MTH DCS. . .Next evolution of DCC?

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mthrules

The folks who have used DCS in O gauge know how great it is. It's far superior to DCC in every way. It will take a while to convince people of the advantages over DCC, but once they try it, they'll be hooked.

Which people? The tiny minority who want to run their layout using only Pennsy K-4s? What about the rest of us?

And FWIW, it doesn't even look to be a particularly good model of a K-4. What's with the yawning gap under the firebox?

Mark.

[NS2591]

DCS will never make it, MTH will never make it. Stick to your O scale Mike, better yet, Get out of Modeling. DCS came in too late, I may have considered it untiill the Lawsuite with QSI came around. Had he not done that, made I (and many others) might look at it. I will never convert, i love my Digitrax!

[jnichols]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NS2591

DCS will never make it, MTH will never make it. Stick to your O scale Mike, better yet, Get out of Modeling. DCS came in too late, I may have considered it untiill the Lawsuite with QSI came around. Had he not done that, made I (and many others) might look at it. I will never convert, i love my Digitrax!

Geez Jay, did Mike come over and throw rocks at your house or something... [?] It's just too bad all you guys have to bash MTH. Never in my years as a modeler have so many people expressed their sour feelings for a company and situations they have such little knowledge of... [:(]

Jeff

[Anonymous]

Time will tell what system the greatest number of HO model railroaders will choose. There is another good comparison that can be made. Apple computers vs. the PC. Apple may make a better computer and have a better OS. But I'm sitting at a PC running Windows NT. Why? because Bill Gates made the architecture available for all who wanted to develope software and hardware to run with it. While apple chose to make their system proprietary and closed to hardware and software developers.

[dave hikel]

Though we haven't seen MTH's K4 yet we have seen DCS in O scale and I think we can make some informed comparisons with DCC. I've worked with DCS in O and G, and with DCC in HO. Here's my $.02

PROS of DCC as a system:
1. Compatibility of decoders and controlers
2. Competative market that has, and probibly will continue to, drive down cost
3. Lot of options for level of sophistication (Zephyr up to Super Chief)
4. Lots of equipment already available

CONS of DCC as a system:
1. Proprietary cabs and other hardware - the compatibility of DCC is great when we go to a club layout or a friend's house, but we still have to pick one manufacturer (for the most part) for our own layouts.
2. Lack of two-way communication - even with sensors and network systems like Loconet and Xpressnet we dont really get any info back to the cab from the locomotive.
3. Getting old - in spite of all the fine efforts by NMRA and Lenz, DCC just dosen't take advantage of many bits of techno wizardry that have become available to electronics manufacturers over the years. This is the double edged sword of having a standard. Example - The FCC (then FRC) gave us the NTSC standard for television, and ever since you could buy a TV that worked with any TV station's broadcast. But, the computer screen your looking at probibly is showing you a much higher resolution picture than your good old TV set.

PROS of running the MTH K4 in DCC:
The MTH K4 looks to be a highly detailed and highly featured locomotive in DCC. The list of sound, lighting and control features that can be accessed is impressive. From my way of thinking, MTH has come up with probably the most sophisticated DCC decoder available.

CONS of running the MTH K4 in DCC:
For those who want to run in DCC, but don't care about all the "bells and whistles," MTH dosen't offer a stripped down version - it's the whole nine yards or nothing. This makes the K4 pricey compared to other well detailed models without such systems.


PROS of DCS as a system:
1. LOTS of features in every locomotive - smph speed control, many sounds, good smoke (if you like), MU lash-ups of any locomotives without reprograming CV's, etc.
2. Two-way communications - this gives positive feed back of wheather or not the locomotives are executing commands.
3. Software based - both the locomotives and DCS hardware (track interface unit (TIU) and handheld (wireless remote cab)) can and have had software updates.
4. Price - Yes, price. The DCS hardware has an MSRP of $299.95, and you can easily find it for $250. For your $250 you get a system that can run 40 amps of AC or DC power, and a wireless cab. The closest comparable system in DCC is the Digitarax Super Chief (listed at Tony's Train Exchange for $449.95). Adding accessory control is also cost competative. The accessory interface unit (AIU) can be purchased for around $90. It has twenty relays (10 SPDT momentary and 10 SPDT latching) that can be controled from the cab. Each TIU can be connected to five AIU's. Additional cabs cost about $125. A FULLY maxed out DCS system would cost $4750 and could handle:
200 amps
98 locomotives
500 switches or accessories
unlimited number of wireless cabs

