all. If you want to use that as an excuse to use DCS, well, then by that reasoning we should all just switch to G scale and forget the smaller ones, as there is far more room for electronics and HUGE speakers that will sound great. Or why not 1 1/2" scale? Oh heck, just go 1:1!

--Randy

[simon1966]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ben10ben

I said this in another thread, but I'll say it again here.

Coming from a 3-rail O gauge guy, I think that the major disadvantage in DCS is the cost of the upgrade boards. A single board for three-rail O costs $200, and I'm sure that one for HO/N would cost about the same price. True, this includes sound and cruise control, but it's still a little bit of a steep one-time investment. With the other major three-rail system competing with DCS, TMCC, you can get a bare-basics 4 amp board to control the motor, lights, smoke unit, and couplers for $50. I've paid as little as $20 for a so-called "dummy" board to just control the lights and couplers. Should you wi***o add sound, it's available for another $90, including the speaker, to connect to anything from a $20 dummy board to an $150 15 amp motor driver. I believe that the situation with DCC decoders is much the same, from what I've read.

DCC decoders are quite a bit less expensive. You can get basic motor control and simple headlight for about $12.00. Most better quality decoders with multiple light functions are in the $25-30 range. DCC sound decoders are in the $100-$200 but with the new Digitrax sound decoder having a street price under $70 the cost of sound is coming down. When you consider that decoders like the TCS MC2 measures 0.71" x 0.41" x 0.19" and costs under $25 MTH has a long way to go to meet the current competition.

[ben10ben]

I said this in another thread, but I'll say it again here.

Coming from a 3-rail O gauge guy, I think that the major disadvantage in DCS is the cost of the upgrade boards. A single board for three-rail O costs $200, and I'm sure that one for HO/N would cost about the same price. True, this includes sound and cruise control, but it's still a little bit of a steep one-time investment. With the other major three-rail system competing with DCS, TMCC, you can get a bare-basics 4 amp board to control the motor, lights, smoke unit, and couplers for $50. I've paid as little as $20 for a so-called "dummy" board to just control the lights and couplers. Should you wi***o add sound, it's available for another $90, including the speaker, to connect to anything from a $20 dummy board to an $150 15 amp motor driver. I believe that the situation with DCC decoders is much the same, from what I've read.

[simon1966]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

George,I don't know about you but,it would take a superior product for me to replace my Digitrax EB II and UT2 throttles.

Brakie, I think your response is spot on and really represents the dilema of coming to a market too late. Very few folks, if any would consider getting out of their DCC investment. I would not even consider having to pull all my DCC decoders from my locos and switching. However, I am curious to see if DCS could be a viable competitor for the DC crowd that has yet to convert to DCC. By all accounts this still represents the majority of modellers. At this point, it is clear that it does not. Two factors alone support this.

1. The cost and size of the boards to convert another manufacturers locomotive. This still has to be resolved. Unless the new PS3 board is significantly cheaper and much smaller it wont fly in HO. Apparently all the electronics in the new MTH K4 are in the tender. Alot can fit in a tender that will not fit into a good size deisel, let alone a switcher. Also, will these be sound only (Making it more difficult to fit) or will they offer control electronics for those that don't want sound?

2. The licencing of DCS has to be resolved. Sure, as has been stated MTH could do this, but unless there is a good selection of rolling stock on the market from numerous makers the technology will never fly.

This is a whole new environment and MTH will have to change some of their day to day business practices. For example, a PS2 board comes with a 90 day warranty, and that is only if it is installed by a certified dealer. This comes nowhere close to the decoder warranties from companies like TCS.

Anyway, I appreciate the fact that someone has taken the trouble to share some real information for a change.

[AntonioFP45]

Wow!

This thread is still going?!

So...........the soap opera continues as DCS supporters struggle to bring out the positive points of the platform.

Good job, however, based on the info so far I still can't see the incentive for switching from a widely used--well supported--popular platform (DCC) to one that is much more expensive, and produced by one manufacturer with a "public relations challenged" reputation that didn't work with the NMRA.

In the end guys, when DCS hits the market the modelers that do purchase it will post threads here with their feedback. Also stands to reason that MRR will write articles as well.

