The resurrection of the TMCC upgrade

Wouldn't it be best to see what the "resurrection" looks like, then discuss it?

Kind of hard to discuss the future of a TMCC upgrade when nothing was offered with regards to any kind of future other than ongoing discussions.  I suppose I will be guardedly pessimistic.

To me the only real solution would be for Lionel to offer some type of Legacy system, rather it be from them or thru a third party. If TMCC is so old wouldn't it make more sense to go to the operating system which is now current. 

I think they want this all to blow over and then say the deal fell through. Again I agree with NECRails, let pick this after the summer and see what happens.

Lionel responded to the outcry - great!

The ERR boards (some?) look likely to continue under another company - great!

Lionel is continuing to look at pulling their control systems into one suite of products with modern electronic implementation and perhaps enhanced inter-operability- also great!

Pretty good outcome to what looked like a disaster to some, IMO.   But we will have to wait to see what actually happens, but at least things look more optimistic.

Hmmmm. Wonder who that third party is???

See the sky ain't falling. I be live he was sincere in what he said. I don't think any company would throw away something that helps them. Ken is retiring and parts are getting difficult to get but there is always a work around. Let's just sit back stop speculating and see what happens.

Still wondering about that third party?  Maybe an old employee who knows.

OK. Let’s see what happens. 

Personally, comments on this for me is and are useless until and if I see ERR products are again available. As many products, many take years to reach consumer, and many times never. But if within this year it comes about, nothing but praise for listening to  us, the Hobbyist and will show Lionel does listen and care for their consumers.

Wait and see stance.

Go and read Jon Z's posting on the ElectricRR business.  Essentially a one man operation and that guy (Ken) is retiring.  Perhaps one or both of the OEMs that consume Lionel's production of the boards will recognize there is a business opportunity selling the boards.  Or perhaps, Lionel will decide to stock the boards as parts without Ken's expertise and support so those of us with the necessary installation acumen can still obtain the parts.

Hopefully a good outcome.  Wait and see. 

I believe its damage controls like one one the forum members said in time they will note a deal fell through and that will be that 

If only I was about five years older, I might want to take this on. And maybe experience laying out PCBs. I only did schematics, not layouts.

I need a lie down. Crack a cold one if you’ve got one.

Will see what happens.

Nick

Like others, read the post from Don Olsen and see it as a positive.  Only time will tell, but I remain an optimistic mind, if only for the several more engines I have in line for the ERR upgrades.  Really glad I made the acquisitions I did on the upgrades in March.  Now, will simply wait and see while I do other improvements and repairs to my roster as I can, until then.  I was beginning to think about, and was going to ask in a post, whether 3rd Rail, Scott, is still performing the TMCC upgrades on older QSI equipped engines?  I have 3 very nice 3rd Rail from late 1990s to upgrade, may still perform myself, just at a later date.

Jesse    TCA

I don't understand all the cynicism.

Lionel made a business decision (perhaps not thinking through all of its ramifications for hobbyists); we voiced our disappointment and concerns very loudly; Lionel was listening and decided to seek a way for ERR upgrade kits to continue to be available--isn't that what we asked for?  They believe they have found a third party to do this (an arrangement that has not been finalized, but which they think is likely to work out). Their president, Howard Hitchcock, was very open in explaining all this in a lengthy open letter.

I think that Lionel made a mistake in not making this part of their original business decision regarding ERR. But all companies--and people--make mistakes. Now they are seeking to correct that mistake. What more is there to reasonably ask of Lionel? Instead of responding with cynicism, shouldn't we be applauding them for listening to us and changing course?

Cheers!

Keith

At the very least, someone heard us, so that's a positive sign.  I'm pessimistic, but I have hope.   Other than parts going obsolete, I don't see that the ERR line needed a lot of engineering, the current versions of the popular boards work pretty well in all the cases I've seen, and I've done a lot of upgrades.  There are occasionally some interesting interface issues, but that just adds to the fun.

Lionel’s team of talented engineers have been hard at work on an enhanced platform hardware and code that leverages all of the positive things about each of our current platforms and will allow all of our technology (TMCC, Legacy, LionChief and Bluetooth) to remain viable well into the next decade.  By creating a platform that is easier to use, more efficient, more easily manufactured, able to communicate through the full range of O Gauge products offered (Ready-to-Run starter sets through Vision level product) Lionel will advance the industry standard platform in O Gauge and ensure a future for this hobby and Lionel.

The short term part about a new third party is good in my eyes, but it does reiterate that parts obsolescence is a big factor, as Jon Z had suggested in his post in the old thread.  It sounded like the obsolescence is still on the not too distant horizon, but not as drastic as the previous announcement of mid-May 2018.