CONS of DCS as asystem
1. Only Protosound 2.0 and Protosound 3.0 equiped locomotives can run in command on DCS layouts and the K4 is the only Protosound 3.0 locomotive in HO - When MTH came out with the DCS system in O scale in 2004 they had already been selling Protosound 2.0 locomotives for two years, so a lot of guys could run several locomotives on day one.
2. DCS "decoders" not available for seperate purchase - MTH was suprised buy the level of demand from DCS users in O scale for upgrade kits. Some people even bought the cheapest Protosound 2.0 locomotives to rob the parts to upgrade their more expensive locomotives. This lead MTH to offer upgrade kits which has opened the door to installing Protosound 2.0 in almost any O scale locomotive. If MTH wants to attract HO operators to DCS they MUST do the same for Protosound 3.0. MTH can't come out with enough locomotives fast enough to compete with companies that have been in HO for decades. Their only hope for DCS is to let undividuals and hobby shops buy Protosound 3.0 electronics for installation in competitors products.
3. Only addresses 98 locomotives - This is the only major feature where DCC is ahead of DCS. Dave Kriebel (sp?) at MTH has told me in the past that they are considering a rewrite of the software to allow for 4-digit addressing, but that leads to con #4.
4. Only MTH can offer software - Currently MTH has not licensed any other companies to write software for the DCS system. This has greatly slowed the expansion of DCS into areas like full computer control of the layout. It has been painfully obvious to those in O scale that MTH is NOT a software company. If DCS is to survive and thrive on HO or O scales I believe they must licence software development to other parties.

PROS of running the MTH K4 in DCS
1. Full access to all features

CONS of running the K4 in DCS
1. It will be as lonely as the Maytag repairman

[jnichols]

Dave,

Excellent repsonse and a great addition to the wealth of information that's available about the DCS system. I did want to address a couple of your DCS cons based on information I have received through the grapevine...

QUOTE:

2. DCS "decoders" not available for seperate purchase - MTH was suprised buy the level of demand from DCS users in O scale for upgrade kits. Some people even bought the cheapest Protosound 2.0 locomotives to rob the parts to upgrade their more expensive locomotives. This lead MTH to offer upgrade kits which has opened the door to installing Protosound 2.0 in almost any O scale locomotive. If MTH wants to attract HO operators to DCS they MUST do the same for Protosound 3.0. MTH can't come out with enough locomotives fast enough to compete with companies that have been in HO for decades. Their only hope for DCS is to let undividuals and hobby shops buy Protosound 3.0 electronics for installation in competitors products.

I have heard through several sources that the Protosound 3 boards will be made available to the aftermarket soon. MTH realizes that in order for people in HO scale to take advantage of the DCS system, they must be able to retrofit it in other brands of locomotives. When this is made available, and what the final pricing will be is of course still in the air, but I for one can't wait. If the PS3 boards support all the features of the PS2 boards like downloadable sound files and cam systems using tach tape and IR sensors I will convert my On30 fleet over completely.

QUOTE:

3. Only addresses 98 locomotives - This is the only major feature where DCC is ahead of DCS. Dave Kriebel (sp?) at MTH has told me in the past that they are considering a rewrite of the software to allow for 4-digit addressing, but that leads to con #4.

I have also heard that this will be addressed in a new firmware release. While very few O scalers have 98 locomotives, there are many HO scale modelers with this many locomotives on their layout.

Thanks again for your post!

Jeff

[dave hikel]

Jeff,

Thanks for the kind words. I had not heard anything on MTH's plans to release PS3 kits, but this is encouraging. If this is the case, I think many of the early adopters of DCS in HO (or on HO track) will probably be owners of On30 who my already have DCS for O scale.

[jnichols]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dave hikel

Jeff,

Thanks for the kind words. I had not heard anything on MTH's plans to release PS3 kits, but this is encouraging. If this is the case, I think many of the early adopters of DCS in HO (or on HO track) will probably be owners of On30 who my already have DCS for O scale.

