I have long been a fan of New England railroads. MTH have produced many items in B&M, MEC, and NH liveries, which is why my collection is predominantly MTH. I have had very few operational issues and have enjoyed my trains immensely. I thank Mike Wolf for making us New England RR fans happy. I am encouraged by the news that DCS will live on, evolve, and continue to be supported by some of Mike's knowledgeable staff. Thanks again, Mike. Without you, myself and many others would not be in the O gauge hobby today.
A lot of hopeful speculation in this discussion in regards to the future of the assets of MTH, and I can't blame people for being hopeful. I believe that Mike was looking for a buyer and could not find one. I believe MTH as a brand will be gone with the delivery of the last item in the current catalog.
I'm a big fan of MTH's products and I'm sorry to see them go. I also feel that there is a glut of unsold product (last time I was at York there were literally pallets of rolling stock with $15 price tags) and I am pretty content with the small amount that I have. There are a few more items that I will probably acquire.
@Scratchbuilder1-48 posted:What investment company would buy a 1950's era toy company , which had a successful run of 40 years . And now to put money in tooling that has been used and made the same cars over and over again . No doubt alot of good diesels and steam models , but brand new models of loco's and rolling stock is needed , in this case even a better looking modern roller brg truck . In effect new tooling , new designs . The biggest problem 3 rail trains has is these control systems , all different , unlike all other "scale" trains which uses DCC , NMRA standards so all work together . Investment companies buying out a company to resell later ?
Maybe for 10 cents on the dollar , you make your profit on the purchase , not on the sale . Personally in this climate MTH tooling is obsolete , anybody who has any amount of trains has all they need of the old and if not just go online and buy for a whole lot cheaper in the secondary market , some stuff brand new never out of the box . HO company like Walthers , Athearn make runs on models and then they are done . Maybe 5 -10 yrs they might make a second run .Look at the high end pass car trains like UP , those go for 2 and 3 times the original price . 3 rail just floods the market and now it is so bloated of old tooling models you can hardly give it away . Just paint another name on it . 3 rail caters to old people who had Lionel trains as a kid in the 50's , a nostalgia , sorry to say 2 rail is the future , just like what is in real life . There is a whole wing of this forum dedicated to many many many ways to disguise or hide that center rail. New modelers ask what is the extra rail for . Once the baby boomers get a few years older 3 rail will fade even further . There will always be 3 rail but no company is going to buy yesterdays news
Mike Wolf knows this all to well and at 65 or so who needs the hassle of this "cat fight" . HO , N , 2 rail O scale all use a common control and and each manufacturer makes different models , so they can all stay afloat . Not in 3 rail , Mike made his money , he saw a market , capitalized for 40 yrs , now he is pulling the plug and enjoy life after all the effort . Congrats .
I am not aware that there is any evidence to support your statement that "2 rail is the future", at least in O gauge. Do you have any, or is that just your opinion?
Pat
Congratulations Mike on your retirement best wishes. Thank you for the many MA & PA items over years we treasure so much and with out you we wouldn't have had them.
@irish rifle posted:I am not aware that there is any evidence to support your statement that "2 rail is the future", at least in O gauge. Do you have any, or is that just your opinion?
Pat
Clearly an opinion, however I've never seen that opinion in wide circulation. I love the look of 2-rail, but I love the convenience of 3-rail. Anyone contemplating 2-rail O-scale needs a pretty sizeable space for a layout, how many 4x8 2-rail layouts do you see. 
There's room for both in the hobby, and deriding the largest segment of the O-gauge community is hardly productive.
2 rail certainly is the future.................
In HO, N, Z, TT, G, Live Steam, etc.
It's a good option in O but I can't see 3 rail disappearing.
To quote Hank William's Jr, not matter what happens in all of this "America will survive". Even if I gave up trains, there's no shortage of hobbies I am interested in. In fact, I have that issue now, too many interests, too little time and money for it all.
