M.T.H. Responds To DCC Lawsuit Allegations

[Anonymous]

Bangert1, with all the hub-bub, how could you possibly think of anything other than a BLI K-4? Like we're all talking here, vote with your billfold!

Mark DeSchane

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

QUOTE: Originally posted by bangert1


It is my perception that the plastic models have better cast in detail than cast metal also. So why would MTH and BLI bring in the K4 in cast metal?

That perception is driven by thinking of 'cast metal locomotives' as the Bowser/Penn Line and MDC engines of yore. The Germans seem to have perfected this - take a look at the latest Trix offerings. The Big Boy AND Mike are BOTH cast metal! Cast metal no longer means 'no detail', this stuff is amazing! The BLI GG1 is all metal as well, and it has better body detailing than the plastic AHM/Pemco ones.
Although, I do agree, the same loco from 2 manufacturers at the same time IS pretty silly. But how many F units do we need? Everybody and their brother makes an F unit these days, there were several FT's released at the same time, etc. Like someone else said, they could have always chosen to make yet ANOTHER F unit. Since all these different companies produce F units and are not in danger of going out of business, I can only assume there are a lot more non-serious people buying trains who happen to like the way F units look, or something, because I think over the years enough have sold to give every model railroader a complete roster of every protoype unit ever produced. It's insane..

I own two of the Trix Big Boys and you are correct in reminding me they have improved very much. I think the details such as bolt heads and rivets are still better in the high end plastic models, but I have to admit, the models are really good. I will probably purchase at least one of the K4's, just to check out the features. Now to decide on which one.

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bangert1


It is my perception that the plastic models have better cast in detail than cast metal also. So why would MTH and BLI bring in the K4 in cast metal?

That perception is driven by thinking of 'cast metal locomotives' as the Bowser/Penn Line and MDC engines of yore. The Germans seem to have perfected this - take a look at the latest Trix offerings. The Big Boy AND Mike are BOTH cast metal! Cast metal no longer means 'no detail', this stuff is amazing! The BLI GG1 is all metal as well, and it has better body detailing than the plastic AHM/Pemco ones.
Although, I do agree, the same loco from 2 manufacturers at the same time IS pretty silly. But how many F units do we need? Everybody and their brother makes an F unit these days, there were several FT's released at the same time, etc. Like someone else said, they could have always chosen to make yet ANOTHER F unit. Since all these different companies produce F units and are not in danger of going out of business, I can only assume there are a lot more non-serious people buying trains who happen to like the way F units look, or something, because I think over the years enough have sold to give every model railroader a complete roster of every protoype unit ever produced. It's insane..

[Anonymous]

This subject is really a HOT item as it has generated more views and responses in four days than anything I can remember lately.

I heard the MTH sound at one of the shows for the #1 large scale Daylight and it was very impressive. However, it does not make sense that we are getting two Pennsy K4's from MTH and BLI in just a few months, and many of the locomotives that people would buy are not made.

It is my perception that the plastic models have better cast in detail than cast metal also. So why would MTH and BLI bring in the K4 in cast metal?

[nblum]

If you object to the way MTH has approached the HO market, one obvious response is to carefully focus on finding and purchasing Broadway Limited models with QSI sound. This firm supports the DCC open standard and have not threatened other vendors with legal action in HO and is one of the main targets of MTH's activities in the HO world. QSI, who believes it has been wronged by MTH's use of their patents in their PS2 system and pursued legal action, has worked co-operatively in the past with several major manufacturers (including MTH for some years). Korea Brass the manufacturer of Broadway Limited's locos, has also worked with multiple vendors in the three rail world. Only MTH has shown a desire to go it alone, consistently acting through word and deed to intimidate and stifle competition. Thus if you feel strongly about these issues, send the only message that counts, your dollars, to MTH's competitors.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman

Big_Boy_4005:

QUOTE: Jerry, you must not be a 3 railer, because if you were, you would know that Pennsylvania is the center of the "TOY TRAIN UNIVERSE".

I am primarily an HO modeler, GN and NP, 1952. I dabble in three rail with a modular hi-rail group in Chicago. I understand that Pennsy is the center of the toy train universe, but it pains my heart to see such a beautiful appliance as the belpaire firebox desecrated in a Pennsy application [:D]. I better run for cover now[:)]

QUOTE: Did MTH announce their entry into the HO market in Seattle at the National Train Show, or just at York (PA), a closed show for TCA members only? I am honestly curious.

I read about their entrance into the HO market about a week or two ago on the O Gauge Railroading Forum. I don't think this announcement was made at the NMRA convention in Seattle, and I didn't think the York show occurs until next month. The announcement to the best of my knowledge was on their web site.

regards,
Jerry

Actually, York is twice a year, spring and fall. I have been in the TCA for 23 years and have never gone, and have little desire to go. I did hear on the forums though, that they were showing off an HO version this past spring. My point is, if that is indeed what happened, MTH was simply "preaching to the choir".

For a moment, let's forget about all of the rhetoric and finger pointing here, and focus on the practical and logistical side of this offering.

How many units does MTH expect to sell? 2000 in my opinion would be highly optomistic, given the price point and current hobby market conditions. This seems like a major up hill struggle, going against the established companies.