Dave,

You described me to a tee! I have had a DCS system for over two years now (yes I had a v1.0 setup) and use it daily with my 3-rail stuff, but I have been anxiously awaiting the smaller PS3 system. As I don't really model in HO scale, I could care less about all the negative K4 postings here and elsewhere. I have always preferred my DCS setup to any of the DCC systems I have owned, I look forward to ditching my current Digitrax setup once the PS3 boards are available and my small fleet of On30 equipment will make a great testing ground (especially if a smoke unit is included!). There are still a lot of questions about this product in my mind... Things like the reverse loop issue (this wasn't discussed in the MR review of the K4 which surprised me a bit), the physical size of the PS3 components, is the smoke unit going to be included in the PS3 kit, will the tach tape and IR sensor be included for speed control or will it be some form of BEMF, and many more will ultimately be the deciding factors for me switching over.

Hopefully MTH will realize that the market for factory decoder equipped models is but a mere sliver of what's really out there, and they will come to market quickly with an affordable alternative to the DCC products now available. I do know that sales of the PS2 conversion kits for the O scale models have far exceeded the expectations MTH had, so using this data they should release an installable PS3 system quickly. Honestly I think much of the anti-MTH/DCS/K4 sentiment would go away if this product was available as modelers in other scales would have the opportunity to play with the product in their own equipment and on their own layouts, but of course only time will tell... [:D]

Again thanks for the positive post! It's nice to read a post from someone who doesn't pummel MTH for trying to bring a cool new system to the smaller scales (I'll never understand this either... [xx(])

Jeff

PS> I'm considering buying a K4 just to gut it and remove the PS3 system for installation in a Spectrum On30 Consol. I will certainly post my findings if I decide to do this as I'm sure there are at least a few interested folks here... [;)]

[dave hikel]

I would just encourage anyone in HO who is interested in sound and lighting features and command control to keep an open mind and check out DCS on an O scale layout.

I'm sure DCC will remain the dominant system in HO for the forseeable future. But, just as competition from Apple has made the PC a better product, I think some competition for DCC will be beneficial in the long run.

Even if someone who uses DCC has NO interest in switching, I think they can benefit from seeing competitive products. I'm a full time layout builder, and I have never seen a layout that didn't give me some new ideas. Even if my other projects have nothing to do with the style or era of that layout it's still worth the time to look. I love seeing people get excited about their layouts, and the technology we use to run our trains has become a big part of that excitement.

[okiechoochoo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mthrules

The folks who have used DCS in O gauge know how great it is. It's far superior to DCC in every way. It will take a while to convince people of the advantages over DCC, but once they try it, they'll be hooked.[tup]
www.mthhotrains.com

I tried DCS in O guage and it didn't hook me. Had more problems than I knew what to do with and MTH tech wasn't much help. Sold it all. Now in HO and have no intention of trying it here

[JerryZeman]

Dave;

I'd like to add another few items to the PRO and CON list

DCS CONS
Con #1 - Two way communication. This feature, when it works, is great. The problem is frequently the locomotive gets "lost" on the railroad, resulting in messages such as "Locomotive not found, Check track circuit". If the layout isn't wired robustly enough, seeking a locomotive, and not finding it yields a message "Locomotive Not Found".

Con #2 - In order to overcome the finicky nature of DCS that are a well documented shortcoming in the O gauge three rail world, the user on medium to large layouts has to incorporate "star and home run" wiring into the railroad, which becomes a major PITA if trying to retrofit DCS to an existing layout. Add to this the need to hang lightbulbs all over the track circuits to stabilize the DCS signal.

DCS PRO

The DCS system comes with wireless remote throttles, which are a significant cost option in DCC. (I own NCE wireless DCC).

DCC PRO

DCC Pro #1 - DCC will deploy on any well wired conventional railroad, and I've seen exceptional results even on railroads with temporary wiring installations. No lost locomotives, and the worst that happens is speed changes due to voltage drops. I still successfully run DCC on my layout extension 80 linear ft. of wiring from my power booster, despite a 2.5 VAC line loss due to wire inductance (I need to twist my bus wires to eliminate the loss, already verified in testing external to the RR).

