Thanks Mike for all you have done for us. Being this early in the story it’s hard to tell what will happen,but I’m sure there will be a happy ending to the story. Good luck Mike.
As for MTH and HO:
I don't know how well MTH's HO offerings were going over with the HO market, but the HO forums that I frequent the consensus was "no thank you".
A quote:
'I would say that 90 percent of the HO market is complete garbage."
To which I would say this statement is NOT in touch with HO reality. Fact is, we've never had it so good in HO. When it comes to the current product (I'm in reference to engines in particular) by reputable mfg'ers, well, the detail is fantastic, the performance excellent, and with the compatibility of DCC... well... it's truly amazing. And, from what I've seen in review videos, MTH HO products ran NICE.
It is going to be interesting to see what transpires with the MTH situation.
Andre
@laming posted:As for MTH and HO:
I don't know how well MTH's HO offerings were going over with the HO market, but the HO forums that I frequent the consensus was "no thank you".
A quote:
'I would say that 90 percent of the HO market is complete garbage."
To which I would say this statement is NOT in touch with HO reality. Fact is, we've never had it so good in HO. When it comes to the current product (I'm in reference to engines in particular) by reputable mfg'ers, well, the detail is fantastic, the performance excellent, and with the compatibility of DCC... well... it's truly amazing. And, from what I've seen in review videos, MTH HO products ran NICE.
It is going to be interesting to see what transpires with the MTH situation.
Andre
Today's HO scale is excellent, with gorgeous detail, great electronics (although I thankfully can still buy non-DCC motive power), and tremendous running characteristics. Most of the HO equipment out there today will easily run as good or better than any O scale made.
HO scale is smaller (I bet you didn't see that coming!!), so of course there are aspects of the smaller scale that are more fiddily, and I'm old enough to where I completely understand the eyesight dilemma.
The one area where HO falls down in my opinion is that HO scale equipment can be rather delicate. O and S scale equipment is more robust by far (and N scale, believe it or not, is extremely durable, too). On layouts where the rolling stock is handled often it's a real thing to consider.
MTH made some nice HO scale models, but I'm pretty certain that Mike Wolf was disappointed with the firm's results in that market, and I think it's a big factor in the way things are playing out now.
Jeff C
The visceral reaction to the announcement that MTH is simply not going to be here at a date certain was partly due to its unfotrunate timing. We have all been affected by the COVID 19 pandemic. We have all been waiting for good news and our hopes were that we could move back to business as usual. Having heard the problems that small businesses were encountering, without knowing all the details, the problems facing reopening and future uncertainty are and were daunting. Mike Wolf made an important decision for him. However, from the expressions I have read, a good deal of the forum perceives MTH and Mike Wolf as an old friend and his sudden departure creates a great sense of loss. We have seen him become an important aspect of our hobby. This is normal and appropriate, but, once again, we are in the hobby where we create our own worlds. We have never been confined to what is available or even what is readily available. It is good to see that we are past the first steps of grief and finding our sense of humor. I would still welcome Mike Wolf to my home for his comments and a photo op.
@NYC 428 posted:"Some people like to talk about how MTH pioneered the move to more scale-like products. They certainly took it mass-market, which was a great deal for the hobby and not to be underestimated, but Williams and Weaver started it, bringing scale products in from Korea and first establishing a relationship with Samhongsa in Korea, and MW followed their lead, learning the game from Jerry Williams. Lionel began to do it too. Richard Kughn of Lionel, using MW as a contact with the Korean producers he'd established a working relation with as a result of his work with Williams, started bringing Korean-made Lionel scale offerings to the market. And Lionel was the leader in technical innovation with development of command control and realistic electronic sound systems, both done with no outside competition from MTH or anyone else."
Exactly true.
DCS is no technical break-through either, all MTH did was combine two existing open source platforms (TMCC and DCC) and called it proprietary.
This!!! About 1,000,000x.
We are not living in the time of "big, rugged Lionel trains". I concede that. But I keep reading on this forum how Lionel has quality issues while MTH does not. That is a pure MYTH. In fact, it borders on propaganda. Our own shop repair records will tell you otherwise. Both companies have quality and manufacturing issues. BTW, about 26% of my freight cars are MTH. I do love their cabin cars, steel-related cars, and ore jennies. And their locomotives are beautiful to look at.
As for DCS, what a tragedy - a great concept poorly implemented. Eighteen years now it's been out and what do we have?
