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

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]

When the Legacy System was still in the design faze Lionel did consider offering a Legacy upgrade kit. Lou Kovatch , he and NY, were the chief architects of the system at the time, determined that it would be cost prohibitive to upgrade a steam engine considering all the parts needed.

It would have been cheaper to convert a diesel or electric but at the time new diesel and electric engines were in the $300-500 range. So would anyone want to spend $200 to upgrade a $300 engine. It was determined by management not to offer upgrades.

As far as DD and Ed Bender going out of business that happened when Lionel cancelled his TMCC license agreement. That was due in part to his purchasing large quantities of Railsounds 5.0 boards and selling them along with his upgrade products. Mike Regan, a Lionel employee at the time, put an end to offering RS 5.0 boards. That position continued for a number of years.

This whole situation reminds me of Lionel management’s agreement to allow us to form the TMCC Demo group. Originally it was with the intention to not only showcase Lionel engines but also to show that the CAB 1 system could also operate MTH engines albeit in conventional control. This lasted for about two years until Dick Maddox asked us to only demonstrate Lionel engines. They wanted to sell more Lionel engines and not the competition.

My 2 cents on ERRs TMCC kits. When the Warranties end on an engine, or an older purchased engine is dead. ERR kits revived them. Rather then spend another 200.00 plus in labor and postage to have someone fix them with ERR kits, I found out how easy it was to install these kits and they were my go to's.

ERRs TMCC does everything thing I would want to run a layout, using both MTH, and Lionel systems to control. The engine would creep starting up, uncouple, directional lighting,  smoke on and off, start-up and shut down, sound, horns and whistle, even crewtalk, etc. What more could I ask for? Sure Legacy, has more features, but to be honest, I rarely used them.

If I purchased an engine a decade ago for 400.00 or less, or even todays 759.00 engines, and their value dropped to half or below on resale, it was still economical to replace with an ERR kit. Maybe the sound wasn't great to the particular engine, but it was an engine sound and it was okay with me. Lionel makes still some excellent engines, but when warranty goes and the fix it and postage to ship and have it returned exceeds the value or replacement cost, ERR is the alternative and deciding factor to keep that enine on the layout running. I never want to own a dust collecting shelf queen that will never be run again because of lack being able to repair it. Odd that those mechanical wonderous Lionels from half a century and longer ago can still run, but the new electronic versions when they die, are now only disposable toys except for ERR affordable alternative.

Here's hoping Lionel follows through with words given that ERR will be kept alive for us individual consumers. A mans word, is his honor and how one judges him.

WaynePA posted:

When the Legacy System was still in the design faze Lionel did consider offering a Legacy upgrade kit. Lou Kovatch , he and NY, were the chief architects of the system at the time, determined that it would be cost prohibitive to upgrade a steam engine considering all the parts needed.

 

The biggest stumbling block for the end user to install Legacy is the motor tach sensor. Unlike TAS and DCS its not a simple black/white tape applied to the flywheel. A kit would require either a new flywheel and sensor along with a tool to pull the old flywheel off or a new motor. Might work for older Lionel where only two or 3 different motors were used but would not work for well for any other manufacturers engines.

I know people who have done this but its far from simple.

With the introduction of RCDRs and BEMCs (back emf motor driver) a kit could be offered. It would require redesign of those two boards so harnesses would not have be made by the installer but have simple screw terminals like ERR has provided.

Again, I don't see Lionel to be motivated to do this.

Pete

Got everything but "RCDRs" and even google failed me.  So besides that, why isn't bemf more prevalent in O?  It's seems a good way to go for legacy -- i mean old stuff.

Search this forum. Diagrams and pinouts have already been posted. One downside of back emf is there is no real way to make all your upgraded engines run at the same speed so you couldn't do lashups. That was one of the reason Lionel went to Legacy to allow their engines be synced which MTH had been doing for many years.

Pete

Maybe a letter of thanks to Lionel, for at least the change of heart, would prove more important in their commitment to a future ERR for us all, rather than our opinions here.  Mine is sent.

Bruce Webster

"I'm pretty sure Rudy is out of the California office."

I stand corrected and have altered my post to correct this mistaken statement and apologize for the error.

Norton posted:

Search this forum. Diagrams and pinouts have already been posted. One downside of back emf is there is no real way to make all your upgraded engines run at the same speed so you couldn't do lashups.

Do DCC engines use back emf when double, triple, etc., headed?

That was one of the reason Lionel went to Legacy to allow their engines be synced which MTH had been doing for many years.

 I've seen exact same model Lionel TMCC F units where they don't run at the same speed .

Pete

Landsteiner posted:

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.

Ultimately, business is dollars and cents! Something, anyone that has had their own enterprise knows. I think all of us just want to voice our opinion to what we expect from the Manufacturers. If they meet or exceed our expectations that's even better! if thee is a financial impact as to their decisions. That is also understandable.

But, If my needs in the hobby are not satisfied by one Company. Then, it's time to go someplace else for my needs. No, different then owning a T car and switching to a F brand. 

