I want to see DCS in these locos, especially since it is capable to operate 2-rail.
@G3750 posted:WRT 1: You are correct. One person's problems aren't enough. But that's not the case with DCS. Many, many modelers (some very well known) have had trouble getting it to work consistently or work at all. Five TIU versions and dozens of software upgrades in 20 years - doesn't look like a reliable system to me (and I built reliable systems for a living). Over on the DCS sub-forum you have a legitimate rocket scientist (PhD EE from NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory) who's had to diagnose and fix a number of DCS issues. Doesn't sound like a case of simple user error or reliability, does it?
What's the basis for a reliable system? I'd say good hardware and following correct wiring. Every time I've personally seen issues with DCS on layouts it's caused by nightmare wiring or not wiring according to the instructions that came with the system. There is A LOT of issues cause by end users. In the same breath DCS isn't engineered to idiot proof status, which in all honesty most things should be to be considered super reliable. Design it for the lowest common denominator so it just works all the time. Updates are just that, things to correct issues and update the software. Happens all the time with PCs or any other device. Heck I have to update the operating system on my phone more often than DCS 
.
DCS is like DCC, in the way that the end user has control of sounds and other modifications to locomotives. The customer can't even accomplish those basic things with Legacy, because it's all proprietary. Want to change the whistle in you Legacy steam locomotive? You can't. Lionel has locked the end user out of any modifications. DCS and DCC are more user friendly for the operators who want to get the most out of their systems. Legacy is take what you get and be happy, because Lionel gave the end user no means to update or change things in Legacy locomotives.
If the number of software upgrades is indicative of quality, what about the frequent upgrades to my computer software? As to the number of versions of TIUs, my computer hardware differs somewhat from my 1990 computer.
My wife has frequent software issues. She won't be reading this post, so I'll dare to say it's most often operator error.
Bottom line really is that people have differing preferences. Some people like to drive Fords or GMs; others prefer to push Yugos or Fiats
It's ironic that the DCC purists and the TMCC lovers are showing their disdain for Atlas planning to put DCS into newly acquired MTH tooled locomotives. 
For those that do not like DCS, you lose nothing. Where's the beef?
Haters gonna hate!
@Lou1985 posted:Ding, ding, winner. With PS3 Atlas can reduce production costs. Now there will be one wiring harness and board set for both 3 rail and 2 rail that will operate with a major 3 rail control system (DCS) and a 2 rail control system (DCC).
Lou,
I agree with you, continuing DCS is a beautiful thing. I have owned and operated DCS, TMCC, and Legacy for 10 years, and I find both systems have their pros and cons, and I don’t find one to be superior than the other.
DCS certainly has some quirks and is more sensitive to signal interference such as dirty track. With that said I find DCS to be reliable for the most part. MTH has come a long way with its PS 3.0 locomotive hardware and I have had yet to have a board fail. I find DCS to be easier to set up, the two way communication system is great, and the ability to piggyback DCS onto Legacy is an excellent feature.
Bottom line is TMCC and DCS are both great systems, and it would be a enormous loss on the hobby to lose one
@Oman posted:It's ironic that the DCC purists and the TMCC lovers are showing their disdain for Atlas planning to put DCS into newly acquired MTH tooled locomotives.
I’ve never understood the beef, or the argument at all. I have had them all. DCC is the way forward for me if for no other reason than the MTH and Lionel remotes are usability design disasters.
The thing that’s drawing me from 3-rail to 2-rail for my next O layout is that I am all-in on DCC and the extensibility it brings.
I am not judging and not arguing. We all have our preferences and I respect that.
Rob
The Atlas O scale PS-1 50' box car and the Premier O scale PS-1 50' box car is similar, but not identical.
They should make both since it has taken so long for that model to be produced. There are still railroad schemes that have not been mass produced in O scale.
Andrew
Just getting back into the hobby and have a bunch of MTH and Atlas locomotives. 2-rail.
Chose MRC for DCC and both Atlas and the PS3 MTH's run great with this system.
Bring it on! 
Chuck
@rdunniii posted:They own it, they just cannot remove it from China. If they did not own it they would not be able to make multiple runs because the Chinese recycle tooling to make more money from the tooling once a run is complete and so it cannot be pirated.
Maybe what Atlas actually got is a working factory to actually make stuff for them.
Getting tooling out of China isn’t impossible, its just difficult. The company I work for has had several injection molding dies made in China and has successfully brought them to the US. It really depends on who you partner with in China and you have to run production parts there for a while. Once they get a sufficient return on the investment, it becomes possible to get the tooling released.
Model train tooling really has no reason to come back to the US though, too cost prohibitive to build trains here: especially highly detailed scale models.
@MikeH posted:Haters gonna hate!
Really? So questioning the logic of continuing a product with so many flaws is all about hate?
Now, that notion truly is (ahem) a bit screwed up.
George
@Lou1985 posted:What's the basis for a reliable system? I'd say good hardware and following correct wiring. Every time I've personally seen issues with DCS on layouts it's caused by nightmare wiring or not wiring according to the instructions that came with the system. There is A LOT of issues cause by end users.
