soooo, what was this big announcement MTH was going to make...

[dinwitty]

at the Cincinnati show?






waiting....

[simon1966]

I'll save Rivet Counter the bother of posting[}:)][banghead]

"In my opinion, MTH had the best display of the show. All of the people I saw there were impressed by the K4 and DCS. Looks like MTH has their competitors on the ropes."

Blah Blah Blah...................silence..................


http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/005/906enrww.asp

Read this link. This is for a 19' x 19' O scale layout. If you thought DCC was complex read this!

[jnichols]

I find these posts about DCS interesting. I currently have a 16' x 35' 3-rail layout on a shelf around a game room and I run both DCS and TMCC simultaneously. I have one set, that's right, one set of feeders for the entire double mainline circuit (this also includes passing sidings and spurs). At no point on the layout is there ever a spot where the DCS signal level drops below an 8 (out of 10), and the TMCC locomotives work just fine as well. I installed both systems inside of 10 minutes and have been running trains for several years now without changes or problems of any sort!

On the flip side of this, both my HO/On30 and N scale DCC layouts are considerably smaller and have required a substancially larger time investment to install and maintain.... [;)]

[Anonymous]

DCS is a far superior system to DCC but it will take time to educate people of the benefits. There's nothing wrong with an O gauge company like MTH getting into HO. The more competition, the better. When Atlas decided to enter the O gauge market, they were welcomed with open arms. As of today, they're doing quite well with their O line because the O gaugers were open minded and happy to see the quality they offered. Just give MTH a chance and you'll see the same results.

[railroadyoshi]

uhhh

Atlas didnt go off sueing people when they entered the new market, did they?

[Anonymous]

All of the lawuits by MTH have been justified, especially the one against Lionel. When you steal blueprints and company secrets, justice must be served and you must pay the price. The MTH lawyers are not stupid and they're not ambulance chasers. The model train community does not have the true facts, just gossip and malicious lies.

[AggroJones]

mthrules

Honestly, do you work for MTH?

[AntonioFP45]

DCS has its good points. Sounds good in the O scale units I've seen. As for it being far superior? It's just like comparing automobiles, DCS and DCC both have advantages and disadvantages.

IMHO, the two biggest "downsides" to DCS is that:

(1) The N Scale market, which is serviced by DCC is not being targeted at all by DCS. This market is growing even faster than HO. A missed opportunity here.

(2) DCS is "Proprietery" while DCC is basically an "open platform". Personally I think it's neat that a modeler can have a Digitrax or NCE system and not give it a 2nd thought to run locomotives equipped with Lenz, TCS, and Soundtraxx decoders

Competition is increasing with Digitrax now throwing it's hat in the ring with sound systems and LOK Sound making "American" sound decoders. It's win-win!

MTH coming onboard can be viewed as one more competitor stepping into the ring which is good for business. But realistically the competition is going to be very challenging for MTH.

This isn't putting DCS down, it's just a plain fact. In the end HO and N scale modelers will speak very loudly and effectively............not on this forum............but with their wallets.

Peace out.

[3railguy]

I'm an 3 railer as well as an N scaler with two layouts and collect HO to operate on a club layout and frequent both worlds. The way I perceive it is MTH is entering the HO market with what they learned in O gauge and things can get bumpy for them. There is a lot of differences between O gaugers and HO modelers.

MTH could have made a better choice than a K-4 for an introductory model because it's limited to Pennsy. O gauge operators are concentrated in the Northeast and the ratio of Pennsy fans in the O gauge market seems high. Pennsy is a big seller in 3 rail. I see Pennsy fan screen names all over the O gauge forums and Pennsy engines are very popular in O gauge. In HO and N scale, I do not see anywhere near this high of ratio for Northeast Road fans. I see an even ratio of roads spread all over the country with the more colorful roads being most popular. Pennsy was not what I would call colorful either. MTH should of picked a USRA design such as a mikado and offered numerous roads. Many 3 rail O gaugers are not road name specific and mix roads with whatever appeals to them. I do not see this in HO and N scale. HO and N scalers tend to model specific roads. So an HO K-4 is limited to HO Pennsy fans which may be a small percentage of the market.