Until then, we can continue just continue this soap opera.........but realistically, it's doubtful that minds will be changed here on either side. Myself included.

Peace and 10-4!

[BRAKIE]

George,I don't know about you but,it would take a superior product for me to replace my Digitrax EB II and UT2 throttles.

[Anonymous]

Try this experiment with your MTH system:

Hold the loco.

Crank up the throttle (or whatever MTH calls it) and continue to hold the loco stationary.

Look at the "speed" displayed on the throttle - if the throttle shows any speed than 0 mph, then the MTH speed readout is bogus.

BTW - I still can't see what your MTH system can do that my Zephyr with one of the LCD Digitrax throttles (which would be about $300 total price) can't.

But let's talk specifics:

- How many throttles can the MTH system support (is each throttle $300, btw ???) ?

- How many locos (max) can be controlled by each throttle at the same time ??

- Can the MTH system control turnouts ???

- Can the MTH system be installed in Atlas, Athearn or P2K locos ????

(ok, if no HO or N level system, can it be installed in Atlas O locos ?????)

- Are three rails needed for this system ?????

(Sorry, O scalers, but 3 rails looks too toy-like to me!)

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols
Also, because DCC is open, any manufacturer can implement it in their products, something I'm confident MTH will do with DCS.

Hmm ... Two standards, twice the effort to make things for it, twice the support and twice the confusion. One standard enjoys multivendor support as an open standard, the other is a proprietary standard, most likely requiring licensing fees paid to MTH, which will be MTH's version of *open* no doubt. [;)]

For a second standard to be picked up by the hobby, it would have to be seen as clearly superior to anyone at a glance.

DCS does sound cool, but I don't see other vendors spending development dollars on DCS when the DCC market is already a known quantity and new products won't require licensing fees.

I'm sorry, but the best product doesn't always win in the market. Perception *is* the reality when it comes to what wins in the market. And regardless of how neat DCS really is, perception makes it a dark horse contender that's so far back in the race that you can't even make it out.

[Anonymous]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You MTH trolls can try and lie all you want. Either way, the HO & N worlds hate you!!! MyTH can take a one way train to bankrupcey, although I doubt it'll even get there if they'll be using DCS to power it. Oooooooooo, burn.[:D]

[jnichols]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul3

Finally! Someone who will talk about DCS instead of just saying it's better without offering anything to back it up. Jeez, I was beginning to think it wasn't ever gonna happen... [:)]

Paul,

Thanks for the well thought out post. You have many good points, and you kept the MTH slander to a minimum. I really want to respond to your post, but I'm off to play tennis. I will be back later tonight and I will respond.

Again thanks!

[jnichols]

QUOTE: Originally posted by simon1966

Thanks for the informative response. It is nice to have a decent dialog for a change. I went and looked at the MTH web site, but could not see anything about decoders for installation into other locomotives. Are these decoders of a size that would realistically fit in an HO scale model?

Simon,

They don't really refer to these products as decoders. Go to the MTH website and look under the PS2 upgrades section. Keep in mind the current PS2 boards are much too large to fit into an HO scale model, but I'm quite certain MTH will produce the smaller PS3 boards for retrofit. Also something to keep in mind concerns the pricing of these boards. Although the current PS2 boards are $200.00 retail, my guess is that due to the market in HO scale, the PS3 boards will be more affordable. Even at the $200.00 retail, the boards are a steal however, when you consider they include the flywheel kit, sound system, speaker, motor control and lighting/function control boards. The PS2 boards also have outputs for operating front and back couplers, and I hope this feature finds it's way into the PS3 boards.

I appreciate the post by Simon and I welcome additional questions about the DCS system and PS series boards from any of the members here. I enjoy reading and responding to posts from people who honestly seem interested and want to know more.... [:D]

PS> For those who really want in depth information, visit the OGR forum website and click on the DCS section. There are some really sharp people that post there, including a couple of inside people from MTH.

