H1000 posted:Let's hope for the best here.
I'm disappointed in how Lionel handled this. They pull the rug out and watch us squirm for a few days and it takes severe backlash to get a response that still doesn't give us anything definite.
I hope they get something worked out or provide a different solution.
I think that Lionel's response was a direct reaction to our protests. They most likely had no plans whatsoever to replace ERR until enough of us squawked.
That's my opinion.
My ability to repair Lionel engines is only at a post war level, but I believe I have the skills to do an install of ERR components.
Somewhat related, for the repair tech guys, if a Legacy engine dies, and those boards are not available, could you use the ERR boards and augment it with gunrunner Johns super chuffer and get the engine running again, albeit it with less functionality.
"As some have implied, in no way was this decision meant to be anything more than a business decision. "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIONEL
Consumers make business decisions, too. We call it spending money prudently on products that we can count on and companies that understand we consumers also have lots of money riding on their decisions. If we have purchased a company's products which will eventually need maintenance or parts that require technological replacement, we should be able to count on those companies to recognize that consumers have a considerable investment at stake. I buy the products that excel in the marketplace for a price that is consistent with excellence. If a company insists on demonstrating that their bottom line is all that counts, I'm all ears. For the record, my comments are absolutely not aimed at Lionel alone. I have purchased products from other companies and have heard repair technicians say, "Sorry, I cannot get that board" or "your only option is to upgrade to this" or "switch operating systems."
I may name my shelves Key West. I have lots of shelf queens. 
Just sayin'
bigkid posted:Seacoast posted:I will never understand why the larger and small manufactures didn't get together back in the day and adopt DCC decoders and operating systems instead of their proprietary systems. O 3 rail is the only scale/gauge from Z to G scales that didn't adopt the standard of DCC. DCC is plentiful and cost effective. Just my opinion and water under the proverbial bridge at this point.
The answer is partly in the uniqueness of 3 rail O, the scale stuff from Z to O scale was based on a common platform from the start, they all use 2 rail DC as their base, which meant a much larger market was involved. In a large market situation like that trying to 'corner the market' with proprietary technology would not likely work, if let's say Athearn developed a command control system that was proprietary, it likely would kill them, because there were enough other firms in the business or even not, who would see the size of the market and jump in. Plus developing your own protocol is expensive, as Lionel and MTH know they had significant cost, whereas DCC was developed as a standard protocol which made it a lot easier for the engine manufacturers to support.
Okay, so why didn't Lionel et al go that path, why didn't they adopt DCC? The prime factor was the size of the market, when Lionel developed TMCC originally they were the largest supplier of 3 rail trains I believe, and they didn't face competitive pushback, they were the only game in town and going proprietary sounded like a big win, offering something no one else did, and in a market where there weren't deep pockets or enough market overall to support a third party challenge. In computers something like this happened with PC's in the 2nd or 3rd generation, IBM tried to develop a proprietary bus standard for cards you put in a pc, basically trying to make it proprietary...and it failed, because the other manufacturers came up with a common standard and board manufacturers were not going to support both (likewise IBM tried that with OS/2 as a replacement for windows)..but that was because the market was big enough.
Since Lionel did not want TMCC to be an industry standard, but rather proprietary technology, MTH had to develop their own standard (among other things, had Lionel even offered to license it to MTH, likely it would be at a price point so high as to try and make MTH engines non competitive price wise).
There was no one else really to push for a standard, just not enough companies interested in developing DCC for three rail. Basically when a company because of the size of the market and their market position can make money out of proprietary technology, they will, and usually they get away with it until better technology comes along or the size of the market dictates it. If the market was bigger for 3 rail O, and there were more players, it might have happened. Lionel ended up licensing TMCC to Atlas and Third rail and the few other firms because by the time they did that, legacy was either on the way or out there, so licensing "older" technology didn't dig into their business per se.
The last sentence in the above post is totally wrong. Lionel decided to license TMCC because they heard that MTH was coming out with a competitive system and they were trying to put the squeeze on their number 1 competitor. Legacy was nowhere near on the horizon at the point. It wasn’t even thought of! TMCC wasn’t even that old yet.
One other thing: DCC wasn’t developed. It already existed. The NMRA looked at many systems and the system they picked was developed by Lenz. Lenz was kind of enough to give up the rights to the protocol so that it could be a Standard.
