TMCC Enhancements

[nblum]

It appears that there are several teams developing potential TMCC enhancements both inside and outside Lionel. One of the developers of these systems has publicly offered the following preview of what is possibly on the horizon, posted on the TMCC Listserv. [ I might add that this description was posted on the OGRR Forum and then summarily stricken from the record. So much for reasonable discussion and freedom of expression in our beknighted hobby :). On the chance that this forum is more tolerant of speculation and that some of the participants might be interested, here it is ]:

"You will get your choice of speed steps, three ranges, I believe 32,
128, or about 200. 400 is overkill, and just whistles and bells, as it
is not practical to use.

The whole system and accessories will be bidirectional. This includes
devices like switch controllers, command recorders, accessory
controllers etc.

A graphic LCD device on the handheld, versus a two line display,
depending whose system gets final approval.

nickel metal hydride batteries and a smart charger base -
my "prediction"

Selectable and recordable sound sets, passenger sounds in stations, a
lot more with sounds, and the ability to make your own announcements
via the new handheld.

No CAB-1 necessary for new, just necessary for backwards compatability
(Train Commander II Copyright (2004-2005)"

[ChiefEagles]

Thanks

[Anonymous]

128 speed steps are just fine. The momentum action gives similar results as a HO powerpack with a momentum switch. Anymore speed steps will require way too much turning of the Red Knob.
P.S. Can anyone manage to turn the Red Knob and hold the CAB-1 in one hand? I can't !
I can hold my DCS Remote in one hand and also scroll the thumbwheel just fine.

[Dr. John]

Interesting. While I still run conventional controls, I may go the command control route one day. I wonder if this new version (TMCC II ?) will cost more or less than current TMCC and if it will be able to work with DCS equipped locomotives?

[nblum]

Good and critical questions, Dr. John, to which no answers are currently available. Jerry Calabrese, Lionel's CEO promised further details in 1-2 months, so perhaps then we'll get some information on these issues.

[Bucksco]

Sounds like DCS

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by steamer613

128 speed steps are just fine. The momentum action gives similar results as a HO powerpack with a momentum switch. Anymore speed steps will require way too much turning of the Red Knob.
P.S. Can anyone manage to turn the Red Knob and hold the CAB-1 in one hand? I can't !
I can hold my DCS Remote in one hand and also scroll the thumbwheel just fine.

128 steps is too many, especially for pulmore motors. 64 is the most anyone really needs, 32 may be enough for most people.

It's easy to turn the knob with one hand, hold the CAB-1 in your palm, and use your thumb.

As for all of these potential new features, none of them interest me.

[nblum]

Yes it does sound like DCS in many aspects, just as DCS sounded a lot like the TMCC that preceded it by six years. The question that I have is can Lionel add this additional layer of functionality and features while following the KISS principle thus keeping the system easy to implement, largely bulletproof, and not requiring layout rewiring or other problems that can, in some instances, make DCS less user friendly or robust than the current version of TMCC. I'm with Eliot, I'm not blown away by the features mentioned, they seem like a little extra icing rather than like cake. But I'm prepared to see what Neil Young meant when he said it will be revolutionary, not evolutionary. He's not your average marketing spin guy.

I think to be successful, any second generation iteration of TMCC needs to have an uncluttered handheld with no thumbwheel (TMCC folks aren't used to that and may not like it much--I don't) and not require any major layout changes such as soldered connections, interrupted middle rails, star wiring, light bulbs for each block, etc. that some DCS layouts seem to need. People aren't going to rewire their existing TMCC layouts to have more sounds or speed steps in most cases, IMO. I also would hope that if they make the system software dependent, they have some simpler and more reliable means of updating it than the DCS method. Especially for those of us who use Macintoshes :). But yes, other than these issues, being like DCS would be fine with me. And please, no batteries in the locomotives, which I would, for one, not welcome at all.

[Bucksco]

"soldered connections, interrupted middle rails, star wiring, light bulbs for each block, etc. that some DCS layouts seem to need."

Funny-I didn't have to do any of this to my layout when I added DCS.
I rewired Tony Lash's layout and didn't have to do any of this either.

"just as DCS sounded a lot like the TMCC that preceded it by six years"
Didn't sound anything like it to me! But that's just my opinion.

[nblum]

"Funny-I didn't have to do any of this to my layout when I added DCS.
I rewired Tony Lash's layout and didn't have to do any of this either."


Glad to hear it. I did say some, not most, nor all.

You're not suggesting that there are no DCS layouts where these alterations have been needed? I know of one I've worked on personally plus a few mentioned on various internet discussion groups. Not all that difficult by any means, but not exactly an advantage of the system in terms of simplicity.

[Anonymous]

"No CAB-1 necessary for new, just necessary for backwards compatability
(Train Commander II Copyright (2004-2005)"

It's surprising that the system wouldn't be able to function as a CAB-1 for older TMCC equipment. It would be surprising that Lionel would make folks buy a CAB-1 to run the plethora of TMCC 1 equipment out there.