The paragraph above from Howard's letter sounds interesting.  Everything in my next paragraphs is jut me thinking out load and wondering what could happen, so take it with a grain of salt! 

If that "enhanced platform hardware and code" may end up being able to be a new upgrade path offered to consumers, it could be a positive thing.  If a new design is possible that actually can do all of the different features with one set of hardware, but possibly be programmed to be either a TMCC, Legacy, LionChief, Bluetooth (or combination thereof) functionally, it could be useful, but I can't guess what the cost for such a flexible solution might be.

Something like this could mean the boards are all the same physically, but programmed to be either standard TMCC (for upgrades), Legacy with Blue Tooth (for high end Lionel products), or LionChief with Bluetooth (for lower end starter set products).  Maybe even the Legacy version might be able to be offered, if the customer was to be willing to pay more for it than a TMCC upgrade enabled board.

For anyone familiar with electronic test equipment, I'm thinking of this like an analogy to a piece of equipment that may from a hardware perspective, have the full capabilities of a fully loaded, all options purchased unit.  The manufacturer simply programs the unit to include the options purchased when you buy it, but all the capability is really included in the underlying hardware in all units.

Granted, those types of solutions are generally in hardware that costs tens of thousands of dollars, or even up to a couple hundred thousand dollars, but if that method is possible on a smaller scale, it would be very interesting.

It would be extremely impressive if such a thing could be offered at similar price points to ERR (or slightly above), or possibly even different price points depending on what is enabled.  Previous posts in the other thread indicated Lionel had actually begun to sell Legacy boards, which I had been unaware of.

My fear of what we will lose will be the older stuff for AC motors, which is why I tried to order a single AC Commander for an engine I might like to do sometime.  Since all the new engines are DC cans, I would imagine AC motors may not easily fit into the equation there (but maybe the engineers at Lionel are thinking up a way - even if it was a separate board to go with my fictional "master" board I describe above.  I'd also wonder about any other non-engine boards that might be too much engineering to re-design.

Again, all just my random thought on what could maybe happen, at least in my attempt at positive thinking here.

-Dave

A board that encompasses all the technologies, while possible, certainly won't be less expensive I would imagine.

I will pause on any purchase until the jury is in with a positive result.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

A board that encompasses all the technologies, while possible, certainly won't be less expensive I would imagine.

Agreed.  The possible advantage being that if it is a single design and mass produced in larger quantities, it may be a benefit. 

I'd really not expect it to be as low as the ERR boards cost, but comparing it to ERR boards becomes meaningless when the ERR boards use parts that can no longer be acquired from the semiconductor or component houses.

Like I said, my scenario is at the moment totally theoretical and/or fictional, I'm just thinking out loud about possibilities.

-Dave

Disclaimer: 99.9 percent a conventional PW guy that runs trains with a ZW so this entire saga doesn't affect me (I have a handful of LC+ locos that I also enjoy), but am pulling for all you guys that have a vested interest, short and long term. I hope it works out. 

I'm usually a glass half full guy so will give Lionel the benefit of the doubt for now. 

What components would become obselete.From what I see on the boards you have the following .   Scr/triads     Capacitors  resistors,Intergrated circuits, Are they going to stop making these type of components.    I forgot wire and connectors

I speculate someone will license and release Legacy gear instead and we'll all be glad they do, and/or DCC will gain in popularity.  

I must be missing something. Maybe someone can help.  If Lionel can still produce the boards for Atlas and 3rd Rail and sell them to those companies, why cant they sell them to the public too?  Is it a different board that they make for those companies?  Admittedly, I did not read EVERY post, but if they can supply them to some, why not all?

thank you

rvhirailer posted:

I must be missing something. Maybe someone can help.  If Lionel can still produce the boards for Atlas and 3rd Rail and sell them to those companies, why cant they sell them to the public too?  Is it a different board that they make for those companies?  Admittedly, I did not read EVERY post, but if they can supply them to some, why not all?

thank you

Did you read this part?

"As many of you are aware, on Friday April 20th, Dave Olson - Lionel’s Director of Engineering, announced at the Legacy Users Group meeting in York that Lionel would effectively end the sale of the Electric Railroad (ERR) Upgrade kits to consumers in May of this year.  He also stated that Lionel would continue to endeavor to support the existing OEM manufactures (Atlas & Sunset Models / 3^rd Rail) who utilize the Electric Railroad technology moving forward with boards to support their products in market. "

That wording to me suggests the current design may be in jeopardy at some point for the OEMs as well.  Maybe not today, but at some point.  As others have stated the boards are the same.