Are the dealers excited about this product? After all, they are the ones who will make or break this venture. This is a product that will have to be demonstrated in order to sell.

Will the customers like all of the "extras" that this system offers? This group sounds pretty ambivilent.

[Anonymous]

According to the two hobby shops I patronize, they both tell me that N scale is outselling HO. So maybe HO isn't growing as some of us may think. Maybe we need the new blood and innovation that MTH will bring to HO!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

One thing for sure, MTH is making a name for themselves. Maybe that was their intention all along? I hope not, but sure makes one wonder.

Joe, you're exactly right. Publicity is publicity, good or bad. I had never heard of MTH until all this fuss. It hasn't done them any good from my stand point, because I won't buy from them...but maybe they want to be the "bad boys" of the model train world! [;)]

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

MTH is offering what it feels is a superior product. Those who are more concerned about features than compatibility will probably buy their product. Those who are more concerned about compatibility probably won't. The marketplace is all about choice, and MTH is providing an additional one. Why does that arouse so much anger?

As I said... I'm a rookie, so I guess I just don't understand.

If MTH simply came out with DCS and that was it, there would be no anger. I think what gets people riled is for MTH to also send threatening letters to DCC manufacturers that they may be "stealing" MTH's technology, including some forms of back EMF.

Now it appears that MTH has to do some "damage control" and is back peddling somewhat.

The whole affair runs counter to the spirit of DCC, even though the letter of the law is being followed. DCC and offshoots are intended to foster a standard, "dream come true" way to run model trains. Then along comes some company who wants to carve out a part of the market as proprietary and their "intelectual property" turf and starts threatening other manufacturers.

One thing for sure, MTH is making a name for themselves. Maybe that was their intention all along? I hope not, but sure makes one wonder.

[JerryZeman]

Big_Boy_4005:

QUOTE: Jerry, you must not be a 3 railer, because if you were, you would know that Pennsylvania is the center of the "TOY TRAIN UNIVERSE".

I am primarily an HO modeler, GN and NP, 1952. I dabble in three rail with a modular hi-rail group in Chicago. I understand that Pennsy is the center of the toy train universe, but it pains my heart to see such a beautiful appliance as the belpaire firebox desecrated in a Pennsy application [:D]. I better run for cover now[:)]

QUOTE: Did MTH announce their entry into the HO market in Seattle at the National Train Show, or just at York (PA), a closed show for TCA members only? I am honestly curious.

I read about their entrance into the HO market about a week or two ago on the O Gauge Railroading Forum. I don't think this announcement was made at the NMRA convention in Seattle, and I didn't think the York show occurs until next month. The announcement to the best of my knowledge was on their web site.

regards,
Jerry

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman

Dear Mr. Edelman;


Yes, the DCC community received your notification, and has elected to ignore you. This is kinda like the kids in the schoolyard ignoring the bully that shows up. Since nothing out there in the DCC world current offered conflicts with MTH's beloved patents, they have no reason to talk to you.

All you have accomplished is throwing future development of DCC, a common platform, into doubt. They have a potential legal hand grenade thrown into their midst , and either don't have the resources to fight it, or don't know the best way to respond to you. As a DCC user that has no involvement with the DCC SIG, I can't say for sure which it is.

Excellent and well put by Jerry Zeman!! This is the "Perception" that so many in the model railroad arena have of MTH, both customers and LHS dealers and even some that sell MTH products. How much clearer does this need to be?! Hopefully everyone here understands this by now!

QUOTE: From the user perspective, all I can say is I am incensed that DCC development is being constrained by MTH's actions. You may be legally correct, but your public relations has taken one hellofa hit.

My advice to you would be for MTH to contact the DCC SIG, and try to work through issues in a businesslike forum that works for the betterment of all concerned. Here is the link:
http://jdb.psu.edu/nmra/dccsig.html

Jerry, it would benefit all of us if your advice were taken.

QUOTE: I believe that MTH would maximize it's investment in your HO offerings by playing within the current structure as opposed to the current path down which you have embarked. I, for one, would be favorably disposed toware MTH product if this was to occur.

More than likely, so would many of us here.

QUOTE: If you choose to follow the current path, then no matter what your offerings, I will ignore any of your future offerings.

[#ditto]

[Anonymous]

Here is a link to a New York Times story about the need for patent law reform. Viewing it requires registration, but maybe you could use bugmenot.com. The article is relevant to this discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/technology/27patent.html?th

John J. Blair

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JerryZeman

Dear Mr. Edelman;

Here are my rambling thoughts regarding your latest post.

QUOTE: Originally posted by amedleman

Paul3:

2. I am not familiar with the actual specifics of the speed control methods the other manufacturers utilize. If they aren't in violation then there is no problem. Their engineers need to determine those issues which is why they received notification in the first place.

Here is the crux of the problem numerous people have with MTH regarding their stand with the DCC community. MTH issues a letter to the DCC community informing them of their patents. Now the DCC community has to invest the time and money determining if any future developments are afoul of MTH patents. Who gets to pay for the cost of doing all this research, notification etc to MTH? Yes, you guessed it, the consumer.

The DCC community is a collection of rather small companies as compared to the size of MTH. I suspect that many of them lack the financial resources to comply with your wishes. They are not, after all, not Lionel. [;)] I would suspect that MTH is an approximately US$40-50 M / yr. business. Most of the DCC manufacturers would probably not make US$2M.