- 4 hardware revisions of the TIU over that time.
- The need for a book of spells (DCS Companion) just to make it work. BTW, also in its 3rd revision.
- A DCS sub-forum with 3-4x more problems than reported on the TMCC or Legacy sub-forums. And the vast majority of these issues relate to signal transmission - a fundamental aspect of any command control system.
- The creation of an entire cottage industry (videos, books, special wire, "magic" light bulbs, installation experts, etc.) around making DCS work.
I wonder how many of us would have been allowed to keep our jobs for releasing a product with these problems?
George
@G3750 posted:
As for DCS, what a tragedy - a great concept poorly implemented.
I wonder how many of us would have been allowed to keep our jobs for releasing a product with these problems?
George
Seems to have worked for Bill Gates.
Pete
@Norton posted:Seems to have worked for Bill Gates.
Pete
LMAO, well you know what they say? Sucker born every minute.
DCS must have been a real loser. I'm assuming that it didn't sell very well and that nobody will miss it.
G3750 (George), As a person now in his mid sixty's who always loved trains let me disagree with you politely! I started in Lionel went to HO and now in 2014 came back to O gauge. I cam back only after seeing MTH Products. I started to look around and see why and when this progression moved to this fabulous new and exciting market of sounds and capabilities. I discovered Lionel moved into TMCC ONLY because of Neil Young wanting his son to have the ability to run trains and contacting Lionel after he started the ball moving in that direction. DO NOT GET ME WRONG, I love Lionel. I looked at the history of Lionel. I saw that others had entered the market and nudged it in a new direction, namely Weaver and Williams. BUT it was MTH and its operating system that moved me the most. I saw a system that I could lash up trains, introduce new sounds to the point I could even have it play music if I wanted. I saw a remote that I could understand and use without getting frustrated and having to constantly look at. I still have trouble today trying to make a train with different cars (diners and sound cars) and locomotives and getting them all work with Legacy. BUT I LIKE IT! I t isn't superior by far but it has it's place. Does DCS have books? YES but so does TMCC AND LEGACY which I had to purchase and still am having trouble which is why I am hoping Gunrunner John will get further along on his layout as I have talked to him about doing an engine for me but have delayed. I want to ask him to SHOW and help this old guy try to understand Legacy. Why him? He is one of the few who greatly appears unbias. He loves trains and that is me I love trains. I want to have FUN with them and relax because TRAINS are my BIGGEST stress reliever. DCS has done that for me not LEGACY. Every one of us lean to one manufacturer or other the other, I love them all but I wish they all ran together with one operating system. Then suddenly DCS with their app became the one that I could do that with and get 99% of the LEGACY to work. I can not do it with Lionel's system. BUT I STILL LIKE IT! You list 4 revisions or updates with DCS and make it sound like there are none with TMCC and Legacy. There is a big one right there TMCC to Legacy and there are more. You go on to list the COTTAGE and this forum being 3x bigger. Legacy and TMCC also have their COTTAGE which is HUGE! They also have their forums, some in other places. As for me I love this forum and thank OGR for having it and all the fantastic people who participate. I can learn anything here (except the Legacy Remote) and no question is a dumb one or at least not told to me that it was stupid and dumb. Instead these great people try their best to assist me. BUT THE BIGGEST REASON for so may DCS questions seems to be because with all these books and manuals it is still easier to ask someone rather than look it up and become frustrated. WE WANT OUR FUN! I am not belittling you or trying in any way to put you in a bad light, I am simply saying every thing has at least 2 sides or ways. I come to this DCS side because I am lazy and want quick answers but mostly because I feel important made possible by those others who come here and see a dumb old man who loves trains and wants to have fun and they like that fact DCS OR LEGACY!
Curtis Homan Sr
PS : John I am sorry I used your name without asking but I simply spoke the truth! Get your track down and run some trains quickly so I can come and visit. I still need my PS2 battery replaced and I have so many questions. And Geez get some pics up again of how your layout is coming I loved following the progress!
@Mallard4468 posted:DCS must have been a real loser. I'm assuming that it didn't sell very well and that nobody will miss it.
Forgive me, but I must ask as I can’t tell, is this sarcasm?
So many opinions have been expressed (positive and negative) in this thread, and I have just lost track.
@G3750 posted:This!!! About 1,000,000x.