3 rail O gaugers tend to be brand loyal. They base their layouts on their favorite brand which often has proprietary technology such as TMCC or DCS. There are no real standards in 3 rail O gauge. What little the NMRA has written is often ignored by O gaugers and manufacturers. In HO, standards are gospel. Sending out letters with threats to litigate to manufactures does not fare well with HO modelers because it conflicts with NMRA standards.

[Anonymous]

Fair enough, Antonio. Although I don't totally agree, you make some good points.

[jfugate]

If you look at the two models used in the personal computer arena for selling systems -- open system (PC) or proprietary (MAC), you'll see the future for DCS.

As a proprietary standard, it is destined to remain a niche player, just like the Mac. While, like the Mac, it may have some improvements over the open standard DCC just as the Mac is in many ways a better designed system than the PC ... that still doesn't change the fact that open standards tend to rule.

Even if MTH fully deserved to eat Lionel's lunch in their lawsuit, MTH's "warning" letters sent out to DCC manufacturers came across as mean-spirited. My own opinion is that MTH believes stirring up controversy in the hobby is a way to get free publicity, but I think they will find this technique is going to backfire.

Regardless of what the truth is, often the perception that is generated is far more potent than the truth. And MTH's approach has generated more than it's fair share of animosity. If people keep getting the wrong idea, then MTH I think you need to ask yourself what it might be that you are doing or not doing that is feeding that idea.

In MTH's case, their "bull in a china shop" approach to moving into new markets only furthers the public's idea, rightly or wrongly, that MTH is the "dark side of the force" among up-and-coming model manufacturers.

The only way out of this hole they have dug for themselves, IMO, would be for them to behave more like Lenz did with the DCC standard, and release some of their clever new developments as open standards for all to enjoy. That might begin to demonstrate that MTH has a heart after all.

[AntonioFP45]

Joe,

Your post is one of the best, responses I've ever read regarding the MTH scenario. Perception of businesses in society today, unfortunately, is often more powerful than the hardcore facts. An easily identifiable example today is GM which, since the 1980s, has found out the hard way.

[selector]

Imagine if Walmart greeters snarled at you when you walked through the door! You'd still shop there 'cuz the shopping's good right?

I don't think so.

Even if their lawyers recommended the letters to all potential litigants (including QSI customers) for sound reasons, their artless and ham-fisted approach to its content and distribution leaves them with few champions.

[3railguy]

QUOTE: As a proprietary standard, it is destined to remain a niche player, just like the Mac. While, like the Mac, it may have some improvements over the open standard DCC just as the Mac is in many ways a better designed system than the PC ... that still doesn't change the fact that open standards tend to rule.

Wouldn't Marklin be a niche marketer like you describe? They have proprietery system and their trains are pricey. They have made several attempts getting into the American market with American prototypes with no real success. I foresee MTH heading the same way. A pricey line of trains with a non-standard operating system.

[Anonymous]

I really can't see DCS doing well in the HO market - DCC is just too well established now. If you asked any of the big European manufactuers I'd guess none of them have any intention to have anything to do with it at all - the only non-DCC digital systems they're involved with are their own (Fleischmann's FMZ for example) and they now offer systems to enable the user to integrate the two - multi-system decoders and throttles that can handle both systems. The danger is that MTH's behaviour (particularly their apparent enthusiasm for court proceedings) will stifle DCC development as manufacturers will be terrified of "breaching" one of MTH's patents. I will never buy any DCS product as I do not like proprietory systems and monopolies - they're unhealthy as there's no guarantee of long-term support if the one manufacturer discontinues production and support, and manufacturers have been known to do this in an effort to force people to "upgrade". If it had been made so that the decoders were dual-mode (as with some Fleischmann ones) there would probably be a greater market, but with a single manufacturer offering DCS and everyone else offering DCC, I think people will either be converting DCS locos or just not buying them.

[simon1966]

A question for all the MTH flag wavers out there. I did not get a clear answer to this at the NTS when I asked the MTH booth personell.

Aside from running them in DC mode, can you run locomotives from other manufacturers on a DCS equipped layout?