-Dave

It’s interesting to note Lionel is in talks relative to distributing select ERR product to consumers with no manufacturing statement.  Sounds like there may be no redesigns to support parts obsolescence?  I also didn’t read any words suggesting other engine upgrade boards.  Lionel did talk about an enhanced hardware platform and code which would support TMCC, Legacy, Lionchief, Bluetooth and starter sets.  One could envision hand held devices like tablets & phones communicating with an enhanced hardware platform (ie. black box) which would talk to the above technologies plus interface with LCS.

acoastline posted:

What components would become obselete.From what I see on the boards you have the following .   Scr/triads     Capacitors  resistors,Intergrated circuits, Are they going to stop making these type of components.    I forgot wire and connectors

Integrated circuits is a very broad category.  I am absolutely certain that there have been many thousands of various integrated circuits discontinued by the company that produced them.  I can't see why the ones used in these boards would be immune to such a thing happening at some point.

shorling posted:

It’s interesting to note Lionel is in talks relative to distributing select ERR product to consumers with no manufacturing statement.  Sounds like there may be no redesigns to support parts obsolescence?  I also didn’t read any words suggesting other engine upgrade boards.  Lionel did talk about an enhanced hardware platform and code which would support TMCC, Legacy, Lionchief, Bluetooth and starter sets.  One could envision hand held devices like tablets & phones communicating with an enhanced hardware platform (ie. black box) which would talk the above technologies plus interface with LCS.

Stated pretty clearly in Howard's letter.  If the factory can substitute parts, OK, but Lionel is not re-engineering the boards:

"It is important to understand that Lionel will not be investing any additional engineering resources into the ERR line of products.  The factory may in the near term be able to interchange suitable component parts in order to continue to produce boards and avoid part obsolesce issues, however there will come a day where this option will no longer be available."

Lets try not to over think this.  It is IMO a positive sign that they heard us and are at minimal looking into keeping ERR alive in some form of 3rd party deal. 

I am with Derek in thanking Howard, Dave, Jon, and other at Lionel that have listened and formulated a plan.  It's a small step but it is better than we were 24 hours ago.

I want to thank everyone here who took the time to write Lionel in a civil way that garnered their attention.  It obviously did some good.   Let's take a breather and see where we go from here.

Engineering does part substitutions not manufacturing.

acoastline posted:

What components would become obselete.From what I see on the boards you have the following .   Scr/triads     Capacitors  resistors,Intergrated circuits, Are they going to stop making these type of components.    I forgot wire and connectors

As a guy that designs boards, and has for some time, I can tell you that when a "specific" IC or similar part goes obsolete, sometimes it takes significant rework to use a replacement.  At the very least, even with my little enhancement products, I've had a couple of parts that were no longer made and I had to make a board change to use a replacement. 

When I worked in aerospace, parts obsolescence was a constant headache, some of those systems were designed for a 20 year lifespan, and toward the end of a production cycle, there was frequently a re-spin of the board(s) necessary to update for obsolete parts.

That being said, I didn't see any major parts on the Cruise Commander that were obsolete, but something like the opto-couplers might be, that would require a board change for the new footprint in some cases.

Dave45681 posted:

shorling posted:

It’s interesting to note Lionel is in talks relative to distributing select ERR product to consumers with no manufacturing statement.  Sounds like there may be no redesigns to support parts obsolescence?  I also didn’t read any words suggesting other engine upgrade boards.  Lionel did talk about an enhanced hardware platform and code which would support TMCC, Legacy, Lionchief, Bluetooth and starter sets.  One could envision hand held devices like tablets & phones communicating with an enhanced hardware platform (ie. black box) which would talk the above technologies plus interface with LCS.

Stated pretty clearly in Howard's letter.  If the factory can substitute parts, OK, but Lionel is not re-engineering the boards:

"It is important to understand that Lionel will not be investing any additional engineering resources into the ERR line of products.  The factory may in the near term be able to interchange suitable component parts in order to continue to produce boards and avoid part obsolesce issues, however there will come a day where this option will no longer be available."

 

Thank you Dave, I think the hardest pill to swallow here is that Lionel will produce this board for Atlas and 3rd rail but not for me.  Why?

After my work episode today I am glad to have some good news !

ERR is too good of a product to lose, basic,robust and easy to install.

I am glad Lionel heard our voices.

It seems quite clear that the current TMCC system will eventually be going away. For everyone.  That doesn't mean that they will not have an omni-board that functions for both Bluetooth and Legacy (they do now) and a converter box that allows Bluetooth signaling from a cab-1/cab-2. Or maybe from a DCC handheld too . 

They also will sell this board to Atlas and 3rd Rail and make a little profit and economies of scale. Although Atlas and 3rd Rail are probably together less than 5% of the O three rail market, I'd guess.