Whatever happened to backwards compatability?

[Big_Boy_4005]

Personally, I don't see TMCC being in need of fixing or upgrading. I like it just the way it is. Trying to copy features found in DCS is silly. It's like the two political parties trying to be more alike.

I want a choice, I have a choice, I made my choice, and I'm happy. For my application, TMCC works, DCS does not. Other people's needs and desires will be different.

If I could have one wish for a TMCC upgrade, it would be an add on radio amplifier that would connect to the command base. It would broadcast the signal through the air to the locomotives, thus eliminating the need for any connection to the rails. All wiring problems solved.

Is there a proposal to go to a 24 or 32 bit command?

[eZAK]

This is what the CAB-2 'should' look like!


[8D]

You can then still use you CAB-1 for walk around[:D]

[Big_Boy_4005]

Pat, isn't that the accessory controller for the Microsoft train simulator that you can hook to your computer? If so, you should be able to rig it to work with TMCC as is. Needs software though. A translation program that ties the controls to TMCC codes.

Then you put a camera in the nose of your locomotive, and you're in business. Who needs computer animation. You would be the engineer on your own railroad. MTH eat your heart out.[swg]

[nblum]

(1) I think backward compatibility is a very high priority for Lionel, given MTH's experience with PS1 and PS2.

(2) Latest discussions suggest that three of the four development teams have found a way to reverse engineer PS2 and hope to control PS2 locos in command mode.

[Roger Bielen]

Instead of trying to outguess each other why don't you just wait till it comes out?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

Pat, isn't that the accessory controller for the Microsoft train simulator that you can hook to your computer? If so, you should be able to rig it to work with TMCC as is. Needs software though. A translation program that ties the controls to TMCC codes.

Elliot, Actually the Raildriver is DCC compatble. Wish it was Ogauge command system compatable though.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roger Bielen

Instead of trying to outguess each other why don't you just wait till it comes out?

what fun would that be?

I have noticed that the manufacturers DO pay attention to this forum and to the OGR forum. I'd rather they at least hear 2% of what people say.

In my line of work I'm involved in making a "consumer product". And I think we do a good job at it (we're #1 in our industry in both the US and globally). But the way we did that was not by having my engineering department come up with some good ideas and then throwing them over the wall to our customers. We do market reasearch and we study both our competition and our customers. Then we try to match the technology to the "wish list" at a price that maximizes our sales and margins.

So I guess I'm saying....keep throwing out ideas, even wacky ones...they may lead to something. Maybe someone is listening?

OH, and in my earlier post I forgot my #1 request to any company making a handheld controller system......MAKE IT ERGONOMICAL. The cab-1 is not, the MTH system is better. But I want to be able to have the controller an extension of my hand, not something I need to "hunt and peck" to send a command. Part of the beauty of my ZW is that I don' t have to even look at it to control my trains or blow the horn. It was also beautiful in it's industrial design (particularly for the late 40's). My CAB-1 remindes me of a cell phone from 1987.

[nblum]

"Instead of trying to outguess each other why don't you just wait till it comes out?"

Just to be clear, again, that the source of my original information and what I have posted since that post is one of the people developing a new version of TMCC. If he's guessing, he didn't mention it. :) What Lionel will actually produce is however, guesswork, as there are, apparently, multiple versions of "TMCC II" currently being developed by different teams. [One of the advantages of a licensed system without an unduly litigious owner, IMO. ] :)

[Buckeye Riveter]

QUOTE: Originally posted by steamer613

P.S. Can anyone manage to turn the Red Knob and hold the CAB-1 in one hand? I can't !

Do it all the time. [:D]

I still wi***he signal did not need to be sent through the track. Give me sounds, lots of loud sounds. [:)]

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jerrylovestrains

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

Pat, isn't that the accessory controller for the Microsoft train simulator that you can hook to your computer? If so, you should be able to rig it to work with TMCC as is. Needs software though. A translation program that ties the controls to TMCC codes.

Elliot, Actually the Raildriver is DCC compatble. Wish it was Ogauge command system compatable though.

Jerry, if it is DCC compatable, it's easily TMCC compatable, but not DCS. The thing is nobody has bothered to write the interface program for it. Now I'm getting interested.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nblum


Latest discussions suggest that three of the four development teams have found a way to reverse engineer PS2 and hope to control PS2 locos in command mode.

Now, that would be useful!!!!!