DCC Pro #2 - At least based on my experience with two HO railroads, a modular three rail hi-rail group, and a 28x20 home hi-rail layout, DCC is far more tolerant of dirty track than DCS.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

[dave hikel]

Jerry,

Thanks for adding to the discussion. You are of course quite right that DCS has some specific wiring requirements. I've done many DCS installations on layouts of all sizes. Right now I think the longest wire run I've done with DCS is +/- 140ft. on an outdoor layout. Many of the horror stories about getting DCS to work on exsisting layouts are exaggerated. Usually if a layout has been wired for block operation adding DCS is not hard because your already close to having star wiring. Where wire busses have been used the "light bulb trick," which works to match impedence in the wiring, will usually solve signal issues. Often the only real wiring changes that are needed are the addidtion of some ground wires, again to help with the impedence matching. When trouble persists and a locomotive misses a command it just keeps going, much like DCC. In this regard the two systems are very similar. I think a lot of peoples frustration with setting up DCS on exsisting layouts is caused by the rather odd fixes when trouble shooting. Now that we've had the system for a few years things are pritty well worked out. Anybody who dose try DCS in HO will benefit from the work done in O gauge, and this will deffinately make things easier.

An advantage of DCS when trying to trouble shoot signal problems is that each locomotive can be quiried for a signal strength reading on a scale of 1 to 10. Anthing above 4 will work, but will give the various error messages you sited. Readings above 7 will work well.

As for dirty track tolerance, no question DCS dosen't like it in O gauge, but its been less of a problem on the G gauge layouts I've seen. I suspect, but don't claim to know, that this is because of the better power pick-ups. In O gauge 3-rail you usually only get two rollers on the third rail and they tend to accumulate track dirt in a hurry. The new 2-rail/3-rail MTH diesels have four rollers (2 per truck) and I think this might be why. This is one of the reasons I've been interested to get one of the HO K4's and see how it dose out of the box on a layout that hasn't been cleaned.

[jnichols]

I agree with Jerry concerning the wiring issues as I have heard these same comments from other modelers, but as my 3-rail layout is really nothing more than a double mainline running around a shelf in my family room I haven't had a single issue (and I have two feeders for about 250 feet of track). I did have locomotive recognizing issues with one of the firmware revisions for the TIU and handheld, but the current 3.1 seems rock solid. As to the dirty track issues however...

I find myself chuckling when someone tries to compare the track cleaning requirements for an HO scale DCC equipped layout to that of an O scale 3-rail DCS/TMCC equipped layout. While I agree dirt is a problem regardless of scale when using track power, I've never had to clean my track to run my 3-rail trains, even after months and months of use. Sure things will get dirty enough to cause problems, but this is typically after a great deal of time has elapsed, and even then the problems are minimal. On the other hand, several of the HO scale clubs I operate at have nothing but nightmares with track cleaning and many an operating session has grinded to a halt because of this. All of them clean track prior to every event with various methods, and still there are always bad spots and power loses.

Honestly, it would take a slew of scientists and a battery of hands on tests to convince me how a 10-12 ounce HO scale locomotive with pickups through the wheelsets on 2 rails could have better electrical conductivity than a 5-6 pound O scale locomotive picking up power from two outside rails for ground and a center rail for power. Having an On30 layout and N scale layout using DCC at my home, I can surely attest that my 3-rail setup is virtually maintenance free in comparison. Jerry, it makes me wonder what kind of track you've used with your 3-rail stuff. I know the any of the phantom center rail stuff will cause huge problems if not dealt with. I have used Gargraves in the past with some success, but my current layout is done with the new Atlas phantom stuff, and I made sure to poli***he top of the center rail before it was installed.

Of course through all these discussions I realize that everyone has had different experiences to different products. Some seemingly make no sense to others as the problems are so isolated to one layout or user. Honestly I have no idea how well DCS will fair on a 2-rail HO scale layout. I can say that the new PS3 boards are supposed to be significantly more sensitive to the DCS signal than the PS2 boards are, and there is a heavy dose of capacitor backup for brief track power losses built in. Also, I have read several reviews of the K4 now under DCS power, and none of them has said anything about track power issues so I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Jeff

[dave hikel]

Hi Jeff,

More often then not, when I have encoutered power problems with 3-rail products it's been due to poor maintainance of the pick-up rollers. In particular, lack of even an ocational drop of oil. This leads to carbon build-up between the roller casting and the roller axle. The typical problem in DCS is that the locomotives start moving at such nice a slow speed that even small bits of dirt in the wrong places can cause an engine to loose power. This is easily corrected, and the problem will not reoccure for a LONG time, but it can be annoying. Buy the way, 5 or 6 pounds, come on , move up to a 25lb MTH Big Boy. [:D]

I think your experience with DCS is more typical. Larger layouts with complex track plans and thus complex wiring have been a challange, but most people have had few problems getting going. Something I usually advise for people who are new to any form of command control is to set up a simple loop directly connected to the control equipment. This gives them a chance to get use to how the system is suposed to operate. After that, when the system is connected to their layout they will know if something isn't running properly.

