TMCC under DCS issues

I think knowing what the differences in the K-line guts from the Lionel guts would be an important answer.  I guess Jon or Mike would have to answer that.  I think we have had folks discuss compatibility issues depending on what version of the R2LC was installed.  Maybe the TMCC stuff provided to K-line was intentionally different.  Hence some compatibility issues.  G

I have noticed subtle operational differences with various K-Line TMCC installations as well.

Questions.

• Are you running in the same environment when controlling them with the CAB1?  Specifically, do you still have the DCS active on the layout?  Are you just picking up the CAB1 and having better results than using the DCS remote?
• Do any of these have the K-Line cruise feature installed?
• What versions is the firmware on the R2LC boards in each engine?
• Can you be more specific as to the differences in the TMCC packages?  Packaging, board part numbers, what?

I have noticed subtle operational differences with various K-Line TMCC installations as well.

GGG & Gunner,

Thanks for coming on board.

Questions.

• Are you running in the same environment when controlling them with the CAB1? Specifically, do you still have the DCS active on the layout? Are you just picking up the CAB1 and having better results than using the DCS remote?

At a stage in determining the poor overall performance, I separated and used cab1 independent of DCS. It helped me work over the tracks and antenna systems and prove to me that the issues were not in the TMCC Cab1 to DCS hookup. Once the antenna and track work, cleaning etc. was done and operation with CAB1 was good, I joined them back together. Joining them had no ill effect and CAB1 stayed well.

• Do any of these have the K-Line cruise feature installed?

Yes, at least one engine has the cruise feature installed. It was the new ERR cruise that I purchased to fix the K4 problem you helped me on some weeks ago.

• What versions is the firmware on the R2LC boards in each engine?

How would I tell firmware level? To me that means microcode. Is that spelled out somewhere on the board? This begs a new question.

Is there a list or table in someone’s possession which specifies hardware and firmware levels and compatability with other boards?

• Can you be more specific as to the differences in the TMCC packages? Packaging, board part numbers, what?

This answer will have to wait till I open them all up again. I will take notes and pictures at that time. I will wait till I get Dale’s 22uh cokes and try them at the same time.

I am also working on a loaner Lionel Steamer.

Hi Hugh,

I can't help you with your problem as I only have 2 TMCC engines and no K-Line. But the chokes will only help the TMCC engines from interfering with the DCS engines as far as I know. And not all TMCC engines do that. I don't believe it will help your TMCC engine run better.

Regardless of any version of R2LC, if the engines run using the CAB1 fine with DCS and the TMCC base connected then the issue is NOT with the engines, TMCC or the CAB1.  The issue is either the communication between DCS and the TMCC base or how the DCS system is processing the commands to the TMCC base.

Marty, Except that doesn't explain why a Lionel TMCC engine runs fine on his set up, but the K-line won't.  The only delta is the K-line TMCC guts.  Are you positive the signal isn't effected as it passes through the DCS system??  Either attenuated, or slightly distorted and the K-Line can't process it while the Lionel can?

Wasn't there a few cable mods made by MTH for TMCC and even Legacy? 

Hugh,  That might be something to check, there is a newer TMCC Cable and even one for Legacy base.  G

Joe Allen said

“I can't help you with your problem as I only have 2 TMCC engines and no K-Line. But the chokes will only help the TMCC engines from interfering with the DCS engines as far as I know. And not all TMCC engines do that. I don't believe it will help your TMCC engine run better.”

Joe, you are probably right but I will try it on one engine just to be sure. This issue is so weird, who knows but I will report back.

Marty E said:

“Regardless of any version of R2LC, if the engines run using the CAB1 fine with DCS and the TMCC base connected then the issue is NOT with the engines, TMCC or the CAB1”.

“ The issue is either the communication between DCS and the TMCC base or how the DCS system is processing the commands to the TMCC base.”