[Anonymous]

I keep posting this patent application, because I think that it talks about tmcc2http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040204802%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040204802&RS=DN/20040204802

Here is the abstract:


method and apparatus for determining a model vehicle layout by moving a vehicle around the track and noting when the vehicle passes track position detection elements. The vehicle can either detect the position detection elements, or the position detection elements can be sensors which detect the vehicle. By noting the order of the position detection elements as detected, and the direction of the vehicle, the layout of the track can be determined. In one embodiment, the position detection elements are sensors along the track which detect an emitted ID from the vehicle, and also detect the speed and direction of the vehicle. This information is then relayed to a control system. In another embodiment, the vehicle detects the position detection element, and relays this information, along with the train ID, speed and direction, to the control system. In another aspect of the invention, a particular type of vehicle at a particular location can be identified, and can be used to selectively operate accessories adjacent that portion of the track. The invention also can provide automated route generation, the route between A and B meeting input route parameters (e.g., backing into destination) can be automatically determined. Also, default accessory and switch selection can be automatically provided to a hand-held controller based on what the vehicle is approaching.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clouser

I keep posting this patent application, because I think that it talks about tmcc2http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040204802%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040204802&RS=DN/20040204802

Here is the abstract:


method and apparatus for determining a model vehicle layout by moving a vehicle around the track and noting when the vehicle passes track position detection elements. The vehicle can either detect the position detection elements, or the position detection elements can be sensors which detect the vehicle. By noting the order of the position detection elements as detected, and the direction of the vehicle, the layout of the track can be determined. In one embodiment, the position detection elements are sensors along the track which detect an emitted ID from the vehicle, and also detect the speed and direction of the vehicle. This information is then relayed to a control system. In another embodiment, the vehicle detects the position detection element, and relays this information, along with the train ID, speed and direction, to the control system. In another aspect of the invention, a particular type of vehicle at a particular location can be identified, and can be used to selectively operate accessories adjacent that portion of the track. The invention also can provide automated route generation, the route between A and B meeting input route parameters (e.g., backing into destination) can be automatically determined. Also, default accessory and switch selection can be automatically provided to a hand-held controller based on what the vehicle is approaching.

That's a lot of reading. The jist is that they want to get train detection into the mix, to allow for full automation. This is already possible by combining TMCC with other systems on the market, but the all in one concept is much cleaner. My guess is that they will also have software with this.

They describe a number of detection methods including traditional third rail, GPS, barcode, and 2 way radio. The 2 way radio method is interesting, because it involves "beacons" placed trackside, so when the train passes, it transmits it's known location back to the base.

I'll have to read more, but it isn't easy reading.

[AlanRail]

For those of you who THINK there will be a CAB-2. . . forget about it!
Lionel has no reason to change a system that has WORKED for a decade and they don’t have the big bucks or market to justify any major changes.

I like CAB-1 as it is; It is simple to operate; it is an eyes-on-trains system compared to the DCS system that requires you to keep the eyes focused on the far more complex handheld rather than the trains.

[nblum]

I'm inclined to agree Alan. The cab-1, while certainly not as aesthetically pleasing as
the DCS handheld, or as contemporary looking, works well and mine is almost 9 years old.
I'll probably give any cab-2 a try if it is under $150 but I wouldn't be surprised if I
keep using the cab-1. I think Lionel knows that there's a high spending upper 10-20% of
the hobby that they have to enhance TMCC for just to have the latest, greatest thing
compared with their competitors. But unless the system is truly revolutionary,
a lot of folks will just stick with their current TMCC, the way many folks have just stuck
with their postwar ZWs, 1033s, etc.

[Bob Keller]

Five or six years ago (before MTH announced DCS) Bob Grubba told me that at the York show of that fall, Lionel was going to have a new Cab-1 with an LED display. They may have some blueprints laying around that they can create a Cab-2, with little or no effort.

[tmcc man]

i am keeping my tmcc as is, and i do not know why they would like to change it, and also, DCS is not that great because the signals are not great for modular railroads, but tmcc always works, and is always reliable[:D][:D]

[AlanRail]

Neil

I agree with you; I never said that I wouldn't check out CAB-2 even though I like CAB-1.

Hey I like my electronic toys as much as anyone.

BUT even if Lionel had the plans for CAB-2, the market isn't there and the cost to bring it to market has got to be very expensive considering all their other expenses.

[Dave45681]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nblum
No CAB-1 necessary for new, just necessary for backwards compatability
(Train Commander II Copyright (2004-2005)"

This last part is concerning.

My hope was that the new system would be able to command the old engines with the new remote. I'm fine with still needing an old command base hooked up, but I don't want to need 2 remotes to do everything if I have a mix of old and new technology engines running at the same time, the new remote should be able to address old engines with TMCC1 and also adddress new engines with TMCC2.

If I really end up needing to use a CAB-1 as well as the new controller in this scenario, I will be probably more upset than I was when I learned that the DCS remote couldn't really do all of the TMCC functions. (that detail was conveniently left out of the promotional ads for the 2 years preceeding actual product release in that case, but I digress)

The reason I say more upset is that this will be an actual Lionel product, there shouldn't be any reason this can't easily be accomplished.

I guess there's only another month or so before an official announcement . :)

-Dave