I joined this forum in 2000 and I had a lot of discussions about this. Forum member Chuck always disagreed with me as I was saying pretty much exactly what Seacoast posted. I was always in favor of an open protocol. The manufacturers should have gotten together and come up with a non proprietary protocol. Just the protocol. Everything else could be proprietary THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS FOR THE GOOD OF THE USER! This way any locomotive will work with any system. It was always Chuck’s position that DCC wouldn’t work with the AC motors that Lionel had. I have always believed it could have and there was one company who had a table at York in the early 2000s that was trying to get DCC to catch on in 3 rail. I saw the demo with my own eyes but he had non sound decoders and between that and the foothold that TMCC had in the market already with Railsounds he was doomed. He had ads in CTT in that era too.
I remember one time during those discussions I said what if Lionel stops making TMCC boards sort of as a joke and now that it almost happened.
I will always believe the motivation behind keeping the protocol proprietary was profit and I say the same thing about MTH. Neither of these companies should have ever invested the R&D into their own systems and just stuck with DCC but as Seacoast said it’s all water under the bridge now.
I bought TMCC in 1998. I had no forum to turn to. The problems I had with that system were terrible!!! At one point I was literally pulling my hair out. The signal problems were so crazy and intermittent. At one point I thought airplanes over my house were degrading the signal. I found out later that I probably had some sort of a ground issue but by then I had taken down the layout. Then when DCS was coming out Mike told me to my face it was going to be “more robust” than TMCC. His exact words but I had signal problems with that system too. I wonder how many others like me got frustrated with the signal reception of these 3 rail systems.
GGG posted:LC and LC+ is the new TMCC. Cheaper to make, better profit margin and newer tech. Different features unfortunately, but a more complete integrated package.
Comparing LC/LC+ to TMCC is truly an apples to oranges comparison! Sorry George, but that does not compute. TMCC has a whole family of features that LC/LC+ doesn't have, it also operates the command accessories like switches and many accessories. I get that you think TMCC is dated, but that's just one man's opinion. It's hardly a "more complete" package, it's just a basic locomotive control package.
A full-up ERR upgrade runs rings around an LC+ locomotive as far as performance. Could LC+ be expanded? I suppose so, but how about the tons of TMCC accessories and motorized units still being sold by Lionel?
D500 posted:c.sam posted:rthomps posted:An earlier post ...
"I'm going to spread the blame around a bit; maybe someone above has already, but: back in the early 3RO Command days, we had a company offering open, licensed access (not worrying with all the legal nuances, here) to a rather friendly system - TMCC. The other Big Player in the room as determined to continue on his own DCC-like path: DCS. Had this player decided to license TMCC (as a few others did), perhaps - just perhaps - TMCC and its descendants woulda/coulda become the true, non-proprietary Standard of 3RO command control, and filled the DCC role (but more simply, rationally and dependably). Not actually blaming you Mr. W., and the above does have some holes, but, geez, thanks a lot. I still don't use DCS - but those ERR-converted PS1/PS2(one) locos are sure nice. Great models."
This is an important post - though it has a "water under the bridge" character.
Certainly many in the hobby back in the days when "the word" was that DCS was in development wondered "why-for".
I could not agree more that the "player" who went with DCS essentially blocked standardization for the hobby. A toy-train, three-rail open system (which we might have had) like DCC would have benefited all of us. Instead, we have a simple system (TMCC - Legacy) that is quite robust in competition with DCS that is a more complicated system with a 200-page companion to understand how to make it work properly.
Who knows how things would have progressed? Who knows how and where ERR and Jon would have taken the system that would have benefited the three-rail O Gauge hobby immensely.
Simply an opinion. My opinion.
So far, this is among the best posts here this evening....
I'm the poster of the "water-under-the-bridge" post mentioned above, and you are absolutely right - I almost didn't post it, as it had a sour grapes edge to it, but I am glad that I'm not the only one who seems to see it that way, at least a bit. I do not object to proprietary products, and am glad to pay for those special features if they suit my goals, but a truly open - more than one manufacturer of compatible boards - system that performed the command control/cruise basics only and was used by every 3RO manufacturer would have been a good thing. Possible? Dunno. It's always been a very small pond.
I like Brand M products; great models, well made, I have some - but because of their oddball (to me) operating system, I have often passed them by for purchase (new catalogue items, especially) and bought Brand L and Friends, or nothing at all.
Hi Guys, I think the above might be a bit of an unfair characterization, but memory fails over time and I will ask you guys to kindly correct me. "Back in the day" when Lionel allowed TMCC to be used by others, the agreement was that no one would be permitted to "improve" upon the product. Wasn't it part of the lawsuit against K-Line when they developed cruise control and added it to their locomotives? Remember when K-Line went under and their engines were blown out by a dealer out West, many of the locomotives had to have the cruise control removed before the items could be sold. Wasn't that the case? If not, please correct me.