We are not living in the time of "big, rugged Lionel trains". I concede that. But I keep reading on this forum how Lionel has quality issues while MTH does not. That is a pure MYTH. In fact, it borders on propaganda. Our own shop repair records will tell you otherwise. Both companies have quality and manufacturing issues. BTW, about 26% of my freight cars are MTH. I do love their cabin cars, steel-related cars, and ore jennies. And their locomotives are beautiful to look at.
As for DCS, what a tragedy - a great concept poorly implemented. Eighteen years now it's been out and what do we have?
- 4 hardware revisions of the TIU over that time.
- The need for a book of spells (DCS Companion) just to make it work. BTW, also in its 3rd revision.
- A DCS sub-forum with 3-4x more problems than reported on the TMCC or Legacy sub-forums. And the vast majority of these issues relate to signal transmission - a fundamental aspect of any command control system.
- The creation of an entire cottage industry (videos, books, special wire, "magic" light bulbs, installation experts, etc.) around making DCS work.
I wonder how many of us would have been allowed to keep our jobs for releasing a product with these problems?
George
But isn't also true that some enthusiasts have had to install ground planes to get TMCC to work? When TMCC came out I recall a VHS video was produced about it. I know, I had it. I remember one article in OGR where an O gauger actually had to install antennas on the tops of his trains so they would reliably get the TMCC signal.
My Point is and I have said this for years: TMCC/Legacy, DCS, DCC, Battery/RC they all have their Pros and Cons. I have grown sick of the my control system is better than yours statement. These arguments are like arguing politics. No one gets anywhere or accomplishes anything. It just wastes our time.
@Norton posted:Seems to have worked for Bill Gates.
Pete
There are definitely parallels there, but Gates actually defined a certain number of market niches with his products.
George
@Hudson J1e posted:But isn't also true that some enthusiasts have had to install ground planes to get TMCC to work? When TMCC came out I recall a VHS video was produced about it. I know, I had it. I remember one article in OGR where an O gauger actually had to install antennas on the tops of his trains so they would reliably get the TMCC signal.
My Point is and I have said this for years: TMCC/Legacy, DCS, DCC, Battery/RC they all have their Pros and Cons. I have grown sick of the my control system is better than yours statement. These arguments are like arguing politics. No one gets anywhere or accomplishes anything. It just wastes our time.
Phil,
This isn't about "mine is better than yours" or vice-versa. Nor am I saying they don't all have problems. My points (and please try to comprehend what I'm saying):
- TMCC's ground plane is a well known and solvable issue - asked and answered. The OGR article covered it.
- DCS' signal issues come and go, often without any physical changes to the layout. I know. I experienced this. And the severity and number of problems vary with the complexity of the layout. Each layout's performance under DCS seems to be unique. If you have a simple loop of track, you may be fine. I think of each DCS layout as an antenna or network that must be adjusted or tuned; you don't know in advance which of the approaches (if any) will actually work.
We're not arguing politics here. These observable differences in behavior are the result of design choices and the quality of implementation and to say otherwise is neither helpful nor accurate.
Best,
George
@G3750 posted:There are definitely parallels there, but Gates actually defined a certain number of market niches with his products.
George
One difference Gates purchased DOS
@G3750 posted:Phil,
This isn't about "mine is better than yours" or vice-versa. Nor am I saying they don't all have problems. My points (and please try to comprehend what I'm saying):
- TMCC's ground plane is a well known and solvable issue - asked and answered. The OGR article covered it.
- DCS' signal issues come and go, often without any physical changes to the layout. I know. I experienced this. And the severity and number of problems vary with the complexity of the layout. Each layout's performance under DCS seems to be unique. If you have a simple loop of track, you may be fine. I think of each DCS layout as an antenna or network that must be adjusted or tuned; you don't know in advance which of the approaches (if any) will actually work.
We're not arguing politics here. These observable differences in behavior are the result of design choices and the quality of implementation and to say otherwise is neither helpful nor accurate.
Best,
George
This is interesting. I have been using a Rev. L TIU for more than 10 years, at one point on carpet with only a few drops. I have never used star wiring or any other tricks. I have had zero signal issues. Any issue I have ever had has been track related and due to a short or faulty connection.
This doesn't take away from the fact there were issues. But the short time that I ran TMCC I also had some issues. My current layout area is elevated and covers about 180 sqft. However my largest setup spanned the carpet across multiple rooms and around walls and covered over 700 sqft.
People have had successes and failures with all of these systems. But the one sided stuff is not an accurate portrayal of reality.