Although, the competition is small in the O gauge market. There is still competition to offer alternatives. I believe that's what most are stating in their reply's Even, John will have no choice to continue his passion by doing "ALL "PS3" upgrades. if he deems to do so.

Landsteiner: in life we form perceptions about things! So, "PAST"  perceptions can play a big part in peoples buying decisions in the future!

No, matter where a Company is headed technology wise.  There is a "TRUST factor.  I "THINK" in the back of our minds we all thought about the demise of

the ability to repair these electronic controls trains over a extended period.  So, the lionel statement slapped a lot of us back to reality.

I'm sure it will make me think twice about future purchases. Plus, which direction I should take in the future as far as to operation of my trains. There is something to be said for conventional.......

BobbyD posted:

Norton posted:

Search this forum. Diagrams and pinouts have already been posted. One downside of back emf is there is no real way to make all your upgraded engines run at the same speed so you couldn't do lashups.

Do DCC engines use back emf when double, triple, etc., headed?

That was one of the reason Lionel went to Legacy to allow their engines be synced which MTH had been doing for many years.

 I've seen exact same model Lionel TMCC F units where they don't run at the same speed .

Pete

 

I have never used DCC so can't comment on speed control though I doubt it uses back emf. I believe each engine can be calibrated for speed but a DCC user will have to verify.

As for TMCC F units. I have only one set of Odyssey F3s (magnet sensor, not back emf)  with three powered units and they do run together but only when Odyssey is turned on. With cruise off they don't run together. Your mileage obviously varies.

Pete

"Even, John will have no choice to continue his passion by doing "ALL "PS3" upgrades. if he deems to do so"

For some of us that's a non-starter, so we'll wait and see what Lionel's future upgrade path is.  I've been purchasing Lionel, K-Line (RIP), Weaver (RIP), MTH, Atlas and 3rd Rail products for decades.  I have no reason from my experience to exclude any of them from consideration.  As far as "trust" I save that sort of profound judgement for personal and professional relationships, not consumer decisions. It's all about experience, ratings by consumer testing organizations, price and other tangibles, not trust, at least for me.  I don't buy Subaru's or Toyota's or Ford's because I trust them but because of experience, ratings and price.  The last is why I don't buy no safer nor more reliable Mercedes, Audis, Cadillacs, etc.  Nothing to do with trust.  I like Lionel's products, but trust has exactly zero to do with it.

Landsteiner posted:

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.

Obviously speaking for yourself here.

I am just think out loud, a patent is give for 20 years, am I correct? Second, TMCC came out in 1994-95 right? So if my assumptions are correct than the patent expired 2014-2015 right. Not trying through gasoline on a fire but think out loud.

"Obviously speaking for yourself here."

Yes, I've found that speaking for others only works for ventriloquists. 

nvocc5 posted:

I am just think out loud, a patent is give for 20 years, am I correct? Second, TMCC came out in 1994-95 right? So if my assumptions are correct than the patent expired 2014-2015 right. Not trying through gasoline on a fire but think out loud.

The patents should long have expired, they apply 20 years from filing and 17 from the grant date, whichever comes first.  There may be some wrinkles to this, if Lionel filed for additional patents on TMCC over the years, for improved features and such, you could find that only the technology in the original patent filing is now public domain if I recall correctly, so for example if TMCC had improvements and technology is covered under those patents that were filed later, they may be unavailable (and I don't know the status of TMCC patents, how many changes if any were patented later). 

But yes, this could mean that someone could produce TMCC products if they are off of patent, once the patent expires Lionel no longer controls it. The barrier is likely cost of getting this to production, to get the chips designed and built and so forth, but someone could develop a clone Cab 1 controller and also could put out upgrade kits and or supply to other manufacturers without paying a licensing fee. I suspect the practical problem is likely that unless Lionel in effect sells the TMCC business to a third party, where they get access to the various tooling and whatnot for the chips (assuming Lionel owns that, not the factory that produces the chips and the boards), it may not happen because of the start up cost. I hadn't thought of the patents being expired and I would assume that even later patents have expired by now, I suspect very little would be still covered by now. 

I was a model train enthusiast as a kid. Left trains when I was a young teenager to, . . . . well, experience life. Through the years I always had an interest in trains. A "maybe someday" sort of attitude.

"Someday came" when , as an aging and retired man, I returned to trains.

What I learned rather quickly was "these aren't your father's trains!"

Oh my, no, that they are not!

They are far more appealing. The detail, the sounds, the control systems . . .

BUT . . . like so many computerized gimcracks, they are unreliable. PROFOUNDLY so! That is "OK" when dealing with an item costing a small sum of money. Throw it away and get a new one! When an item costs a thousand dollars, and more, it is decidedly not "OK!" It is also decidedly not OK when you really CAN'T replace it. On any given day replacements for the engines I treasure simply are not available. "Just any new loco" certainly will not do!

