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

[jnichols]

AntonioFP45,

I appreciate your post and thoughts, and also the thoughts of the others here, but I'm still concerned there has been too much influence from the rumor mill advocates. Here are my thoughts...

The QSI lawsuit from MTH's perspective is a counter suit. QSI initiated litigation concerning the alledged patent infringments over the ProtoSound series sound systems that they were developing for MTH. When MTH decided to create their own system (DCS/Proto2), QSI threw up the red flags and cried foul play. Now as everyone knows, nothing has been determined yet, and Mike Wolf may have in fact been in the wrong, only time will tell, but remember all this stuff concerns O-scale products and does not have direct impact on the HO marketplace.

As far as the letters sent out to the DCC manufacturers is concerned, why does everyone perceive these as threats? I read the letter, and while the language used is very strong, I didn't get the feeling that the sole purpose of the letters was to be threatning. My take was that MTH was simply indicating they had been issued several patents, and the letter was a way to avoid future patent infringement litigation. Now if you don't like the way the system of patents works, then take it up somewhere else, Mike was simply playing by the rules that all the companies adhere to.

As to your thoughts about the NMRA, and the fact that MTH has bowed out of participation, I really don't know. Unfortunately, the standards of command control as outlined by the NMRA folks is pretty DCC oriented at this point. With the involvement of Lenz early on, all things command control started looking like all things Lenz. As time progresses this will of course change and you will see a broader acceptance of different technologies. Besides, is the NMRA always right?

Now onto the big one, DCS is proprietary and DCC is not. Again, DCS is a package of hardware and software that forms a system, DCC is not. DCC defines a commincations protocol for use with 3rd party equipment. So let me get this straight, you don't think Digitrax or Lenz is proprietary? Have you ever tried to operate a Lenz throttle on a Digitrax system? Of course these systems are proprietary. The one place where this logic is blurred is in the decoders, but even there are discrepancies and problems, especially with programming. So let's be clear about what is being said here, DCC is an open communications standard wherein there are rules and guidelines that 3rd party manufacturers can follow or not. Example, Digitrax transponding is not compatible with the Lenz or NCE systems to my knowledge, so wouldn't this be deemed proprietary? But a Digitrax transponding equipped decoder will work on a Lenz command system equipped layout, right? Yes and no, and this is where I find all this talk about open platforms as misleading and underinvestigated.

You made mention of the BLI website. Unfortunately this one little niche in cyberspace has probably single handedly dealt the worst blow to MTH, and it's ridiculous. MTH patents do not have anything to do with BEMF. This is a motor control technology that has been used for years, and certainly was not developed by Mike or his team at MTH. What was in question was the scale speed in 1 mph increments. This is part of the MTH patent, and this is what BLI should have focused on. Instead they jumped on the MTH owns BEMF bandwagon, and like the good little lemmings we are, we read and hated Mike. Reality check here, I too read this announcement on the BLI site and was mad at Mike, until I researched the claim and realized how ridiculous it was. You know, my favorite part of this debate is involving Lionel, remember them? Lionel uses the QSI chip, and the BEMF and scale speed in 1 mph increments features are in fact activated and working wonderfully. So why is BLI whining so much? Because they have an audience, that's why!

Now I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea here, I love DCC and think it's very cool. I have had several different systems, and liked them all for different reasons, and enjoy my Super Chief everyday. But I also have DCS, and feel that from a system (not communications platform) standpoint, DCS is better thought out and better implemented.... [;)]

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

AntonioFP45,

The QSI lawsuit from MTH's perspective is a counter suit ...

... MTH was simply indicating they had been issued several patents, and the letter was a way to avoid future patent infringement litigation ...

As to your thoughts about the NMRA, and the fact that MTH has bowed out of participation ... is the NMRA always right?

Now onto the big one, DCS is proprietary and DCC is not ... you don't think Digitrax or Lenz is proprietary? The one place where this logic is blurred is in the decoders, but even there are discrepancies and problems, especially with programming ... Yes and no, and this is where I find all this talk about open platforms as misleading and underinvestigated.

You made mention of the BLI website ... MTH patents do not have anything to do with BEMF. This is a motor control technology that has been used for years, and certainly was not developed by Mike or his team at MTH. What was in question was the scale speed in 1 mph increments ...