[Paul3]

Finally! Someone who will talk about DCS instead of just saying it's better without offering anything to back it up. Jeez, I was beginning to think it wasn't ever gonna happen... [:)]

jnichols wrote:

QUOTE: Rumors of the amount and difficulty of the star topology wiring required for DCS systems is largely exagerated. The DCS signal is VERY strong, and does not require any more feeders than a conventional DCC system. I currently have several hundered feet of 3-rail track connected with one set of feeders, and nowhere on my layout do I have less than an 8 out of 10 signal strength.

DCS uses a star topology? Than that makes it inferior to DCC in any large layout that I can think of due to the incredible amount of wiring required that would be redunant as all get out. In fact, it sounds very much like an old cab control DC set up (a centralized location from which all wiring runs from and to). Why don't they use a buss like everyone else? I have a 200 foot double track mainline on my layout, and I'm using 200' of red and 200' of black 14 AWG with feeders every so often. Other than the 200' fo throttle buss, that's it. If I tried to do it with a star topology, I'd have to use hundreds of more feet of wire.

QUOTE: DCS feature: Any PS2 equipped locomotive can be run around the layout and used as a signal strength meter for the DCS signal. This information is displayed real time on the DCS hand held via the two-way feedback.

I'm not sure how useful that would be in DCC, as I know that the signal is the power. Is DCS the same? Most DCC companies simply recommend using a quarter on the track to see if you can trip the circuit breaker. If you can, then you have enough power/signal to operate...if not, add more boosters.

QUOTE: DCS feature: PS2 boards can be programmed with any sound file and offer a wealth lighting function options. This is done with very easy to use software through the DCS system and the locomotive sitting on the track (no wiring).

This is coming soon from both Digitrax (in October) and Sountraxx' Tsunami DCC decoders (whenever they actually make them). The Digitrax board is only going to be $65 MSRP. What's the DCS board going for? (I looked on Mikes website, but there doesn't seem to be any prices at all)

QUOTE: You need to remember that the DCS system and PS series boards are significantly different than the DCC products. The need to understand programming doesn't exist with DCS (as it works differently), so the need for huge support is not as great.

To me, it sounds like DCS has a more "user friendly" GUI while DCC is more like old DOS. True, they are different, but all it takes to make programming simple with DCC is to use the JMRI computer interface or any other 3rd party software designer (which you can't get with DCS due to the proprietary nature of it).

QUOTE: DCS feature: Programming the way DCC guys think of programming has been eliminated in favor of menu driven programming through the DCS hand held. Also, there are no addresses to program or remember, ever.

Um, not according to Mike's website. I quote: "If you buy more than one copy of a particular engine, you can independently address each. For example, if you were to purchase a Premier Postal Genesis in each of the three cab numbers, you could assign one as engine #1, the second number as #2 and the third as #3."

The above certainly sounds like programming addresses to me.

BTW, am I right to assume that when you put a DCS loco on the track, the system knows and displays all the available choices so you don't have to manually punch in numbers? If so, that's got to be cumbersome on a large club layout where hundreds of locos could be on the layout. Handy on a small layout, but a pain at a club.

QUOTE: I agree fully in theory here, but not in application. While the DCC standards provide guideline for DCC manufacturers to follow, they also create roadblocks. This is why many of the DCC manufacturers have gone outside to "guidelines" to provide neat features that aren't "supported" (like Digitrax's transponding for example).

Ah, now there you are incorrect. Digitrax' "Transponding" is already covered by the NMRA under their "advanced ack" portion of the NMRA DCC standards. It's not true "Bi-D" (bi-directional), but it does do a lot of what folks want Bi-D to do for them (and it was out years ago and the NMRA is still working on their, well, Lenz's, version).

QUOTE: Had they worked under the constraints of the NMRA/DCC guidelines, the system wouldn't exist in it's current form. Also, because DCC is open, any manufacturer can implement it in their products, something I'm confident MTH will do with DCS.

For starters, I have zero faith in Mike to cooperate with any of his rivals. Has he ever?

Finally, you can bet that DCS would be different. It would actually work with DCC and the vast majority of model railroaders who use a control system, and it might actually sell to people who aren't in O-scale. Now, you can forget about ever seeing that by any measureable amount. Why Mike chose to isolate his products from both the number 1 scale (HO) and the number 2 scale (N) is beyond my comprehension...