QUOTE:
3. Please remember that you do not need a new control system (DCS) to operate an M.T.H. HO locomotive. Any exisiting DCC controller will work. If you have already invested in a DCC system it will run the M.T.H. engine in command mode.

Below are the features you will have access to when using a DCC controller:

- Operate Locomotive At Scale Speeds
- Activate Whistle/Horn or Bell Sounds
- Hear Squeaking Brakes
- Enjoy Synchronized Puffing Smoke Timed To Driver Revolutions
- Activate Passenger Station or Freight Yard Sound Effects
- Activate Doppler Sound Effects
- Control Smoke Operation
- Control Locomotive Master Volume
- Adjust The Locomotive Chuff Rate


Next, are the features you will have access to when using a DCS system:

- 22 Independent Volume Control Settings
- 16 Adjustable Chuff Rate Settings
- 3 Adjustable Smoke Intensity Settings
- Adjustable Brake Sound Effects
- Adjustable Wheel “Clickity-Clack” Sounds
- 15 Selectable Custom Sounds
- 4 Adjustable Diesel Engine Ditch Lighting Effects
- 120 Adjustable Engine Speed Settings
- 3 Adjustable Locomotive Direction Start-up Engines
- Simple Lash-up Creation
- Simple Route Creation
- Simple Scene Creation
- Record/Playback 90 Minutes of Operation
- Downloadable Locomotive Sounds Sets
- Independent Locomotive Chronometer
- Independent Locomotive Odometer
- Independent Locomotive Trip Odometer
- Track Signal Quality Test
- Linear Track Length Meter
- Trip Odometer
- 2 Independent Engine Reset Features
- Doppler
- Broadcast Your Voice Through The Train's Speaker
- Independent Whistle & Bell Sounds
- 120 Speed Steps – Control engines speed in increments of 1 smph.
- 42 Levels of Programming Option
- Labor/Drift Chuffing Sound Control
- Diesel Rev Up/Down Sound Control
- Speed Boost & Brake Control
- One Touch Smoke On/Off Control
- One Touch Volume Level Control
- Engine Sounds Mute Button
- One Touch Headlight On/Off Control
- One Touch Proto-Cast™ Control
- One Touch Engine Startup Control
- One Touch Engine Shutdown Control
- One Touch Passenger or Freight Sound Activation
- Sound Packages Downloadable from MTH Website

.

As I stated in my earlier post, there are some awesome features of DCS relative to controlling sound. Personally, though, some of the features such as brake sound and crewtalk are just plain lame. As an individual that works in the railway supply industry, the unrealistic nature of this stuff makes me think "toy train". Several of the features in your list are already easily accomplished with DCC. Spend some time with NCE DCC and you will see what I am talking about. If you are ever in the Chicago area, I would be glad to give you a demonstration, and then maybe you would have a better perspective of the HO marketplace after seeing things from our perspective.

QUOTE:
3. The K-4 is just our first HO engine. We have made over 200 models in our Premier Line O Gauge product line having long ago recognized that O consumers have different tastes. We expect no different a reaction from HO consumers. If the K-4 isn't your bag, wait for the next engine. Incidentally, the K-4 is $50.00 less than the Broadway version and contains many more features as detailed in both the DCC and DCS lists above. You'll find even more details at www.mthhotrains.com

The language regarding Broadway's offering smacks of MTH looking for a way to "&$^# back" at BLI. I have two problems with what is stated above. For starters, if MTH and BLI need to snipe at each other through legal means, then, by all means, knock yourselves out. However, to drag BLI's name through the mud, and demonstrate a linkage between them and Korea Brass is ridiculous. You already won your US$40M judgement against Lionel (which I have no problem with). BLI has a loyal following in HO (and I am not one of them), and all you do is set yourself up for the same MTH vs. Lionel bashing that occurs in the three rail arena.

Secondly, three rail manufacturers seem to think that everybody on the planet is a slobbering Pennsy freak. Couldn't you find something that would be popular that hasn't been done before in lower cost HO, like, say, a Great Northern O-8 mikado, or a CB&Q O-5 northern? Or, if you just have to set your sites east of Chicago, an L class NYC mikado? Unless hobby shops do an outstanding job of selling people new to HO on your current offering, along with a DCS unit to control it, there are going to be a whole host of shelf queens out there.

QUOTE:
4. Amperage draw is a big factor in O because most of the locomotives are produced from die-cast metal and are thus quite heavy. Our AC operated O Gauge Challenger engine outweighs our G gauge model by about five pounds even though the G model is 17 inches longer (engine and tender). It takes more power and amperage to get those O trains moving. Consequently, the electronics must be robust enough to handle the more intense power requirements. Our experience in testing DCC in an AC, hi-amp environment (a locomotive and string of seven passenger cars can easily draw 6 or more amps) was very underwhelming. More importantly, DCC is limited by the number of features it offers and the complexity of its operation. Since DCC had no presence in the O Gauge AC market, developing a newer system that was easier to use and had a lot more features would be far more appealing to new consumers. Our long-term goal is to expand the marketplace by attracting new consumers. If we were going to invest in a control system (DCC or otherwise) we needed to be very confident that the return on the investment to develop the control system would be worthwhile. If new consumers are attracted to the hobby, whether it be in O, G or HO because of DCS, then our return on investment will continue to be strong. The marketplace as a whole will also be greater if more consumers are attracted to it. We think DCS does that.