JohnGaltLines who hasn't posted in almost a year had a mockup converter box that he said worked to operate a LionChief loco from a cab-1, so the reverse (controlling TMCC/Legacy from a LionChief or Bluetooth app) is likely possible and not necessarily all that difficult.

Lots of things are no doubt technically possible, and Lionel will do one of them, based upon feasibility, cost and function. That's what Hitchcock is saying as far as I can tell. I'm happy to wait and see. And while I wait,

I'll go out and feed my horses and lubricate the wagon wheels .

It will be sometime before we know how all of this is going to shake out. If and when there is a 3rd party making tmcc boards how long will they be produced? How much will they be? 

There are allot of questions that Lionel has to answer and that will take 6 months to a year before they are answered. 

Dave

To me this is the really intriguing and promising stuff:

"Lionel’s team of talented engineers have been hard at work on an enhanced platform hardware and code that leverages all of the positive things about each of our current platforms and will allow all of our technology (TMCC, Legacy, LionChief and Bluetooth) to remain viable well into the next decade. "

Landsteiner posted:

To me this is the really intriguing and promising stuff:

"Lionel’s team of talented engineers have been hard at work on an enhanced platform hardware and code that leverages all of the positive things about each of our current platforms and will allow all of our technology (TMCC, Legacy, LionChief and Bluetooth) to remain viable well into the next decade. "

 

It certainly does sound good.....

rvhirailer posted:

I must be missing something. Maybe someone can help.  If Lionel can still produce the boards for Atlas and 3rd Rail and sell them to those companies, why cant they sell them to the public too?  Is it a different board that they make for those companies?  Admittedly, I did not read EVERY post, but if they can supply them to some, why not all?

thank you

That’s my question?

Because Ken wants to retire, can you blame him they guy is 80 and has been helping us for quite omse time. I appreciate all hsi support and am sorryu to see him go. Its not relaistic for linonel to move the whole biz to NC and continue selling the boards. I get it, they can still make em but they have nobody left to sell them or support them and the peeps in NC have better stuff to do.

necrails posted:

Kind of hard to discuss the future of a TMCC upgrade when nothing was offered with regards to any kind of future other than ongoing discussions.  I suppose I will be guardedly pessimistic.

Well, Remember we had guys like Digital Dynamics. Who wanted to continued to make boards. But, was crowded out by the whole electric railroad deal. Ed Bender was a great guy. There are probably others that are willing to get involved. Who knows -So, we will see. At least we have gotten a response from the horses mouth. Now, All we need is to hope the negotiations go well.

I will wait and see what comes of this. Thank you Lionel for listening to us.

The third party sounds good, but also don't hold your breath for it to still be called Electric Railroad as they may not want the cost of buying that name. I'm sure if it comes thru Lionel will tell us that xyz is now producing tmcc boards that will be available for us to continue upgrades to our other trains. 

This is a hopeful sign, but I'll believe it when I see it. Not that I'm accusing anyone of subterfuge. I'm not. 

If it happens, and the website of such a company shows up, I will be among the first to place an order.

I need some kits, and my last order (last year) was for just under $600 - for my own equipment. I know that many order thousands of dollars worth, but even $600 shows that we're not an "occasional kit" bunch. I've been a customer for years.

What I do not understand, though, is why TMCC was termed "dated technology" in Lionel's statement. How could something reliable, accessible, fairly low-cost and what the customers want, be "dated"? Desirable functionality can never be "dated" - it works. Age is irrelevant. That Lionel is bringing out new this and that is beside this particular point. 

Lionel has a real niche market here, that is healthy and obviously brimming with customer loyalty ("customer loyalty"; now, there's a collectable for you). I hope that a third party can be found or created to tap this. My older locos - never mind those non-TMCC locos that I want to upgrade - that didn't worry me before now begin to look like un-fixable doorstops, now or eventually. Who fixes a 20-year-old (or so) TMCC USRA 2-6-6-2 with a sudden case of constant Odyssey Lurch? I haven't de-bugged it yet, but I said last month "Oh, well - at worst I'll have to put ERR in it". Yeah. Right.

I, too, remain cautiously pessimistic. Would love to be so very wrong. 

(P.S. - if these products do return, please don't "improve" them.) 

Landsteiner posted:

To me this is the really intriguing and promising stuff:

"Lionel’s team of talented engineers have been hard at work on an enhanced platform hardware and code that leverages all of the positive things about each of our current platforms and will allow all of our technology (TMCC, Legacy, LionChief and Bluetooth) to remain viable well into the next decade. "

 

If Lionel is able to pull this off, it might be the biggest news since TMCC.

If there's compatibility across Lionel's platforms, well ....................................  A new standard is born.