You might have an opinion as to reliability, but I know. I built reliable systems (99.999%) for a living. Some are 20+ years old and still running reliably.
5 hardware revisions in 15 years is not an indicator of "good hardware". It's a red flare. Think of new h/w as a RECALL. It indicates problems in search of an answer. You can't compare software revisions to hardware replacements (or recalls, if you will). DCS was advertised as needing only the initial set of hardware and that all new features would come in software.
DCS is like DCC, ...
No, it absolutely is not like DCC.
DCC was created to a publicized standard, rigorously tested, maintained and upheld. DCS was rushed into production, is proprietary, and its primary problem resolution still depends on its own end-users, "beta-testers", and "champions". A whole cottage industry has sprung up out of making DCS function properly. And when all else fails, a favorite tactic is to blame the user.
I'm finished talking on this subject.
George
@G3750 posted:I'm finished talking on this subject.
George
Read the whole of what I said about DCS and DCC:
"DCS is like DCC, in the way that the end user has control of sounds and other modifications to locomotives. The customer can't even accomplish those basic things with Legacy, because it's all proprietary. Want to change the whistle in you Legacy steam locomotive? You can't. Lionel has locked the end user out of any modifications. DCS and DCC are more user friendly for the operators who want to get the most out of their systems. Legacy is take what you get and be happy, because Lionel gave the end user no means to update or change things in Legacy locomotives."
Legacy sounds can not be modified by the end user. DCS and DCC sounds can be. Legacy is a closed system to the end user. Also in 20 years I'm sure there's been no revisions to any DCC hardware, only DCS 😉. Atlas going to PS3 saves them money, because the only need one board setup for 2 and 3 rail. With TMCC (which is NOT DCC compatible) they need two different setups.
Legacy/TMCC is best for the end user who doesn't want to modify anything about their locomotives . You like the new sound set in the latest Lionel Legacy Big Boy but have a 4 year old one? Cool. Sell it and buy the newest Big Boy. Like the newest sound set in latest PS3 Big Boy but have a 4 year old PS3 Big Boy? Cool download the newest sound file (for FREE) and load it into your 4 year old Big Boy. Seems an awful lot DCC like to me 😉.
And DCC is even better than DCS. When DCS eventually goes completely away I'll probably gut out all my PS2/PS3/TMCC/Legacy locomotives and go to that system.
Thank you Atlas for stepping up in these trying times
@trainbob posted:Thank you Atlas for stepping up in these trying times
Atlas got into the game. Stepping up to the plate is yet to come. I see this transition as a work in progress. It can be long and somewhat painful. As a user of mostly Lionel and MTH, I have shied away from Atlas. Logistics and meeting delivery times seems to be a struggle. I think of the Burlington F units I purchased last year. These were pre-ordered a very long time. Cencellations made some available. That's where I cam in and swooped.
I think Atlas is up to it. Wether or not they recognize the costs for this type of growth is up to them. If they want to stretch out margin at the expense of "blocking and tackling", they will have a hard time. Let's hope they put in the physical and human capital to take on this challenge. You can't be the old stodgy company short on delivery and sitting on track and switch sales for this to succeed. I for one, look forward to their first catalog offerings. I will give them a try and see how they do.
I feel confident that Atlas delivery will no longer be a problem with product being produced in the MTH factory.
@G3750 posted:Really? So questioning the logic of continuing a product with so many flaws is all about hate?
Nah, I'm sorry. Just funnin George! 
@G3750 posted:I'm finished talking on this subject.
George
about time. Maybe refrain in the beginning next time?
You represent what's wrong here. Piling on mis-info and poor... ahh forget it. It's not worth my time.
If someone wants help with DCS, that's different. We'll help. If someone wants to bash it, go away.
I don't bash Lionel and I could.
@G3750 posted:Maybe Lionel will counter the situation by licensing Legacy to the other remaining 3-rail train manufacturers - Williams, 3rd Rail, even Atlas. That would be a huge game-changer.
George
I'd be just as happy having 3rd Rail have access to Legacy as much as I would DCS. I'll take either one. 
Perhaps Atlas adopting DCS will cause Lionel to change their stance. I doubt that WBB will use either.
@G3750 posted:You might have an opinion as to reliability, but I know. I built reliable systems (99.999%) for a living. Some are 20+ years old and still running reliably.
This doesn't make sense... You build 99.999999999999% reliable systems but only some made it to the 20+ year mark and are still working...??
@G3750 posted:DCS was advertised as needing only the initial set of hardware and that all new features would come in software.
I have an 18 year TIU that is still working perfectly, and through software updates, I receive all operating features as newest TIU built today. it has never been serviced, and it's reliability is well... 100%.
@G3750 posted:Think of new h/w as a RECALL.
Really??? so every time Ford came out with a new version of the F-150, they were really saying the old ones were bad and should be recalled??? Why didn't MTH "recall" the older TIU's to be repaired or destroyed?? How many different Hardware versions are there of the Postwar ZW, are you saying that every ZW before the type R were also terrible and should be recalled?