Now I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea here, I love DCC and think it's very cool. I have had several different systems, and liked them all for different reasons, and enjoy my Super Chief everyday. But I also have DCS, and feel that from a system (not communications platform) standpoint, DCS is better thought out and better implemented.... [;)]

Hmm, some interesting thoughts.

Regarding MTH and their "litigation happy" reputation, perception is often more important than reality. And if you notice, MTH's name comes up often as the "injured" party in some legal action, and they also are now known for "mass mailing" letters drafted by their lawyers to every DCC vendor on the planet.

So what are people supposed to think if MTH and lawyers comes up in every other sentence discussing the company?

Makes me think of the book "Up the Organization -- What they didn't teach you in Harvard Business School" ... in it the author talks about how his PR firm lawyers and the lawyers at ABC were up in arms over some issue regarding a pro golfer contract. It looked like a real nasty court show-down was on the horizon, so the author invited the head of ABC out to lunch.

They discussed the issue and came to an agreement without too much pain, and then each agreed to call off the lawyers. Great example of how to wisely solve business differences.

MTH, rightly or wrongly, has developed the opposite reputation. MTH comes across as a company with a chip on their shoulder, and something of a bully. Again, public perception is often more important than reality, and once a perception has been set, a company will need to go WAY OVER the other direction with press to the contrary to ever hope to see their reputation change in the public's eyes.

The easier solution to this problem would be for Mike to form a completely new company and start over building a more positive reputation.

As to your contention that DCC is fraught with proprietary issues and compatibility problems, remember that the lawyers say that using the exceptions to make legal precedent makes for bad law. Just because one can name several cases of compatibility issues does not invalidate that for most users 95% of the time, locos with any manufacturer's decoders will just *run* on another person's DCC system with no issues.

And you can demonstrate that easily, which is enough to convince most people of the clear advantage of the open standard.

[jnichols]

Joe,

I agree with most of your statements. MTH has not done the best job of managing their "public appearance", and that is a problem that will haunt them for a very long time I'm sure. It's also unfortunate that in this day and age, perception is often more important than right or wrong, but that is the way it is.

I still argue that the term DCC is misused all too often, but this is just symantics at this point. I would like to see people making references to specific DCC manufacturers, and not the obligitory protocol that they all use however. For example, a post which compares the Lenz Set100 to the DCS system makes more sense in my mind than a blanket DCC vs. DCS comparison, which leaves way to much on the table to be discussed. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Remember that because the DCC protocol is open in nature, there is little to stop MTH from integrating DCC into their existing product, something I feel quite confident will happen. So then the argument comes down to which handheld remote do I want to control my trains with: A high tech 2-way 900 Mhz backlit LCD remote with a well designed GUI and logically arranged function keys, or someone's generic DCC system handheld.... Hmmmmmmm.... I think I'll stick with the MTH version, you guys are free to use whatever floats your boat!

Again, peace out and thanks for opportunity to post!

[davekelly]

The big announcement? According to a friend that is a mole at Mike's place, MTH's K-4 is not an HO model. It is a OH, or 1/86.9 scale model. This scale will be much more widely accepted than HO and a patent is pending. Apparently MTH has sent letters out to some manufacturers stating that any models discovered to actually be OH scale will quite possibly violate this soon to be approved patent. Labeling the model as HO even though it is actually OH scale would not change the violation.

On another front, apparently Mike is also looking at some new technology to assist in avoiding derailments. This new technology, which is the result of years of research and testing concerns wheel flanges. Apparently making the flange larger than scale will help keep model trains on the track. This "diameter dependent tracking device" is the subject of a pending patent and should revolutionize the hobby.

Sorry, guys, just couldn't resist.

[jfugate]

Droll, very droll, DK. [:o)]

[Anonymous]

jnichols,

You are one of a select few who have bothered to offer why you think DCS is better Thank you!

You will have to pardon me if I disagree.

As was stated it the other posts and by me else where on the forums Corporate image is everything. Look at Enron would you buy there stock now I wont.

MTH has soured me in there actions and in these moles who do nothing more than make MTH look worse, then they already do. It will take a lot for MTH to overcome these issues with the HO group even if there system is better in everyway.

