@G3750 posted:In what alternate universe do two products from the same company, ostensibly from the same engineering department, interfere with the workings of each other? And more importantly, we blithely:
- Accept that as "normal"
- Discuss ways in which we (not them) can fix the problem
I tend to agree that there should probably be some sort of testing that goes on to avoid this situation - but that said, after the release of the Rev L. TIU and some of the issues with output drivers for the DCS signal getting damaged, it could be that there is a threshold at which the signal falls below a usable level.
Granted, the OP should be able to run the cars with any DCS engine she wants, but how do we know that her TIU is not in a degraded state and this just pushes it past the point of working correctly?
Like GRJ mentioned to - anything attached to the track is going to inflict some sort of change to the signal - that's the nature of electricity. As an engineer, I know that changes to the impedance, capacitance, and inductance of the circuit will alter the signal and much of this happens in less than predictable ways depending on the gauge of wire used, the soundness of electrical contacts, and the quality of the track used (dirt, grime, rust, etc.). And who hasn't heard the stories of people "blowing" on Nintendo game cartridges to make those work.
Lionel's use of an RF signal has some clear benefits here, but RF engineering comes with it's own set of caveats and challenges. I can remember working on some RF circuits and a < 1mm movement of a piece of metal near the transmitter would alternately improve or destroy the signal completely - and I've on many occasions noted that I had to repeat a command on my TMCC remote owing to the fact that either the command base or the locomotive "missed" the command. I think DCS problems are a little more apparent because of the two way communication and (I think) the default setting of the DCS remote to confirm response before letting the user continue (i.e. speed mode vs. "non-speed" (?) mode).
Overall I think what we accept in this hobby for the money we pay is sort of ridiculous, on the other hand - these toys are little miracles in and of themselves sometimes. When I was a kid - I remember playing with an Apple IIe and some early Lego motor control systems and thinking to myself - wow, what if I could this with my trains, but I never dreamed we'd get to this level of technology we are at now. My biggest complaint about it is that TMCC and DCS are not really "open" standards. We can't "roll are own" as they say. I really look for some Arduino or Raspberry Pi solution to eat everyone's lunch soon - which will be a real boon to customers trying to keep their aging (and likely soon to be unsupported) command locomotives running.
Personally - I'd rather get models from the manufacturers that are high on detail, mechanically sound, with a motor, lighting, wiring, and a speaker that I could put my own electronics into. I think it would actually benefit them to stay out of the electronics market - that kind of R&D is very specialized and costly. Maybe I should switch to HO...
Nah... where's the fun in that! Long live our 5ft prototype, sometimes scale, sometimes not, BIG, IMPRESSIVE, LOUD, SMOKE BILLOWING O gauge!