I am certain from my converstaions that you can not take a DCC decoder equipped locomotive and put it on a DCS layout. Can you purchase the DCS decoders to install in other manufacturers locomotives?

If not DCS will fail in HO simply because a DCS owner will be limited to the locomotives manufactured by MTH. With the wide range of high quality locomotives available on the market from well established reputable makers, it is highly unlikely that an HO'er will turn their back and be willing to go MTH exclusive, no matter how good the DCS system is.

[IRONROOSTER]

Command control systems were around for many years without becoming mainstream. DCC by being an open standard has had compatibility and competition. This has led to constant improvement and price reductions. In turn this leads to more modelers using it. So while everyone may only have a piece of the pie, the pie keeps getting larger. With a proprietary system the pie stays small and eventually shrinks away.

Eventually, as ease of use and price improves, DCC will replace DC as the standard control system. Other control systems be at best a niche market like Marklin.
Enjoy
Paul

[railroadyoshi]

Ill just say that most of these latter responses have great insight and thank you

What is DCS?

[dinwitty]

I dont know about DCS, its MTH's proprietary control system.

If MTH is going to enter the HO market, their controller should be DCC compatible.

I wont be buying a K4. Not what I am modeling. Lots of other K4's out there.

They would have to sell a normal DC model or their DCS model.

Now if they go the route and make an HO Little Joe, I might go for it....

but I will certainly change a DCS controller to a DCC controller.

[jnichols]

Me thinks there is some confusion regarding DCC and DCS. Here are my thoughts...

First off, DCC is a communications platform, not a command control system. Digitrax, Lenz and NCE (and others) all make command control systems that utilize the DCC standards and protocol. While there has been much talk about how friendly all of the DCC players have been to one another because DCC is an open platform, this couldn't be farthest from the truth. As an example, do you guys honestly think Lenz and Digitrax sit around a table and share ideas with one another? This is not happening I can assure you. Both of these companies have invested time and money in their ideas, and both have patents to reflect this work. And although the decoders from various manufacturers will indeed operate on competitors command control systems (most of the time), this is not without it's own set of problems and grief, especially from a programming standpoint (just ask anyone who's tried to setup a QSI decoder on a stock Lenz system.... ;). It's also bad to make PC vs. MAC references here, as that analogy doesn't really apply. A better comparison to the computer industry could be made if DCC was thought of as Ethernet (or basically a communications standard), and DCS was a unique concept where in a turn key solution from software to hardware was provided to the end user.

Remember that DCS is not only a command control system, but also a communications platform. While MTH devoloped it and currently they are the only ones using it, who knows what will happen as time goes on. I have heard many insider rumors about MTH licensing the DCS system to other manufacturers. If this happens you will see much broader appeal to the system, and it's many advantages over the current crop of DCC systems will be easier to understand.

Besides, as I understand it, not only will the MTH locomotives operate on a DCC system (albiet with limitations due to the control architecture), but MTH fully intends on developing a DCC interface for use with the DCS system in order to control anyones DCC products. When that day arrives, the old Super Chief will quickly find it's way on the old auction block... [;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

Me thinks there is some confusion regarding DCC and DCS. Here are my thoughts...

Besides, as I understand it, not only will the MTH locomotives operate on a DCC system (albiet with limitations due to the control architecture), but MTH fully intends on developing a DCC interface for use with the DCS system in order to control anyones DCC products. When that day arrives, the old Super Chief will quickly find it's way on the old auction block... [;)]

You may be correct that MTH will operate on a DCC system. Does anyone know for sure that they will actually do that>??? If any new comer to HO wants to be sucessful, they should at the least be compatible with the whole HO world and standards.

I would not purchase a new HO locomotive that is captive to a new system and could not be run on a normal DCC or even DC layout.
No one as every spelled out the differences of DCS compared to DCC and what if any the compatibilities are.

The Live steam Mallard is a prefect example of a real interesting engine that requires its own track and sytem to run on.

I would appreciate knowing the comparisons.
Thanks

[jnichols]

bangert1,

There is no solid information available right now that I am aware of, only rumor and speculation. My guess is that over the next several months more information concerning the DCS/HO situation will be revealed to us. But I feel confident in saying that a DCC interface from MTH is highly probable, and the Proto3 chip working with DCC has already been discussed in great detail both on the MTH website and elsewhere. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess!