If so, why would MTH adopt a standard with any limitations when they could build their own that would be more profitable and had more features. I'm sure Lionel would have been very happy to have everyone trail behind with their older features and sound sets. Remember when DCS was launched, it was MILES ahead of TMCC in terms of features (you could change sound sets, had built in conventional control from the TIU...etc...). I'm not an MTH vs Lionel guy, I have an even amount of locomotives from both manufacturers, but to say you need to read a 200 page manual to use it is unfair. You certainly do not! However, it's 200 pages because it takes that many to explain all it's possibilities. If you have no need for advanced features, just read about the basics. I remember getting my first DCS system and being so blown away I thought about going MTH only! But glad I did not as Lionel started upping their game again. To this day, are Atlas and 3rd Rail forced to use old Lionel sounds or are they allowed to develop and add their own? Really curious about that. Thanks guys, enjoying the discussion!
Mike
RoyBoy posted:H1000 posted:Let's hope for the best here.
I'm disappointed in how Lionel handled this. They pull the rug out and watch us squirm for a few days and it takes severe backlash to get a response that still doesn't give us anything definite.
I hope they get something worked out or provide a different solution.
I think that Lionel's response was a direct reaction to our protests. They most likely had no plans whatsoever to replace ERR until enough of us squawked.
That's my opinion.
I'm not sure they still have any plans. Writing a soothing letter is a far cry from actually providing a solution. It's pretty easy to pen a letter expounding how great things could be, that doesn't make it happen. Maybe they are working on a solution with a 3rd party, maybe they're not. However, until the major flap over discontinuing the product happened, my guess is that possibility never crossed their minds.
Wow...people are rewriting history here! DCC came about in 1992/1994 and it was loosely based on the Marklin/ Lenz command control system. DCC wouldn't work with the then command systems that were on the market so in a sense DCC is proprietary upon itself. For the first several years of DCC there was no decoders made that would work in the larger O gauge world...and there was no DCC sound decoders produced yet.
Lionel came out with TMCC in 1993/1994 and that whomped anything made in DCC.
Neil Young worked at QSI from like 1991-1992...I think to learn the sound decoder industry and take that knowledge to Lionel and invent TMCC.
Brewman1973 posted:My ability to repair Lionel engines is only at a post war level, but I believe I have the skills to do an install of ERR components.
Somewhat related, for the repair tech guys, if a Legacy engine dies, and those boards are not available, could you use the ERR boards and augment it with gunrunner Johns super chuffer and get the engine running again, albeit it with less functionality.
Yes you could replace all the Legacy boards with a Cruise Commander and use the Super Chuffer. I don’t think you would be able to keep the Legacy Railsounds but you could replace that with a Railsounds Commander.
I rebuilt a Legacy Lionmaster Challenger that had been damaged and stripped of some of its electronics. The excellent tech guys on the forum suggested doing just what your proposing if I could not replace the missing boards and wiring loom.
Luckily I was able to acquire the spares from Lionel and returned it to full Legacy operation. I learned a lot in the process.
Nick
rvhirailer posted:To this day, are Atlas and 3rd Rail forced to use old Lionel sounds or are they allowed to develop and add their own? Really curious about that. Thanks guys, enjoying the discussion!
I can't imagine how Lionel could prevent those folks from developing their own sounds, but getting all the infrastructure in place to develop decent sound packages is a non-trivial undertaking. Lionel has honed that process for many years. I don't think either Atlas or 3rd Rail has the volume necessary to justify the expense.
Casey Jones2 posted:Wow...people are rewriting history here! DCC came about in 1992/1994 and it was loosely based on the Marklin/ Lenz command control system. DCC wouldn't work with the then command systems that were on the market so in a sense DCC is proprietary upon itself. For the first several years of DCC there was no decoders made that would work in the larger O gauge world...and there was no DCC sound decoders produced yet.
Lionel came out with TMCC in 1993/1994 and that whomped anything made in DCC.
Neil Young worked at QSI from like 1991-1992...I think to learn the sound decoder industry and take that knowledge to Lionel and invent TMCC.
No that’s not what happened. Read the book Digital Command Control by Stan Ames and Rutger Friberg. I can’t find my copy right now so I cannot quote it.
So basically we have a new thread that is simply regurgitating all the same speculation and consternation that was expressed in the original, with the added benefit of the few usual suspects questioning the integrity of the company employees who actually take time to post here. Got it 
Scrapiron Scher posted:"As some have implied, in no way was this decision meant to be anything more than a business decision. "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIONEL
Consumers make business decisions, too. We call it spending money prudently on products that we can count on and companies that understand we consumers also have lots of money riding on their decisions. If we have purchased a company's products which will eventually need maintenance or parts that require technological replacement, we should be able to count on those companies to recognize that consumers have a considerable investment at stake. I buy the products that excel in the marketplace for a price that is consistent with excellence. If a company insists on demonstrating that their bottom line is all that counts, I'm all ears. For the record, my comments are absolutely not aimed at Lionel alone. I have purchased products from other companies and have heard repair technicians say, "Sorry, I cannot get that board" or "your only option is to upgrade to this" or "switch operating systems."
