LIONEL TO SEEK COOPERATION ON TMCC 2 STANDARD

[Anonymous]

Thanks!!!nblum Stick to your guns! I too talk to whoever I can in the Mighty L and I an excited about the direction that Neal and the gang are going.
There are some hurdles to jump but as we all know as techknowledgy changes there MUST be room to grow or be left behind!

[Bucksco]

Mr. Webster is rolling in his grave!

[nblum]

The grave's a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace...

Andrew Marvell

[Bucksco]

Shazam!!!

Captain Marvel(l)

[nblum]

I believe both Shazam(TM) and Captain Marvel(TM) are trademarks of Marvel Comics, and you should be receiving a threatening letter from their attorneys next week. :)

Hopefully the "new" Lionel under Jerry Calabrese will be receptive to working with other companies in the industry to ensure the TMCC standard remains viable for all, and working for common goals and against any bad influences. :)

[Bucksco]

Good thing I didn't bring NASCAR into it! I'll be curious to see if Mr. Calabrese is everything he's cracked up to be. Seems like alot of hype for someone who's never worked in toy industry and hasn't really done anything yet.

[Anonymous]

One thing is for certain, Mr Calabrese has Neil Young behind him. Starting with York, Lionel is going to make some nice things available to TMCC users. As for our friend, Mr. Coil, he has some kind of inside juice and this is but one more sign that TMCC 2 is going to be the most advanced system of command control in all of model railroading. I prefer ozone spewing postwar and I look forward to the new range of control options that TMCC 2 will bring to my New York Central 2344's Try that with a lesser system. It is coming SOON.

[Bucksco]

I've said it before and I'll say it again-
I'll believe it when I see it!

[Anonymous]

Come on guys name names, if you don't then just shut up until somebody at Lionel speaks on the behalf of TMCC-2. I just love the guys who have inside information or should i say LITTLE information. If you keep saying it enough,one day you will be right . Do yourself a favor and your vapor contacts at Lionel and be quiet until Lionel announces TMCC-2. Remember SHeesh

[Anonymous]

Public statements by Neil Young and Jerry Calabrese along with the above little piece by "Clyde Coil" I Look forward to Spring York.

[nblum]

David, when you start paying my online connect charges, I'll be happy to follow your thoughtful advice about shutting up. Until then, you have my sincerest apologies for continuing to discuss what I wish.

[Bucksco]

Sorry Neil- some of us are getting dizzy from all the spinning that's going on here![;)]

[nblum]

All powerful therapies have side effects. Suggest lying down and reading MTH press releases until you feel better again[angel].

[Bucksco]

Sorry Neil- That won't help- not working for MTH anymore- oh well ,there goes that constant jab out the window!

[Anonymous]

Bucks, your bias is showing, Fact is Neil Young has the resources (a heck of a lot more than $41 million) to make this happen and furthermore, Jerry Calabrese has a track record of building brands EXPONENTIALLY. NASCAR is bigger than the NFL thanks to him. What he can do with Lionel is SCARY.

[Bucksco]

Just trying to balance the bias- I'm ready to be scared- bring it on!

[Anonymous]

Read my other thread. What I describe there is several years off, but not because of a lack of technology. A feisty small competitor could actually beat ca$hpower by being first with it, ALL players have a shot.

[Big_Boy_4005]

You know guys, there's one thing I don't get in this whole conversation.

What features does TMCC need that it doesn't already have????

Why try to turn TMCC into another DCS? TMCC is elegantly simple, and should stay that way.

I don't see 2 railers tripping all over themselves to add a lot of stuff to DCC. Lionel has a lot of unused codes with the existing system, including engines 100 thru 127.

I've got to tell you, last night I went over to a guy's house, and actually got to try TMCC for the first time. I own a copy of the system, but haven't ever set it up. It was so slick and easy. He had the TMCC versions of the culvert loader and unloader, one on channel 98, and the other on channel 99. Mechanically, they are still as fussy as the postwar version, but it was fun running them with the remote.

The real hoot was the crane!!!!!

[Anonymous]

The technology will be voluntary as it is now. Those who want to run conventional will not be stopped from doing so. The various levels of command will also be available. but the option WILL become available.

[nblum]

Elliot, I agree, TMCC is excellent and in many ways the best system out there for most of us in many ways, as is. The only information that is needed to be added to the instructions is the importance of a good ground for the power supply of the command base, and how to work around problems with interference from chicken wire scenery and overlapping tracks. Simple, easy stuff, but not well documented for newbies.

The main things people have been asking for are (1) more (than 32) speed steps in the Odyssey system, as some folks like to control speed in tiny steps, (2) a display on the cab-1 to show the last device/locomotive selection and command, (3) selective control of chuffing (I know, it's hard to believe people get exercised about this :), and (4) a less obtrusive antenna. These are pretty minor things to most of us, but are logical additions for those who like more whizziness. Some have asked for a greater (than two) number of digits in the locomotive identifier, so one could put in a four number road number address, and more macros so one could control multiple button commands simply. Finally, I know that Neil Young and others have patented a complete computer controlled command control environment that includes features such as collision avoidance that requires two way communication, which can certainly be grafted onto the basic TMCC architecture, if desired, in contrast to what some DCS proponents claim. Since two way communication by radio frequency has been around for the better part of a century, it's not exactly rocket science :).

My view is that as long as the changes are backwardly compatible, the essential simplicity of installation and operation are retained, the reliability is unchanged, adding additional features that can be ignored or used at will is OK by me. I wouldn't have any big problem if the system was left as is. The changes most attractive to me would be additional addressing capabilities (the ability to use the locomotive's four digit road number as the TMCC ID) and a shorter antenna. Not biggies, but these would be a plus when I bought another cab-1.5 or cab 2.0 :).

[Anonymous]

If facts were stated here it would be ok , but all i see or read is guessing, 2nd and 3rd hand information but no real facts. It is ok to try to understand what Lionel is doing but too many posts state what is posted as fact when clearly it is not.

Dave

[nblum]

So who is going to be the judge of what is fact and what is merely uninformed opinion? Or probable fact? Or possible fact?

[Anonymous]

Technology marches on Those who wi***o use it will do so. Those who do not will satisfy themselves with the level of technology they are comfortable with. But remember this: the history of our hobby is peopled with figures such as Joshua L. Cowen, A.C. Gilbert, Frank Pettit, Harry Ives, Neil Young and last but not least Mike Wolf. This legacy will INSURE that tomorrows trains will be more advanced than today's. Better TMCC is coming, so is better DCS. Welcome to Toy trains.

[Anonymous]

Hey, Bucksco. I'm curious, What was your job with MTH?

[Bucksco]

Product Development director.I am currently working for the world's best (IMHO) toy train maker- care to take a guess?

[Anonymous]

Bucksco, Sounds like FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bucksco]

Most of the time!

[Anonymous]

K-Line?

[Bucksco]

No way! Hint: "in the world"

[Anonymous]

Lehmann?