Of the 16 locos I have bought new in the past 3 years, 6 have required repair. The most costly ones! The steamers! No trouble with any diesel yet. Whether my experience has been typical, or just unusually unfortunate, it has been my experience. It's been such that, basically, I expect all my engines to fail . . . sooner rather than later.

But, "no fear!" You can gut a dead locomotive and restore it to life with ERR kits. All by yourself! (Shipping a big steamer to the US from Canada for repair costs hundreds of dollars!). I tried it on a particularly valued, and very newish "shelf queen." A more than $1500 purchase that had me especially depressed. It worked! It came back to life. Still runs!

Now it appears that Lionel is likely to take that capability away.

I am already a little sour on what I have discovered since returning to the hobby.

Knowing what I know now, I likely would never have returned at all. At least not to O gauge.  

I see the day rapidly approaching when I take the layout down, and farm it out at fire sale prices, certainly saving a few treasured pieces for a glass display case. I've already mentally picked the few that will remain. 

IMO, meant to offend nobody, there is a deep malaise in this O gauge train industry. If the car industry produced products so consistently unreliable as the O gauge train manufactures, they would quickly pass into well-deserved oblivion. 

ERR was a backstop to this inherent unreliability. Without it I am unable to defend myself against an industry sorely lacking any kind of quality control. 

The very term "shelf queen" is a ****ing indictment against the industry. There should be no shelf queens! At least none younger than 10 years or so.

Sure, the PW stuff, being so inherently simple electronically, will run forever but they just don't appeal to me. 

The demise of ERR, with no replacement, will certainly increase my resolve that maybe this hobby just isn't worth it. If the idea is to spur me into buying new locomotives rather than repairing the ones I already have, nothing is less likely to happen. 

"Ultimately, business is dollars and cents!"

Well, yes, certainly and obviously - and I've got both. I'm not shy about spending them on a product of value to me. So, "dollars and cents" don't exist in a vacuum - unhappy customers don't spend these "dollars and cents".

-----------

I do hope that Lionel, et al, can make an ERR-like company/product/arrangement happen. I am waiting to see. I will be a customer. I have, indeed, gone into wait-and-see mode, especially about any Lionel purchases. If a positive result appears, I'm back; if not, I'm gone.

So, before I leave this discussion behind (I'm trying...), let me just make a personal point about the whole thing, why. I believe, it upsets so many of Lionel's core and hard-core customers, nay, one could say "supporters", and its potential effect in at least some cases.

It's a diverse hobby, 3-Rail O-scale/gauge, far more so than any other part of the model railroading endeavor, and there are many reasons to get into it and enjoy it. I respect all of them (not sure about that blue loco with the face, though - that's creepy), and enjoy some of them. Some like scenery, some track work, some operations, some build layouts "for the grandkids", some like building layouts, and so forth.

Then there are the engine (and rolling stock) guys. Me. It's all about the trains. I can scratch bash an accurate 2-10-0, but I can't make a tree to save my life - and I don't care. Buy them from the guys who make such stuff - and make it beautifully, usually. I like it; I just don't do it.

So, when a change comes along that threatens the way I practice and enjoy my core model railroading behavior , I am upset. I am not going to become a layout builder, a tree builder, a signal installer or anything else. When the center goes, the satellites follow. I'm not going to DCC or DCS. I'm 70 years old this month, have a bunch of nice locos and cars, and I'm not going to change. I also don't much like DCC or DCS, bottom line. I tried. 

Anyway, that's the problem for me. The main reason I'm here (3RO, Hi-rail locomotive modification and command operation) is in danger of being greatly curtailed, not to mention the repair issues, so the rest, including magazine subscriptions, is looking shaky. 

That's why many of us got all puffed up, I think.

here is where I see an issue I don't buy $500 engines I like the features of tmcc I have no use for Legacy my dcs and tmcc does all I need. so by getting rid of ERR all that does is takes away my fun factor in model trains and Lionel and drive me over to MTH's cheaper DCS trains which sadly I use tmcc more than dcs.  sad I liked the err boards and the upgrades.

Landsteiner posted:

"Even, John will have no choice to continue his passion by doing "ALL "PS3" upgrades. if he deems to do so"

For some of us that's a non-starter, so we'll wait and see what Lionel's future upgrade path is.  I've been purchasing Lionel, K-Line (RIP), Weaver (RIP), MTH, Atlas and 3rd Rail products for decades.  I have no reason from my experience to exclude any of them from consideration.  As far as "trust" I save that sort of profound judgement for personal and professional relationships, not consumer decisions. It's all about experience, ratings by consumer testing organizations, price and other tangibles, not trust, at least for me.  I don't buy Subaru's or Toyota's or Ford's because I trust them but because of experience, ratings and price.  The last is why I don't buy no safer nor more reliable Mercedes, Audis, Cadillacs, etc.  Nothing to do with trust.  I like Lionel's products, but trust has exactly zero to do with it.

I understand your view. But, service and parts availability are still important factors to me.

