LIONEL TO SEEK COOPERATION ON TMCC 2 STANDARD

[Bucksco]

You win a cookie!!!!

[Anonymous]

LGB=NICE TRAINS!

[Bucksco]

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

[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]

[nblum]

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

[Bucksco]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[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]

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

[Bucksco]

It's the only direction to go in if you want to incorporate the ability to expand the system at a later point in time.
I would say that a menu driven system has a definite advantage.

[Buckeye Riveter]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nblum

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

Since my LGB Trains can plow snow and run in the rain or the hot sun, never break and if they do are easy to repair and the cost is not that much than O-Scale, I would concur to their high quality. [^][^][^][^]

[Bucksco]

Wouldn't it be cool if LGB made O scale trains?

[Anonymous]

Bucksco wrote:
"Wouldn't it be cool if LGB made O scale trains?"
That's for you to know and us to find out.
And LGB to announce[8D][8D]][8D]

[Anonymous]

Since the general consensus is that the OGR forum is nothing but MTH biased, this should create quite a buzz http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=63160042&f=57660482&m=6831041771

[Bucksco]

I don't know, It seems like the OGR forum is open to discussions of all manufacturer's products-not just MTH.

[Anonymous]

Since I do not buy OGR and do not believe in reading unpurchased magazines at bookstores, I'll just have to follow this on the forums. However, if Neil Young has truly gone off on his own, the future is indeed bleak for Lionel. I think that the only one who can clarify this is Mr. Young himself. Moreover, If Neil Young wanted to instill confidence in the company he owns 25% of, the wisest thing he could do is
QUICKLY AND PUBLICLY DROP THIS IDEA LIKE A ROCK or explain how it is intended to strengthen and work with Lionel/TMCC specifically as opposed to DCS. I haven't bought too many new trains lately and this is just the kind of thing that would turn me off of the hobby all together, Don't throw Lionel to the Wolf. Having one major supplier of trains will kill the hobby for a lot of people. Mr. Young's new company may have the most innovative products out there but they will be an electronics supplier, NOT a factor in the market for trains. The only thing Mr. Young could do is somehow acquire a famous brand name for trains from the past, MAKE THEM HERE IN AMERICA and basically start from scratch with a new line of trains. NOT EASY TO DO.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Actually guys there is a company that has had software on the market for years, KAM Industries. They are even working to included the codes for TMCC. This product will only work with TMCC. DCS cannot be operated in this way.

I met these guys back in 1999 at the NMRA convention, when I attended a clinic they were giving. At that time they were unaware of Lionel's command system. When I showed them the TMCC instruction book and the codes, the response was, "we could do that easily".

Their website shows that they will support TMCC, but I suspect that because of low demand, they have taken no action. TA Studios is years behind.

http://www.trainpriority.com/kamind/Default.aspx

DCS is a TOY train control system. Writing software for it has little meaning because of it's technical limitations. TMCC is the system that has the power to control trains just like the 2 rail guys do. The 2 rail guys understand this, where MTH does not. MTH just thinks they can bring their DCS system to HO and people will buy it. We will soon see how wrong they are.

I hate to say it guys, but without paying attention to the bigger picture and the larger world of 2 rail, we can miss out on some good stuff. We get our noses so deeply into the 3 rail trough, our eyes don't see anything else.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, just telling it how I see it.

[ben10ben]

John,
If you are interested in what's going on, I'd be glad to send you the exact details through e-mail. E-mail me if interested. The offer stands for anyone else, as well.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Ben.

[Bucksco]

"DCS is a TOY train control system. Writing software for it has little meaning because of it's technical limitations."

I'm curious-what are DCS's limitations? I've run TMCC,DCC,MTS(LGB) and they all seem to pretty much do the same thing. Please enlighten me.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bucksco

"DCS is a TOY train control system. Writing software for it has little meaning because of it's technical limitations."

I'm curious-what are DCS's limitations? I've run TMCC,DCC,MTS(LGB) and they all seem to pretty much do the same thing. Please enlighten me.

The differencre is, without the command codes, a computer cannot directly control the trains in a real time setting. It might be possible to try to decipher them by punching actions into the computer, and figuring out what the digital commands represent, but that is difficult and time consuming. All of the DCC manufacturers and Lionel publi***heir codes, MTH doesn't.

My understanding is that, the serial port on the TIU can be used to download information. It can use the computer to record and play back a sequence of actions. It can be connected to TMCC, and control that, but once you tie the the TIU to the command base using the serial cable, there is no connection left for the computer.

I have thought of the idea of using seperate serial ports on the computer, one for TMCC, and one for DCS, but the complications that would cause are mind boggeling. The systems don't necessarily speak the same language. It would be like trying to have a conversation with two people, one speaking Greek, and the other Chineese. It could be done if we knew MTH's language.