I may name my shelves Key West. I have lots of shelf queens.
Just sayin'
Gonna send you a bill, Elliot, I just spit coffee all over the front of my shirt I was laughing so hard at the last line........
On a more serious note, I agree with you that consumers make decisions, too. With toy trains we don't necessarily have the kind of choices we have elsewhere (for example, there are certain car companies I will never, ever buy their products again, for a number of reasons), but we can make choices. If a company charges a lot of money for its equipment and then down the road makes it so you can't repair it, it simply isn't worth buying given the cost of it. If a toaster breaks or a microwave breaks we have come to the point in time where they are cheap enough, you don't care it can't be fixed, that is different than shelling out 1500 bucks on an engine and then a couple of years later, a board goes and you can't get it repaired because the parts aren't available. US manufacturers used to do something similar, with cars and appliances they built in planned obsolescence with the idea that that would mean more sales in the near future......what they didn't count on was that other manufacturers weren't going to play the game, and they paid a steep price for it (these days, sadly, in appliances it has gone the other way again, they are much like expensive toy train engines, they are expensive and break down within 5 years and aren't worth fixing or can't be).
Without talking about this specific event, there is something known as "good will" that companies forget in their 'the bottom line means everything'. That good will is a very real accounting term and is part of the value of a company, and while it doesn't show to your investors or on a 10k, it can end up hurting the bottom line. I can name major companies that took a mighty fall because of good will loss. If people perceive Lionel's management as simply trying to sell them as much as possible and not caring about what happens down the road a bit, or if they perceive they are shutting out a segment of the market because they want them to buy only new stuff, or basically to say "we don't care, that doesn't bring us new sales", it is going to backfire. It is something the car industry figured out finally, that engineering a car that lasted didn't necessarily mean sacrificing sales, that they could get people to buy new cars by making the newer cars have things the older ones didn't, and that having cars that fell apart or were crappy rather than made people buy new cars, made them buy cars from someone else.
If TMCC is truly 'obsolete technology', then why not license it to someone else to support, both for upgrades and supplying boards? The people who buy legacy engines are not going to not buy them and buy let's say a Bachman engine with TMCC on it, that market has basically zero impact on what Lionel can sell (it would be different if they offered TMCC on their own engines). Likewise, LC+ is not a competitor to TMCC.
Anyway, as others have said it is speculation at this point, I just hope that they come up with an equitable solution with all this, especially as I have some engines I may want to upgrade eventually
. At this point there is no way to know what Lionel is going to do, it could be they can't find a third party firm to take over the ERR business (or they aren't really trying for the cynical), and eventually say if you want command control buy legacy or LC+ engines from us, it could be they are going to come up with something that allows upgrading to a new platform that allows it, unlike legacy (or at least that is the impression I get, that Lionel doesn't offer legacy upgrade because it is too difficult to support....).
bigkid posted:I get, that Lionel doesn't offer legacy upgrade because it is too difficult to support....).
I think that's pretty much baloney, I don't see that it's much different than TMCC. They would have to allow the release of some basic firmware packages for the RCMC to support the upgrade configurations, but that's about it. A number of people have created a tach reader module to monitor motor operation, TAS had one years ago. Even my little Chuff-Generator monitors motor operation with an optical sensor.
I doubt they want upgrades competing with the Legacy product, that's a position I can understand. So, give me back TMCC upgrades with cruise, I'll be happy.
Taking that idea on developing custom sound packages.
I wonder if a TMCC compatible custom sound board could be developed that could use existing DCC sound files?
I obviously have no idea if this is even technically possible. The board would be blank and you would just download the sounds you wanted DCS style.
I could then install the correct sounds in British locomotives
I have a feeling it would not be easy or cheap to do though.
Nick
No doubt it could be done, as to the expense, I don't know, but not cheap is a good estimate! 
After reading some of the post in this thread I'm compelled to post myself. I have a good friend that's into HO scale (to each their own) and uses DCC. I my opinion it's not even close to TMCC when you add up all of the features.
In regards to Lionel and MTH having their separate operating systems and this being a sore spot for some folks I can understand that. I myself look at this as a positive thing. Why, because it creates competition and hopefully a better product for the end user. On top of that it also adds to the bottom line (profits) for the company. Wouldn't it be great if all these companies in this business were doing as a hobby and they didn't have to be concerned with making money doing it?