[jnichols]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dave hikel

Hi Jeff,

Buy the way, 5 or 6 pounds, come on , move up to a 25lb MTH Big Boy. [:D]

I think your experience with DCS is more typical.

Dave,

So you're a night owl too... [:D] You know I'd love to have a 25 lb Big Boy, but without the requisite O72 curves and lot's of clearance around those curves it isn't going to happen anytime soon....[;)]

I agree completely with your thoughts about wiring issues and command control, but I still find the track cleaning problems to be very minimal on my layout. Maybe it's my location within the US (very dry most of the time) or I'm really lucky, who knows?

Night!

Jeff

[JerryZeman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

As to the dirty track issues however...

I find myself chuckling when someone tries to compare the track cleaning requirements for an HO scale DCC equipped layout to that of an O scale 3-rail DCS/TMCC equipped layout. While I agree dirt is a problem regardless of scale when using track power, I've never had to clean my track to run my 3-rail trains, even after months and months of use. Sure things will get dirty enough to cause problems, but this is typically after a great deal of time has elapsed, and even then the problems are minimal. On the other hand, several of the HO scale clubs I operate at have nothing but nightmares with track cleaning and many an operating session has grinded to a halt because of this. All of them clean track prior to every event with various methods, and still there are always bad spots and power loses.

Experiences with dirty track vary greatly from user to user. On my basement sized HO railroad, with dirty track in a DCC environment (flunks the white glove test), with a rolling stock fleet that exclusively uses metal wheels, with track that is oiled, I do not have issues with dirty track. The motive power consists of Stewart F unit drives, P2K GPs and FAs, some older Tenshodo GN power, a few Key Limited brass NP articulateds, etc. I have two locomotives that DO have problems with dirt (and need cleaning of their wheels and pickups), a P2K 0-8-0, and a Bachmann 2-8-0, and that is largely due to the design of their pickups. Given their poor reliability, they don't get used anywhere near as much as their Tenshodo equivalents.

My hirail experiences are exclusively on a modular railroad built to Independent HiRail standards. GarGraves track, with Gargraves, Ross, or Curtis switches are used on the RR. I've witnessed DCS signals deteriorate on setups within 10-20 laps on our smaller layout setups, starting at 10 and deteriorating to 2 or less. (it doesn't run on our medium to large layouts, and we haven't went the star wire route, and probably won't). For that matter, I've seen deterioration in performance on TMCC equipped locomotives when run for a couple of hours (last year with a K-Line 2-8-2 light mike).

The modular railroad sees traffic density far greater than a home layout. It also sees a plethora of equipment, and I sure can't attest to the cleanliness of the wheelsets that run across the railroad during a show. All I can say is I am surprised, and disappointed, at how sensitive three rail motive power seems to be to dirt, and I don't care if the locomotive is DCS or TMCC controlled.

QUOTE: Honestly, it would take a slew of scientists and a battery of hands on tests to convince me how a 10-12 ounce HO scale locomotive with pickups through the wheelsets on 2 rails could have better electrical conductivity than a 5-6 pound O scale locomotive picking up power from two outside rails for ground and a center rail for power.

The weight has absolutely nothing to do with the equation, at least as far as the three rail beast. The weight on drivers only affects the common side of the circuit. The hot side takes it's feed from the center rail, through rollers. The only force on that roller is the spring tension on the roller, plus the negligible weight of the roller and bracket itself. For simplicity, we can assume that the contact patch is probably roughly equivalent to the contact patch of an HO wheel on an HO rail.