I would wander if , well, I guess it might have to be Lionel, at least for now, make a three-rail track where the middle rail is done like the Marklin "3-rail" HO track? I am a three railer, have been all my life and sometimes I have thought about a layout that combined two rail and three rail, all using code 148 rail so they match. With all the emphasis on so much realism, even with our die-cast models which are incredible, the next step (and MTH has already been doing some of it on some models) would be to offer the model with scale flanges. A scale Big Boy with scale flanges could (with some slight modifications under the front steam chests for the pilot wheels, could operate on 072. It's outer axle distance on each engine is not greater than the outer axle distance on the 700E Hudson, and the Allegheny and Challenger is actually smaller, implying even sharper curves. Maybe it would be time to offer such models with a recommended diameter of 082, or 096, who knows. 072 has been the 3-rail standard for so long now, since 1936, 37. The old 700E with every wheel flanged will take 054 and do so comfortably, anything tighter - nope. The appearance of scale flanges does enhance the model to my eye.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Clearly an opinion, however I've never seen that opinion in wide circulation. I love the look of 2-rail, but I love the convenience of 3-rail. Anyone contemplating 2-rail O-scale needs a pretty sizeable space for a layout, how many 4x8 2-rail layouts do you see.
There's room for both in the hobby, and deriding the largest segment of the O-gauge community is hardly productive.
2 rail O has a better future than the scale side (the small flange, DC/DCC, Kadee coupler guys) of S. And I'm speaking as an S Scaler for the past 30 years.
Rusty
"...Atlas O aren't only "old tooling". There's been plenty of totally new items lately and plenty more planned, too"
?????
-Crank
@Gary Liebisch posted:To comment on the post by Rafi, above, another hobby undergoing the same generational shrinking is Amateur (Ham) Radio. I am in that hobby too, and at the equivalent swap meets (hamfests) in that hobby, it is almost the exact same demographic (us old men!). And on their discussion groups they have similar discussions about attracting younger members into the hobby. In both cases, these hobbies do not enjoy the "mass" interest that they once did. It is not the fault or responsibility of the manufacturers to "fix" this. It can't be fixed, it's just the evolution of technology that young folks have a lot more options (toys) to play with these days, so the slice of the pie for each hobby in play is significantly smaller. And with that comes an inevitable shake down of suppliers, and thinning of the herd. I don't see 'O' or any scale dying, but each will have its niche. On the supply side, the nimble and resourceful suppliers will survive, but they must face a smaller customer base and no amount of "fixing" is going to bring back the masses.
Gary W8GEL
In Harris County, TX, there is intetest in Ham Radio supporting emergency communications. I live in a flood and hurricane zone...
Then again, how many older children have been exposed to scanners, CB, or HF/shortwave radios?
Same for trains....
Children today are not being exposed to some sort of "makers" environment. How many children today have been exposed to blocks, Legos, Tinker Toys, Lincoln Logs, Tonka Toys, dollhouse.....? Parents put thete children in front of an idiot box, and stifle any creative juices. The children do not get a chance to figure things out...
.
With all the well wishes to Mike Wolf and his retirement and success over the years , why not a group of the forum members pony up and buy the company . I was informed once by the sponsor dept. of the forum that there are some deep pockets on this OGR Forum , problem solved , keep the staff in place and the O gauge train world gets to keep the spirit alive of MTH . He certainly brought about 3 rail scale trains , it would only be fitting for forum members pool their resources for the cash infusion side and you have the existing staff to run it . Like a co-operative , you can vote on what gets made , what features , how much it should sell for , maybe turn it into a 501C3 , a non profit , there you have it ,problem solved . Easy peasey
Deriding the largest segment of the O scale community might not be productive, but acknowledging the massive problem that confronts the O scale market seems to be fair game, because reality has a bad habit of being in existence, whether we like it or not. O scale history is what it is, but going forward the 2R/3R-scale/tinplate-control system divisions are factors that contribute to making a company like MTH difficult to impossible to sell.
Jeff C
@Scratchbuilder1-48 posted:With all the well wishes to Mike Wolf and his retirement and success over the years , why not a group of the forum members pony up and buy the company . I was informed once by the sponsor dept. of the forum that there are some deep pockets on this OGR Forum , problem solved , keep the staff in place and the O gauge train world gets to keep the spirit alive of MTH . He certainly brought about 3 rail scale trains , it would only be fitting for forum members pool their resources for the cash infusion side and you have the existing staff to run it . Like a co-operative , you can vote on what gets made , what features , how much it should sell for , maybe turn it into a 501C3 , a non profit , there you have it ,problem solved . Easy peasey
How much should we put you down for?
I have been thinking the speculation about Mike's decision and the short term future of MTH has become redundant and no longer productive. My opinion isn't intended as a criticism of any of the many sincere, thoughtful and interesting posts I've read in this thread. A love of trains, respect for MTH and concern for the future of the hobby are things we all have in common.
I would like to suggest we curtail the speculation and report facts when they become available. Your thoughts are welcome.
John
@Steam Crazy posted:I would like to suggest we curtail the speculation and report facts when they become available.