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[Anonymous]

Yawn. MyTH can bite me...

Paul

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mystic Storm

Go to this website www.tonylashexpress.com and click on "News" on the left hand side. You can read the court transcripts there. It's public record and will set the record straight!!!

[simon1966]

Thanks for the informative response. It is nice to have a decent dialog for a change. I went and looked at the MTH web site, but could not see anything about decoders for installation into other locomotives. Are these decoders of a size that would realistically fit in an HO scale model?

[jnichols]

Ok Simon, I'll bite, and I'll elaborate on some of the DCS features as I go...

QUOTE: If I were to take a stab at this it would be as follows:

1. Wiring: A Digitrax loconet and separate power bus is considerably easier to wire and costs less (you need much less wire) than the "home run" style wiring reccomended for the DCS system.

Rumors of the amount and difficulty of the star topology wiring required for DCS systems is largely exagerated. The DCS signal is VERY strong, and does not require any more feeders than a conventional DCC system. I currently have several hundered feet of 3-rail track connected with one set of feeders, and nowhere on my layout do I have less than an 8 out of 10 signal strength.

DCS feature: Any PS2 equipped locomotive can be run around the layout and used as a signal strength meter for the DCS signal. This information is displayed real time on the DCS hand held via the two-way feedback.

QUOTE: 2. Selection: DCC decoders and components are available from many vendors. This competition results in a range of DCC components from inexpensive to very sophisticated. I like the selection that this affords me when deciding on how to spend my hobby dollar.

You are correct here. DCS is a proprietary command system and must use DCS equipment. Keep in mind however, MTH does offer the PS2 boards separately (these include the control and sound system elements), and I'm sure this will continue with the PS3 boards. These boards will likely be retrofittable into whatever equipment you want to, and hopefully MTH will license the use of the Proto Sound boards to other manufacturers.

DCS feature: PS2 boards can be programmed with any sound file and offer a wealth lighting function options. This is done with very easy to use software through the DCS system and the locomotive sitting on the track (no wiring).

QUOTE: 3. Rolling stock: I can pick any era or location in the US or around the World for that matter and find locomotives that are either DDC equipped or can be converted to DCC. I do not have to rely on one manufacturer to allow me to accurately model my desired location and era.

You are correct, and again as I've posted before, MTH would be foolish not to allow third party manufacturers use the DCS/PS3 technologies. But remember, you can buy the PS series boards and convert other locomotives to this system.

QUOTE: 4. Knowledge base: The wealth of knowledge available for DCC is staggering. The web, the local hobby shop and the local club are all full of knowledgable DCC users. This adds greatly to my enjoyment of my DCC system.

While I agree with you to some extent, DCS has a ton of information avaiable as well both online and elsewhere. You need to remember that the DCS system and PS series boards are significantly different than the DCC products. The need to understand programming doesn't exist with DCS (as it works differently), so the need for huge support is not as great. Also, for some reason I have never had the finicky behaviour using my DCS system as compared with any of the DCC systems I've owned. This could be a fluke and specific only to me, but I have enjoyed years of railroading with virtually no hiccups.

DCS feature: Programming the way DCC guys think of programming has been eliminated in favor of menu driven programming through the DCS hand held. Also, there are no addresses to program or remember, ever. The DCS system goes out and finds new locomotives and adds them to the list on the hand held at the press of a button. All the PS series boards are equipped with unique ID's from the factory and tell the DCS system what they are with little user intervention.

QUOTE: 5. Standards: There are national and internationally accepted DCC standards. This allows 3rd parties to develop applications for use with DCC. Examples of this are the excellent Decoder Pro application. This is a huge benfit to the users of DCC systems, regardless of brand.

I agree fully in theory here, but not in application. While the DCC standards provide guideline for DCC manufacturers to follow, they also create roadblocks. This is why many of the DCC manufacturers have gone outside to "guidelines" to provide neat features that aren't "supported" (like Digitrax's transponding for example). Thinking outside the box often creates a better product, as is the case with the DCS system. Before developing DCS, MTH looked into DCC and found the politics and general limitations of the system frustrating, so they started from scratch. That is one reason the DCS system is fully bi-directional and DCC is not (yet).