It will take more then a system that can run the planet before I consider it. I look at a companies actions and history before I will do business, I look at all angles even if its my phone service or the plastic model I need for my train I consider my options and the company that makes it before I will spend my very hard earned dollars on it.

There actions towards the other companies by MTH which may have been legal were not morally correct, why would they choose not to in some small way help expand the hobby and work with the other companies, oh nevermind I forgot corporate greed they are obsessed with the mighty dollar forget the fact this is a hobby and not life and death. So instead of trying to get a piece of the pie it looks to me as if they are really trying to take the whole thing. (yes perception is the key to all of this).

If i am wrong ok I can live with that but after all it is only my opinion.

My apoligies to any if my comment offed or are wrong in any way .....

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

The big announcement? According to a friend that is a mole at Mike's place, MTH's K-4 is not an HO model. It is a OH, or 1/86.9 scale model. This scale will be much more widely accepted than HO and a patent is pending. ....

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

I love it.

On the subject of compatibility, the PC analogy again comes to mind. The early PC's were not all 100% compatible. That came with time, as people learned and stop buying the less than 100% compatible. I don't know how compatible all the DCC systems are since many of them don't submit for testing with the NMRA. But those that aren't 100% compatble with the standard will either change or fade away as people start buying decoder equipped locomotives and expect them to be handled correctly. You can have extra features, but you have to correctly implement the standard ones or lose sales. MTH is too late to this market to try and impose their own proprietary system - like IBM found out with OS/2.
Enjoy
Paul

[AntonioFP45]

DK, you had me going there for about 2 seconds.......lol!

Ironrooster, good analogy as it is what happened with IBM years back. I may be incorrect, but I do believe that if MTH had tried to get into HO 5 or more years ago, and worked with a manufacturer like Walthers or Athearn (as well as the NMRA), ........who knows?

[robengland]

If I look deep in my soul, I have to admit that I really don't care enough about MTH's image that I wouldn't buy their product if it was attractive enough. If they came out with something more attractive I'd buy it. Call me shallow but the issue just isn't that important to me that I would spend more or forego the best. And I suspect most of the market is like me. Right now they have nothing that would attract me. So let's see what the market thinks of MTH's products. My personal opinion is they'll go the way of Keller and Astrac and AristoCraft and all the other proprietary command systems of the past: niche if they are lucky, extinction for most.

On the topic of "proprietary", yes all DCC systems are proprietary, except for the protocol for talking to the decoder. That's a big "except". The fact is that if I finally get too sick of Digitrax's cruddy user interface designs, I do have the choice of scrapping their gear and going Roco without re-chipping all my locos, and all my JMRI software and CTC will still work too.

Sure, the NMRA missed a huge opportunity to define protocols for throttles, command stations and stationary decoders too so we could have better competition through more mix-and-match, but that would have required some vendors to abandon existing proprietary foundations which politically wasn't ever going to happen. At least we have one non-proprietary layer which is one more than DCS.

[jnichols]

Forgive me for another post, but I have a thought for all those who still think DCS is proprietary...

So I got out and buy an MTH DCS system. I am very happy with it's performance running my 3-rail trains, and I would really like to expand it's use to the other areas of my railroading currently operating under DCC control. I decide to purchase a cheap PLC with two communications ports on it and I write my own interface between the DCS system (through the provided DB9 serial connector mind you) and my Digitrax DCC system using a LocoBuffer box and very common ASCII protocol. So now I'm using a DCS remote to control my DCC decoder equipped locomotives, and I can still run my DCS equipped locomotives as well. How is all this madness possible I wonder? After all, DCS is proprietary.