Spoil sport.
Wow, I've read a lot of great comments on this subject. My take away is that we should not panic. I remember the 1970's when MPC bought the old Lionel company and the then die hard Lionel collectors always categorized MPC as cheap, flimsy and not worth much, a stigma which still hangs around today. I really first took notice in 1978 when MPC re-introduced the FM diesel. It's quality matched pound for pound the original 1950's models. Sheet metal frame (which was actually a cheaper short cut by the old Lionel company) vs. a diecast frame and even the famed magna-traction (Which I kinda wish they'd put on these heavy, new models instead of these annoying rubber tires.) Or just leave them off all together like the two-rail models. they're heavy, heavier by far than the old Lionel stuff, they don't need rubber tires. Anyways, just a marketing thought there. I envy Mike for his success, I remember him being a teenager at York and now he is retiring as a multi-millionaire. Like someone said, he saw a market, filled it before anyone else could and now it is time to get out. The 3-rail O scale/gauge market has been saturated with re-issued models. When Lionel came out with their first Allegheny in 1999 or 2000, they came out with it again in 2006 but they did change it up quite a bit. It's funny, their first one was actually prototypically pretty accurate - early number, no overfire jets. When they did it again a a JLC model, they marketed and advertised the tooling changes to make it accurate to the prototype by it being a 'late Allegheny' model with over fire jets and they were correct. They should have paid attention to that with their Legacy model, but they kinda dropped the ball. We've been hit with too much too soon, as thought the tech people have free range and every time they come up with a new idea, they hit us again with an engine we just bought maybe 6-8 years ago. These models are expensive, don't do that to your market base (us). Give us time to enjoy what we've purchased. As these sometimes annoying electronics go, why don't they make a model with the electronics but purposefully build it for easy future upgrades? Like a cruise control board upgrade which anyone could change out. Back around 2000, I was amazed that Lionel would offer TMCC freely to all other manufacurers, proposing to unify the 3-rail O gauge/scale market, like DCC does with HO, N and 2-rail O. MTH did the next best thing. Rather than joining in and every one use TMCC, they did their own system and made it (eventually) compatible with TMCC. Legacy, not quite as much. Lionel does need to give Altas and 3rd rail Legacy. I am going to miss MTH but this could actually be a good thing, just concerned about service and repairs on models we already have. They are worth proper care. When DCS would fail, could we get it repaired? Not all of us are electronic engineers or technicians. Or would we substitute it with Legacy? I read one post on here a while back that said he buys these high end models at low prices at auctions and ebay and he frequently guts them and puts in a simple electronic e-unit and operates them they way the old 2-rail scale guys did 50 years ago, silent. No smoke, no bells and whistles, nothing, just a highly detailed model running around the track with lights. Simplicity, maybe he's onto something there. Anyways, big changes coming. Maybe Lionel should at least buy the DCS rights and maybe incorporate it into the Legacy eventually becoming one system. Is that possible? Might be.
Bottom line here ...only time will tell....stay tuned and fasten you seat belt 
@breezinup posted:MW's insistence on having his own proprietary operating system is the single worst enemy of continuity for MTH engines. If they'd used a Lionel operating system, they'd have some life.
I think this is a completely unfounded claim. In fact they went out of their way to support running both MTH and Lionel TMCC engines on the same track from one remote, I think this was by far a more competitive and friendly solution.
Lionel charged a lot of money for a technology that was essentially just a remote control car.
I hope Mr. Wolf enjoys his retirement. Congrats to him, as we all deserve a break after slogging through the work day for 40+ years, and my guess is that he probably put in A LOT more than a 40 hr week. MTH will be extremely missed by many, including me.
As an owner of probably 90% MTH equipment, I will say that I'm less concerned about what this means for MTH collectors/operators and more what it means for the O gauge 3 rail industry. I don't have first hand knowledge of what the market looks like, but from my standpoint as a consumer MTH seems like it was a LARGE percentage of it. Lionel benefited from having MTH around (as do the other O gauge companies). They all benefit from each other The more competitors their are, the healthier the market is, and the more choices for us consumers! That is the American way.
I'll admit right up front that I have NOT bothered to read the whole 13 pages of comments. That said, I would personally like to thank Mike Wolf and his organization, for standing up to the bullying by the Union Pacific's Chairman & CEO Dick Davidson, over the licensing fees for use of ANY UP railroad name & logo, including all those of previous RRs merged into UP. No other company, no matter what scale, was willing to stand up to the lunacy of what the Union Pacific was attempting. I can remember the many articles in trade publications, especially the Wall Street Journal expounding on how the UP was unable to properly manage & operate their RR after the merger with SP, yet the UP could spend resources on bullying the entire model railroad industry. Only after Mr. Davidson retired, and the late Jim Evans took over as Chairman & CEO, was a direct order issued to VP Law, Turner to, "Put a stop to the nonsense, and get us out of this ridiculous litigation!".