I also agree that Lionel could have handle this hole ERR thing better. They had to have known there were plenty of folks that still enjoy plain old TMCC for what it is, I know I do. If they had the idea that they were going to steer the cattle in a different direction I think they got the message loud and clear. If there wasn't enough profit it I can understand that, but they should have tried to find a third party before this hole thing hit the fan like it did.
Hudson J1e posted:Casey Jones2 posted:Wow...people are rewriting history here! DCC came about in 1992/1994 and it was loosely based on the Marklin/ Lenz command control system. DCC wouldn't work with the then command systems that were on the market so in a sense DCC is proprietary upon itself.
No that’s not what happened. Read the book Digital Command Control by Stan Ames and Rutger Friberg. I can’t find my copy right now so I cannot quote it.
*Sigh*. Read this and move on.
Heavily edited from this source. Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussions.
In 1991 Tom Catherall proposed that Marklin's protocol become the basis of a command control standard. In early 1992 a meeting was held, and it was decided that the Marklin protocol had possibilities. The NMRA created the DCC Working Group to examine the idea.
The first thing the WG decided was that the best chances for long term success lay in evaluating all the alternatives. They realized that many NMRA members had already invested heavily in command control systems, and would be unwilling to convert to a new system. Despite that, the WG decided to forego backward compatibility.
Marklin's two rail command control systems were designed under contract by Bernd Lenz of Lenz Elektronik, and had the greatest potential to base a standard upon due to its signalling technique.
The original Lenz protocol had additional desirable features, such as the ability to determine the power source available. It made decoders which could operate on DCC or analog layouts possible.
The DCC WG wanted to create the best options for their standard, so while the key attributes were available in the Lenz/Marklin protocol, numerous improvements were made. Since the NMRA cannot endorse or standardize a proprietary product, a potential standard cannot contain copyrighted, proprietary or patented components, Lenz GmbH agreed to the NMRA request to release all their rights to the technology for sale outside of Germany. This would allow other companies to enter the DCC market freely, without the requirement of seeking a licence from a competitor.
The DCC requirements and proposal was presented to the Board of Trustees in 1992. The proposal was for a single digital command control standard. The basic requirements were implemented in two standards, S-9.1 and 9.2, to satisfy the requirement for basic interchange, while the advanced features were incorporated into additional standards.
This would allow manufacturers to choose if they wanted to include more advanced features, or just make a basic system. The NMRA defined the signal on the track, how it gets there is up to the manufacturer.
gunrunnerjohn posted:bigkid posted:I get, that Lionel doesn't offer legacy upgrade because it is too difficult to support....).I think that's pretty much baloney, I don't see that it's much different than TMCC. They would have to allow the release of some basic firmware packages for the RCMC to support the upgrade configurations, but that's about it.
I doubt they want upgrades competing with the Legacy product, that's a position I can understand. So, give me back TMCC upgrades with cruise, I'll be happy.
They don't want to offer Legacy upgrades, which would be competing with new Legacy products. I understand that as well. But in addition, it may very well be that they determined that TMCC upgrades with cruise was competing too much with new Legacy products as well.
If there are too many operators out there thinking "Instead of spending $550 on a new Legacy engine, I'm just going to take my old TMCC (or conventional) engine, spend $200 and do an ERR conversion on it, run it with my Legacy controller, get an engine that does most of what I want, and save myself $350," then Lionel may think that's competing too much with new Legacy products as well.
So it may be that Lionel has a reason why they don't want to "give you back TMCC upgrades with cruise." (Figuratively speaking, John. Not just you... me and all the others here as well.) I don't know if any of this was a consideration when Lionel made it's decision. Other factors may have been - and probably were - deemed of far greater import. It's just a thought.
gunrunnerjohn posted:GGG posted:LC and LC+ is the new TMCC. Cheaper to make, better profit margin and newer tech. Different features unfortunately, but a more complete integrated package.Comparing LC/LC+ to TMCC is truly an apples to oranges comparison! Sorry George, but that does not compute. TMCC has a whole family of features that LC/LC+ doesn't have, it also operates the command accessories like switches and many accessories. I get that you think TMCC is dated, but that's just one man's opinion. It's hardly a "more complete" package, it's just a basic locomotive control package.
A full-up ERR upgrade runs rings around an LC+ locomotive as far as performance. Could LC+ be expanded? I suppose so, but how about the tons of TMCC accessories and motorized units still being sold by Lionel?
John I am talking the engine not the control system. I complained years ago, no one cared because they were getting cheap engines with TMCC like functions.