This has to be one of the biggest lines of balderda***hat I have run across from a manfuacturer in quite a while.

1. You state that DCC has no application in O gauge. You are incorrect. It has no application in three rail O gauge. It has been used extensively in O scale. Jim Scorce of NCE uses his system on his own O scale railroad.

2. Yes, amperage draw in three rail is a concern, and on the modular three rail group that I belong to, we regularily hit 9 amps with MTH and other locomotives, and lighted passenger cars. And we occasionally trip a Z4000s circuit breaker. DCC power supplies are available in 10 amp configuration. If MTH had any intention of using DCC at the onset, you gentlemen would have figured out a way to make your own 10 amp, or for that matter 15 amp power supply that could have been applied to two rail. The technology definitley allows for larger power supplies.

3. I guess that you figure that the majority of your sales are going to be from people new to the hobby. Hey, that is great if your technology can grow the market. And once that happens, then HO can benefit from the same internecine sniping that occurs in the three rail arena. Oh, I can't wait [:(].

4. If you were to develop a control system to incorporate the features of DCS in DCC, the investment that would be required would be higher than you presently have using DCS, which you already invested in. However, now you are pushing a totally incompatible control system into the HO market, which is exactly what the DCC stamdards aimed to keep from happening .

I've lived through the days of competing command control systems (Dynatrol, CTC-16, Keller, and when DCC came along it was like a breath of fresh air. Nothing did more to improve my enjoyment of the hobby more than the conversion from Dynatrol to DCC.

QUOTE:
5. Since none of the DCC manufacturers ever bothered to inquire what our licensing terms would be, they can't comment on whether they were favorable. As with any legal agreement, the terms would be confidential anyway.

6. Sorry for the confusion about the notification. As my original post indicated, the DCC community was notified about both our method of speed control (in one scale mile per hour increments) and our form of 2-way communication.

Yes, the DCC community received your notification, and has elected to ignore you. This is kinda like the kids in the schoolyard ignoring the bully that shows up. Since nothing out there in the DCC world current offered conflicts with MTH's beloved patents, they have no reason to talk to you.

All you have accomplished is throwing future development of DCC, a common platform, into doubt. They have a potential legal hand grenade thrown into their midst , and either don't have the resources to fight it, or don't know the best way to respond to you. As a DCC user that has no involvement with the DCC SIG, I can't say for sure which it is.

From the user perspective, all I can say is I am incensed that DCC development is being constrained by MTH's actions. You may be legally correct, but your public relations has taken one hellofa hit.

My advice to you would be for MTH to contact the DCC SIG, and try to work through issues in a businesslike forum that works for the betterment of all concerned. Here is the link:

http://jdb.psu.edu/nmra/dccsig.html


I believe that MTH would maximize it's investment in your HO offerings by playing within the current structure as opposed to the current path down which you have embarked. I, for one, would be favorably disposed toware MTH product if this was to occur. If you choose to follow the current path, then no matter what your offerings, I will ignore any of your future offerings. Some on the posters on this forum, and on the O Gauge Railroading forum will lamblast my choice in this matter, but I personally feel that a line in the sand needs to be drawn regarding MTH's conduct on the issue of DCC standards. And your company is free to go down whichever path you choose.

Best regards,
Jerry J. Zeman, Jr.

I couldn't agree more with every single point!!!! Jerry, you must not be a 3 railer, because if you were, you would know that Pennsylvania is the center of the "TOY TRAIN UNIVERSE".

Did MTH announce their entry into the HO market in Seattle at the National Train Show, or just at York (PA), a closed show for TCA members only? I am honestly curious.

[darth9x9]

Mike has been planning and plotting to get into the HO market since I knew him in the late 1980's when I worked for him while attending college. He finally found a way of doing it while bullying his competition.

BC

[Anonymous]

atsfus: [?] If anybody has proof of prior art then let them publish it here and send a certified letter to MTH. How hard can than that be?

[Anonymous]

To Simon1966,

I congratulate you on your open minded vision of MRR.

R. Hales
Colorado

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by simon1966

Many of the threads on this and other forums concern the demise of the hobby shop, the lack of new people coming into the hobby, the ageing model RR population etc. etc. The industry has been concerned enough to introduce the "Greatest hobby" initiative. Even if you "hate" MTH, or have no interest in their products or DCS system, how can having a successful company spend millions on product development and then presumably a considerable ammount in marketing, be bad for the industry? If MTH is serious about targeting the general population to bring in new hobbiests then they will likely be marketing outside of the traditional model RR media. An advert in MRR mag will hardly access new modellers! Just supposing they have success at this, then many other companies would benefit as well. (Scenery makers etc). So while I am happy with DCC and have no intention to switch to DCS, I wish MTH success in attracting new folks to this hobby.

One thing I sincerely hope is that members of this list will treat modellers with courtesy and respect that come to this list as MTH users!