As others have said, all we can do is hope for the best with the future. Any business is concerned with the bottom line, how to maximize revenue and profits, and Lionel is no different (being a private company, their decisions play out a bit differently then a public company does because they don't have the pressure of pleasing stock analysts, it is why Bose among some other companies refuse to go public).   Given the fact that despite the moaning and complaining about Lionel engines and such being too expensive, the quality not being good, can't be repaired, etc, the reality is that that part of the market, the expensive engines, is providing them with a lot of revenue, pure and simple, which means that despite all the complaints and issues and whatnot, people are still willing to buy the products...and while I take as written the words that say that the management cares about the community using Lionel trains, they care about tradition, etc, in the end they are going to do what they need to to keep the cash cow going, which is new, high margin products being sold, and so far despite the many things people are not happy about, they are able to do that and apparently make a nice profit at it. Obviously it would be great if they realize that being able to do the old ERR kind of upgrade is a way to spur the hobby that could translate into later sales (if TMCC works great for someone, might get curious about legacy), but right now we really don't know. I think those who say we all should just buy legacy products and forget about TMCC are very fortunate, that they can afford them and for example if one croaks and they can't fix it are okay with that, others can't, aren't so fortunate, and yet the people doing ERR upgrades are a part of this community too, hopefully Lionel does recognize that. After all, you can still get parts from Lionel for older generations of conventional engines, can still get brushes and bearings and other things from older engines, so they have some recognition of the past, even though the parts business likely doesn't make them a lot of money. 

Well I am just now building my first O gauge layout. I just feel very lucky to have missed the "early-adopter" stage of the modern train electronics.  I can only imagine the scars and wallet damage that a lot of folks here must have suffered. But honestly I feel lucky to be getting into the hobby now. The practices and "norms" for a layout builder and operator using the new technologies have evolved into a good place -- from my non-knowledgeable viewpoint. I am currently laying track and have done no wiring yet. So I am soon going to have to make a decision about whether or not to run any conventional stuff at all. Running conventional would mean I have to do some block wiring. Probably a good idea just to be able to isolate shorts and trouble shoot. But if I don't run any conventional motive power, I could skip it if I wanted to. And stuff like installing uncouplers? Hah! I'm sure there will be spots on the layout where I want some. But probably not too many. I will be running both TMCC and DCS. The conventional locos I have will either be upgraded or sold. Or if I put in the blocks I could keep them and have "conventional night" from time to time.  I dunno. But I like where the hobby is now for someone like me. We have a strong base of competing suppliers and for all the problems new technologies are bringing with them, they are also obsoleting major PITAs that  previous generations have had to deal with.  Maybe I'll think differently in 2 years. Right now, ERR or no ERR, I'm a pretty happy camper.

Don

Norton posted:

BobbyD posted:

Norton posted:

Search this forum. Diagrams and pinouts have already been posted. One downside of back emf is there is no real way to make all your upgraded engines run at the same speed so you couldn't do lashups.

Do DCC engines use back emf when double, triple, etc., headed?

That was one of the reason Lionel went to Legacy to allow their engines be synced which MTH had been doing for many years.

 I've seen exact same model Lionel TMCC F units where they don't run at the same speed .

Pete

 

I have never used DCC so can't comment on speed control though I doubt it uses back emf. I believe each engine can be calibrated for speed but a DCC user will have to verify.

As for TMCC F units. I have only one set of Odyssey F3s (magnet sensor, not back emf)  with three powered units and they do run together but only when Odyssey is turned on. With cruise off they don't run together. Your mileage obviously varies.

Pete

I am not currently a DCC user, but I have read a bit about it. I don't know if all decoders have this feature, but some allow speed matching down to a knat's posterior. Some decoders have enough speed settings to make your head spin. And getting things all set sounds like it could be a tedious project. I'm guessing it would become easier with time and experience. I do find DCC very interesting and plan to give it a try one of these days.

Although DCC is a standard not all of the decoders allow the same adjustments or if they do they could be at different locations (CVs). I think there is a basic set of functions in all decoders that are all the same (the basic standard), but some of the more sophisticated settings are left up to the decoder manufacturers as far as CV numbers and what they include or omit.

I believe with DCS and Legacy they have taken the tedious work out of the speed matching, gotten things pretty close or close enough which makes it much easier on the end user. Also from what I have read about DCC, I think our DCS and Legacy systems probably do things like this in other areas as well, making them more user friendly for us. Both the DCS and Legacy systems have worked well for me so far and I am happy with both. My interest in DCC would be for the 'fiddling' aspects of setting up all those CVs and whatever else has to be setup by the end user. Maybe it won't be so interesting after I have done some 'fiddling'?

I have learned a lot this last week from reading this thread and the prior one.  I hope Lionel executives read it from top to bottom.

At the core of our hobby, seldom do we throw anything away, so the though of dumping an engine in the garbage because it doesn't work is repugnant.