The UP lost, in court, two other suits, that were kept pretty quiet. But it was Mike Wolf and MTH Electric Trains, that finally put a stop to the lunacy by the Union Pacific RR., and pretty much saved the entire model railroad industry. I was fairly close to the internal goings-on at the UP, and how it affected all the logos on the apparel worn & sold by the UP Steam Crew at the time.
A personal thank you to Mike and his entire staff!!!
@Sarah posted:That’s sad news. I hate to say that but I don’t see a lot if potential in 3-rail O-scale. HO is the future.
I read this a lot over and over, and I don't get it.
People complain about the "size" of O and that it takes up twice the space. First, that's not exactly true. HO is 1:87 so O is really only 1.8 times larger. Maybe a nit-pick but worth mentioning I think.
Second, I was an HO modeler for years. I would say that 90 percent of the HO market is complete garbage. The quality is terrible, the consistency is terrible, and most of it is extremely fragile. It's hard for little kids to work with, and for older less nimble hands as well. The sweet spot for HO is ages 15-35 and most of that age group is too busy going to school or working and raising a family to invest money and time in a hobby like this. I'm 42, and switched to O about 10 years ago. There are great HO offerings out there, but they are just as rare and/or almost as expensive as the MTH Premier and Lionel Legacy.
Third, watching an HO layout is pretty boring IMO. O is a nice size that is impressive to look at. On the higher end of the spectrum the models are WAY more detailed than the HO counterparts - partially because it's actually large enough to see. Also the sounds, lights, and action in O scale are easily and order of magnitude better than HO. If you are a steam aficionado like me, the smoke alone is worth the jump.
To me, the biggest advantage of 3 rail AC is the ability to have reversing loops. You can connect up the track however you want, no insulators needed, no directional control need - it just works. I think this is why the Marklin system remains popular in HO overseas - though I would love for O to adopt a track system more similar to that! All it would take is replacing the pickup rollers.
I called them a couple weeks back for MTH smoke units and they took my order over the phone and charged me appropriate shipping. Give them a call if u need stuff. Let’s keep supporting them.
Traction tires! Oh geez where do we get them from now! LOL!
@Scratchbuilder1-48 posted:With all the well wishes to Mike Wolf and his retirement and success over the years , why not a group of the forum members pony up and buy the company . I was informed once by the sponsor dept. of the forum that there are some deep pockets on this OGR Forum , problem solved , keep the staff in place and the O gauge train world gets to keep the spirit alive of MTH . He certainly brought about 3 rail scale trains , it would only be fitting for forum members pool their resources for the cash infusion side and you have the existing staff to run it . Like a co-operative , you can vote on what gets made , what features , how much it should sell for , maybe turn it into a 501C3 , a non profit , there you have it ,problem solved . Easy peasey
"Nothing is so easy as the job you imagine someone else doing!"
(With hats off to one of the several great philosophers on this forum) 
@RadioRon posted:People would also be wise to re-think any further purchases of MTH track, especially their O gauge offerings. What company is going to pick up and support the manufacture of a full line of plastic-bed O gauge track?
IMO, ScaleTrax is THEE track system for another company to pickup. It is the best looking 3 rail track out there. It also seems like because of it's low profile, it would be the cheapest to manufacture.
@WITZ 41 posted:Chinese will sit on as much tooling as possible, then turn it into cheaper knock off junk versions of what were once good products.
After all of the current state of affairs, where is the market for 100% Chinese owned and operated models of American locomotives and rolling stock?
The manufacturing plants in China have a vested interested in either selling the tooling/molds to a US company or getting a reputable US company to act as the front for the manufacturing like MTH was. Having a US based operation with a service and support arm makes for a much more credible business.
@rplst8 posted:After all of the current state of affairs, where is the market for 100% Chinese owned and operated models of American locomotives and rolling stock?
The manufacturing plants in China have a vested interested in either selling the tooling/molds to a US company or getting a reputable US company to act as the front for the manufacturing like MTH was. Having a US based operation with a service and support arm makes for a much more credible business.