An LC+ has directional lighting, integrated smoke, remote couplers and Cruise control. What is not TMCC like? BUT Yes it does not have the operating system behind it, hence my different features comment. I stand by my comments.
Remember Legacy is also about operating features that include consistent operation between Legacy engines, especially when you use the speed function, or operate a consist. Remember all the complaints about the Back EMF Legacy engine? With all the different manufactures, gear ratios, gear design, while you can certainly back fit a Legacy radio and motor driver that can accept Legacy command ( I have done it with Lionel parts). It won't meet a Lionel Legacy standard. Without more engineering, and a lot more code to account for a brass Williams Mabuchi 3 pole motor, versus a 3rd rail Pittman 7 pole motor, etc...
Too many people glossing over real issues that take more work to resolve. Work, that Lionel would struggle with considering the manning, and the system approach they have taken with their design.
Folks really do not appreciate how many Lionel parts have gone obsolete and not carried for engines that where one off. Decades of engine, that motors, linkage, even certain smoke units that are no longer available. Unique parts that a generic one can't be used. G
GGG posted:gunrunnerjohn posted:GGG posted:LC and LC+ is the new TMCC. Cheaper to make, better profit margin and newer tech. Different features unfortunately, but a more complete integrated package.Comparing LC/LC+ to TMCC is truly an apples to oranges comparison! Sorry George, but that does not compute. TMCC has a whole family of features that LC/LC+ doesn't have, it also operates the command accessories like switches and many accessories. I get that you think TMCC is dated, but that's just one man's opinion. It's hardly a "more complete" package, it's just a basic locomotive control package.
A full-up ERR upgrade runs rings around an LC+ locomotive as far as performance. Could LC+ be expanded? I suppose so, but how about the tons of TMCC accessories and motorized units still being sold by Lionel?
John I am talking the engine not the control system. I complained years ago, no one cared because they were getting cheap engines with TMCC like functions.
An LC+ has directional lighting, integrated smoke, remote couplers and Cruise control. What is not TMCC like? BUT Yes it does not have the operating system behind it, hence my different features comment. I stand by my comments.
Remember Legacy is also about operating features that include consistent operation between Legacy engines, especially when you use the speed function, or operate a consist. Remember all the complaints about the Back EMF Legacy engine? With all the different manufactures, gear ratios, gear design, while you can certainly back fit a Legacy radio and motor driver that can accept Legacy command ( I have done it with Lionel parts). It won't meet a Lionel Legacy standard. Without more engineering, and a lot more code to account for a brass Williams Mabuchi 3 pole motor, versus a 3rd rail Pittman 7 pole motor, etc...
Too many people glossing over real issues that take more work to resolve. Work, that Lionel would struggle with considering the manning, and the system approach they have taken with their design.
Folks really do not appreciate how many Lionel parts have gone obsolete and not carried for engines that where one off. Decades of engine, that motors, linkage, even certain smoke units that are no longer available. Unique parts that a generic one can't be used. G
1) "An LC+ has directional lighting, integrated smoke, remote couplers and Cruise control. What is not like TMCC ".
The LC+ stuff looks greats - Plus, the price point is good considering the options. But, my major complaint is the remote.
The mechanical design of the remote. ( Speed Dial ) My percieved time for the train to move when the speed dial is
turned.
Personally, I don't feel like I'm controlling the train. Sort, of like hitting the gas pedal on a car and
the car hesitates.
2) Parts -I stopped buying TMCC engines for a long time when the announcement of legacy hit.
I had alway's hoped the mechanics of the engines would sort of standardized. SD 70's , GP's. So, that parts
would become interchangeable. Just, when I thought a stable plateau was being hit. BOOM! New,
Electronics and New Engines! I think at some point we will have to come to terms with the current
state of the O gauge market! We either accept that some things will be throw away. Or we all raise
our hands. Enough is Enough - and make a statement to the companies, that there are other factors
more important then stainless steel screens on the side of a Santa Fe. (Just a example guys) So, Don't
go nuts.
GGG posted:gunrunnerjohn posted:GGG posted:LC and LC+ is the new TMCC. Cheaper to make, better profit margin and newer tech. Different features unfortunately, but a more complete integrated package.Comparing LC/LC+ to TMCC is truly an apples to oranges comparison! Sorry George, but that does not compute. TMCC has a whole family of features that LC/LC+ doesn't have, it also operates the command accessories like switches and many accessories. I get that you think TMCC is dated, but that's just one man's opinion. It's hardly a "more complete" package, it's just a basic locomotive control package.
A full-up ERR upgrade runs rings around an LC+ locomotive as far as performance. Could LC+ be expanded? I suppose so, but how about the tons of TMCC accessories and motorized units still being sold by Lionel?