Resale vale is important.  While there maybe one or two people here or there that do not care about buying something that costs $1k or $2k and have it become worthless, unless of course we are talking about drinking a few bottles of Cristal Champagne at some exclusive bar, most of us want our trains to hold some value.  Historically, this has been the case with Lionel trains.  If the trains cannot be fixed, then who would want to buy it in the secondary market?  Further, I have read numerous times on the Forum that we often sell our old equipment to buy new items. 

Given that ERR can be used to breath new life in a variety of engines using a variety of control systems, it is vital that their is enough demand for this product to make it viable for a third party to assume production.  

Well, I will probably raise some hackles here. I will have to wait as will everyone else to see what comes about. I enjoy the wireless control systems, TMCC/Legacy so much that I will run them till they don't run anymore. As far as the idea of cancelling my order for the new Legacy products I have on order, no way, I'll run them till they die also, most likely they will out live me.

Ray

I've read all of the posts concerning the demise of Err. I just finished another about a Gentleman making a N&W Y6a out of a Lionel Y6b...There were a few Pictures posted of an engine that was custom built by ( D500 ) from a Williams 2-8-2 Brass engine into a GM&O 2-10-0. he also added Err electronics. 

This is but one of many who do this type of work. I realize that a company can't put their futures into what may or may not be bought, but if they are going to do it for 3rd Rail, and Atlas, make some more for the rest of us. 

I myself was getting ready to call Ken, and spring for new electronics for my Williams Brass N&W J611, Lionel 6-18000, and a couple of sets of the Williams E-7's that I have.

Well yes, there is MTH DCS, but after some members of our Model Railroad Club were invited to visit, and see the "Pennsylvania and Western" Model Railroad, and run trains with the owner. I got a whole different take on just how good the Old "Lionel TMCC System" truly is, and the Err is just a modern upgrade for that...

This is just my 2 cents, and not worth much to anybody, but I do hope that the new owners and engineers of Lionel Fame will certainly reconsider what they are about to do.... 

Maybe Mike Reagan will rethink, and get back into the electronics business once again, thus filling a void for all of us Model Railroading guys....! 

Rayin"S" posted:

As far as the idea of cancelling my order for the new Legacy products I have on order, no way, I'll run them till they die also, most likely they will out live me.

Unlikely:  my 3-yr-old Legacy engine is already breaking down--problems with the smoke unit, the sound, and the lighting.

Some of you guys need to step back, take a breath, and then look at it from a systems approach.  K-Line, Weaver, any other OEM manufacture that used TAS is obsolete and unsupported, period.  Those that used QSI tech are pretty much in the same boat. 

Now for some of those system, Lionel still has R2LC and RS Power Supplies, RS 4.0 and 5.0 sound boards that you can use to fix those engine.  OF course TAS bottom board was a combination mother board, Motor Driver, and cruise control with Tach.  Not Lionel's model,  So if motor drive goes your out of luck.

You can always go and get a basic reverse unit and sound card.  But draw back will be loss of command, and loss of cruise control.

ERR filled that gap, and besides making an upgrade also made a repair package for those OEM TAS units.  Or K-Line and Lionel ODY units.  Unfortunately gone.

MTH us still a viable upgrade to those K-Line, Brass and Cast Weaver, Atlas etc....  You can run it conventional, DCS, or DCC if you want to move away from Legacy and DCS.

I am not sure how many folks are just TMCC only?  I would think a small group.  Or Legacy or DCS only.  Choices to make, but this is no different then something going obsolete after a long run.

PS-2 3V is a great board, but the microprocessor is gone.  Same with PS-1 chips.  The PIC chip is obsolete.  What remaining stock exist is in MTH hands, but they can only make so many more sounds chips before they are gone.

But let's not forget the used market.  I can keep PS-1 engines running for another decade or more.  Add Marty, John, and others, let alone I fix most boards.  It is rare that I have to replace, though it does happen.

So, think how many R2LC, RS Power Supplies, RS 4.0/5.0 boards, and mother boards are out on the market from upgrades.

But it is true that ONLY MTH has used a model to make their latest Tech backward compatible.  I can fix a PS-1 or PS-2 5V with a PS-2 3V and Now PS-3.  I am sure when PS-4 comes out it will be the repair part for PS-3 engines.  New runs of MTH engine become the source of new motors and such to repair the first run.  It has been this simplicity in approach that has allowed MTH engine to be kept running.  Not cosmetic parts, but the main items to keep an engine running.  This means there has not been much in the area of new features and such, but the approach to not make every engine a snowflake (one of a kind design) pays off.  They cater to the middle of the road approach to this.

If your a Lionel only type of guy, then you have picked your poison and need to live with it.  Sure complain to management, but you bought in to their approach.  Buy some LC+ and go run trains.  TMCC is obsolete.  By the way, that makes my layout obsolete.  It is K-Line track with TMCC and mostly TMCC engine, along with some Conventional and PS-1 engines.  But I seriously imagine I will be dead and buried and my grandkids can still run my layout for a while. 