That's an interesting point you make about attracting new people to the hobby. The thing that I would like to point out is that ANY command control is not designed for beginners. It isn't that it is difficult to use, it's that I can't think of too many people who are willing to spend $700 to make a train go in a circle. I arrived at that figure by taking the price of an MTH locomotive, and adding in command base, power supply, track and a few cars. Someone just entering this hobby would have no clue as to why they would want command control, let alone want to pay for it.

This philosophy might work in the affluent realm of O gauge, but in HO a person can get started for around $150, and without command control.

Frankly, all of these features that MTH has included in DCS make the trains seem much more novel and toy like than realistic. Real trains don't have one mile per hour speed control.

The entire purpose of command control originally was to be able to have independent control of multiple trains on the same track. No more need for block wiring. Sound was never considered.

HO was doing just fine developing the basic concept and bringing it more into the mainstream when Lionel decided to create a system for AC powered trains in the mid 90's. Lionel's TMCC design was a radical departure, and included sounds and smoke and operating couplers. For whatever reason, Mr Wolfe could not live with that, and felt compelled to create a system of his own. DCS is clearly based on DCC.

Personally I don't believe that it was Mr Wolfe's original goal to better the hobby by creating DCS. No matter what anyone says, I believe his goal was to beat Lionel!!! This atttitude has always rubbed me the wrong way. To me the proof of this is that all of the other major manufacturers of O gauge locomotives have chosen to license TMCC and include it in their products. No one has DCS except MTH.

Why don't I like DCS? The system has a critical flaw when it comes to meeting my needs. I have designed a layout with prototypical operation in mind. I want to have a computer operate trains in a real time environment. I am not trying to replace human operators, I am trying to suppliment them by having the computer run additional trains. This means stopping and starting and obeying signals as if it was controlled by a human operaor.

My understanding is that DCS does not have a way to insert a LIVE computer generated command into the data stream. Lionel has published their commands, and their serial port allows this kind of operation. I can't use a "parrot" to repeat command strings, I need to be able to address each locomotive as conditions change in real time.

As for sound and smoke, I plan to keep them turned off, as they don't have anything to do with operation.

All of this is a real shame too, because I have seen a number of nice looking MTH locomotives on eBay, but it isn't worth converting them to TMCC.

[JerryZeman]

Dear Mr. Edelman;

Here are my rambling thoughts regarding your latest post.

QUOTE: Originally posted by amedleman

Paul3:

2. I am not familiar with the actual specifics of the speed control methods the other manufacturers utilize. If they aren't in violation then there is no problem. Their engineers need to determine those issues which is why they received notification in the first place.

Here is the crux of the problem numerous people have with MTH regarding their stand with the DCC community. MTH issues a letter to the DCC community informing them of their patents. Now the DCC community has to invest the time and money determining if any future developments are afoul of MTH patents. Who gets to pay for the cost of doing all this research, notification etc to MTH? Yes, you guessed it, the consumer.

The DCC community is a collection of rather small companies as compared to the size of MTH. I suspect that many of them lack the financial resources to comply with your wishes. They are not, after all, not Lionel. [;)] I would suspect that MTH is an approximately US$40-50 M / yr. business. Most of the DCC manufacturers would probably not make US$2M.

QUOTE:
3. Please remember that you do not need a new control system (DCS) to operate an M.T.H. HO locomotive. Any exisiting DCC controller will work. If you have already invested in a DCC system it will run the M.T.H. engine in command mode.

Below are the features you will have access to when using a DCC controller:

- Operate Locomotive At Scale Speeds
- Activate Whistle/Horn or Bell Sounds
- Hear Squeaking Brakes
- Enjoy Synchronized Puffing Smoke Timed To Driver Revolutions
- Activate Passenger Station or Freight Yard Sound Effects
- Activate Doppler Sound Effects
- Control Smoke Operation
- Control Locomotive Master Volume
- Adjust The Locomotive Chuff Rate


Next, are the features you will have access to when using a DCS system:

- 22 Independent Volume Control Settings
- 16 Adjustable Chuff Rate Settings
- 3 Adjustable Smoke Intensity Settings
- Adjustable Brake Sound Effects
- Adjustable Wheel “Clickity-Clack” Sounds
- 15 Selectable Custom Sounds
- 4 Adjustable Diesel Engine Ditch Lighting Effects
- 120 Adjustable Engine Speed Settings
- 3 Adjustable Locomotive Direction Start-up Engines
- Simple Lash-up Creation
- Simple Route Creation
- Simple Scene Creation
- Record/Playback 90 Minutes of Operation
- Downloadable Locomotive Sounds Sets
- Independent Locomotive Chronometer
- Independent Locomotive Odometer
- Independent Locomotive Trip Odometer
- Track Signal Quality Test
- Linear Track Length Meter
- Trip Odometer
- 2 Independent Engine Reset Features
- Doppler
- Broadcast Your Voice Through The Train's Speaker
- Independent Whistle & Bell Sounds
- 120 Speed Steps – Control engines speed in increments of 1 smph.
- 42 Levels of Programming Option
- Labor/Drift Chuffing Sound Control
- Diesel Rev Up/Down Sound Control
- Speed Boost & Brake Control
- One Touch Smoke On/Off Control
- One Touch Volume Level Control
- Engine Sounds Mute Button
- One Touch Headlight On/Off Control
- One Touch Proto-Cast™ Control
- One Touch Engine Startup Control
- One Touch Engine Shutdown Control
- One Touch Passenger or Freight Sound Activation
- Sound Packages Downloadable from MTH Website

.