The point behind my rant is that anything is possible, and lumping the DCS system into the "it's a niche product" category is a very narrow minded way of looking at things. The fact that DCC decoders from other manufacturers will work on competitors command control systems is great. So why isn't the DCS system just another competitive command control system? This has been the point of my various posts here from the beginning. It makes no sense to write off DCS as a proprietary system, when in fact all of the DCC systems are proprietary. Wouldn't you think that if I can write an interface to allow the DCS system to communicate to a DCC system, the engineers at MTH could...[;)]

[Anonymous]

There seems to be general contempt of this MTS legal judgement about MTS versus Lionel et al, hince the malevolence against MTS. Do you all find the US Court contemptible in this case? Do you find the judge or the jury to be contemptible? It is sort of hard to figure out why if a US court finds for one side or the other that you all need to find the courts decision unaccectible unless you are willing to persue higher legal appeal. If you thought you owned something and someone took it and used it and made money with your property what would you do? Spelling errors are of course open to a whole new subject. But why beat up on MTH if a US court found in their favour? I would rather rely on the judgement of the court than public opinion.

[nblum]

"But why beat up on MTH if a US court found in their favour? "

Because in many people's opinion the judge's decisions and the jury's understanding of the issues left a lot to be desired. Like common sense. Many of the events and documents of the case are publicly available and to some people, the jury's interpretation of these events and documents is wrong headed and without merit..

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

Forgive me for another post, but I have a thought for all those who still think DCS is proprietary...

So I got out and buy an MTH DCS system. I am very happy with it's performance running my 3-rail trains, and I would really like to expand it's use to the other areas of my railroading currently operating under DCC control. I decide to purchase a cheap PLC with two communications ports on it and I write my own interface between the DCS system (through the provided DB9 serial connector mind you) and my Digitrax DCC system using a LocoBuffer box and very common ASCII protocol. So now I'm using a DCS remote to control my DCC decoder equipped locomotives, and I can still run my DCS equipped locomotives as well. How is all this madness possible I wonder? After all, DCS is proprietary.

The point behind my rant is that anything is possible, and lumping the DCS system into the "it's a niche product" category is a very narrow minded way of looking at things. The fact that DCC decoders from other manufacturers will work on competitors command control systems is great. So why isn't the DCS system just another competitive command control system? This has been the point of my various posts here from the beginning. It makes no sense to write off DCS as a proprietary system, when in fact all of the DCC systems are proprietary. Wouldn't you think that if I can write an interface to allow the DCS system to communicate to a DCC system, the engineers at MTH could...[;)]

So I go out and buy an MAC computer system. I am very happy with it's performance running my Mac software, and I would really like to expand it to use my other software currently operating under PC Windows control. I decide to purchase some cheap hardware with a PC bus on it and I write my own emulater/interface between the MAC system (through the DB9 serial connector mind you) and my PC peripherals system using a very common assembly language. So now I'm using a MAC to run my Windows software, and I can still run my MAC software as well. How is all this madness possible I wonder? After all, MAC is proprietary.

The point behind my rant is that anything is possible, and lumping the MAC system into the "it's a niche product" category is a very narrow minded way of looking at things. The fact that PC software from other manufacturers will work on any PC system is great. So why isn't the MAC system just another competitive PC system? This has been the point of my various posts here from the beginning. It makes no sense to write off MAC as a proprietary system, when in fact all of the PC systems are proprietary. Wouldn't you think that if I can write an emulater/interface to allow the MAC system to run PC software on PC peripherals, then anyone can...[;)]

Enjoy
Paul

[jnichols]

Paul,

Dude you are taking this whole MAC/PC thing too far I think... But I like it... [:p]

[davekelly]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bostonsrock

Do you all find the US Court contemptible in this case? Do you find the judge or the jury to be contemptible? It is sort of hard to figure out why if a US court finds for one side or the other that you all need to find the courts decision unaccectible unless you are willing to persue higher legal appeal. If you thought you owned something and someone took it and used it and made money with your property what would you do? Spelling errors are of course open to a whole new subject. But why beat up on MTH if a US court found in their favour? I would rather rely on the judgement of the court than public opinion.

Although not a perfect parallel, perhaps this would help explain my feeling:

One can win a case and be 100 percent in the right legally, but still be a jerk. Let's say you broke a picket on your neighbors fence. No big deal, you'll just fix it this weekend and let him know this evening on the way home from work. While at work you're served with a suit. The neighbor doesn't want to discuss it with you. It goes to court. You lose, after all you did break his fence. The court awards your neighbor $1.25 for a new picket, $25.00 to have a handy man install it, $60.00 court costs and $100.00 attorney fees. Plus you missed a day of work for the hearing/trial.