This is not the end of the world, but it is sad.  Jon Z took the best of the TMCC stuff, went Back EMF, and packaged a wonderful product to make engines TMCC engine.  OF course the industry is well beyond TMCC and 3 basic function controls.  Integrated smoke, ditch lights, flashing MARS, markers, Rule 17 are all highly desired by much of the market, and TMCC could not give you this.  Once you add GRJ Super Chuffer, Tach control and aux lighting package, your well over $300 in just parts and you still fell short of PS or Legacy features.  As Marty would say, "it is what it is".  G

The really great thing about model railroading it encompasses a great many interests.

Benchwork construction,  landscaping, track work, building construction, electronics/electrical, computing, locomotive building, rolling stock construction.....well you get the idea.

What I believe we have learned over the last week. Is that a substantial number of people enjoy upgrading electronics, repairing and restoring broken engines as part of their hobby. I’d included myself here.

There is something really satisfying about taking the old, outdated and broken and restoring it to operation.

I bet a substantial number of us are also into other “old junk” be it full size trains, classic cars, bikes etc.

When part of the hobby that was enjoyed by many was apparently threatened there was a “Tremor in the Force” so to speak. 

It’s the most riled up I have ever seen this forum since I started with 3 rail O gauge in 2006.

 Nick

Planned obsolescence.  It’s important to know your customer and their wants and needs, even if you think they are a pain or technically inept. You can speak to Lionel directly with your wallets. Your actions always speak louder then words. 

GGG posted:

I am not sure how many folks are just TMCC only?  I would think a small group. 

I am one of that small group.  Since I made the decision back in 2000 or so to be TMCC only, I learned to do the upgrades myself (first with Digital Dynamics stuff, then a little TAS and for a long time now ERR).  I've always kept some extra boards on hand in case I bought anything new that needed an upgrade or a board went out.  In all that time and with well over 50 conversions, I've had 2 board failures: one Digital Dynamics and one TAS.  I've never had an in-service ERR board go bad.  I did smoke a couple during installation, but that's my fault not theirs.

Personally I can survive even if ERR disappears forever but I sure hope it sticks around in some form.  Lionel's handling of this entire situation, from the 'imminent shutdown' announcement to the management-speak attempt at damage control has soured me on buying any new Lionel trains.  That's for sure.

Between this posting and the prior concerning the demise of ERR, much information has been presented for all.  Both, in form of what we, Forum members, and the "other side of the fence" have to say and present as "facts".  However, the one fact that remains constant is the decision by Lionel management to upset and anger, frustrate and cause anguish, the base customers and financial backing of their company.  This, alone, is something Lionel management needs to take very seriously into any considerations they eventually move on.  I, as some others, wish to remain optimistic about the entire event, and forth-coming end results.  I have mostly TMCC engines, over 35 now, a couple PS2 and PS3, but almost all PS1 have been converted due to ERR products.  I have several more I want to upgrade, both Dc and a few older AC pulmor motored.  I do not have DCC, DCS, and have no need to add more control systems to what I have, as TMCC runs all my roster to my satisfaction and will do so far into the future, I believe.

Let us all witness the outcome and continue to express our thoughts and opinions. They are being read and taken into consideration.  Perhaps not by all we wish to see our posts, but, nevertheless, communication is always good and can lead to positive results liked by all concerned. 

Jesse    TCA

GGG posted:

Some of you guys need to step back, take a breath, and then look at it from a systems approach.  K-Line, Weaver, any other OEM manufacture that used TAS is obsolete and unsupported, period.  Those that used QSI tech are pretty much in the same boat. 

Now for some of those system, Lionel still has R2LC and RS Power Supplies, RS 4.0 and 5.0 sound boards that you can use to fix those engine.  OF course TAS bottom board was a combination mother board, Motor Driver, and cruise control with Tach.  Not Lionel's model,  So if motor drive goes your out of luck.

You can always go and get a basic reverse unit and sound card.  But draw back will be loss of command, and loss of cruise control.

ERR filled that gap, and besides making an upgrade also made a repair package for those OEM TAS units.  Or K-Line and Lionel ODY units.  Unfortunately gone.

MTH us still a viable upgrade to those K-Line, Brass and Cast Weaver, Atlas etc....  You can run it conventional, DCS, or DCC if you want to move away from Legacy and DCS.

I am not sure how many folks are just TMCC only?  I would think a small group.  Or Legacy or DCS only.  Choices to make, but this is no different then something going obsolete after a long run.

PS-2 3V is a great board, but the microprocessor is gone.  Same with PS-1 chips.  The PIC chip is obsolete.  What remaining stock exist is in MTH hands, but they can only make so many more sounds chips before they are gone.

But let's not forget the used market.  I can keep PS-1 engines running for another decade or more.  Add Marty, John, and others, let alone I fix most boards.  It is rare that I have to replace, though it does happen.

So, think how many R2LC, RS Power Supplies, RS 4.0/5.0 boards, and mother boards are out on the market from upgrades.