Marty, help me understand more about your comments. Since the Lionel S2 Electric works fine with either the CAB1 or the DCS remote and the KLINE’s fail with the DCS remote, why can’t this issue possibly be in those engines and how they deal with the incoming signal? We will know more I guess when I get to test a Lionel Steamer.

I also have spare cables for use between the units and I will swap them out later.

WOW GGG,

You beat my reply to the board post

GGG said:

“Wasn't there a few cable mods made by MTH for TMCC and even Legacy?

Hugh, That might be something to check, there is a newer TMCC Cable and even one for Legacy base. G”

Thanks GGG,

Where can I find the info about these cables, this may be the silver bullet.

Are you positive the signal isn't effected as it passes through the DCS system??

There's no "signal" passing through the DCS system. The DCS Remote sends digital commands to the Lionel command base that look like they came from a Cab-1.

The only thing that could possibly mess up communications is if the TMCC signal went through a TIU channel, which is a no-no. However, that would also affect the Cab-1 control of the engines.

Wasn't there a few cable mods made by MTH for TMCC and even Legacy?

The only "cable mods" were done to the very first version of the TIU<-->TMCC cable. Those mods were incorporated into the following two generations of the cable. There are no other cable mods for the newer two generations of the cable.

One possibility is that there's a marginal problem with the TIU<-->TMCC cable. I'd swap that out for a new 50-1032.

Hugh,

The first cables produced were just a plain cable. The later one has a square or rectangular box somewhere between the ends as the one below on the MTH site made to run TMCC:

http://www.mthtrains.com/content/50-1018

The one to run Legacy and TMCC has the box also:

http://www.mthtrains.com/content/50-1032

I tend to agree with Marty, it's probably something in the interface between the TMCC base and the TIU.  I've run a couple of TMCC locomotives with the DCS remote, but not enough to actually get totally familiar with the operation and any quirks.  Also, I have a Legacy system, that's what is connected to my TIU.

Barry Said:

Q.“Are you positive the signal isn't effected as it passes through the DCS system??”

A.There's no "signal" passing through the DCS system. The DCS Remote sends digital commands to the Lionel command base that look like they came from a Cab-1. The only thing that could possibly mess up communications is if the TMCC signal went through a TIU channel, which is a no-no. However, that would also affect the Cab-1 control of the engines.”

Q.Wasn't there a few cable mods made by MTH for TMCC and even Legacy?

A. The only "cable mods" were done to the very first version of the TIU<-->TMCC cable. Those mods were incorporated into the following two generations of the cable. There are no other cable mods for the newer two generations of the cable.

Point: One possibility is that there's a marginal problem with the TIU<-->TMCC cable. I'd swap that out for a new 50-1032.

Joe & Barry, I will do that when I find it over the weekend. I am sure both are the correct cables.

Barry, that is all good input and provides a better understanding of how DCS handles the pass off of the DCS hand held signal back to the command base. This tells me that the software/microcode in the handheld might be affecting this problem. Let me explain.

I did get to borrow a Lionel TMCC steam engine tonight. I noted that the required hand held movements are distinctively different for managing the Lionel TMCC engine(s) as opposed to the Kline TMCC engines.

• For starters, the Lionel steamer operated just like the S2, in A+ operational mode. Both ran equally well with either the cab1 or the DCS handheld. To operate either on the DCS handheld required simply ‘startup’ and spin wheel to go. An available option  can be to use ‘quickset speed’, set the speed and away it goes. PERFECT! Lionel Works well!

• I also re-ran each of 3 of the KLINE engines. To operate on the DCS handheld, it requires ‘startup’, a selection of speed to 128 steps, then spin the wheel. Optionally, select momentum. Each engine takes an inordinate number of spins (some more or less than others) to prompt movement. Not so on the CAB1, they all operated relatively the same. KLINE on the DCS handheld does not work well.