John I am talking the engine not the control system. I complained years ago, no one cared because they were getting cheap engines with TMCC like functions.
An LC+ has directional lighting, integrated smoke, remote couplers and Cruise control. What is not TMCC like? BUT Yes it does not have the operating system behind it, hence my different features comment. I stand by my comments.
OK, as far as it goes, I'll yield that point. Were I'm coming from is there's no way I'd want LC+ in place of my TMCC. Sound is not nearly as good, the limited 16-20 speed steps makes operations pretty jumpy, and I'm not all that enamored with the actual operation of the smoke features. And, it's in no way compatible with the universe of operating accessories. At least the Legacy system supported TMCC as well.
Of course, my Super-Chuffer was needed to fix that with TMCC, but I don't see a way to add that to LC+, so I have to live with what they give me.
I guess one of the aspects of TMCC that I like is you can add functionality to the package. With LC+ and Legacy, it's pretty much what you see is what you get.
I am happy at least there is consideration of a third party who may be carrying on with these products, what will become of all this 
, I don't know. I just hope for the best, at least Lionel heard of the disappointment of users of this technology. I would like to thank all who contacted Lionel in an appropriate manner. I also would like to wish Ken the best in retirement. From the response by Mr. Hitchcock it sounds like Ken may have his work cut out for him. Good luck Ken.
Ray
Seems as though the Lionel management team's strategy is working. Howard's letter has obviously quieted down the masses and placated the vocal furor of many. Be aware however since the chatter has subsided, we can't let Howard perceive this as the pressure being off so he and his executives can acquiesce to an "Outa sight, outa mind" mode and revert to their original plan to abandon the TMCC consumer market.
Complacency will let this topic drift into oblivion and we can't allow that by watching idly from the sidelines. We must be more resolute, vigorous, and vigilant than ever, redoubling our efforts until the deal Howard alluded to becomes reality. Those who canceled orders hopefully won't rethink their decisions and regress by reinstating those orders because of Howard's letter. We must continue contacting Lionel regularly - reminding them of our needs until they rectify the TMCC fiasco they've created.
ogaugeguy posted:Seems as though the Lionel management team's strategy is working. Howard's letter has obviously quieted down the masses and placated the vocal furor of many. Be aware howerever since the chatter has subsided, we can't let Howard perceive this as the pressure being off so he and his executives can acquiesce to an, "Outa sight, outa mind" mode and revert to their original plan to abandon the TMCC consumer market.
Exactly how I suspect this is being handled. 
I don't think anyone is letting it drop into oblivion. I, like many, are now watching and sitting back. I think we got our feelings known on the subject. There is only so much you can say. I hope the content remains civil. It's never helps if it gets rude or nasty. You are right though that we should keep the channel open. While some have said they have cancelled pre-orders, I have to wonder what they will do if Lionel does keep ERR alive via a 3rd party?
Marty what's the deal with the California office closing? Isn't that the tech base of lionel? Everyone is talking ERR, but this to me could be worse ...
In the end, a series of events like this is helpful to me in that I have too many locomotives and too many cars and I have become too emotionally invested in all of this stuff. Sometimes, when I think about what all of this means I realize I should take a much more laid back approach to model railroading. Being retired, I have focused so much on it that I have occasionally lost perspective. I'm much too volatile about the hobby and my love for the trains has sometimes taken me to the brink of logic.
My wife and I are considering downsizing our home and, perhaps, moving to Florida. We have lots of friends and lots of interests and a whole new panorama of life will become available to us. I will always love trains and I realize more ain't necessarily better anyway. Ben, need some buildings?
Severn posted:Marty what's the deal with the California office closing? Isn't that the tech base of lionel? Everyone is talking ERR, but this to me could be worse ...
Dave Olson is taking over for Jon. He announced at the Legacy meeting he is looking to hire a software engineer to work with him.
But isn't the ca office "lion tech" (Young, etc..) and all the sounds out of there (Rudy), etc...?
I also wondered what happened with Rudy, I though he was the sound guru, I hope he's staying with Lionel!
gunrunnerjohn posted:I also wondered what happened with Rudy, I though he was the sound guru, I hope he's staying with Lionel!
I also hope he stays around. He is another one of the great guys that is always here answering and helping.
gunrunnerjohn posted:bigkid posted:I get, that Lionel doesn't offer legacy upgrade because it is too difficult to support....).I think that's pretty much baloney, I don't see that it's much different than TMCC. They would have to allow the release of some basic firmware packages for the RCMC to support the upgrade configurations, but that's about it. A number of people have created a tach reader module to monitor motor operation, TAS had one years ago. Even my little Chuff-Generator monitors motor operation with an optical sensor.