But it is true that ONLY MTH has used a model to make their latest Tech backward compatible.  I can fix a PS-1 or PS-2 5V with a PS-2 3V and Now PS-3.  I am sure when PS-4 comes out it will be the repair part for PS-3 engines.  New runs of MTH engine become the source of new motors and such to repair the first run.  It has been this simplicity in approach that has allowed MTH engine to be kept running.  Not cosmetic parts, but the main items to keep an engine running.  This means there has not been much in the area of new features and such, but the approach to not make every engine a snowflake (one of a kind design) pays off.  They cater to the middle of the road approach to this.

If your a Lionel only type of guy, then you have picked your poison and need to live with it.  Sure complain to management, but you bought in to their approach.  Buy some LC+ and go run trains.  TMCC is obsolete.  By the way, that makes my layout obsolete.  It is K-Line track with TMCC and mostly TMCC engine, along with some Conventional and PS-1 engines.  But I seriously imagine I will be dead and buried and my grandkids can still run my layout for a while. 

This is not the end of the world, but it is sad.  Jon Z took the best of the TMCC stuff, went Back EMF, and packaged a wonderful product to make engines TMCC engine.  OF course the industry is well beyond TMCC and 3 basic function controls.  Integrated smoke, ditch lights, flashing MARS, markers, Rule 17 are all highly desired by much of the market, and TMCC could not give you this.  Once you add GRJ Super Chuffer, Tach control and aux lighting package, your well over $300 in just parts and you still fell short of PS or Legacy features.  As Marty would say, "it is what it is".  G

Very well Put Triple "G"

Bob posted:

GGG posted:

I am not sure how many folks are just TMCC only?  I would think a small group. 

I am one of that small group.  Since I made the decision back in 2000 or so to be TMCC only, I learned to do the upgrades myself (first with Digital Dynamics stuff, then a little TAS and for a long time now ERR).  I've always kept some extra boards on hand in case I bought anything new that needed an upgrade or a board went out.  In all that time and with well over 50 conversions, I've had 2 board failures: one Digital Dynamics and one TAS.  I've never had an in-service ERR board go bad.  I did smoke a couple during installation, but that's my fault not theirs.

Personally I can survive even if ERR disappears forever but I sure hope it sticks around in some form.  Lionel's handling of this entire situation, from the 'imminent shutdown' announcement to the management-speak attempt at damage control has soured me on buying any new Lionel trains.  That's for sure.

Mr. "B", I was the oldest of the group that you invited into your home to see and run trains. I'll all ways remember just how good the "TMCC" System is if it's done correctly like you did. I just hope that someone will pick this product up and keep it going.....We use both systems on our Club Layout, but 100% of the time the TMCC is trouble free where the MTH DCS  is, Well it's DCS, and anything can happen. 

The good thing is we have a resident Electrical Engineer that helps keeps things on the up and up, but when there are problems, it's always the DCS.

Mr. "B" Thank you again for letting the AMRS Model Railroad Club from Ashland-Huntington come and enjoy your Model Railroad...!

"I'll all ways remember just how good the "TMCC" System is if it's done correctly like you did. I just hope that someone will pick this product up and keep it going.....We use both systems on our Club Layout, but 100% of the time the TMCC is trouble free where the MTH DCS  is, Well it's DCS, and anything can happen. 

The good thing is we have a resident Electrical Engineer that helps keeps things on the up and up, but when there are problems, it's always the DCS."

Sometimes my DCS (Remote Commander variety) works. My TMCC always does.

I don't want to let this topic on ERR fall to the bottom of the pile. Could it be that Atlas or 3rd Rail might sell to the aftermarket?

Landsteiner posted:

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.Landsteiner posted:

Might you be able to give a reference to the location of this information? I would love to put the FlyerChief remotes away.

Ray

Unfortunately, JohnGaltLine hadn't posted in some time.  He's back as of April 28th.   I don't know whether he ever completed his project of a TMCC/Legacy to LC/LC+ bridge.  You could email him for details as his email is in his profile. Here's one of his posts on the subject below.  If you do a search on his screen name you can find others.  Hopefully he will provide us with followup as he made some really important contributions to the forum.

"I think you are overestimating just how much R&D is needed to make a Legacy-LC/LC+ bridge.  Lionel has the LionChief radio protocol on hand. They also have all of the documentation for Legacy and an already written code base to read those commands on hand.  Starting from scratch has taken me about 3 weeks, working off and on as time has allowed.  All told maybe 40 hours of work to this point. Somewhere just over 1100 lines of code, and all of $10 in parts.  I expect to add another $10 and a several dozen more lines of code to make everything compatible with legacy, as right now I took a cheap/lazy way out that only works with original TMCC.  Keep in mind that I am only barely proficient, at the hobbyist level, with electronics and programing.  Someone that actually knows what they are doing could have probably done the same thing in half the time and with much neater, more efficient code.  All this is simply going to the point that they guys that design the plastic box everything fits inside will probably have a harder job than whoever's job it is to make the thing work.  