MTH owns the molds, I have a problem with any thing made in China right now. I ordered a few items from the last catalog but not nearly what I have ordered in the past. If someone where to buy the tooling from MTH and bring it over here I would pay extra to have them made here or another Asian country that is friendly to our country. I will pay for what I have ordered but it ends there.
@rplst8 posted:The manufacturing plants in China have a vested interested in either selling the tooling/molds to a US company or getting a reputable US company to act as the front for the manufacturing like MTH was. Having a US based operation with a service and support arm makes for a much more credible business.
I think this is one of the possible outcomes. The question is whether someone in China thinks that O gauge trains will remain a viable market in the United States. But they have every incentive to preserve their business.
MELGAR
@Scratchbuilder1-48 posted:With all the well wishes to Mike Wolf and his retirement and success over the years , why not a group of the forum members pony up and buy the company . I was informed once by the sponsor dept. of the forum that there are some deep pockets on this OGR Forum , problem solved , keep the staff in place and the O gauge train world gets to keep the spirit alive of MTH . He certainly brought about 3 rail scale trains , it would only be fitting for forum members pool their resources for the cash infusion side and you have the existing staff to run it . Like a co-operative , you can vote on what gets made , what features , how much it should sell for , maybe turn it into a 501C3 , a non profit , there you have it ,problem solved . Easy peasey
"Pony up" for a 501c3 non-profit to make toy trains?
Just how much 'pony' ...to the left of the decimal point...do you think is in play here?....chump change?
.
.
OMG....this is a demographic perspective for this corner of the hobby I never would have considered.
Need a few beers here........gotta think about this.
.
.
.
.
OK, I'm ready...
.
.
.
.
Attachments
@Rafi posted:
Short of that, however, I suspect that this announcement could go down as one of the major watershed moments in the final decline of O Gauge.
Oh, I don't think so. Lionel has such an iconic name in trains after generations of existence, far more people in the country know of Lionel than MTH. MTH has to be explained to many of those who enter the hobby, but they know Lionel.
Lionel was in most respects the only game in town in the O gauge market before, and they will step into their old shoes again. They have always been considerably larger in the market than MTH anyway. And they will continue to innovate. After all, they came up with a command control system, and realistic electronic sound systems, when MTH was still young, and forced MTH to play catch-up to stay competitive. Not to mention coming up with a new, super easy-to-use command system with their LionChief series, for operators - including those new to the hobby - at a lower price point.
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 while working for Jerry Williams. Lionel had begun to do it too. Richard Kughn of Lionel, using MW as a contact with the Korean producers with whom MW had established a working relationship as a result of his work with Jerry Williams, started bringing Korean-made Lionel scale offerings to the market as well. So MW didn't exactly pioneer the path to scale Asian made trains. He expanded what others had started. A very notable achievement, indeed. But he wasn't the first to plant a flag in the Far East. And as noted above, 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.
So is the end of MTH production going to be the beginning of the end for O gauge? Not hardly, IMHO. History (which too many people ignore or are ignorant about), as well as other things, shows us otherwise. This also could be good for Atlas O, 3rd Rail, Williams, and other manufacturers (including those who make accessories, buildings, etc. etc.), who could easily see their markets increase.
I wish all the best to the folks taking over the business of MTH customer service, electronics and parts. I think there's enough of a market out there with all the MTH engines around to ensure a reasonably strong, continued demand for their products. I hope so - I just ordered a new MTH steam engine yesterday! Going against the flow right now!
"I would say that 90 percent of the HO market is complete garbage. "
Rapido, Scale Trains, Athearn, Bowser, BLI, Tangent, Exact Rail, Moloco..... may disagree.
-Crank
^^^
As would their customers...
Jeff C
I'm sorry to hear Mike is calling it quits at such a young age of 60 I think someone noted.
Got back into my train layout about two years ago and found all my MTH engines started right up and ran great, but, most of my Lionel engines did not. I have several Lionel and MTH locomotives and have found through experience that product line that Mike has been providing is well made, industrial grade in comparison to Lionel's. I have had no issues with MTH locomotives and they all run great. I have had lots of Issues with Lionel electronics in their engines, so all of my diesels engines purchased over the last two years have been MTH. MTH engines are strong and dependable just like MTH rolling stock and assessores. Lionel looks pretty sitting on a shelve, but MTH has them beat on the track. Most of my steam engines at this point are Lionel, but, I have not been running them lately, My lionel 777 hudson locomotive has a sound system issue, so I'm not to eager spending hours to fix it.
I hope someone will step up and take over the MTH product line. There are a lot more items that I would like to see them add to their product line.