We'll see.  

rthomps posted:

Landsteiner posted:

To me this is the really intriguing and promising stuff:

"Lionel’s team of talented engineers have been hard at work on an enhanced platform hardware and code that leverages all of the positive things about each of our current platforms and will allow all of our technology (TMCC, Legacy, LionChief and Bluetooth) to remain viable well into the next decade. "

 

If Lionel is able to pull this off, it might be the biggest news since TMCC.

If there's compatibility across Lionel's platforms, well ....................................  A new standard is born.

We'll see.  

Assuming it actually works reliably, is easy to implement, and doesn't further raise costs to even more prohibitive levels. 

D500 posted:

This is a hopeful sign, but I'll believe it when I see it. Not that I'm accusing anyone of subterfuge. I'm not. 

If it happens, and the website of such a company shows up, I will be among the first to place an order.

I need some kits, and my last order (last year) was for just under $600 - for my own equipment. I know that many order thousands of dollars worth, but even $600 shows that we're not an "occasional kit" bunch. I've been a customer for years.

What I do not understand, though, is why TMCC was termed "dated technology" in Lionel's statement. How could something reliable, accessible, fairly low-cost and what the customers want, be "dated"? Desirable functionality can never be "dated" - it works. Age is irrelevant. That Lionel is bringing out new this and that is beside this particular point. 

Lionel has a real niche market here, that is healthy and obviously brimming with customer loyalty ("customer loyalty"; now, there's a collectable for you). I hope that a third party can be found or created to tap this. My older locos - never mind those non-TMCC locos that I want to upgrade - that didn't worry me before now begin to look like un-fixable doorstops, now or eventually. Who fixes a 20-year-old (or so) TMCC USRA 2-6-6-2 with a sudden case of constant Odyssey Lurch? I haven't de-bugged it yet, but I said last month "Oh, well - at worst I'll have to put ERR in it". Yeah. Right.

I, too, remain cautiously pessimistic. Would love to be so very wrong. 

(P.S. - if these products do return, please don't "improve" them.) 

I think the next board maker is going to get swamped for orders!

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.  

gunrunnerjohn posted:

acoastline posted:

What components would become obselete.From what I see on the boards you have the following .   Scr/triads     Capacitors  resistors,Intergrated circuits, Are they going to stop making these type of components.    I forgot wire and connectors

As a guy that designs boards, and has for some time, I can tell you that when a "specific" IC or similar part goes obsolete, sometimes it takes significant rework to use a replacement.  At the very least, even with my little enhancement products, I've had a couple of parts that were no longer made and I had to make a board change to use a replacement. 

When I worked in aerospace, parts obsolescence was a constant headache, some of those systems were designed for a 20 year lifespan, and toward the end of a production cycle, there was frequently a re-spin of the board(s) necessary to update for obsolete parts.

That being said, I didn't see any major parts on the Cruise Commander that were obsolete, but something like the opto-couplers might be, that would require a board change for the new footprint in some cases.

You are spot on.   Some markets have seen major changes in sales due to IC obsolesence.   One good example is the sector of firms that specialize in refurbishing /repairing vintage analog musical synthesizers.  The Moogs and Arps that were made in the 70s and early 80s --  and which are valued collectibles now -- used many specialized waveform and octave generator ICs, , which went out of production when the synth manufacturers moved into digital in the late 80s.    Consequently, the vintage analog repair specialists have been struggling, since the NOS chips  they need are either completely unavailable or insanely expensive.   

The letter from Lionel hardly sounds like a resurrection to me, more like just a temporary stay of execution. It states that Lionel will not spend any development resources on developing new TMCC products or in making design changes that may be required by the discontinuation of electronic components. This also doesn’t sound good for support of any current items as well. It seems pretty obvious that we are indeed now in the era of disposable model trains, however expensive they may be. We have no choice but to sit and wait and watch to see where this goes. In the meantime, I have cancelled any plans I may have had to buy any more digitally controlled locos, whether from Lionel or any other manufacturer. I don’t really use the ones I already have enough to justify the space they take up on the shelf, much less justify the amount of money already spent in acquiring them. I have them, I should use them, without needing to acquire any more “shelf queens”.

Bill in FtL

MartyE posted:

Lets try not to over think this.  It is IMO a positive sign that they heard us and are at minimal looking into keeping ERR alive in some form of 3rd party deal. 

I am with Derek in thanking Howard, Dave, Jon, and other at Lionel that have listened and formulated a plan.  It's a small step but it is better than we were 24 hours ago.

I want to thank everyone here who took the time to write Lionel in a civil way that garnered their attention.  It obviously did some good.   Let's take a breather and see where we go from here.