I also notice on this forum that when people try and discuss Lionel issues, they get piled on by than Lionel or nothing crowd. I don't see this same phenomenon with MTH issues.
@NYC 428 posted:One difference Gates purchased DOS
That's correct. Gates purchased Quick-DOS which he repackaged into MS-DOS. But he also negotiated an agreement with IBM that required every PC sold to come with a copy of MS-DOS. That gave him control of the niche. Check out a book called Accidental Empires for an amusing read.
George
@Charlie posted:Not to mention, you don't have independent control over conventional engines on the same track a the same time. With wooden push trains, you have independent dual throttles.
Charlie
The only problem with this approach is you're limited by the number of arms available. It gets expensive having to raise more kids every time you need another set of arms to add a train to the system. I'l stick with the paper-model trains pushed around by wind power. Then, as long as there's enough wind, you can operate as many trains on the layout as you like without needing like a hundred kids.
Although they all have to be going the same direction...but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to stay away from all this technological Whiz-Bangery.
@TexasSP posted:I also notice on this forum that when people try and discuss Lionel issues, they get piled on by than Lionel or nothing crowd. I don't see this same phenomenon with MTH issues.
You need to look a little harder, both systems have their fanboys. 
@EML posted:The visceral reaction to the announcement that MTH is simply not going to be here at a date certain was partly due to its unfotrunate timing. We have all been affected by the COVID 19 pandemic. We have all been waiting for good news and our hopes were that we could move back to business as usual. Having heard the problems that small businesses were encountering, without knowing all the details, the problems facing reopening and future uncertainty are and were daunting. Mike Wolf made an important decision for him. However, from the expressions I have read, a good deal of the forum perceives MTH and Mike Wolf as an old friend and his sudden departure creates a great sense of loss. We have seen him become an important aspect of our hobby. This is normal and appropriate, but, once again, we are in the hobby where we create our own worlds. We have never been confined to what is available or even what is readily available. It is good to see that we are past the first steps of grief and finding our sense of humor. I would still welcome Mike Wolf to my home for his comments and a photo op.
If Mike has his building for sale for a couple of years as reported, it appears that his decision had nothing to do with Covid-19.
Pat
@gunrunnerjohn posted:You need to look a little harder, both systems have their fanboys.
Didn't say they didn't, and I have been beaten down by some DCS fanboys on OGR. I just don't see it happen near as much with MTH as Lionel.
There are a lot of fanboys on this thread alone, after reading some posts you would think Mike Wolf parted the oceans and brought about world peace. On the other side I have seen other fanboys act like he's the epitome of evil and killed there firstborn.
In the O world I have tended towards MTH for motive power. But I have all major manufacturers rolling stock. I did not like running two systems which is why. It works fine for what it is, but it's certainly a blight on 3r O in the end, far from optimal. However, it is what it is. Lionel went their way for there reasons, MTH went their's.
I did not expect this thread to take a turn into rehashing the command control debate. When Lionel and MTH came out with their competing systems I thought it would be a niche item. Most of the features then being touted were ones that the typical modeler on his typical layout could achieve by more traditional means. So I figured the market for command control would be the technology obsessed and people with very large layouts.
I WAS WRONG. I suspect I was not alone in this.
When MTH and when the people affiliated with Lionel were developing their command control ideas they did not have the advantage of years of hindsight to work from. Since they worked separate from each other I suspect when they tore into each other's system their reaction was "why did they do that?" MTH and the people affiliated with Lionel could have waited until all the issues of command control had been worked out and only then integrated it into their products. They chose not to wait, but instead to push their products to the next level while the technology and the market were being developed. Do I wish it had been done different? Yes. Still hats off to them for doing it.
I started with DCS on a used REV. G TIU in 2004 that I got for free. One of the DCS channels was damaged but that's why it was free. I added it to my first (very poorly wired) layout that used tubular O-31 and lockons. and it worked flawlessly with three loops without light bulbs or any special wiring. I built a new layout in 2012 and added a brand new REV. L TIU. But again, no light bulbs, I did do home run wiring (this time with all the same wire-size and type) but didn't wire blocks in the layout, no problems with this layout to date.
I've help many others with layout problems related to signal issues with both DCS and TMCC. They have their strengths and weaknesses. Almost 99% of the time, problems are fixed by correcting terrible wiring practices, and replacing subpar wiring products. My favorite is this guy who used every bit of scrap wiring he could find laying around the house to put things together. He had everything under the sun, Cat5, Romex, RG59 COAX, speaker wire of gauge you could think of, and ribbon cable. That was a long weekend...