[Paul3]

jnichols, DCC may not be a command system, but it's a lot easier to type than "communications platform" or "open source communication architecture" or whatever one calls it. I think everyone who knows what DCC is realizes that when one types "DCC", they are only talking about the architecture, not the physical command system.

jnichols wrote:

QUOTE: While there has been much talk about how friendly all of the DCC players have been to one another because DCC is an open platform, this couldn't be farthest from the truth. As an example, do you guys honestly think Lenz and Digitrax sit around a table and share ideas with one another? This is not happening I can assure you.

Actually, that's exactly what I think is happening on the NMRA DCC Working Group, chaired by Stan Ames. According to the Summer 2004 public minutes, AJ Ireland of Digitrax, Bernard Lenz, Kar Kobel of Wangrow, Matt Katzer of KAM, Fred Severson of QSI, and a couple other manufacturers (plus non-manufacturers) were all in attendance. What do you think these guys are talking about? I don't think they are talking about the Boston Red Sox' chances winning the next World Series...

Sure, they aren't giving out trade secrets, but for example, they are currently working on support for up to 16 more DCC Functions (F13-F28) according to the latest news from Cinncinnati. In fact, they have several open topics that can be found here: http://www.dcc.info/WGpublic/active-topics.html

QUOTE: Remember that DCS is not only a command control system, but also a communications platform. While MTH devoloped it and currently they are the only ones using it, who knows what will happen as time goes on. I have heard many insider rumors about MTH licensing the DCS system to other manufacturers. If this happens you will see much broader appeal to the system, and it's many advantages over the current crop of DCC systems will be easier to understand.

Currently, I see no advantages over DCC at all, unless one really likes being able to broadcast your voice from the loco's speakers or have oily smoke coating the tops of one's models. If there are others, what are they? It seems everytime someone asks this question, the pro-DCS folks disappear. You don't have to post a list here, but perhaps MTH has a webpage listing all their comparison info you could point me to? (note that I'm not the only one asking here)

QUOTE: Besides, as I understand it, not only will the MTH locomotives operate on a DCC system (albiet with limitations due to the control architecture), but MTH fully intends on developing a DCC interface for use with the DCS system in order to control anyones DCC products. When that day arrives, the old Super Chief will quickly find it's way on the old auction block...

However, on that really long MTH vs. the world thread a while back, an MTH employee said that the DCS system will not run a DCC loco, and IIRC, that they didn't have plans to make it do so. That was a while ago...perhaps they changed their mind?

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

bangert1,

There is no solid information available right now that I am aware of, only rumor and speculation. My guess is that over the next several months more information concerning the DCS/HO situation will be revealed to us. But I feel confident in saying that a DCC interface from MTH is highly probable, and the Proto3 chip working with DCC has already been discussed in great detail both on the MTH website and elsewhere. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess!

Thanks for the response. It would be interesting and good for the hobby if it is compatible with the standards that have been set and used for some time now.

[jnichols]

Paul,

You make good points, although most of these are based on speculation and admitted lack of absolute knowledge, just like my points are. I enjoy these little discussions, especially when people belittle a competitive product or attack the organization responsible for it with very little information of their own. But alas this place of opinions is in fact just that, so I share my opinions in hopes that some poor joe looking for a "better mousetrap" does indeed find it (or at least researches it a little bit on his own before making up his mind).

For the record, it's my opinion that there is no way to proclaim the better system in a setting such as this. This must happen on an individual basis and preferably when done one on one with the systems in question. I have watched the anti MTH/DCS posts here and elsewhere with great amusement, and honestly I grow tired of defending what is not my job to defend. Oh sure I chirp in here or there, and sometimes I feel like somebody actually read what I typed and took something from it, but honestly I grow weary of this topic.

If you really want to understand DCS, or the capabilities of the system, check out the OGR forum at: http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x

Peace out!

[AntonioFP45]

Hello JNichols,

You gave some very good responses however your comment:

QUOTE: ....especially when people belittle a competitive product or attack the organization responsible for it with very little information of their own.......