For the type of operation most people seek, what DCS offers is sufficient. However the features are not what I seek in my trains. I don't need a lot of fancy stuff with sound and smoke. Yeah, it's cool, but put too much of it in the same room at one time, and it can become annoying.

All I need is simple control, and codes that I can have the computer generate. In a way, I'm looking to create an artificial intelligence using the computer. I have a seperate computer based system to detect where the trains are on the layout. In the end the computer should be able to take on the role of as many human operators as I want, all the while obeying the signals and other rules of the railroad.

When you get into advanced situations, DCS falls short. One thing is noteworthy in all of this, only MTH can design software for DCS, whether they do it themselves or have someone else do it for them. There are already at least two companies working on layout control systems for TMCC, TA Studios, and KAM Industries.

KAM has been selling their software for over a decade, and is preparing to release a version for TMCC very soon. Their website says fourth quarter this year, so I am expecting it any day now. I was planning to write my own software, but for $250 I may save myself the trouble.

I have no idea what Neil Young is about to get into. Lionel said that they would be developing software for TMCC since day one, and nothing. If that is what is about to happen, he may be too late. As for DCS, I'm not sure what software could even do for that system.

What can the TIU do with software beside play more sounds, or record and repeat commands? Does the serial port on the TIU behave the same way as the serial port on the TMCC command base? Does it echo every command?

[Bucksco]

I guess I just "play" with my toy trains. I've never had the time to get quite that involved. More power to you. I'm happy playing within the limitations. Maybe someday I'll have the time to try to run a prototypical railroad (but I doubt I'll ever have the space!).

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bucksco

I guess I just "play" with my toy trains. I've never had the time to get quite that involved. More power to you. I'm happy playing within the limitations. Maybe someday I'll have the time to try to run a prototypical railroad (but I doubt I'll ever have the space!).

I think you are right, I'm the weirdo here, which explains my heavy duty requirements. I have the space for such a layout, and want to take things to the limit. I have the computer, and all of the detection equipment, because that stuff is left over from my last layout. If I didn't have all of that stuff already, I probably wouldn't be doing this, at least not this way.

After I posted that, I saw a topic over on Garden Railways about computer control. My reply was much less technical, but captured more of the flavor of the computer concept. Reilleyem, kind of nails it in his first line, which is why I quoted him, the key word being "support".

Here is the quote and my response:

---

QUOTE: Originally posted by reilleyem

DCC supports total computer control. It's complicated...but that's half the fun. To learn about this you need to buy a book on DCC...but not from a manufacturer of DCC...you'll need to understand the concept behind DCC and the manufactures only provide "their" concept. DCC Made Easy is a good book...about $10...but there is a more complete book that really has the details for about $30...just can't remember it's title.

Bingo!!! I am still in the planning stages of a computer controlled railroad (indoor not garden, sorry). While running the trains is half the fun, teaching a computer to do it correctly may be the other half. I don't want my computer to take over all of the train running. I want the computer to function as if it was one or a group of other people, based on what I tell it to do. It should blend in, not stick out.

There are 2 parts to doing this kind of thing. First you have to have trains that the computer can control. DCC works just fine for that. Second you have to be able to describe your track plan to the computer, in terms that it can understand, then have a detection system tied to the computer, so it knows where the trains are.

In theory, very simple. In practice, a very good challenge.[:)]

---

It just seems like I need a real challenge when it comes to my trains, especially considering where I have already been. (See my profile) Perhaps I get a little over zealous when discussing control systems, and for that I apologize. In the end, DCS is just fine for normal people, but for a weirdo like me, only TMCC will do. [swg]

[Bucksco]

I understand.[:)]

[garyseven]

Sorry if someone has already reported this, but as of this morning,the "List of Myths" is gone, gone, gone...
Was it just a myth?!?[;)]

[nblum]

It disappeared the same day it was originally posted. Welcome back to civilization [:D]

[Big_Boy_4005]

The funny thing is we're still talking abot it.[swg]

[nblum]

My guess is that people inside Lionel and the TMCC developer community are also still talking about it. There are obviously a variety of opinions about how to proceed with further development of TMCC.

[garyseven]

Neil greets me with:
"Welcome back to civilization"

Oops! [:I]
Nothing like a good vacation away from cell phones, palm pilots, voice mail e-mail and the web, full of big trees, big ocean waves, fresh seafood, hot marionberry and pumpkin pie, mounds of turkey, ham, prime rib and mashed potatoes all while breathing clean fresh air straight off the Pacific Ocean.

Ahhhhh... I missed you guys.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bucksco

I don't know, It seems like the OGR forum is open to discussions of all manufacturer's products-not just MTH.

Yes, that is the way I see it as well. Most folks that do not use the OGR forum any more do not see it this way though.