My favorite tmcc memory comes from my one of my dads train buddies from around 2000 or so. He just unboxed a brand new TMCC loco, programmed the ID, put back on the rails and turned on his power. For what ever reason, it didn't detect TMCC, speed off like a rocket and flew off the table at the first corner. It crashed on the bare concrete and then it became a parts loco... what few parts were usable anyway.
My issue as of late with TMCC & Legacy always came back to the manufactures app (or lack there of). The iCab app (to me) is a joke, I tried to teach it to my kids and they thought it looked like an old TI calculator. If you want to run a TMCC loco with a good app interface, the DCS app is your best bet. And the Lionel app for the Android market is where... There have been third party apps for TMCC, and I've tried them also but to me they just didn't compare to what MTH did with he DCS app. Your usage of whichever app you use depends on your preference and experience.
One thing I do appreciate about TMCC is that the command codes where released to allow you to custom program with a PC and operate your trains without the CAB1 remote through the base. That was a fun project and when Mark DiVeccio decoded the DCS commands that introduced even more possibilities with DCS as he even provided a ready to run program interface with instructions to operate the TIU wirelessly.
It's all been a wild ride to now and the technology segment of models trains has always been evolving and will continue to evolve no matter whose equipment you use.
Have fun with your trains, and enjoy them however you like!
What a shame! A posted notice that the hobby is about to lose a major supplier has turned into a contest of who has the better control system.
@CurtisH posted:G3750 (George), As a person now in his mid sixty's who always loved trains let me disagree with you politely! I started in Lionel went to HO and now in 2014 came back to O gauge. I cam back only after seeing MTH Products. I started to look around and see why and when this progression moved to this fabulous new and exciting market of sounds and capabilities. I discovered Lionel moved into TMCC ONLY because of Neil Young wanting his son to have the ability to run trains and contacting Lionel after he started the ball moving in that direction. DO NOT GET ME WRONG, I love Lionel. I looked at the history of Lionel. I saw that others had entered the market and nudged it in a new direction, namely Weaver and Williams. BUT it was MTH and its operating system that moved me the most. I saw a system that I could lash up trains, introduce new sounds to the point I could even have it play music if I wanted. I saw a remote that I could understand and use without getting frustrated and having to constantly look at. I still have trouble today trying to make a train with different cars (diners and sound cars) and locomotives and getting them all work with Legacy. BUT I LIKE IT! I t isn't superior by far but it has it's place. Does DCS have books? YES but so does TMCC AND LEGACY which I had to purchase and still am having trouble which is why I am hoping Gunrunner John will get further along on his layout as I have talked to him about doing an engine for me but have delayed. I want to ask him to SHOW and help this old guy try to understand Legacy. Why him? He is one of the few who greatly appears unbias. He loves trains and that is me I love trains. I want to have FUN with them and relax because TRAINS are my BIGGEST stress reliever. DCS has done that for me not LEGACY. Every one of us lean to one manufacturer or other the other, I love them all but I wish they all ran together with one operating system. Then suddenly DCS with their app became the one that I could do that with and get 99% of the LEGACY to work. I can not do it with Lionel's system. BUT I STILL LIKE IT! You list 4 revisions or updates with DCS and make it sound like there are none with TMCC and Legacy. There is a big one right there TMCC to Legacy and there are more. You go on to list the COTTAGE and this forum being 3x bigger. Legacy and TMCC also have their COTTAGE which is HUGE! They also have their forums, some in other places. As for me I love this forum and thank OGR for having it and all the fantastic people who participate. I can learn anything here (except the Legacy Remote) and no question is a dumb one or at least not told to me that it was stupid and dumb. Instead these great people try their best to assist me. BUT THE BIGGEST REASON for so may DCS questions seems to be because with all these books and manuals it is still easier to ask someone rather than look it up and become frustrated. WE WANT OUR FUN! I am not belittling you or trying in any way to put you in a bad light, I am simply saying every thing has at least 2 sides or ways. I come to this DCS side because I am lazy and want quick answers but mostly because I feel important made possible by those others who come here and see a dumb old man who loves trains and wants to have fun and they like that fact DCS OR LEGACY!