That would mean that a locomotive in a two rail application (don't care which scale), will probably perform better than a three rail application as there would be more contact patches per locomotive to pick up power on the hot side. The only way this can be confirmed however is for that fine MTH K-4 to get some track time in DCS mode on several railroads to determine just how well it works. I'm still waiting for MTH to come over to my railroad to run a test with DCS. [:D] I have some reverse loops I'd like to see how it handles. [:D][:D][:D]

QUOTE: Having an On30 layout and N scale layout using DCC at my home, I can surely attest that my 3-rail setup is virtually maintenance free in comparison. Jerry, it makes me wonder what kind of track you've used with your 3-rail stuff. I know the any of the phantom center rail stuff will cause huge problems if not dealt with. I have used Gargraves in the past with some success, but my current layout is done with the new Atlas phantom stuff, and I made sure to poli***he top of the center rail before it was installed.

As stated above, my modules, as well as all other modules in our group use Gargraves track with a combination of Gargraves, Ross, and Curtis switches. Our track is cleaned before the start of every session, and on shows with setups over more than one day, we run a Centerline track at the start of each day.

Regarding your comments on the Atlas phantom stuff, I have experience with it also, as the home railroad that I talked about is built with that track (I am helping build it). That railroad is designed with DCS in mind, and he has stripped off all of the blackening from the center rail, as well as using OGR twisted pair wiring, and hanging about 12 lightbulbs around the railroad.

So recently, I go over to his place, and I bring my MTH Great Northern R-2 to test run. He fires up the railroad, and moves a couple of his MTH steam engines around (a WM Consolidation, and CB&Q 0-8-0), and everything is running wonderfully. I put my R-2 on the track, acquire the locomotive, and go running around the RR for about five laps. Works like a dream. Take it over to the turntable, runs on just fine. Spin the engine around and I get the "No Locomotive Found, check track circuit". No problem, I figure that the problem is the turntable. Move it, and try again. Locomotive acquired. Run it around for about 1/2 lap, and it "gets lost" again. The only way I can reacquire it is to physically remove the whole locomotive, set it back on the rails, power up the DCS, and try again. Works for another 1/2 lap or so, then the same problem. Get disguisted, put it back in the box. Write post to the OGR DCS board to try to learn what might be the problem. Evidently, there is a battery that can discharge, and if it doesn't hold a charge, the loco acts up. You won't have that problem with a DCC locomotive with sound, as there is no battery.

Maybe you can call me Little Raincloud, but my DCS experiences have been anything but pleasant. I have NEVER encountered this level of frustration with my DCC HO railroad.

QUOTE: Of course through all these discussions I realize that everyone has had different experiences to different products. Some seemingly make no sense to others as the problems are so isolated to one layout or user. Honestly I have no idea how well DCS will fair on a 2-rail HO scale layout. I can say that the new PS3 boards are supposed to be significantly more sensitive to the DCS signal than the PS2 boards are, and there is a heavy dose of capacitor backup for brief track power losses built in. Also, I have read several reviews of the K4 now under DCS power, and none of them has said anything about track power issues so I'll keep my fingers crossed.

I have no idea how DCS will perform in a two rail HO environment either, but until MTH does some real world demonstrations on actual model railroads, we aren't going to know, are we? I'd like something other than Andy Edleman marketingspeak on the "robustness" of MTH DCS to convince me that this is a better solution than DCC.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

[jnichols]

Jerry,

I would hardly call you a Little Raincloud... [;)] I do think that R2 of yours is being a bit tempermental, but as you didn't mention another locomotive I'm not sure if you have one problem child or many. I can tell you the battery issue is real, and keeping it charged is very important for optimal operation. This usually doesn't come up with my layout as all the locomotives are on the layout and always charging when in operation which is pretty much everyday.... [:D]

As always you make good statements based on your experiences, and it sounds like they haven't all been happy ones. I'm very sorry to hear that because I think your view of DCS would be quite different if your experiences had been positive ones. I also have a slew of questions to be answered before jumping on PS3 bandwagon (reverse loops being one of the most important), so I'm sort of in the same boat as you. I have decided to buy a K4 a gut it for an On30 test, so I should know more in a bit.

Thanks as always for your posts! Even though you don't feel the same way about DCS the way myself or a few others do, you make good arguments and your posts are always good reading!

Jeff

[CAZEPHYR]

 Does anyone of us really have any information about DCS in HO??

This is an interesting subject, but it never gets answered.

 

[AntonioFP45]

 Does anyone of us really have any information about DCS in HO??

This is an interesting subject, but it never gets answered.