As I stated in my earlier post, there are some awesome features of DCS relative to controlling sound. Personally, though, some of the features such as brake sound and crewtalk are just plain lame. As an individual that works in the railway supply industry, the unrealistic nature of this stuff makes me think "toy train". Several of the features in your list are already easily accomplished with DCC. Spend some time with NCE DCC and you will see what I am talking about. If you are ever in the Chicago area, I would be glad to give you a demonstration, and then maybe you would have a better perspective of the HO marketplace after seeing things from our perspective.

QUOTE:
3. The K-4 is just our first HO engine. We have made over 200 models in our Premier Line O Gauge product line having long ago recognized that O consumers have different tastes. We expect no different a reaction from HO consumers. If the K-4 isn't your bag, wait for the next engine. Incidentally, the K-4 is $50.00 less than the Broadway version and contains many more features as detailed in both the DCC and DCS lists above. You'll find even more details at www.mthhotrains.com

The language regarding Broadway's offering smacks of MTH looking for a way to "&$^# back" at BLI. I have two problems with what is stated above. For starters, if MTH and BLI need to snipe at each other through legal means, then, by all means, knock yourselves out. However, to drag BLI's name through the mud, and demonstrate a linkage between them and Korea Brass is ridiculous. You already won your US$40M judgement against Lionel (which I have no problem with). BLI has a loyal following in HO (and I am not one of them), and all you do is set yourself up for the same MTH vs. Lionel bashing that occurs in the three rail arena.

Secondly, three rail manufacturers seem to think that everybody on the planet is a slobbering Pennsy freak. Couldn't you find something that would be popular that hasn't been done before in lower cost HO, like, say, a Great Northern O-8 mikado, or a CB&Q O-5 northern? Or, if you just have to set your sites east of Chicago, an L class NYC mikado? Unless hobby shops do an outstanding job of selling people new to HO on your current offering, along with a DCS unit to control it, there are going to be a whole host of shelf queens out there.

QUOTE:
4. Amperage draw is a big factor in O because most of the locomotives are produced from die-cast metal and are thus quite heavy. Our AC operated O Gauge Challenger engine outweighs our G gauge model by about five pounds even though the G model is 17 inches longer (engine and tender). It takes more power and amperage to get those O trains moving. Consequently, the electronics must be robust enough to handle the more intense power requirements. Our experience in testing DCC in an AC, hi-amp environment (a locomotive and string of seven passenger cars can easily draw 6 or more amps) was very underwhelming. More importantly, DCC is limited by the number of features it offers and the complexity of its operation. Since DCC had no presence in the O Gauge AC market, developing a newer system that was easier to use and had a lot more features would be far more appealing to new consumers. Our long-term goal is to expand the marketplace by attracting new consumers. If we were going to invest in a control system (DCC or otherwise) we needed to be very confident that the return on the investment to develop the control system would be worthwhile. If new consumers are attracted to the hobby, whether it be in O, G or HO because of DCS, then our return on investment will continue to be strong. The marketplace as a whole will also be greater if more consumers are attracted to it. We think DCS does that.

This has to be one of the biggest lines of balderda***hat I have run across from a manfuacturer in quite a while.

1. You state that DCC has no application in O gauge. You are incorrect. It has no application in three rail O gauge. It has been used extensively in O scale. Jim Scorce of NCE uses his system on his own O scale railroad.

2. Yes, amperage draw in three rail is a concern, and on the modular three rail group that I belong to, we regularily hit 9 amps with MTH and other locomotives, and lighted passenger cars. And we occasionally trip a Z4000s circuit breaker. DCC power supplies are available in 10 amp configuration. If MTH had any intention of using DCC at the onset, you gentlemen would have figured out a way to make your own 10 amp, or for that matter 15 amp power supply that could have been applied to two rail. The technology definitley allows for larger power supplies.

3. I guess that you figure that the majority of your sales are going to be from people new to the hobby. Hey, that is great if your technology can grow the market. And once that happens, then HO can benefit from the same internecine sniping that occurs in the three rail arena. Oh, I can't wait [:(].

4. If you were to develop a control system to incorporate the features of DCS in DCC, the investment that would be required would be higher than you presently have using DCS, which you already invested in. However, now you are pushing a totally incompatible control system into the HO market, which is exactly what the DCC stamdards aimed to keep from happening .

I've lived through the days of competing command control systems (Dynatrol, CTC-16, Keller, and when DCC came along it was like a breath of fresh air. Nothing did more to improve my enjoyment of the hobby more than the conversion from Dynatrol to DCC.

QUOTE:
5. Since none of the DCC manufacturers ever bothered to inquire what our licensing terms would be, they can't comment on whether they were favorable. As with any legal agreement, the terms would be confidential anyway.

6. Sorry for the confusion about the notification. As my original post indicated, the DCC community was notified about both our method of speed control (in one scale mile per hour increments) and our form of 2-way communication.