MartyE and Derek,  Many thanks for your efforts here.  Basically, our hobby is a cottage industry made up of a lot of small businesses and one or two person shops, so this announcement by Lionel looks like a good faith statement that among the things that they can control, they will make an effort to keep a path open for TMCC.   

Thank you again,  

gunrunnerjohn posted:

A board that encompasses all the technologies, while possible, certainly won't be less expensive I would imagine.

John, while I would not think less that say Bluetooth alone, very likely that using new devices and driving volume of a single board, lower than the TMCC or legacy boards.

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....

Technology moves in strange ways.  Lionel's first move with TMCC was via Lou Kovich and his technology, You can still find some of the original stuff ASC and BPC without the Lionel stamp.  Second name, some early TMCC upgrade boards, Ed Bender, Digital Dynamics, again an independent contractor, I have a couple of his upgrade boards.  Big move was Train America Studio's, Mike Reagan. I have lots of this stuff in an assortment of Weaver and Atlas models. and most recently Jon Zahornacky , with ERR.  Each of these inventors/contractors/developers have contributed.   Corporations tend to be, less than friendly to those who contributed big time to their success IMO.  These contractors, I mentioned, are independents, only staying for a short time, and moving on, It's a way of life, part of the American system IMO.   Those who sit on the boards, of a lot of major corporation,  making decision, need to review history a bit, as has been noted, it's not all raw profit, and accounting forms at the end of the month.   

Next move radio control and no electric power from the tracks, Battery technology will creep into the hobby.  IMO. 

Best wishes,  Mike CT.    

In the ideal, Lionel could license TMCC over to a 3rd party to produce ERR or ERR-like boards  (not to mention all the various kinds of them and the switch upgrade) to the secondary market.  I hope that happens.

necrails posted:

Kind of hard to discuss the future of a TMCC upgrade when nothing was offered with regards to any kind of future other than ongoing discussions.  I suppose I will be guardedly pessimistic.

Lionel is a business.  Telling you all the details while it is still on the drawing board, and awaiting a patent, does nothing but spoon feed the competition.  

Dave Funk posted:

 

I am glad Lionel heard our voices.

 

More like they had  a plan all along, they just didn't share it with the public.  Imagine!  Lionel is a business, and has competition.   Lionel goes to great lengths to make things backwards compatible. 

Landsteiner posted:

To me this is the really intriguing and promising stuff:

"Lionel’s team of talented engineers have been hard at work on an enhanced platform hardware and code that leverages all of the positive things about each of our current platforms and will allow all of our technology (TMCC, Legacy, LionChief and Bluetooth) to remain viable well into the next decade. "

Talk is cheap, I'll reserve judgment until we see some action.

Gentlemen,

Lets just watch and see what actually happens, it seems Lionel has responded to our OGR concerns, now wait and see what actually happens before jumping to any conclusions.

PCRR/Dave

Pine Creek Railroad posted:

Gentlemen,

Lets just watch and see what actually happens, it seems Lionel has responded to our OGR concerns, now wait and see what actually happens before jumping to any conclusions.

PCRR/Dave

Sound Advice.

There is hope, yes lets wait and see what comes of this announcement

superwarp1 posted:

There is hope, yes lets wait and see what comes of this announcement

Like we have a choice?

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.

Actually this announcement spurred me into overdue action. I got out my loco list and figured out which ones I was committed to upgrade, both ERR and MTH. Then i ordered the ERR upgrades. PayPal processed the order so maybe it got in okay? Or maybe they will just refund it. Wait and see. The ones on my list that are not being upgraded I have to make decisions about. Will they ever get any track time? Plus this now puts some worthwhile boundaries around my future purchasing. So this is inconvenient but useful in the end.

Here my two cents;

I agree with PRR Joe I am not making any purchases until the layout is done and see where this saga ends up. It is in the building stage I can wire for DSC/Legacy or DCC or both.

I also agree with John and Dave I worked in the Corp world talk is one thing but action is another.

Also I forgot tell Ken enjoy your retirement you will be missed.

Shaw I thing you are right on the spot with whoever restarts the ERR/TMCC program, no one will take a chance and get caught by surprise again. The pend up demand came out of as Lionel stated "6 months of orders in 5 days." I think we will be waiting months for orders to come in for the third party not the two weeks with ERR. I believe that was the hobbyist look at there shelf queens and try to get the ERR to fix them now. Just image how may other engines are in the boxes we forgot about under the table or in the storage.

The saga continues stay tuned.

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.

Remember Neal Young started developing this in the late '80s and early '90s. How many DC motored engines did Lionel have at the time? Has anyone ever made an AC decoder? Hindsight is 20-20.

Pete

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. 

I have read HH's letter three times and I have read nothing that makes me believe things will get better anytime soon. 