The issues were clear enough already, were they not?

1. The QSI lawsuit and the "knee-jerk" reaction from DCC manufacturers due to "threats of litigative action. That sure would spook me if I were a DCC vendor.

2. MTH would not work with the NMRA regarding the command control standards. Many HO and N scale modelers take the NMRA standards seriously. MTH "seemed" to thumb its nose at it. Whether true or not, this was and still is the perception.

3. DCS is basically propietery, DCC is not.

From your info, DCS has potential but unfortunately it was MTH that took its aggressive action, not the posters on this and other forums.

When modelers went to BLI's website and saw the notation regarding the elimination (or disabling) of the Back EMF feature and at the same time read from DCC vendors as to how the litigation threats affected them.............what in the world would you expect? Several DCC vendors then "clammed up" for a while and would not even answer e-mails.

Bruce Petrarca from Litchfield Station was the only DCC business dealer willing to provide detailed comments on the situation. Seems like MTH's unfamiliarity with HO and N scale customers, unwittingly, made one heck of an impact. (more like a trainwreck!)

Your posts are very intelligent, but your slant makes it sound like that most DCC modelers are "emotionally blinded" and should consider embracing DCS, inspite of what's happened.

To be fair, it would be good to see MTH post a comparison chart. But as was stated before, this is Beta vs. VHS. It's doubtful that modelers will be "hanging up" their Super Chief sets. Lok Sound and Digitrax threw their hats in the ring----Soundtraxx Tsunami is finally a reality and reports coming indicate that it's a winner. So, businesswise, this makes if even tougher for MTH entering HO.

But as stated before, this is a forum of opinions. The loudest voice will be those dollar bills in the backs of modelers pockets.

Peace and 10-4.

[simon1966]

Jnichols, thanks for being the first MTH flag waver in a very long time that has bothered to put considered opinon on the forum rather than just antaganostic comments. Justified or not, MTH has a huge image problem in the HO/N market, demonstrated daily on this forum. MTH is seen as a threat, not an enhancment to our hobby. If the trolls that feel it neccesary to keep fanning this feeling of animosity they are simply solidifying the resolve of many, never to spend a dime on MTH products.

[ndbprr]

Assuming that MTH has invented a better system in DCS one should consider that Betamax was far superior to VHS recording yet VHS survived because of number of units sold and a market foothold. Personally I don't care if he gives them away he will not get one cent of mine and I would put the thing out in the trash at the first chance no matter how superior it is.

[jfugate]

If you pay attention to the market, it's not the best product that wins, but the best marketed.

MTH's DCS offering is clouded with confusion, unclear motives, proprietary secrecy, rumors of legal threats, and unsubstantiated hype. About the only thing positive about DCS is that DCC/DCS controversy is making it known, but the other issues don't excite people and in fact make them very wary.

Show me one case where a propietary standard that was kept close to the vest beat out an open standard and I might believe that DCS has a glorious future ahead of it.

Otherwise, its future lies somewhere between the Mac and the Betamax -- between niche player and extinction.

[cjcrescent]

Joe;
I have to partially agree with you. DCS will remain, at the very best, a niche player. Reason I don't see extinction is that it is already in use, how widepread I don't know, in O Gauge by some of the modelers. I think that alone will keep it around. But as long as it remains proprietary it doesn't have much of a future outside of O. Just going on the history of command control systems of the past, it seems that , it didn't matter who had what, as long as it was single source item, (proprietary), and not compatible with the other players, it remained a very minor player. I know these systems of the past were not digital, but still, you couldn't take an Astrac, Onboard, CTC-16/80, Dynatrol, or Zero-1 equipped locomotives and run them on any layout equipped with a system other than what was installed in the loco, including a plain DC layout.
DCC has the definite advantage of being able to take any DCC decoder equipped loco, even one with the cheapest decoders, no matter who makes it, and use them on any DCC equipped layout, no matter the "brand name", and still have full decoder functionality under DCC.
I believe that until MTH gives full functionality to their DCS stuff under DCC control, it will remain a very minor player. I really don't see it happening.