Of course the neighbor could have just given you call and the whole thing would have been taken care of for about $2.00 plus 20 or so minutes of work. But no, he went and did it this way. Of course he is 100 percent legally correct. His property was destroyed by you and he can legally pursue to right that wrong. Would you think he's being a jerk for doing what he is legally allowed to do?

If you think he is a jerk, does that mean you have contempt for the court? Of course not. The court finding (you broke his fence) is right on. The award is most likely within what the law allows. I have no contempt for the court at all. I do however, think the guy's a jerk for pursuing the matter this way.

I think this is what the fuss is about.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

QUOTE: Originally posted by bostonsrock

Do you all find the US Court contemptible in this case? Do you find the judge or the jury to be contemptible? It is sort of hard to figure out why if a US court finds for one side or the other that you all need to find the courts decision unaccectible unless you are willing to persue higher legal appeal. If you thought you owned something and someone took it and used it and made money with your property what would you do? Spelling errors are of course open to a whole new subject. But why beat up on MTH if a US court found in their favour? I would rather rely on the judgement of the court than public opinion.

Although not a perfect parallel, perhaps this would help explain my feeling:

One can win a case and be 100 percent in the right legally, but still be a jerk. Let's say you broke a picket on your neighbors fence. No big deal, you'll just fix it this weekend and let him know this evening on the way home from work. While at work you're served with a suit. The neighbor doesn't want to discuss it with you. It goes to court. You lose, after all you did break his fence. The court awards your neighbor $1.25 for a new picket, $25.00 to have a handy man install it, $60.00 court costs and $100.00 attorney fees. Plus you missed a day of work for the hearing/trial.

Of course the neighbor could have just given you call and the whole thing would have been taken care of for about $2.00 plus 20 or so minutes of work. But no, he went and did it this way. Of course he is 100 percent legally correct. His property was destroyed by you and he can legally pursue to right that wrong. Would you think he's being a jerk for doing what he is legally allowed to do?

If you think he is a jerk, does that mean you have contempt for the court? Of course not. The court finding (you broke his fence) is right on. The award is most likely within what the law allows. I have no contempt for the court at all. I do however, think the guy's a jerk for pursuing the matter this way.

I think this is what the fuss is about.

Nice summary counselor..

I think that some folks are confusing the legal issues between MTH and Lionel, MTH and QSI and the letters to the DCC manufacturers. I don't think anyone is beating up MTH for the suit against Lionel. Lionel's subcontractor did something wrong, they knew, proceeded anyway and got caught. Whether or not MTH had been using Lionel designs prior to that is immaterial. IMO many folks may think the damages awarded were a bit excessive, but that is a different subject.

What most of us object to is the perception, right or wrong, that MTH is forcing its way into the HO and DCC marketplace using litigation or the threat of, as a means to an end. How much time or money MTH put into 1 scale MPH increments, while seemingly a big thing to MTH, is a petty thing to the public (us) and appears to come across as heavy handed. The perception is that yet another proprietary system is being introduced , at a time when we the customers want more interoperability, even at the cost of some perhaps greater capabilities (ie the MAC/Beta vs. PC/VHS argument).

For me, MTH offers nothing that I desire. In the future, if they want me to switch to DCS then, it has to be compatible with what I have now (DCC / DC going to DCC) or be so inexpensive, reliable, available (from more than one manufacturer) and a future that I would want to trash DCC and switch.

The market will determine success or failure, but in the market as in anything else (cars, beer, soda) people have brand loyalties and perception is everything.

Dan

[jnichols]

davekelly,

I like your analogy, and I'm guessing it's in reference to the Lionel suit based on the language. I think my only problem with it is that the issue wasn't over a $1.25 picket from a fence, and I doubt a phone call to anyone at Lionel would've done much...

Like I said, your analogy is good, but consider when the picket costs several million dollars, a phone call is probably not the best approach (at least not if you want a new picket). Honestly I'm with most people here and elsewhere when it comes to how MTH has handled itself in the view of the public, poorly. I'm sure Mike would have done things differently if he had the benefit of foresight, unfortunately he doesn't, and so here we are. Only time will tell how things turn out.