Curtis Homan Sr
PS : John I am sorry I used your name without asking but I simply spoke the truth! Get your track down and run some trains quickly so I can come and visit. I still need my PS2 battery replaced and I have so many questions. And Geez get some pics up again of how your layout is coming I loved following the progress!
Curtis,
I can't and won't argue with someone's likes and dislikes. Preference is up to the individual. But I will discuss observations and facts and opinions I formed based on them. I'm not "a Lionel guy" or "an Atlas guy" or "an MTH guy". I tend to choose products on their merits, or at least I think I do.
I, too was first impressed by DCS. I spent 36 years in the IT field building mostly large toll collection systems where reliability is the primary concern. These systems have to correctly function 99.999% of the time and are used by up to 500,000 people a day. This coming December one of my systems will have been operational for 20 years. And in my business, if people know your name it's because you screwed up; I suffer from anonymity. 
Now you are correct in that the DCS remote is much more intuitive. The hierarchical menu structure, the ability to download software revisions, the softkeys are all superior features compared to the CAB-1. No argument whatsoever. And Scale MPH - that is a wonderful concept that makes lashups among different engines possible. When DCS came out, it had superior features and usability and that still might be true. But the signal transmission and reliability issues have persisted over the years - that is undeniable. TMCC's few issues and their resolutions are well known and fit inside a matchbook cover.
As to Legacy, I don't think it's much of an improvement over TMCC. Like DCS, the signal is bi-directional. I view that as a design flaw - in both systems.
Both Legacy and DCS are loaded with features. That's understandable given that they are 2nd generation systems. And if features are your thing, OK by me. As a matter of fact, if I were to rank the systems on the basis of features and usability, it would look like this:
- DCS
- Legacy
- TMCC - a distant third
But I don't see the value of cool features that don't work reliably (based on my observations and experiences). My needs are basic and I require high reliability from my command system. In terms of reliability, I would rank the systems like this:
- TMCC - sitting in the technological "sweet spot"; a technological "Goldi-Locks".
- Legacy
- DCS - a distant third
I like my fun as well. I want to run trains, not spend time trying to make them run. I spent a year trying to make DCS work reliably. While preoccupied with that, my sons lost interest in running trains. I won't make that mistake with the grandchildren.
OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now.
George
"I did not expect this thread to take a turn into rehashing the command control debate. "
There's quite a bit of history here as many of you know. Lionel developed its system when DCC was not a realistic possibility for three rail O gauge technically and cost-wise. MTH developed their system during a period (about 1995-2005) when there was bitter competition and a terrible relationship between the companies. At about that time, Lionel offered TMCC to everyone who wanted to pay the costs, which Atlas, K-Line, Weaver and 3rd Rail chose to do. Not so MTH, who chose to develop DCS (not surprising given all the legal hostilities). Williams stayed conventional. Not worth rehashing further here beyond these facts.
These conflicts between Lionel and MTH found their way into the hobbyist community and there were many on-line dustups that have long since largely disappeared. Partially because they were not tolerated by forum sponsors, who understandably enough saw them as detrimental to business and the hobby in general.
With MTH being either transitioning post-Mike Wolf, broken up or perhaps even vanishing, it is particularly pointless to continue such conflicts, which serve no useful purpose.
I think this is what TMCC/Legacy vs DCS has devolved to:
In the end, there's no winner.
Rusty
@Rusty Traque posted:I think this is what TMCC/Legacy vs DCS has devolved to:
In the end, there's no winner.
Rusty
And when all is said, there doesn't have to be. Enjoy them both!
Rod
@G3750 posted:That's correct. Gates purchased Quick-DOS which he repackaged into MS-DOS. But he also negotiated an agreement with IBM that required every PC sold to come with a copy of MS-DOS. That gave him control of the niche. Check out a book called Accidental Empires for an amusing read.
George
A company called seattle Digital created DOS ( if you put DOS 1.0 into debug mode, you saw the copyright notices). Story goes IBM wanted to talk to Gary Kildall, who had CPM-86 (CPM ran on early pc's, like the TRS 80 and the like), but he was out flying supposedly when they went to his office. They went to Microsoft, Gates and Allen told them "Sure, we have an OS that can run on a 8088"(they didn't) , andwent out and bought the DOS from Seattle Digital, who were a device manufacturer, the OS was built for in house uses. IBM would have used DOS on their machines, IBM would never ship a machine without an OS, no way, PC-DOS was going to be it. The coup for Microsoft was that they retained the rights to the OS, they were responsible for developing it, and more importantly, it was not exclusive to IBM. As a result, after in a sense IBM "Legitimized' the PC for business, Microsoft was able to sell MS DOS once the BIOS on the PC was reverse engineered by Phoenix, which allowed the 'clone computers' to end up dominating that space. That was unheard of, it would have been like Lionel or MTH getting TMCC or DCS from a third party firm, then allowing them to sell it to competitors making command control systems. One of the reasons that happened was IBM corporate didn't have a clue what a PC was, the PC team was off on their own, had unheard of freedom. Plus MS had them over the barrell, they were rushing to get the PC to market, they did it in roughly a year I recall.