 

Well Caz, you know the situation.  Most of the technical "speculation" that's been discussed has been based on DCS application in O scale, which of course has very significant differences when compared to HO.

Just as with new products all we can do is wait and see.  Even after it hits the market it may be a while before we read or hear of significant numbers of customer feedback.  Of course, IMHO, MTH's competitor's such as Digitrax, Lenz, NCE, QSI, BLI/PCM, etc will likely purchase units as well for laboratory "dissection".  Typical sauce for the goose........or business as usual.   

[CAZEPHYR]

Antonio

When I see your name incorporating FP45, it reminds me you should be very happy with the recent announcement from Athearn about the FP45 and F45 on their new products.  I hope it is as good as the Genesis F units in detail, as they have set new standards for detail. 

The DCS and MTH advertisement for HO is interesting to me since it has been going on for so long, any word of it being available and actual viewing of the product may be anticlimactic to our forum.  

I read last week that the models were in shipment and one reader said he was to get his last week, but no report or review by readers up until now. .   

[AntonioFP45]

Antonio

When I see your name incorporating FP45, it reminds me you should be very happy with the recent announcement from Athearn about the FP45 and F45 on their new products.  I hope it is as good as the Genesis F units in detail, as they have set new standards for detail. 

- I have to admit that I was happy and quite surprised as Athearn reps told me several times since 2003 that updating the "Cowls" was not on their list.  Glad to see that they had a change of heart. 

The DCS and MTH advertisement for HO is interesting to me since it has been going on for so long, any word of it being available and actual viewing of the product may be anticlimactic to our forum.  I read last week that the models were in shipment

-  I'm pretty sure that the "Big Story" will break when the LHS's get their first units. We'll be seeing threads pop up here, that's for sure! 

I've been following the MTH threads ever since the big hoopla back in 2004.  As I stated on another MTH thread, it's like watching a tired old soap opera.....but we keep tuning in regardless!

 

 

 

[ndbprr]

At least we can have some serious discussion since our "MTH friend" doesn't seem to have crossed the barrier into the new realm (yet!).

[darth9x9]

If you are into O gauge (or scale), you really only have two choices:  Lionel's system or MTH's DCS.  Choosing between the two is a no-brainer - favoring MTH's DCS.  In HO scale however, DCS, is a step backward.  Many of the CVs are -NOT- settable.  A friend of mine talked to the fellow who helped engineer DCS (and who by the way is an O scaler), said that they designed the system to cater to the DC world since that is what 90% of HO people are using - yup, he thinks only 10% of the HO market uses DCC.  That is incredible short sightedness on MTH's part.  No one said that every manufacturer was a marketing genius.

 

[CAZEPHYR]

If you are into O gauge (or scale), you really only have two choices:  Lionel's system or MTH's DCS.  Choosing between the two is a no-brainer - favoring MTH's DCS.  In HO scale however, DCS, is a step backward.  Many of the CVs are -NOT- settable.  A friend of mine talked to the fellow who helped engineer DCS (and who by the way is an O scaler), said that they designed the system to cater to the DC world since that is what 90% of HO people are using - yup, he thinks only 10% of the HO market uses DCC.  That is incredible short sightedness on MTH's part.  No one said that every manufacturer was a marketing genius.

darth9x9

You have made an interesting observation that I had not heard comparing the MTH DCS to the Lionel system.  It might be we have all been thinking in like terms for all of the scales and uses, but they really do differ.  I noticed that early on in this subject, someone was talking about the track and the fact it did not have to be cleaned with the three rail, at least very often.   That probably is true since the engine weight is so greater and the third rail roller or wiper is spring loaded and has force behind it. 

In HO, we depend on gravity and most of the latest engines are plastic with some weight added.   The lack of weight and the much smaller two rail system has to be much cleaner.   This is the reason some of the latest sound locomotives have given problems to new owners that simply ran dc or a few DCC a lived with the problem of dirty track or poor contacts.

Thanks for the observation.   I don't have three rail, but it does sound like DCS is an improvement. 

I can remember when we use to run the American Flyer, we would run the trains to clean the rails and you could smell the sparks when you first ran it after it set unused for a time.   The point is, it would clean up because of the weight and slider tender pickups and start to run good.  

[DMUinCT]

Why is DCS the best?