[nblum]

A bit excessive? $40 million dollars represents the entire profits of MTH for a few decades at current rates. Even if you believe the theft of trade secrets story (which many do not), there is no way a few high end locomotives by Lionel caused anything remotely like 40 million dollars in losses to MTH, IMO. The jury was snozzled by MTH's lawyers and Lionel's lawyers obviously did poorly by comparison. MTH's losses of the late 1990s and early 2000s were entirely self-inflicted related to their very, very late addition of command control (in 2002, six years after Lionel), and their poorly managed transition between their PS1 and PS2 locomotive systems. Shot themselves in the foot and are trying to use the courts to bail themselves out, IMO.

[AntonioFP45]

Bostonrock,

Rely on the U.S court?????

In the past, perhaps but look at what happened recently with the "Eminent Domain" issue thanks to the way the liberal judges on the Supreme Court voted! Downright scary! Even Judge O'Conner had a hissy-fit. If it were possible, Thomas Jefferson would be spinning in his grave. Courts and juries are less predictable than ever and their judgements may or may not be wise or fair. Outcomes seem to be based on how well lawyers can manipulate and twist the facts and the rule of law.

But here, (forgive me for repeating) the MTH vs. Lionel issue is not what has HO and N modelers upset. It's MTH vs. QSI, and all the smelly laundry that came along with it. [B)][V]

There have been some very good posts here, and it's interesting how some of the posts seem to criticize DCC's shortcomings. Fair enough.

Let me look at this as a newbie customer's point of view: (yes I'm still a DCC newbie)

(1) DCC is no longer a new, unproven gimmick.
(2) Its popularity has greatly increased.
(3) Has been around some years now and is more user friendly today.
(4) Well supported by its manufacturers. (Look at TCS's "no questions asked" warranty)
(5) Available for G thru Z scales.
(6) Excellent sound possibilities. New Sound products are hitting the market.
(7) Loads of written info in books and on the web available to help newbies with DCC.

A model railroad club (huge HO layout) that I visited 2 years ago, overall, had virtually "zero" interest in DCC. A lot of old timers saw no use for it. Today, you can walk into that club as a visiting modeler, a member will hand you a DCC wireless controller and let you run his sound equipped locomotive complete with lighting effects. You can blow the horn, and activate the ditch lights while hearing turbo-chargers and dynamic brakes howl as those locomotives struggle with that long train. That's what DCC is all about. [:D][8D]

As a customer, in my opinion, I've seen DCC at work (as well as the occasional glitches). I'm still very impressed by it and will buy the products.

As for DCS in HO? I may be wrong, but based on what I've read:

(1) Haven't seen it yet.
(2) Read of its potential possibilities.
(3) Offers more in sound, such as "Train Station" announcements.
(4) Conflicting arguments posted by O Scale DCS owners on forums: DCS units can operate on dirty track. Other DCS owners say it DCS acts "freaky on dirty track. Which is it?.
(5) DCS, overall is much more expensive than DCC.
(6) It too has its occurences of "electronic glitches".
(7) There are compatibility issues with DCC.
(8) In time, MTH may start incorporating DCC style algorithms or features into DCS, thanks to DCC being "overall" an open platform technology.

So again, in not thinking about MTH's litigation actions, but as a customer at an LHS loaded with DCC items, what incentive would newbie's have with investing in the expensive DCS?

The argument that DCC is too complex for newbie's to understand is rapidly falling by the wayside.

Just my thoughts.

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

Bostonrock,

Rely on the U.S court?????

In the past, perhaps but look at what happened recently with the "Eminent Domain" issue thanks to the way the liberal judges on the Supreme Court voted! Downright scary! Even Judge O'Conner had a hissy-fit. ....

Actually, it was more of a conservative vote. The court said it was up to the local jurisdictions (i.e. the states) to decide what the law should be as long as there is just compensation as the Bill of Rights calls for. This is a pretty big win for conservatives who want a strict narrow interpretation of the Constitution and decentralized government . I would have preferred a more liberal result outlawing the use of eminent domain in cases like this one.