Best Wishes to Mike,
He did good by bring the joy of realistic toy trains to a lot of people.
@Rafi posted:I've been writing this post in my head for 3 days straight now. I need to keep it short and concise, or the only one who will read it will be me.
The elephant in the room: our hobby (regardless of scale) is slowly dying as its membership ages out. O Scale/Gauge is dying the fastest, and this announcement poses the risk of becoming accelerant on the fire.
How many of us are under 50? 40? 30? 20? Put another way, what are the odds that the number of O hobbyists over the age of 50 is greater than the number under 50? I'd say the odds are pretty good, and that's not good. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm 41.
I've heard the argument that it's a problem for the manufacturers to solve, and while I don't completely agree, MTH dropping out is a huge gut punch to any hope of O Scale/Gauge reversing its declining popularity. It's no secret that O is incredibly expensive when compared with other scales, and it is one of the reasons it struggles to attract folks under 40 who are raising families and building careers. While Lionel has done a good job of marketing itself to younger generations (Disney, Scooby, etc), I fear that most of those sales are grandfather purchases for grandchildren--I could be wrong, though. MTH, however, brought some unique key elements to the hobby that made it palatable to the 20 and 30-something crowd, and not just parents and grandparents. RailKing's price point is the obvious example here.
MTH's out-of-the-box thinking on the European models, 2-rail and DCC support, and Tinplate are also great examples of a commitment to product line diversity that our hobby has enjoyed that may be a thing of the past. MTH's announcement that DCS will live on as a separate company comes as a huge relief. If DCS becomes licensable, that's a huge boon as well; imagine a world where you can order an engine from someone like Atlas or Williams with either TMCC or DCS, or pay a little extra for an engine that supports BOTH (as component sizes shrink).
While I can ponder the possibilities of what will happen to the rest of MTH, none of what I've been able to brainstorm helps stem the bleeding of our hobby's membership, and that's what's haunting me.
The only thing that I can think of is for MTH to be reborn with a new generation of leadership tuned to attracting hobbyists aged 20-40. It's going to require, in large part, a re-thinking of what it means to make and sell O gauge to a millennial. Just having an iPhone app and/or bluetooth support isn't sufficient. Alexa/HomeKit/Google Home integration is a no-brainer nice-to-have. Augmented Reality likely needs to be involved here. Building an actual network of YouTube influencers is vital. Presence at CES is key to injecting product awareness into the "everyday consumer" space with major retail buyers. TCA will need to be guided on how to completely reinvent itself; I'm 41 and even I feel like an alien from another planet when it comes to interactions with TCA.
Could Lionel/Atlas/Williams do this on their own? Maybe, but it's not likely. Lionel needs a competitor like MTH in order to drive this innovation through competition. Apple wouldn't be what it is if Microsoft and Google hadn't been fighting it tooth and nail. Ford and Chevy made each other's success. Lionel needs an MTH competing head to head. focused on millennials if our hobby is going to survive the next 10-15 years.
Can MTH be reborn with employees carrying the torch? Maybe. I think that's the hope, because it's apparent that a whole-sale buyout is a fleeting possibility at this point. And even if the employees can pick up the torch, will they have a leader who seeds a vision for the markets that our hobby hasn't attracted in 30 years? Who knows.
Short of that, however, I suspect that this announcement could go down as one of the major watershed moments in the final decline of O Gauge. I really, really hope that I'm wrong, and I hesitated to write this post because I don't like being a Debbie Downer. But we need to force this conversation, and we need as many members under the age of 50 and 40 contributing to the conversation as much as possible.
I'd hate to have to read your long post. But good post. Always good to get the perspective of younger enthusiasts.
As this topic has generated many, many and many more responses, it makes me think of some of our train friends, brothers and sisters we lost in 2020. Like comments by people like Marty Fitzhenry and others are sorely missed. I hope they are all enjoying their trains that never break down and having a good laugh at what we are going through. Probably way off topic, but I was thinking of them and the absence of there comments regarding Mike's retirement and the ramifications within our beloved hobby. Somehow in 2 or 3 years, we will have found a way to move forward without MTHs we know them today.
I think Lionel has some exciting technology (probably pushed by MTH). I never have bought a Legacy engine, too much value in Railking. But I understand that the new Lionchief+2 and the Universal Remote make it possible to run all kinds of new products--including the newer Legacy engines. Even some Lionel LionChief starter sets are fun--The Blue Comet has been great bang for the buck--an amazingly good starter set.