• Even though the KLINE setup in the handheld give no chance for use of ‘quickset speed’, as I manipulated the buttons,  I actually had the ability to bring it up twice and set speed but loco did not move because I hit ‘quickset’ before I set 128 speed. Multiple retries could not bring it up again. There is something hairy in the code.

With your explanation and these tests tonight, I am beginning to believe the issue is in the DCS handheld microcode.

1.       Why do we have to set speed steps for the KLINE and not the LIONEL?
2.       Why is the ‘Quickset speed’ there for Lionel and not the KLINE?
3.       Why did Quickset show up on rare occasion and not be able to be duplicated?

I will be off line for about 48 hours. Barry is it possible for you to contact the software people at MTH about these questions?

How could the DCS TIU/Remote possibly know the difference between Lionel, K-Line, Atlas, etc??  TMCC communication is one-way only, the Command Base to the engine.  When you enter the L-Line/TMCC data into the remote (which, by the way, you can do without the engine even being in the same state as the Remote) you shouldn't be doing anything differently than for Lionel/TMCC data.  How then could the Remote follow a different program path?

Hugh,

1. Why do we have to set speed steps for the KLINE and not the LIONEL?

Because K-Line's TMCC speed control uses more than the 32 speed steps than are used by Lionel's TMCC speed control.

1. Why is the ‘Quickset speed’ there for Lionel and not the KLINE?

Same reason as above. Perhaps there's a basic incompatibility?

1. Why did Quickset show up on rare occasion and not be able to be duplicated?

Beats me.

Barry is it possible for you to contact the software people at MTH about these questions?

I've already answered 1 & 2. Number 3 isn't worth anyone's time to get an answer, since it's not as if anyone will do anything about it.

Thanks Barry,

I really cannot believe the arrogance of your last reply. It must have been late.

We will forgive you for that, we all recognize that its habitual. You may not give a dam about all this but this ain't all about you and telling people off, its about the hobby. If you can cheerfully contribute, we welcome it. Your knowledge is extensive.

Since, again thankfully, you  know so much about this subject and the differences between the KLINE & LIONEL TMCC systems maybe you could share more of them with us. It may also be more than just a KLINE issue as there are other users of the TMCC technology in their engines who may have the desire to learn as we do.

This post was laid out in such a way not only in hopes of 'understanding' what was going on but to fix it if possible. We now recognize that 'fix' may not ever happen since KLINE is gone, but their legacy in what is out here product wise lives on with us who are owners.

Now!

The key to fully understand this issue is lying with the minds and notebooks of the developers of the microcode/software in the handheld as they made provision for all this flexibility in the 'softkeys' supplied on the remote.

There still has to be something in a TMCC engine (and maybe others) that says to the handheld when it is loaded on "I am not Lionel, here is my code name, treat me differently". The developer's wisdom and knowledge explained about how all this ties together could help us deal better with understanding the 'guts' inside these engines as we know the compatability of intermixing components may be the only answer to solving the issues that many of us out here have to live with as we buy,sell & exchange products.

There for all of this is an easy answer and that is to upgrade the engine to PS2 and throw away the KLINE TMCC guts. It is quick, dirty but expensive and provides no answer to KLINE (and other) users as what else might be done if we get to the heart of the compatability of components issues causing the DCS remote to treat them differently.

Signing for for another 24 hours. Keep your chins up on this education opportunity. Think positive.

Gary,

Please elaborate on your comments, very interesting in light of my last post.

"How could the DCS TIU/Remote possibly know the difference between Lionel, K-Line, Atlas, etc?? TMCC communication is one-way only, the Command Base to the engine. When you enter the L-Line/TMCC data into the remote (which, by the way, you can do without the engine even being in the same state as the Remote) you shouldn't be doing anything differently than for Lionel/TMCC data. How then could the Remote follow a different program path?"

Dumb question, have you tried running the K-Line stuff without setting the 128 speed steps?

Hugh,

I really cannot believe the arrogance of your last reply

If you think that's "arrogant", either you need anew dictionary or you have the thinnest skin in the known universe.