As someone once told me - the only thing you get for sure in court is a decision.
Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

Why not just put all the personal feelings aside and lets see what MTH does in respect to selection and quality models. It seems to me the more manufacturers we have producing HO trains the more completive prices will be, not to mention possibly a better selection of models and more competive prices. ( Example) When MTH announced they were going to do the diecast K4 BLI reduced the dealer cost of their K4 to the approximate same dealer price as the MTH model around $50.00) this allowed the dealers to sell the BLI K4 for less. Look what competition has done in the last 2 years for DCC. It's hard to belive we would have the selection we have now in DCC if only a couple of companies were sharing the HO market. MTH has a rep for doing models in the "O" gauge hobby that some other company's were not willing to take a chance on, they know they will have to impress a lot of tough HO hobbyist to make a dent this market and I'm willing to bet we'll see a lot of good models from them in the next couple of years. What do we care who enters HO if it means better selection and prices. If MTH produces poor models that flop the market will take care of them and they will go away as far as HO is concerned.. Thanks Bill

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by billoberst

Why not just put all the personal feelings aside and lets see what MTH does in respect to selection and quality models.

Bill:

I'm all for that, as long as said manufacturer doesn't pay shills to keep coming on this list and posting hyperbole.

It's one thing to have us modelers debating the ins and outs of MTH and their product announcements. It's another to have MTH plants keep coming on here and trying to club us over the head with their hype.

If MTH would just *back off* and let the forum discussion continue unfettered, I think we would all appreciate it more.

My 2 cents.

[Anonymous]

The negative stuff you read about MTH are lies. They'll do well in the HO market once people see the high quality of their products and the advantage of DCS.

[Anonymous]

Advantage of DCS?

I'm sorry, but I can't see any advantage from where I'm sat - I can buy DCC equipment from any number of manufacturers and it'll work together. I've had no problems with understanding the wiring or the operation of the system. I fail to see how a proprietory system can be advantageous compared to an open standard like DCC. I've not noticed any European manufacturers even mentioning it. Surely if it was as good as it is claimed to be Fleischmann et al would be working like crazy to make their models compatible? All I see right now are more and more models either DCC ready (with a socket) or with a factory-fitted decoder.

[dinwitty]

Reading about the HO K4, it has DCS and is DCC compatible.

thats a step in the right direction.

DCC is a control system and I could custom make my own, and there are some websites describing just that.

I think we hobbyists are mad because for one BLI had a cool thing in their lokie and it got removed by MTH litigation concerns.

I sometimes grow tired of these lawsuits and its the hobbyist that loses out.

They should find a solution so we can all party and have fun with the trains.

[nblum]

"The negative stuff you read about MTH are lies. They'll do well in the HO market once people see the high quality of their products and the advantage of DCS."

They said the same about Stalinism :). DCS has many disadvantages too, which is why when a survey was done on the OGRR Forum last year, of the those using command control, 80% were using TMCC only, 10% DCS and TMCC and 10% DCS only. A great testimony to being second to market six years late with a quirky system.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dinwitty

Reading about the HO K4, it has DCS and is DCC compatible.

thats a step in the right direction.

I would be interested in reading the details about the HO K4, but the information has not been posted.

Where did you find out any details and the promise it will run on both DCC and DCS or DC???
Thanks

[simon1966]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bangert1

QUOTE: Originally posted by dinwitty

Reading about the HO K4, it has DCS and is DCC compatible.

thats a step in the right direction.

I would be interested in reading the details about the HO K4, but the information has not been posted.

Where did you find out any details and the promise it will run on both DCC and DCS or DC???
Thanks

It was in the literature that they were handing out at the National train show. The HO line was not exactly prominent on the booth, if you walked past the booth without going into the center of it, you would have missed it. The fact that the K4 HO is not mentioned on the MTH web site and the lack of prominence given to the locomotive at the NTS would suggest that any formal marketing effort has not started as yet.

[Anonymous]

nblum,
I don't think TMCC will be around much longer according to Tony Lash. My understanding is that Mr. Wolf is prepared to agree to a settlement for the Lionel name and some compensation for the damages to MTH due to the blueprints stolen by Lionel and the Koreans. I would think he would incorporate DCS into any future Lionel engines.

[nblum]

If Mike Wolf actually winds up owning the Lionel name and puts DCS in Lionel locos, he will practically guarantee going bankrupt in the next five years, given the amount of money he would almost certainly need to borrow to own the Lionel name.