I anticipate looking harder at Lionchief+ engines, nursing my MTH along, and going back to postwar Lionel. And my Railking engines have been so robust, I would not hesitate to buy a new or old stock engine, especially a PS3, which doesn't have a battery to worry about and have never given me an ounce of trouble
And there's always N Gauge Kato Starter set if I just want to run a big, long train on my kitchen table. :-)
One HO MTH loco I would love to have is the NYC 4-8-2 Mohawk. I wish MTH had been more successful in HO.
Jeff C
@Rafi posted:
… The only thing that I can think of is for MTH to be reborn with a new generation of leadership tuned to attracting hobbyists aged 20-40. It's going to require, in large part, a re-thinking of what it means to make and sell O gauge to a millennial. Just having an iPhone app and/or bluetooth support isn't sufficient. Alexa/HomeKit/Google Home integration is a no-brainer nice-to-have. Augmented Reality likely needs to be involved here. Building an actual network of YouTube influencers is vital. Presence at CES is key to injecting product awareness into the "everyday consumer" space with major ….
"Alexa … order a pepperoni pizza from Pizza Hut
Alexa … throw turnout number 7 and run PRR engine 9120 west at speed step 10
Alexa … keep the clothes dryer tumbling"
"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.
@NYC 428 posted:Exactly true.
DCS is no technical break-through ether, all MTH did was combine two existing open source platforms (TMCC and DCC) and called it proprietary.
Except that's not true.
DCS doesn't work anything like TMCC, which is why they are able to coexist on the same layout like they do. While there are similarities to DCC, DCS works differently too and had two way communication way before DCC did.
Also TMCC was not open sourced, they just licensed it to other companies. With Legacy Lionel stopped doing that. While TMCC is still licensed via ERR it almost died as well if not for Scott Mann.
OK Guys....the mods and I have been getting a LOT of alerts on this thread. We have spend too much time editing and deleting the politically slanted comments as well as the bantering between some of you. Keep comments that are politically motivated to yourself....please!
Thanks....
@falconservice posted:The people at Lionel are still working the old Weaver Models line into the new LionScale.
They have their hands full with that operation.
Andrew
And I am sure glad they did: so much more affordable. Love LionScale.
To follow up with what TexasSP said:
Lionel release the command code to allow one to injected commands into the TMCC base and run engines without using the CAB1 remote. You still have to purchase a TMCC Base from Lionel. You cannot build your own TMCC base that commands the engines directly without first obtaining a license & blessing from Lionel and you'll also have to pay them a royalty for each unit you sell.
The biggest feature that TMCC, Legacy, and DCC lack is two-way communication between the engine and the controlling device. Lionel circumvented part of this with the sensor track, but that doesn't use the track signal to return info to the controller.
Thank you Mike and everyone at MTH for the great run. Best of luck to all in the future. Although I lean toward the orange and blue company I love the Railking passenger cars. Hopefully those dies can be put to work again. In fact I have some purple boxes being delivered tomorrow. Best hobby around.
My decision made decades ago to stick with conventional operations was a wise one. (For me, of course.) No worries about command control!
Who is the company that built steam engines that had American FLyer Puffing Smoke Units? Your right if you said MTH. When MTH brought out the early Railking Steam Locomotives, he used the exact mechanism that Flyer used in there steam locos. The only difference is that MTH did not have an air-gap between the smoke piston and the heating coils. Flyer had this air-gap and that gave the choo choo sound. I guess Mike decided not to have the choo choo sounds because he was going to change over to QSI Proto-1 sound system and smoke unit. Other train companies had there early engines made in South Korea (Samhogsa?).
sincerely yours railbear601
After 40 years of ownership it’s safe to say Mike most likely just got tired. I commend him for getting out while on top. When he wakes up on June 1st 2021 he will experience a wonderful feeling of relaxation and will be very happy that someone else will have to worry about the model train business. Don’t look back Mike.
@Dave Warburton posted:My decision made decades ago to stick with conventional operations was a wise one. (For me, of course.) No worries about command control!
Too technologically advanced. You're just asking for problems. I'm sticking with wooden push trains.
@MikeH posted:Too technologically advanced. You're just asking for problems. I'm sticking with wooden push trains.
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
@TexasSP posted:Except that's not true.
DCS doesn't work anything like TMCC, which is why they are able to coexist on the same layout like they do. While there are similarities to DCC, DCS works differently too and had two way communication way before DCC did.