QUOTE: 6. Cost of Entry: The competion afforded by the DCC standard has resulted in several manufacturers releasing inexpensive starter sets. The cost of entry to DCC has come down consierably the last couple of years.

The DCS system is $300.00 MSRP and includes a two-way 900 Mhz. wireless hand held with backlit LCD display. There isn't one DCC manufacturer that offers a system for less money with the same features that I can think of (hardware to hardware of course). You need to remember not to compare apples to oranges here. MTH felt like making one system that was affordable, and had all the features, was a better approach than selling people a bargin system that need replacement or upgrades for advanced features and control down the road. I think MTH's approach is the right one.

While your post only allowed me to elaborate on specific features of the DCS system, remember there are least a dozen additional key features I didn't talk about that DCC hasn't even addressed that I know of, much less incorporated. I agree with everyone that thinks an open based platform has advantages (remember I'm a programmer by trade), but the reality is working outside those guidelines has allowed MTH to really go the extra mile with DCS. Had they worked under the constraints of the NMRA/DCC guidelines, the system wouldn't exist in it's current form. Also, because DCC is open, any manufacturer can implement it in their products, something I'm confident MTH will do with DCS.

Thanks for the post and enjoy your weekend!

(Wow, there are so many spelling and grammar errors in this post I'm scared, but I was typing fast and I need to go to a family party. I apologize in advance)

[Anonymous]

I'd agree with Simon's summing up of this - for me, these are the advantages.

[simon1966]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

I'd agree with those who feel that some of the trolling is in fact having the exact opposite effect to what it obviously intends. The continued spouting of corporate drivel doesn't help their arguments - has anyone else noticed that despite frequent requests for them to explain in what way DCS is a "better" system they have failed to do so? Just claiming that something is "better" doesn't make it so.

In all honesty, the reason loyal DCS users have not answered to this call, is that it isn't that easy to quantify. It's very much like a Ford vs. Dodge vs. Chevy discussion, there are many sides to the story and everyone has their own opinions, likes and dislikes. I currently use DCS and feel that it is a better thought out and more complete train controlling solution than any DCC system I've owned. Again, that is just my opinion, nothing more....

I do have a thought about this however... Why should the DCS guys have to defend their system all the time? Let's turn the tables a bit. I would love to see someone post why DCC is better than DCS... [;)]

I think you might be the only person able to do this! I for one have no experience in O scale and therefore have no experience with DCS. I suspect that is the case with most of us on the list. Then of course there is DCC from different manufacturers to consider. We don't even agree on that[:D]

Having said that, it is MTH and DCS that is coming to this market. I think the onus is on MTH to provide convincing arguments as to why DCS is a better choice than DCC. Having spoken to the MTH folks at the National Train Show, I would say that they are not yet equipped to have this converstation. In fact, the rep even said that they don't really expect DCS to get much share in the HO market. They do, however plan on selling lots of locomotives in HO. jnichols, you have been very civil and open about your opinions and provided some reasonable arguments. I for one appreciate this.

If I were to take a stab at this it would be as follows:

1. Wiring: A Digitrax loconet and separate power bus is considerably easier to wire and costs less (you need much less wire) than the "home run" style wiring reccomended for the DCS system.

2. Selection: DCC decoders and components are available from many vendors. This competition results in a range of DCC components from inexpensive to very sophisticated. I like the selection that this affords me when deciding on how to spend my hobby dollar.

3. Rolling stock: I can pick any era or location in the US or around the World for that matter and find locomotives that are either DDC equipped or can be converted to DCC. I do not have to rely on one manufacturer to allow me to accurately model my desired location and era.

4. Knowledge base: The wealth of knowledge available for DCC is staggering. The web, the local hobby shop and the local club are all full of knowledgable DCC users. This adds greatly to my enjoyment of my DCC system.

5. Standards: There are national and internationally accepted DCC standards. This allows 3rd parties to develop applications for use with DCC. Examples of this are the excellent Decoder Pro application. This is a huge benfit to the users of DCC systems, regardless of brand.

6. Cost of Entry: The competion afforded by the DCC standard has resulted in several manufacturers releasing inexpensive starter sets. The cost of entry to DCC has come down consierably the last couple of years.