For all the complaining about Microsoft, they also were successful because as bad as DOS or Windows could be or their other products, the competitors had flaws, there were all kinds of 'perfect' OS out there that had problems, especially given MS DOS/Windows had a huge base of applications. The Mac could have competed, but it had its own problems, the closed nature of the Mac and the price they charged for hardware and upgrades limited its appeal.
Anyway, in terms of DCS and TMCC, I don't think they were bad systems, I think it reflects the fact that it is impossible to engineer into any product total compatibility. In computers, applications run into compatibility problems to this day because of the huge number of configurations out there, even with software being a lot more isolated from hardware over the last 30 years, it happens a lot (I test software for a living). Think about it, with train layouts you have wildly different conditions, size of layout makes a difference (put it this way, a layout that is like an oval with a passing siding will work great with tmcc or DCS pretty easily). Given the diverse nature of layouts, size, trackwork, wiring, etc, not surprising you will have issues. Not to mention that DCS and TMCC/Legacy have a user base a tiny fraction of something like a computer operating system, the larger the user base the more wrinkles that get ironed out.
Anyone remember when more than a few were cursing Mike Wolf because of the lawsuit with Lionel over the purloined4 IP? Lot of those same people are now singing his praises, tells you how time heals some wounds (though from reading some of the posts on this thread, I suspect some people didn't let that go). My take? MTH and Mike furthered the hobby, they gave us products we wouldn't have had if it weren't for MTH, and that is something to celebrate. I could wish that this would have played out where Mike had it all wrapped up, where he could say "I am going fishing, but MTH will keep on thanks to my employees/another company buying it", but that didn't happen, it is what it is. Hopefully the DCS support going on will be mirrored by other parts of the company, in some form or the other. Whatever happens, we are still better than we were 40 years ago, when all you had was Lionel MPC and Williams pretty much, and likely things will still be better going forward.
Lots of chatter about Mike and DCS. Very little about the loss of rolling stock if the company doesn't get reborn. I think MTH passengers cars are at the top these days, assuming 21" cars are too big for your layout. They keep getting incremental improvements while keeping prices reasonable. Others are going the other way, less for more $$. Then there are a 64' woodside cars. Who else offers those? Other examples too but they seemed to have gotten lost here.
Pete
1950's Lionel, American Flyer. 2020 DCS. Legacy. No one will change their minds about what they like. This thread was suppose to be about the company. We have a year to see how this story unfolds.
@bigkid posted:Anyone remember when more than a few were cursing Mike Wolf because of the lawsuit with Lionel over the purloined4 IP? Lot of those same people are now singing his praises, tells you how time heals some wounds (though from reading some of the posts on this thread, I suspect some people didn't let that go). My take? MTH and Mike furthered the hobby, they gave us products we wouldn't have had if it weren't for MTH, and that is something to celebrate. I could wish that this would have played out where Mike had it all wrapped up, where he could say "I am going fishing, but MTH will keep on thanks to my employees/another company buying it", but that didn't happen, it is what it is. Hopefully the DCS support going on will be mirrored by other parts of the company, in some form or the other. Whatever happens, we are still better than we were 40 years ago, when all you had was Lionel MPC and Williams pretty much, and likely things will still be better going forward.
I am one of them, I thought what he did was not right and I always will. I never bought anything MTH and never did because of the different operating systems. So I have no sense of loss at all for MTH. On the flip side, I do think it may have an adverse effect on the hobby, but it may cause Atlas O to get up off their butts and start producing loco's and not at a snail's pace.
My guess is that there's not a lot of appetite at Atlas for O scale beyond what they are doing.
Jeff C
@leikec posted:My guess is that there's not a lot of appetite at Atlas for O scale beyond what they are doing.
That could change with one less major competitor...