The whole letter reminds me of political speak, get it off the front page and in time most people will forget what they were arguing about. 

Then in time we will be able to do what we want. 

Dave

The original post talked about dwindling ERR sales.  As usual it is the vocal minority making all the noise.  While loud, if in fact sales are off, how will this work?

I talked about the move away from TMCC several years ago when LC was release?  No one really complained.  Now that the upgrade market is being closed now that small majority is up in arms.

TMCC besides being 1994 tech, is limited tech.  directional lighting, couplers and one other output.  No cruise with out a special Motor driver and a tach.

Guys that complain DCS being closed miss the whole point of what it brought to the table, and it forced Lionel into Legacy. 

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.

Unfortunately, Lionel has never really been an upgrade company.  They just have let other third parties use there older tech.  K-line came up with their own cruise, similar but different.  Others never got cruise until TAS built theirs.

Jon Z was the revolution with his Back EMF upgrade.  Once bought by Lionel some was integrated into their product, but again you only got older tech, not the latest Lionel offering in control or sounds.

Those that think LC can be turned into an upgrade kit, under estimate what that will take.  Sure it can be done but what address is the kit, what sound does it have.  If you by 3 kits to upgrade a GG-1 do they all have the same address.

Lionel has always stated Legacy would not be an upgrade kit.

Now, because an employee retires does not mean you shut a product line down.  Sure there are potential obsolete parts and such.  But until you get to a critical part the like the Processor chip (PS-2 3V is an example), PS-1, your product can still be made.  Having said that.  TMCC is the PS-1 of Lionels world.  There are still PS-1 purist like there are TMCC purist, but it is obsolete in todays world.

Frankly, the market is driven by inexpensive upgrades vice buying a new Legacy engine.

As mentioned DD went out of business as did TAS.  There system can't really be repaired, instead you gutted them and went with ERR.  Same when K-LIne Cruise boards died.  It was ERR Cruise M repair.  Also a repair for ODY 1.

As pointed out, if Lionel is producing Cruise CDR  for 3rd Rail and Atlas, it is not a stretch to produce 500 extra boards and sell them from the Lionel Web site. Managed by Lionel employee in NC.

But there is no resources to do the engineering that may come if parts go obsolete.

We will see if a third party steps up, but who stepped up to take over QSI?  If Legacy and LC+ or a break through in DCC/Bluetooth upgrade kits became viable who would add TMCC?

I am breaking out the popcorn to watch this unfold.  G

bigkid posted:

 

......................... 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 license to the other train companies was around 1998-2000(?) I think.  Legacy was far from the users hands or an announcement at that point.  (I recall Legacy coming out in late 2007 or early 2008)

It may have had more to do with the impending release of DCS at the time.  Not that MTH was offering to license DCS to anyone, but Lionel saw offering a limited version of TMCC  to everyone else as a step towards some standardization that happened to favor their system.   I say "limited" because as TMCC features advanced in the Lionel products, they did not immediately include those features for the 3rd Rail, Weaver, etc.  And people generally were just fine with that arrangement.

Dave45681 posted:

bigkid posted:

 

......................... 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 license to the other train companies was around 1998-2000(?) I think.  Legacy was far from the users hands or an announcement at that point.  (I recall Legacy coming out in late 2007 or early 2008)

It may have had more to do with the impending release of DCS at the time.  Not that MTH was offering to license DCS to anyone, but Lionel saw offering a limited version of TMCC  to everyone else as a step towards some standardization that happened to favor their system.   I say "limited" because as TMCC features advanced in the Lionel products, they did not immediately include those features for the 3rd Rail, Weaver, etc.  And people generally were just fine with that arrangement.

Correct Dave45681. It was the impending release of DCS in 1998-1999 that Lionel was attempting to corner the market with TMCC that the Licencing began to the Other O gauge companies. NOTE later in 2005 or so when  SMR tried to obtain the TMCC license, Lionel "cut them out" . Also NOTE that DCS is exclusively MTH and NO other importer/mfg has been given license to use DCS and it's still going strong. 

Irrespective of how sincere the letter it is or isn't, the key part in my opinion was the mention that current  orders far exceed existing inventories  Which means many or most of those who have or are in the process of rushing in orders before the doors close are likely going to end up receiving "sorry, sold out" or "backordered" (read: for a long, long time)  messages.

Originally posted by BigKID :

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.

What! Lionel was under extreme competitive pushback in the 1990's! 

You had very nice Scale brass offerings from Williams/Samhongsa, then Weaver/Samongsa and Rowi. Rowi had a meltdown but then MTH became a Mfg/importer in 1993. K-line started announcing Scale offerings in their product lines - first with Heavyweight passenger cars and modern stack cars in the mid 1990's slowly building up new scale tooling instead of relying on the old Marx tooling. then in 1998 Atlas O came in on the scene with their scale track and modern 1960's to 1980's scale freight cars.