[AntonioFP45]

Guys,

The MTH vs. Lionel issue is a "moot" point since Lionel already lost. The hard facts of the case have been available for quite some time. Links to the details were posted on this forum back in 2004.

The main crust of the issues with HO and N modelers has been the lawsuit filed against QSI which impacted DCC..............hard.

This issue has been discussed repeatedly. However, this is an open forum.

I may be mistaken, but I think that the majority of HO and N DCC modelers are more interested in what the final outcome of the QSI lawsuit will be than they are in all of the intricate legal details of the lawsuit. Hopefully soon, we'll all be able to move on.

Forgive me, but I'll say it one last time:

(1) If MTH wins, they still lose. The "backlash waves" will ripple out in the HO
and N markets. Mr. Wolf must know this by now.

(2) If MTH loses, they'll win in the long run after revamping their Public Relations
methods. May take a few years, but it can happen.

Some of the MTH supporters on this forum have given some thoughtful answers..........However, I agree that those of you that are Trolling..........you are actually torpedoing MTH with some of your posts. Remember, people in Europe, Mexico, Canada, Australia, etc, also read your posts.

But................this is an open forum. If you want to keep trolling...........don't be so shocked at the continuing "Anti-MTH "shots" that some posters make.

"Nuff Said".................................................[:D][8D]

[jnichols]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

I'd agree with those who feel that some of the trolling is in fact having the exact opposite effect to what it obviously intends. The continued spouting of corporate drivel doesn't help their arguments - has anyone else noticed that despite frequent requests for them to explain in what way DCS is a "better" system they have failed to do so? Just claiming that something is "better" doesn't make it so.

In all honesty, the reason loyal DCS users have not answered to this call, is that it isn't that easy to quantify. It's very much like a Ford vs. Dodge vs. Chevy discussion, there are many sides to the story and everyone has their own opinions, likes and dislikes. I currently use DCS and feel that it is a better thought out and more complete train controlling solution than any DCC system I've owned. Again, that is just my opinion, nothing more....

I do have a thought about this however... Why should the DCS guys have to defend their system all the time? Let's turn the tables a bit. I would love to see someone post why DCC is better than DCS... [;)]

[nblum]

"But this is the Internet, and anyone with a keyboard and monitor instantly sees an opportunity to say anything that comes to mind, secure in the belief that there will be no real consequences suffered for spreading lies, half-truths, insults, and innuendo."

Some of us are suspicious that those with keyboards and agendas includes employees of the companies in question, operating under aliases. I think one can at least in part lay the blame for the "in your face" approach to things to the hostile public posture and unprofessional behavior of those in the industry, at least in three rail O gauge. The hobbiests are just following their lead, in most cases, IMO.

[Anonymous]

There's "trolling" enough going on from both sides in the long-standing MTH vs. Lionel thing, and it invariably spills over onto this forum, where the issue is somewhat different but the heat generated is much the same--all emotional rantings and very little substance. Anyone coming out and claiming to know the "facts" about any of this stuff (as the title of this thread asserts) is almost certainly wrong about that unless he or she is an officer of one of the firms involved. And on the very rare occasion when one of those folks do show up here, they are treated like dirt.

Avid supporters on both or all sides would do the firms they love a BIG favor by simply keeping their support to themselves and letting things run their course in the legal system. They do, indeed, harm their cause by coming out with posts that are based solely on conjecture and emotion, and not on known and verifiable facts. But this is the Internet, and anyone with a keyboard and monitor instantly sees an opportunity to say anything that comes to mind, secure in the belief that there will be no real consequences suffered for spreading lies, half-truths, insults, and innuendo.

[Anonymous]

I'd agree with those who feel that some of the trolling is in fact having the exact opposite effect to what it obviously intends. The continued spouting of corporate drivel doesn't help their arguments - has anyone else noticed that despite frequent requests for them to explain in what way DCS is a "better" system they have failed to do so? Just claiming that something is "better" doesn't make it so.