Lionel in "O" is the largest company and has the "TMCC/Railsound" system. They will "license" others to install "TMCC". It is 3 Rail AC.


MTH is the second largest and uses DCS only in MTH Electric Trains, BUT!!!
It can run both MTH and Lionel products in Command Control. It can run a locomotive in ether AC or DC. It can run ether 2 Rail or 3 Rail. It can run in ether Analog or Digital. It uses a screen on the hand held Remote to read what you are doing. It can run "O" gauge, "G" gauge, and now "HO" gauge. Updates to DCS (software allways has problems) can be downloaded by the Internet for FREE. Don't like your Locomotive sound, download a new "file" from the Internet.

I collect "O" gauge and run "G" gauge, I have MTH "G" locomotives and have upgraded 3 Aristos to DCS. Control/sound upgrade kit $150 (too big for "HO"). IF, IF, the "HO" can be made compatible with DCC, upgrades in both "G" and "HO" would be easy. Buy the way, the sound level control is a must for outdoor operation.

[DigitalGriffin]

Control/sound upgrade kit $150 (too big for "HO"). IF, IF, the "HO" can be made compatible with DCC, upgrades in both "G" and "HO" would be easy. Buy the way, the sound level control is a must for outdoor operation.

 

It seems this thread was dead for several months.  Why bring it up now?

First post by a newb and it's in support of DCS. 

You know the rules for trolls guys.  Do not reply.  It only feeds them.

[brothaslide]

It seems this thread was dead for several months.  Why bring it up now?

First post and it's in support of DCS. 

You know the rules for trolls guys.  Do not reply.  It only feeds them.

I don't see how anyone is trolling.  I initially posted this thread and I was not in favor of DCS; I was just asking for opinions.

[DigitalGriffin]

It seems this thread was dead for several months.  Why bring it up now?

First post and it's in support of DCS. 

You know the rules for trolls guys.  Do not reply.  It only feeds them.

I don't see how anyone is trolling.

The post above mine is "highly suspect" for trolling.  Not any thing you posted.

[CAZEPHYR]

If you are into O gauge (or scale), you really only have two choices:  Lionel's system or MTH's DCS.  Choosing between the two is a no-brainer - favoring MTH's DCS.  In HO scale however, DCS, is a step backward.  Many of the CVs are -NOT- settable.  A friend of mine talked to the fellow who helped engineer DCS (and who by the way is an O scaler), said that they designed the system to cater to the DC world since that is what 90% of HO people are using - yup, he thinks only 10% of the HO market uses DCC.  That is incredible short sightedness on MTH's part.  No one said that every manufacturer was a marketing genius.

I read about the greatness of DCS over the Lionel system, but that is three rail and it must be somewhat different from two rail operation.    Try two rail DCS as in #1 scale.  I purchased the Challenger two years ago and the DCS system for the two rail track.  It is very interesting and has great sounds since the large speaker in the tender can really make the whistle sounds as they should be and the chuffing is extremely good.   

If you set the engine on the track facing the wrong direction, the DCS system reports the engine is not on the track or it is out of RF range.   The model has to be re-positioned on the track or the leads have to be reversed to run the engine in DCS mode.  

I don't see the # 1 scale as a highly advanced system but I realize the HO version will run on DCC or DCS.  It must be a later version of their software, but the #1 scale is very limited to a giant loop of track with your engine facing a certain direction.   I enjoy the model since it is a great looking engine, but it has many limitations that I would like to see corrected.  DCS will not be the next step for my HO use.   

The service department repaired my DCS unit two times at no cost.   If you lay anything on the track, it seems to blow out the DCS driver that allows the unit to talk to the engine in DCS mode, but you could still run it in DC mode.   It is too tempermental for my use outside. 

Overall, the model is nice and fun to run but not pratical for outside use.   I would still buy it again just for the value of it as a display item. 

 

[Anonymous]

It doesn't do any good for O scaler's (oh I'm sorry, O "guagers") to come and preach the MTH gospel here. The writing is on the wall for MTH and their goofy little DCS system. They blew it early on and have generated quite the negative attitude since.

BTW, if I was going into O, I'd be buying Atlas O! The detail on those engines is astounding! Sure they use TMCC for 3 rail aplications, but both MTH and Lionel could both learn a few lessons from Atlas O locomotives!