Yes, the DCC community received your notification, and has elected to ignore you. This is kinda like the kids in the schoolyard ignoring the bully that shows up. Since nothing out there in the DCC world current offered conflicts with MTH's beloved patents, they have no reason to talk to you.

All you have accomplished is throwing future development of DCC, a common platform, into doubt. They have a potential legal hand grenade thrown into their midst , and either don't have the resources to fight it, or don't know the best way to respond to you. As a DCC user that has no involvement with the DCC SIG, I can't say for sure which it is.

From the user perspective, all I can say is I am incensed that DCC development is being constrained by MTH's actions. You may be legally correct, but your public relations has taken one hellofa hit.

My advice to you would be for MTH to contact the DCC SIG, and try to work through issues in a businesslike forum that works for the betterment of all concerned. Here is the link:

http://jdb.psu.edu/nmra/dccsig.html


I believe that MTH would maximize it's investment in your HO offerings by playing within the current structure as opposed to the current path down which you have embarked. I, for one, would be favorably disposed toware MTH product if this was to occur. If you choose to follow the current path, then no matter what your offerings, I will ignore any of your future offerings. Some on the posters on this forum, and on the O Gauge Railroading forum will lamblast my choice in this matter, but I personally feel that a line in the sand needs to be drawn regarding MTH's conduct on the issue of DCC standards. And your company is free to go down whichever path you choose.

Best regards,
Jerry J. Zeman, Jr.

[jeep35]

I'm afraid i'm not up to speed on this subject. Perhaps someone could explain what is going on to me in "laymens terms". I've been modeling in HO for many years and have quite a number of locomotives none of which are set up for DCC. I'm in the process of rebuilding my layout this time using a DCC system ( I haven't purchased one yet). Is this litigation going to have some effect on what I will be able to use?

Thanks
Jim
P.S. I used to own a Betamax recorder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Allan Miller

"I also fail to see a logical basis for bashing MTH simply because they have announced their intention to enter the HO segment of the hobby--

No one is bashing MTH for entering the HO market. MTH has every right to to make money anywhere they see fit. However, the general feeling (IMHO) is that no one likes the way MTH has entered the market. They came in with lawsuits flying to gain thier foothold. MTH waited until AFTER BLI had announced and produced thier first locomotive to start the litigation. Why the wait?? Wasn't MTH's proprietary products good enough to sue over in the beginning?? All MTH has done is to go ahead and let BLI and other maufactures (Lionel & Life Like) do market research for them. When BLI products got hot, MTH sues...Smells a little fishy to me.

[AntonioFP45]

Hello Simon1966.

Your points should be well taken.

But again, in reading numerous posts on this and other threads, the majority are NOT AGAINST MTH getting into the HO Market with DCS. The issue has been the "STRONG ARM tactics that have been used in this situation.

When will this be understood?

Yes, some have brought up the "pros and cons" of the technology and have pointed out that this is sort of a "Beta" vs. "VHS". Beta might have been better, but which platform was open? Which one took the VHS technology and ran with it full speed? Result: Beta went "Kaputs"!

MTH's problem? Public perception and image with Modelers.

Basically the perception of many HO modelers, LHS owners , and members of large clubs, has been that MTH is attempting to enter the HO market door by way of an Anti-Assualt Vehicle ramming it instead of knocking. So far this seems to be the case, inspite of the fact that MTH was "within their rights". How often do we hear that today? Even the employees of an LHS that I visited on the Florida Gulf Coast that has a sizeable inventory of MTH-Railking equipment disagrees with MTH's actions! How much more plain can this get????????? This perception has not been isolated to the various hobby forums as some have stated!

Getting on this forum and calling hobbyists that are against MTH's actions names or insinuating that they're "closed minded" only helps the perception strengthen! Many of the responses were well worded an clear. Intelligent hobbyists Blow Torching each other is useless and just creates harsh feelings.

But again it would be good for the posters to stick with the actual issue. MTH's actions, Nothing more. Whether HO modelers will support MTH or still have the bad taste in their mouths, they will speak freely with their hard earned dollars!

[Anonymous]

I really don't see this as one sector bashing another. It is the free exchange of ideas and opinions. If something is said here, which makes you angry, I think you have to thin a skin. There are real concerns about the actions MTH has taken. If you read what is said here, you may come-up with some of the story. Certainly, you are more informed about the MTH situation than somebody whom has not followed this thread.

[Anonymous]

If I am correct in my thinking (and I am not speaking for everyone) this is not about MTH developing a new product and trying to market it to the Ho community but more of a problem that they developed this product and then are trying to tell all the DCC comanies they they have all the patents and rights to DCC and that they now have to join them and pay rights to them.

I may be wrong in this statement but this is how i see it others may not share my opinion and that is ok I will not fault them as I hope they will not fault me.

We should never take out our diapproval of MTH or any other company on our fellow modelers that is counter productive at best.

All are welcome here HO,O,N,Z,S or what ever gauge you model.

In the end if MTH wins and you disagree with them you do not have to purchase there products or services they are not the first model railroad company and they will not be the last. Currently I dont even see a locomotive they make that interest me as I only do Deisel but the DCS has an effect on my future plans to add DCC. So I will continue to watch what happens in the situation.

And in closing my request is this everyone needs to stop bashing each other we all have different opinions on this and thats what make us human free will and free speech. We are all allowed to speak or minds but not at the expense of others.

