LIONEL TO SEEK COOPERATION ON TMCC 2 STANDARD

[Anonymous]

I think TMCC is going in the direction of software control as well.

[Bucksco]

Yes ,I did. I think that today's digital control systems have unlimited potential. I believe they need to be software based so that they can be easily upgraded they way a PC is designed. This is one of the reasons I like DCS-it was designed so that it could be easily upgraded.

[Anonymous]

Bucksco, did you read my other thread? Digital Convergence?

[Bucksco]

Neil,
I think we finally agree on something![:)]

[nblum]

I would say that LGB are the highest quality trains I've ever owned, including Märklin, Kato, Atlas, Lionel, MTH, etc.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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 :).

Neil, I like that word "whizziness".[swg]

I agree that the instruction book needs an update with regard to those signal reception problems, found in more complex layouts. I have a feeling that when it was first published, they may not have been aware of them.

With regard to the four numbered items, I'm not sure how much of a visible difference 64 or 128 step speed control is really going to make, given the motors and the gearing that we have on our engines. At enterTRAINment, I only had 16 step control, which was crude, but effective. This improvement would require one or two bits be added to the command string.

I suppose that a display on the controller would be handy. All it really needs to show is the current engine selected. The last command isn't that important. Last night there were six Cab-1's sitting there on the shelf. It is so easy to change engines, I guess it really doesn't matter which one you grab, as long as you know the channel number of your train. Since it wasn't my layout, I had a disadvantage there.

Sound is nice for one or two engines. Last night, there were four trains running at the same time. The room was open, and rather untreated for sound absorbsion. There was no carpet on the floor, the walls were hard and smooth, etc. It was difficult to carry on a conversation at times. The sound became one big jumble, except if you got close to one of the engines. Chuff rate?? Whatever.[;)]

A shorter antenna would be nice. The current one works well as a pointer. If I had thought of it last night, I might have been able to use it to unjam the culverts.[:p]

I like the idea of more channels, or at least a way of getting in a whole engine number into the system. The problem with this and the speed control is, both require extra bits in the command string, or a reorganization of the existing bits.

I have always wondered if it was possible to access the three digit channels using the computer. As I see it, the limitation of two digit numbers comes from the protocol used with the Cab-1. I asked this question over on the Coil Coupler site, and it was never answered. It's not really a question for normal people, but then I've never been normal.[:D][:p][;)]

When it comes to software systems, and collision avoidance, this is where it gets most interesting for me. As far as I am concerned, two way communication with the train is worthless, because the train has no information of value. The problem is the train doesn't know where it is. We need the track to tell the computer where the train is, by adding a detection system. That's when the computer can start making decisions.

This is the direction I have been heading for the last seven years. When achieved, it will be the ultimate form of model railroading. I stress model railroading, especially here in the 3 rail world, because it is about more than just running trains. It is about trying to get the models to behave as if they were real. This is a concept that doesn't really fit with 3 rail trains. 3 rail trains are viewed as toys.

I don't want to come across as being aloof or pompus, but creating this type of operation is my goal. I want to prove to the 2 rail community that 3 rail trains are not what they used to be, merely toys. I also want to prove to the 3 rail community that there is more to this hobby than simple running. I have seen examples where 3 railers are getting into realistic operation. Automation is the final frontier.

I have said this many times before, but it is important to say it here.

There is no right or wrong way to enjoy trains!!

I enjoy testing the limits of technology!!![swg]

[Bucksco]

Very high quality product. I had never run trains outdoors before going to EPL- it's a blast!

[Anonymous]

LGB=NICE TRAINS!

[Bucksco]

You win a cookie!!!!

[Anonymous]

Lehmann?

[Bucksco]

No way! Hint: "in the world"

[Anonymous]

K-Line?

[Bucksco]

Most of the time!

[Anonymous]

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

[Bucksco]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[Bucksco]

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

[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]

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

[nblum]

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

[Bucksco]

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

[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.

[Anonymous]

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