TMCC Enhancements

[02camaro]

How about including the needed cables in with the PowerHouse power supply and the TPC's? [:(!]

I just received my TMCC setup today and already had to place another order for cables...otherwise, I like the simplicity of the CAB-1. I like how I can hold it in one hand and turn the wheel with my thumb without looking at it. Nice to not be tied to the control panel.

[Anonymous]

I forgot, if anyone does have a hit on free decent operating software for either TMCC or DCS, my e-mail address is [e-mail]

Thanks,

Nels

[Anonymous]

I think that Lionel should come out with a "CAB II" system to run DCS PS-2 Locomotives besides Lionel/TMCC Compatable locoes.............

Want to know if anyone has a decent free software that can run either system(locomotives, switches, & uncouplers

Nels

[MartyE]

QUOTE: If I couldn't make something that looked better than those sketches, I would just eat worms. My garage door opener has more style and flare.

Yeah and it has nothing new but the display. Big whoop. But as I stated on another board nothing is official so it ain't worth the time at this point.

[3railguy]

TMCC the way it is now has everything I want in a control system. Maybe this means some great deals on TMCC 1 engines are on the horizon.

[Buckeye Riveter]

QUOTE: Originally posted by stevend

This was posted on the Ogauge Trains Forum yesterday.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
...well, at least their workin' on it

http://www.members.aol.com/alanchamel/CABII/CAB-II.jpg

or

http://www.members.aol.com/alanchamel/CABII/cabII.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I couldn't make something that looked better than those sketches, I would just eat worms. My garage door opener has more style and flare.

[Anonymous]

I have heard that a new Command Base *will* be required to take advantage of the new features of TMCC II.

IMHO, Neil/Lou seem to be back involved w/ electronics at Lion. Case in point: York and Neil & Coil Couplers website activity. If so, the internal system is dead, and the Neil/Lou system is well ready for production.

Soon we will all know, but it is fun to guess a bit ;)

[Anonymous]

This was posted on the Ogauge Trains Forum yesterday.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
...well, at least their workin' on it

http://www.members.aol.com/alanchamel/CABII/CAB-II.jpg

or

http://www.members.aol.com/alanchamel/CABII/cabII.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Anonymous]

To directly answer some of your questions, I tender the following:
One, you don't have to buy a new CommandBase if you already own one. You will need a new CAB 1 )different new name) to get the new features. Doesn't that make sense to you? Could your black and white TV display COLOR picturews? No, but they are truly backwards compatible, understand any better now?
Two - TMCCII will be fully backwards compatible with TMCC 1 meaning you buy no retrofit kits or anything else to run your trians with the new CAB-1.
Three - The easy turn-ability of the red knob will remain.
Four - someone commented on wishing the signal did not have to go through the tracks. Indirect answer, read Neil's post very carefully.
Five - 100 steps are more than an ample amount to give fine control to any train motor, including pullmores. Pullmores will be controled by TMCC II.
Six - Will TMCC II control DCS trains in the full command mode? A direct answer YES, but with a qualifer. It will only control DCS engines in their native full DCS command mode, if the manner that TMCC II controls DCS does not violate MEH petents.
Seven - A great many TMCC users have requested a display on the handheld, and more variety of sounds. This is why these enhancements are under development, you asked for them.

In closing, yes, TMCC I is simple and fun to use, but it does need some upgrading, especially controlling AC motors, sound variety, and realtime LAYOUT (not just train) information. If the system as currently specified by a select group of fo;ks working on it gets released as designed, the results will be as Neil Young was quoted earlier.

"No train will be left behind!" - direct quote from Jerry Calabrese, excuse any misspelling of the current Lionel CEO's name. Count on backwards compatability without retrofits!

[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

[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.

[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]

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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!!!!!

[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.

[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. [:)]

[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. ] :)

[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.

[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.

[Roger Bielen]

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

[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.

[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]

[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]

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?

[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?