I doubt they want upgrades competing with the Legacy product, that's a position I can understand. So, give me back TMCC upgrades with cruise, I'll be happy.
There is always calm before a storm. Lionel is not in a good position. Although, nothing was "promised" as to a solution to ERR! If the talks to have someone to continue the ERR line fail. Lionel, is in a worse position then before. (Sort of a public catch 22) D'd, If you do! D'd, If you don't!
The bottom line is "The Buyers" that are into the hobby want a upgrade path. If they can't provide it - then there is a opportunity for other systems to step in.
I will simply purchase upgrades in lieu of Engines for a bit. If that upgrade path is a existing system, I'm sure that Company will be pleasure in selling thousand's of upgrades and their system to run them.
I do consider lionel's system superior in regards to sound and operation. Plus, I have find the support to be a tad better then other's . But I will live with some operational and minor "Support" loss knowing that "SPARE' repair options are available.
I think we are all in mental unison on the issue. But, time to sit back and see what happens. I think "H" already knows it's not a good situation. I'm sure he will try his hardest to rectify it. As the "EMPIRES" return can fall in a day.
shawn
For all of you who know what the future holds, I'd like to sell you some stock market tips .
As negative and caustic as some of the writing here is about the future of Lionel command control strategies, I am that optimistic. Lionel will do things that make sense because that's how you keep customers happy, and it's simple enlightened self-interest. Will it please everyone? No. Look at the negativity about LC and LC+, almost certainly the most successful technology product introduction in the hobby in the last 10 years. Can't please all the people all the time. I'm sure Lionel regrets having worried or annoyed some people about this, but I'm equally sure they will do things in the future that makes sense in all ways. If you've listened to Howard, Ryan and Dave's podcasts with Derek you know these folks have good intentions and are much smarter than many of us, in my opinion.
ogaugeguy posted:Seems as though the Lionel management team's strategy is working. Howard's letter has obviously quieted down the masses and placated the vocal furor of many. Be aware however since the chatter has subsided, we can't let Howard perceive this as the pressure being off so he and his executives can acquiesce to an "Outa sight, outa mind" mode and revert to their original plan to abandon the TMCC consumer market.
We can't encourage that to happen by complacently letting this topic drift into oblivion. We must be resolute, vigorous, and more vigilant than ever, redoubling our efforts until the deal Howard alluded to becomes reality. Those who canceled orders hopefully won't rethink their decisions and regress by reinstating those orders because of Howard's letter. We must continue contacting Lionel regularly - reminding them of our needs until they rectify the TMCC fiasco they've created.
I agree 100%. I hope Lionel is not banking on this just to quietly go away.
I didn't order much of anything this last go around, just a couple items. I was going to place another (larger) order but will hold off on any future orders until a definite answer is given as to TMCC's future vs. a possible chance something will work out.
Purely speculation, but does anyone think Mike Reagan and TWTrainworx might be the third party Lionel is talking to about continuing to offer TMCC upgrades?
Neal Jeter
"But isn't the ca office "lion tech" (Young, etc..) and all the sounds out of there (Rudy), etc...?"
Liontech hasn't existed for decades unless I am mistaken. Neil Young is not involved directly in current Lionel technology development, as far as is publicly known. Rudy is indeed in California (my apologies for the original mistake) but the main Lionel engineering team is in North Carolina, I believe. As is Mike Reagan, who moved there when Lionel moved there. He is now with TW Trainworks. California is simply the home of ERR. Neil and Jon Z. are indeed California residents, however.
Landsteiner posted:"But isn't the ca office "lion tech" (Young, etc..) and all the sounds out of there (Rudy), etc...?"
Liontech hasn't existed for decades unless I am mistaken. Neil Young is not involved directly in current Lionel technology development, as far as is publicly known. Rudy and the entire Lionel engineering team is in North Carolina. As is Mike Reagan, who moved there when Lionel moved there. California is simply the home of ERR. Neil and Jon Z. are indeed California residents, however.
I'm pretty sure Rudy is out of the California office.
MartyE posted:Landsteiner posted:"But isn't the ca office "lion tech" (Young, etc..) and all the sounds out of there (Rudy), etc...?"
Liontech hasn't existed for decades unless I am mistaken. Neil Young is not involved directly in current Lionel technology development, as far as is publicly known. Rudy and the entire Lionel engineering team is in North Carolina. As is Mike Reagan, who moved there when Lionel moved there. California is simply the home of ERR. Neil and Jon Z. are indeed California residents, however.
I'm pretty sure Rudy is out of the California office.
Correct.
Which is in LA or SF areas? [never mind, the web told me]
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