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by simon1966

I don't mind reading imformative well argued points made by MTH fans. What I can't stand are folks like mthrules who thinks it is funny to keep repeating the same MTH drivel on threads that have nothing to do with MTH. Trolling activities like that do nothing to further the cause of MTH, they simply annoy and deepen the already hostile feelings towards the company in this community.

I have been in sales and marketing all my life. I don't know enough about the details of this case to know who is right or wrong. The legal system, which is still in progress will no doubt get it right in the end. I do find it incredible that the damages could be anywwhere near the total given. This is probably closer to the total value of the MRR market, not the value of the business lost. Anyway, none of this really matters, because in this community, in the court of public opinion MTH is seen as the villan. Again I am not saying this is right or wrong, just that it is so. I am particularly interested to see how MTH plans to overcome this. Entering a new market successfully is very hard to do. Especially a market that is mature and is served by many other companies. This would not be an easy task even if MTH approached it with a glowing image. The challenge of penetrating the market with a very poor image will be great.

Finally, I have seen it mentioned several times by people like mthrules that MTH wants to take over the Lionel name. If this is really the desire of MTH, I get the feeling that in achieving this goal, the company might loose evrything. With MTH already being seen as the villan by many, to take over that great name will just further cement the animosity. Little wonder us folks in other markets are concerned that MTH has turned its gaze on our playroom!!!!

I don't think that mthrules is the sharpest knife in the drawer. If he were at all sincere about fostering a balanced outlook to this litigation, or about generating good will for the Company on this forum, he would not behave as he has. You'd THINK someone from the Company would reply to one of these threads and politely ask him to stop doing them any 'favours".

[Anonymous]

Who cares about MTH vs Lionel ???

The main issue for N-scalers and HOers are the electronic "claims" by MTH - which are bogus.

I think all MTH threads should be banned or shunned - like MTH itself.

Storm, why don't you blow off this forum ????

Can you spell "T-R-O-L-L" ?????

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 3railguy


Quote from story.

QUOTE: I transferred via email the drawing of miniature locomotive ‘A AUX TENDER (type 025)’ to [e-mail] (Sim, Heung Bo’s email address), of which afterwards, I revised and printed the drawing, and handed it over around 15:00 in a coffee shop near Ewha University Hospital in Dongdaemun-ku, Seoul, for 500 thousand won.

Neil is right. Lionel stole nothing. The design data was paid for and purchased by a Korea Brass employee from a Samhongsha employee in a coffee shop.

It might be interesting to know if these laysuits had anything to do with Samhongsa stopping brass production. They are out of the brass business.

[simon1966]

I don't mind reading imformative well argued points made by MTH fans. What I can't stand are folks like mthrules who thinks it is funny to keep repeating the same MTH drivel on threads that have nothing to do with MTH. Trolling activities like that do nothing to further the cause of MTH, they simply annoy and deepen the already hostile feelings towards the company in this community.

I have been in sales and marketing all my life. I don't know enough about the details of this case to know who is right or wrong. The legal system, which is still in progress will no doubt get it right in the end. I do find it incredible that the damages could be anywwhere near the total given. This is probably closer to the total value of the MRR market, not the value of the business lost. Anyway, none of this really matters, because in this community, in the court of public opinion MTH is seen as the villan. Again I am not saying this is right or wrong, just that it is so. I am particularly interested to see how MTH plans to overcome this. Entering a new market successfully is very hard to do. Especially a market that is mature and is served by many other companies. This would not be an easy task even if MTH approached it with a glowing image. The challenge of penetrating the market with a very poor image will be great.

Finally, I have seen it mentioned several times by people like mthrules that MTH wants to take over the Lionel name. If this is really the desire of MTH, I get the feeling that in achieving this goal, the company might loose evrything. With MTH already being seen as the villan by many, to take over that great name will just further cement the animosity. Little wonder us folks in other markets are concerned that MTH has turned its gaze on our playroom!!!!

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by roadrat

RELISH!!!! On your hamburger are you insane???? Pickles only on burgers save the relish for your hotdogs!!!!

Don't make me call my lawyer and have a restraining order placed on your burger[dinner][:D][^][;)]

I understand that MTH will be sending letters to condiment manufacturers explaining that although MTH did not create relish, they are claiming a patent for using pickles in it......................