Also TMCC was not open sourced, they just licensed it to other companies. With Legacy Lionel stopped doing that. While TMCC is still licensed via ERR it almost died as well if not for Scott Mann.
Lionel released the Legacy protocol to the public in 2014. It is still open to all as far as I know.
@rplst8 posted:IMO, ScaleTrax is THEE track system for another company to pickup. It is the best looking 3 rail track out there. It also seems like because of it's low profile, it would be the cheapest to manufacture.
I would certainly like to see someone purchase the ScaleTrax track line and add some new turnouts. Ys, slip/double slip, curved turnouts in different sizes, etc...
@TexasSP posted:Except that's not true.
DCS doesn't work anything like TMCC, which is why they are able to coexist on the same layout like they do. While there are similarities to DCC, DCS works differently too and had two way communication way before DCC did.
Also TMCC was not open sourced, they just licensed it to other companies. With Legacy Lionel stopped doing that. While TMCC is still licensed via ERR it almost died as well if not for Scott Mann.
Except, the last paragraph is not true.
@romiller49 posted:After 40 years of ownership it’s safe to say Mike most likely just got tired. I commend him for getting out while on top. When he wakes up on June 1st 2021 he will experience a wonderful feeling of relaxation and will be very happy that someone else will have to worry about the model train business. Don’t look back Mike.
Wouldn't it be a bummer if when he woke up on July 2, 2021 he realized that there was a MTH engine that he needs and now he has to pay for it, just like the rest of us.
@rthomps posted:Except, the last paragraph is not true.
Then exactly who else besides ERR is licensed to make TMCC boards, controllers and equipment?
Open sourced means anyone has access and can alter the coding. No one has to be licensed to use the software or make there own hardware. If that was the case MTH could have controlled TMCC and Legacy without a connection to a TMCC or Legacy base.
Having the ability to send limited commands to Lionel's systems is not the same as open sourced by any means.
@jonnyspeed posted:Lionel released the Legacy protocol to the public in 2014. It is still open to all as far as I know.
It's not clear if that means you could develop an over-the-air TMCC product. I think that would have to be the subject of a patent search. Certainly the original patents on TMCC have expired by now I would imagine. I'm sure the Legacy system is still securely under patent protection. FWIW, the TMCC protocol was released in the 90's, check The Complete Guide to Command Control, 71-2911-250.
@rplst8 posted:I read this a lot over and over, and I don't get it.
People complain about the "size" of O and that it takes up twice the space. First, that's not exactly true. HO is 1:87 so O is really only 1.8 times larger. Maybe a nit-pick but worth mentioning I think.
Second, I was an HO modeler for years. I would say that 90 percent of the HO market is complete garbage. The quality is terrible, the consistency is terrible, and most of it is extremely fragile. It's hard for little kids to work with, and for older less nimble hands as well. The sweet spot for HO is ages 15-35 and most of that age group is too busy going to school or working and raising a family to invest money and time in a hobby like this. I'm 42, and switched to O about 10 years ago. There are great HO offerings out there, but they are just as rare and/or almost as expensive as the MTH Premier and Lionel Legacy.Third, watching an HO layout is pretty boring IMO. O is a nice size that is impressive to look at. On the higher end of the spectrum the models are WAY more detailed than the HO counterparts - partially because it's actually large enough to see. Also the sounds, lights, and action in O scale are easily and order of magnitude better than HO. If you are a steam aficionado like me, the smoke alone is worth the jump.
To me, the biggest advantage of 3 rail AC is the ability to have reversing loops. You can connect up the track however you want, no insulators needed, no directional control need - it just works. I think this is why the Marklin system remains popular in HO overseas - though I would love for O to adopt a track system more similar to that! All it would take is replacing the pickup rollers.
Great post. Like you, I ran HO and had a similar experience before switching to O about 25 years ago. The part of your post I like the best is: "O is a nice size that is impressive to look at. On the higher end of the spectrum the models are WAY more detailed than the HO counterparts - partially because it's actually large enough to see. Also the sounds, lights, and action in O scale are easily and order of magnitude better than HO."
Size matters, particularly as we get a little older and our sight is no longer 20/20.
Pat
The reason I don't work on HO stuff is the size and fragility. Us old guys can handle O-gauge, we can see all the parts.
Haha, right on the money John!
Rod
We also now know most likely why Lionel Corporation Tinplate was not continued. And just the other day I was looking at the new 2020 V2 Catalog thinking I didn't see any European models as well. In any event I am looking forward to the re-issue of the Turbotrains. And better get your order in for the 40th Anniversary Boxcars.
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...