Lionel's push into TMCC/Railsounds  was Lionel's gamble to hold their marketshare or "stop the slow bleeding" from the competitors with the competitions scale equipment that the marketplace was sorely demanding! By 1997 and Moreu at the helm- Lionel took a loss of millions because management failed to see the market didn't care about the name and nostalgia and Lionel's higher prices as much as the market wanted quality scale equipment at a reasonable price!

GGG, vocal minority or not the closure of this product line has unintended consequences.  Lionel has priced me out of their market.  WBB makes a fine product and was easily upgraded.  So were some Weaver items.  Now there is no need to look at those or consider Lionel for that matter.  Lionel's low end product line is just that, low end.  MTH does a far better job in that arena.  Lionels high end stuff hits a price point that turns me and perhaps others off.  You can't grow a business if you price folks out of the market AND turn off the individuals who previously advocated for the hobby.  That vocal minority will share their displeasure sowing seeds that will shrink the potential customer base.  I understand obsolescence, we are in an age when nothing last long at all.  That being said now I question why I should purchase anything if I cannot support it going forward.  The great thing about the PW stuff is it is bulletproof.  Nothing kills that stuff.  The age of electronics has gifted us with fragile innards that cannot be repaired easily.  One of the things I learned back in business school back in the day was to involve customers in the process whenever and wherever possible.  Sure it was messy sometimes, sure it slowed things down sometimes but that involvement prevented mistakes and earned you loyalty.  That loyalty paid off bid time and was measurable.  I am not sure how you measure the impact of this announcement.  One can hope there are future developments, if not some of us are going to look back at our time in the hobby fondly and move on to something else. 

I’m with George, I will sit back and watch this unfold. I ordered a few upgrades last Sunday and I’m curious to see if Ken can fulfill my entire order. I’d hate to see the cruise M go by the wayside as it’s a great product that helps to save those older locos from the scrap line.

Regarding supplying TMCC boards to Atlas and 3rd Rail Sunset Models, while Lionel might presently have sufficient numbers of boards to fulfill their immediate contractual obligations to those two manufacturers, only Lionel knows how much further into the future they will be able or willing to do so even if those contracts aren't close to their end? Could Lionel's game plan be to force those two smaller competitors to license Lionel's proprietary Legacy system for an exorbitant price which Atlas and 3rd Rail would have no choice but to turn down with Lionel reckoning that tactic would be the catalyst forcing those two competitors out of locomotive manufacturing?

prrhorseshoecurve posted:

 

Originally posted by BigKID :

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.

What! Lionel was under extreme competitive pushback in the 1990's! 

You had very nice Scale brass offerings from Williams/Samhongsa, then Weaver/Samongsa and Rowi. Rowi had a meltdown but then MTH became a Mfg/importer in 1993. K-line started announcing Scale offerings in their product lines - first with Heavyweight passenger cars and modern stack cars in the mid 1990's slowly building up new scale tooling instead of relying on the old Marx tooling. then in 1998 Atlas O came in on the scene with their scale track and modern 1960's to 1980's scale freight cars.

Lionel's push into TMCC/Railsounds  was Lionel's gamble to hold their marketshare or "stop the slow bleeding" from the competitors with the competitions scale equipment that the marketplace was sorely demanding! By 1997 and Moreu at the helm- Lionel took a loss of millions because management failed to see the market didn't care about the name and nostalgia and Lionel's higher prices as much as the market wanted quality scale equipment at a reasonable price!

Those were nice offerings, there is no doubt, but they were still king of the hill at that point in terms of percent of the entire market, Williams was mostly doing their repro offerings of traditional lionel stuff, and Weaver and Rowi were small, as was even MTH initially.  I don't doubt that Lionel was looking at TMCC at the time as a way to keep market share, but I don't think they were 'bleeding' then. My point was that at that point, no one else had command control out there, and their competitors were small enough that they wouldn't get together and make a command control system (the way non IBM makers got together in creating the EISA bus standard), because they were the big player (and only player going into command control), they didn't have to worry about TMCC being proprietary.  Like I said, if 3 rail O was the size of HO, Lionel could not have gotten away with a proprietary system, but because they were still kind of the hill they could get away with it *shrug*. And when MTH made DCS, they likewise didn't have to worry about a competing group of companies standardizing around them, so they could go proprietary too. Industry standards work out great for the consumers, but aren't as profitable as proprietary stuff tends to be, consumers like competition, vendors like monopoly situations. 

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.

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. 

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.

Development

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 DCC Working Group

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 Proposal

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