As to the cost, I expect Lionel could offer a bridge device right around $100 and make plenty of money at that point.  The method I'm using will end up with about a $150 price tag if it were ever offered for sale, just to make it worth the time, and would be limited to running 3 LC engines at any one time.  Now, $100-$150 is a fair amount of coin to some folks, but fits right in with most of the other legacy devices such as ASC2's or PowerMasters.  

I do not know if Lionel will bring a legacy/LC bridge to market, but I will drop $20 on a bet that the next generation of command control that replaces Legacy will have native support for LionChief engines, and possibly require a bridge to run Legacy/TMCC engines.  The 2.4GHz digital radio is just too bullet proof and too cheap to pass up on in any wireless control system these days.  

JGL

Edit:  

On GRJ's point, I agree, the cost in expanding the sound choices and having engine specific announcements is not in the actual hardware.  I see several factors that are more likely to be a reason we aren't likely to see it.  First, there are costs involved in making new recordings, both in the process of making a recording and editing it to a usable format, and in paying for voice actors and the like.  Second, it is more cost effective to make one sound set in production as you only need to make one part, as opposed to several, engine specific parts.  Lastly , For someone like me, I actually like the generic sounds.  I can repaint my engines with whatever real or fictional road name I like, and it will make no difference with the sounds.  On the other hand I have TMCC engines that have engine/road name specific crew talk, and will find it a bit annoying to have the recording call out 'LionelLines 737' when the locomotive is painted as 'Taggart Transcontinental 4455'"

Since we can't even get the limited set of sounds that ERR offered before they turned off the lights, there's no hope for getting a much larger assortment of sounds.

Doesn't seem like it was that long ago, that a member came to the club meeting, and announced that Lionel was buying out Err. There was almost a Hip-Hip-Hurray done that night. Then a short time afterward it was announced that Mike Reagan of " Train America Fame" was working for Lionel. This told us that they would always be there for products to purchase, and over the top Technical Help, with any problems that may or may not crop up.....Like the old saying goes Change is good, but not all changes are wanted or needed. 

I don’t know that even the title if thus thread is accurate. I wouldn’t say it’s resserected but more like on life support. It’s on a feeding tube and ventilator and it’ll either pull thru on its own or they’ll pull the plug. Wait n see what happens with the future of the product line before you start dreaming about enhanced features and expansion.

Matt Makens posted:

I don’t know that even the title if thus thread is accurate. I wouldn’t say it’s resserected but more like on life support. It’s on a feeding tube and ventilator and it’ll either pull thru on its own or they’ll pull the plug. Wait n see what happens with the future of the product line before you start dreaming about enhanced features and expansion.

Maybe a "Second Look by Lionel" maybe more appropriate.  Regardless I think we need to be positive rather than derogatory otherwise our message gets lost in all the cab chatter.  We can only wait at this point and see what and if there is a next move.  Again we are better than we were over a week ago as far as where this stands.  I'd like to stay optimistic.

I'd like to stay positive Marty, but I have a bad feeling that Lionel is hoping this all blows over and it'll just get buried.  Other than one "we're looking at 3rd parties" reference, I haven't seen anything else that suggests that the ERR product line will be revived.

While I'd like to remain optimistic, Marty, I"m with GRG on this one.

Btw, does anyone other than me also question the timing of this elimination, I mean Lionel doing this during mid Spring when active participation in O gauge is waning as the majority of folks begin making that seasonal pilgrimage from actively working inside on their trains and layouts to outdoor summer activities and vacations. Lionel management might well be depending on an "out of sight, out of mind train attentive" summertime mindstate of many O gaugers, thus assuaging their angst, anger, focus, zeal against, and general concern for this decision until next fall's train season when the effect of summer lethargy over Lionel's decision might make it too difficult for O gaugers to once again become emboldened and launch a formidable campaign to bring back tmcc to the consumer marketplace.

ogaugeguy posted:

<big snip> ...for O gaugers to once again become emboldened and launch a formidable campaign to bring back tmcc to the consumer marketplace.

Other than boycotting new Lionel products and encouraging others to do likewise, what kind of 'formidable campaign' are we O gaugers capable of?

I'll try to stay positive for both of you.   If all goes south you can tell me "I told you so".

I'm certainly not going to get my hopes up to far but right now until we hear something it does no good getting upset.  If it goes wrong that will totally stink but if it goes right then I haven't spent the last few weeks letting it bother me.

I really would like it to work out.  I'd like to see Alex, GRJ, and others be able to upgrade, create products, and continue to bring older locos alive.

Bob posted:

ogaugeguy posted:

<big snip> ...for O gaugers to once again become emboldened and launch a formidable campaign to bring back tmcc to the consumer marketplace.

Other than boycotting new Lionel products and encouraging others to do likewise, what kind of 'formidable campaign' are we O gaugers capable of?

Individually & collectively look for & help develop alternatives.

I have posted before that what Lionel did was to get the whole discussion off the front page while telling us nothing. We shall see what happens but I'm not convinced Lionel is serious about ERR's survival.

Dave