Remember the guy you make mad today may be the guy you need tomorow.

[simon1966]

Many of the threads on this and other forums concern the demise of the hobby shop, the lack of new people coming into the hobby, the ageing model RR population etc. etc. The industry has been concerned enough to introduce the "Greatest hobby" initiative. Even if you "hate" MTH, or have no interest in their products or DCS system, how can having a successful company spend millions on product development and then presumably a considerable ammount in marketing, be bad for the industry? If MTH is serious about targeting the general population to bring in new hobbiests then they will likely be marketing outside of the traditional model RR media. An advert in MRR mag will hardly access new modellers! Just supposing they have success at this, then many other companies would benefit as well. (Scenery makers etc). So while I am happy with DCC and have no intention to switch to DCS, I wish MTH success in attracting new folks to this hobby.

One thing I sincerely hope is that members of this list will treat modellers with courtesy and respect that come to this list as MTH users!

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Allan Miller

So, if I'm to understand the above comments correctly, HO is a head-in-the-sand segment in model railroading that does not need to grow and does not welcome new entrants and innovations. Kind of a strange approach to sharing and growing a hobby--any hobby--and certainly unlike anything I have seen in my years as an active participant in model railroading!

Absolutely not. New products are always welcome. But we absolutely do NOT need a new incompatible control system. The NMRA got involved at the right time, just as the technology was emerging, and established a set of standards and RP's that allow me to buy equipment from MANY manufacturers and have it all run on my layout without problems. There is nothing in those standards the prohibit a manufacturer from adding their own extra features above and eyond the basic set of requirements, PROVIDED it remains compatible with the basic feature set. The LAST thing we need is something completely different.
The glaring problem with the MTH DCS sound as outlined on their web site and a few posts ago is that many of the features that will be available ONLY to the DCS user are ones that STANDARD DCC can and does already handle in several other vendors' products. Sure there's also some new things in there no one else is doing, that's fine. But as a DCC user I would not be able to use certain features that I CAN use in someone else's version, so that's where my hobby dollars will go.
It's sort of like how the Quantum products work on DC or DCC, sure it 'works' on DC, but over half the features are unavailable or extremely awkward to use. If I had DC only, I don't know that I would buy any of them.

[Anonymous]

So, if I'm to understand the above comments correctly, HO is a head-in-the-sand segment in model railroading that does not need to grow and does not welcome new entrants and innovations. Kind of a strange approach to sharing and growing a hobby--any hobby--and certainly unlike anything I have seen in my years as an active participant in model railroading!

Allan Miller
NMRA Life Member

[AntonioFP45]

Bill Conner,

Again, with all due respect: A shot in the arm? I've traveled to different cities, mostly on the east coast U.S. Every model railroad shop I visited had ONE THING in common. The predominant scale of models for sale WERE HO!

What "shot in the arm" does HO need? Again, we're slowly drifting away from the actual topic here.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bill Conner

Thanks to Andy Edleman for his professional and rational response to this issue. I'm also excited about DCS coming to HO. MTH is the leader in O gauge trains and will become the same in HO in a matter of time. HO really needs a shot in the arm and Mike Wolf is capable of doing it.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here....why does HO need a shot in the arm? Do we need more expensive locomotives and proprietary software to entice new hobbiests? Yeah..like we need a hole in the head.

Shots like this are going to force me to have to move to Canada and get some of that there socialized medicine.

I commend MTH for having the cajones to come on the forum and defend/explain their position. Heck, I even wi***hem luck in their endeavors and fully understand the desire support their right to capitalize on their developments. I do think it's going to take them awhile to get over the lawsuit stigma with some modelers...and right or wrong...that's the perception ..... and perception is reality. And right now the perception is that they rank right up there with UP in the minds of many modelers for introducing this hobby to new blood....lawyers that is.....not exactly the new hobbiests we were looking for.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyseven

Andy Edleman

You have shown grace under pressure. Thanks for posting.

Not taking away anything from Andy, but OF COURSE as MTH's representative he's had to show nothing less than a cordial and professional demeanor. This is to be expected if one's own employer is involved in a case where strong disagreements are at the center.

But still, thanks Mr. Edleman

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Joe Polska

I don't know why MTH and Mike would want to bother with HO anyway.

Easy answer: Hot, popular market as far as model railroading goes. Just ask any LifeLike manager what happened to the company's profits after the Proto 2000 and Proto 1000 lines hit the market!

QUOTE: There are too many importers in it already and the pie only has enough slices.

Absolutely right, but for the consmer (us) the more slices, the better! Sure works in the auto industry!

QUOTE: Besides, O gauge is a lot better and more fun and the people in it don't count rivets and nitpick as much. Give me 3 rail toy trains any day![C):-)]

Hmm. O.K. That's in your "humble opinion. With all due respect that's like telling a sailboat owner that a racing power boat is better! Does that make sense? Why are you stereotyping? This seems so typical today. It's so easy for someone to reply to that type of comment and say: O Scale takes up way to much room, is very expensive, etc. Yet even I know it offers so many advantages......as does HO! I'm 41 and most of the HO modelers I've met since I was 15 "don't count rivets." [;)]

Peace!