@bigkid posted:Anyone remember when more than a few were cursing Mike Wolf because of the lawsuit with Lionel over the purloined4 IP? Lot of those same people are now singing his praises, tells you how time heals some wounds (though from reading some of the posts on this thread, I suspect some people didn't let that go). My take? MTH and Mike furthered the hobby, they gave us products we wouldn't have had if it weren't for MTH, and that is something to celebrate. I could wish that this would have played out where Mike had it all wrapped up, where he could say "I am going fishing, but MTH will keep on thanks to my employees/another company buying it", but that didn't happen, it is what it is. Hopefully the DCS support going on will be mirrored by other parts of the company, in some form or the other. Whatever happens, we are still better than we were 40 years ago, when all you had was Lionel MPC and Williams pretty much, and likely things will still be better going forward.
Actually I remember thinking it was amazing lionel got away with bankruptcy and the lct agreement (I don't remember the rest of the details) and Mike didn't end up putting them truly out of business. I avoided lionel products for years because of what they did.
I guess I figured mth would carry on as a whole entity but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. I really am a huge fan of mth products. I will miss the company but try to get excited about what comes next.
Now if the dcs line was going to be abandoned like I initially thought, I would have some much stronger words.
Good luck Mr. Wolf, thanks for the ride. Please take care of us the best you can on your way out.
Yes he did sue Lionel but it didn't bother him to copy a whole heap of their operating accessories.
https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...6#146142158521544556
There is a lot of wisdom in these posts by everyone and a lot of learning to be done by reading all the posts.
I was reluctant to move away from old fashioned blocks and toggle switches using conventional transformers. My sophistication level was achieved (I thought) when I mastered wiring my block signals years ago after the owner of GB TV and Trains in Green Bay, WI showed me how simple wiring relays could be. (I still refer to those hand written notes). And THEN I discovered Ross Custom Switches and my train life experienced an awakening. Conventional+toggles+relays+Ross and a control panel was an awesome world.
I purchased the DCS system about 5 years ago. I am embarrassed to say I have yet to install it. I'm building a new layout and now am wondering if I should bother since the company is closing. The old fashioned conventional system may be the tried and true. Thoughts?
Well guest I will finally add my thoughts. Over a week ago I had a reaction but thought it best to let it marinate a while.
But still have the same thought. Lionel won! What do I mean, the Name, Logo, and their toy train legacy (pun intended) will continue. Where as MTH will most probably soon be scattered to the wind. And I say this with great disappointment and as a BIG MTH fan. It was MTH/Mike that brought me back to O-Gauge in the late 80's. To put a point on this 90 of my 130 engines/engine sets are MTH. And 173 of my 194 passenger cars are also MTH. I can go on but will not.
Cowen is gone, Kughn gone, Calabrese gone, Reagan gone, and Lionel even survived Maddox. But Mike Wolf is retiring , which is alright and expected' and to quote Wolf "and close the business." Like some places I have work the top leaves but the company goes on. I am very surprised that there were not some firm plans in place before any announcement!
Now the talk about DCS living on as a "new entity" I see as very questionable long tern. With out the need DCS electrons for hundreds of new engines each and every year this will most probably end up as a fragile industry with a short life.
After I receive the two items on order (one of which I have been asking Andy for going on a decade) that is it. Except picking up a copy of the "last" catalog.
Ron
edit: What surprises and shocks me the most is that Mike Wolf would allow his creation that he worked so hard at to wither and most probably die. Now maybe there was a cost benefit analysis that showed limited future prospects for the O-Gauge hobby!
"Actually I remember thinking it was amazing lionel got away with bankruptcy and the lct agreement (I don't remember the rest of the details) and Mike didn't end up putting them truly out of business. I avoided lionel products for years because of what they did. "
With all due respect, there's another point of view, which is that these liability claims by MTH against Lionel were "alleged," never proven to a lot of people's satisfaction. As many folks like yourself who are convinced MTH got a raw deal are folks who felt the lawsuit was an attempt to win in the courts what could not be achieved in the marketplace. So they did not buy MTH products for many years.
Not worth litigating this again in the court of public opinion since it was settled in the courts and Lionel was not found liable in the negotiated settlement. No one's opinion is likely to change 15-20 years after the events. Best not to drag this up at this point, since it is divisive and settled. Lionel and MTH went on to work together on the tinplate license, so best that hobbyists find some way to lay this to rest.
Listening to all this back-and-forth about operating systems makes me all the happier I stuck with conventional. Have at it guys... 