Let me rephrase...

Your entire thread revolves around getting an engine that is no longer supported by a company that is out of business for several years to work perfectly with a command system with which it was incompatible when the engine was designed and manufactured.

Now, based on the above, you tell me why any manufacturer should invest any effort at all to fix what you perceive as a burning issue?

That's not arrogance, that's just common sense. Why should I call MTH R&D for you? You have a dog in this fight, I don't.

Why don't you call MTH?

Hugh,

When you select ADD ENGINE on the Remote you have two choices: ADD MTH ENGINE and ADD TMCC ENGINE.  If you select ADD TMCC ENGINE you are only storing data in the Remote.  You don't need the TIU powered or the TMCC engine powered.  If you have a friend with a TMCC engine who is going to visit your layout you can enter his TMCC engine in your Remote and when he arrives all you have to do is put his engine on the track and you're good to go.

There is no possible way for your DCS system to know the difference between any TMCC brand of engine. 

I don't know that anyone was implying that the system recognized a difference in the TMCC engine on the layout, but clearly the presence of the DCS signal and or the connection between the Command Base and the DCS system are the only influences on this set up that are different from running straight TMCC or straight DCS.

Lionel engines run fine on the set up with TMCC hooked to DCS.  K-line engine run fine on TMCC alone, but will not work when TMCCis hooked up to DCS.  So my conclusion is some sort of signal distortion of the TMCC signal when hooked up to DCS must be occuring, and for some reason the K-line TMCC boards don't work well in that environment.  Lionel does.

Maybe it is something else, and maybe we are saying the same thing.  I still go back to my original question is there different hardware or firmware in the TMCC products used by K-line.  G

Hence my question about the versions of R2LC boards used in each of these.  AFAIK, the standard Lionel TMCC hardware was used in most of them, but the K-Line cruise was their own creation.  The R2LC and RailSounds boards all interchanged freely with Lionel boards in other locomotives, I've never had an issue with those.

Hi Folks,  

A hobby shop repair person told me long ago that for best results use a Legacy or Cab-1 controller to run all Lionel compatible command engines (Lionel, 3rd Rail, Atlas, K-Line, etc.) and use the DCS controller for MTH engines.  I have found that this is good advice and it works well on my layout.

Although I have tried several different configurations and brands, I haven't been able to get a single universal controller to operate my TV, VCR, DVD, stereo, etc., either.  The shop and the universal remote instructions and literature claim that they will operate everything but I can't get it to work.  This is the reason that I have five separate controllers sitting on the coffee table in front of the TV / entertainment system.  Everyone else I know also has at least two or more controllers for their entertainment systems. 

Best wishes,  Joe

Joe,

A hobby shop repair person told me long ago that for best results use a Legacy or Cab-1 controller to run all Lionel compatible command engines (Lionel, 3rd Rail, Atlas, K-Line, etc.) and use the DCS controller for MTH engines.

I've found that the DCS Remote runs TMCC and Legacy engines better than the Cab-1 and almost as well as the Cab-2. (Note that I do not operate any K-Line engines at all.)

Although I have tried several different configurations and brands, I haven't been able to get a single universal controller to operate my TV, VCR, DVD, stereo, etc., either.

I have found such a remote.

It operates all of my AV stuff: Samsung 3D TV, Yamaha A/V receiver, Sony Blu-Ray, Apple TV, Sony (vintage) VCR, Pioneer (even more vintage) Laser Disc Player, and Samsung DVR).

It's a Harmony 1100 and, while not inexpensive, it is both a "device-knowledgeable" and learning remote that is software based and backs up both in the cloud and on a Mac/PC. It has extremely flexible scripting for creating "Activities", extensive button-naming capability, allows you to basically design your own remote, and is limited only by your imagination.

I've used a lot of so-called "universal" remotes, however, this one actually lives up to its claims. I think it retails for $350 or so, however, I caught mine on sale and paid $270. It's worth ever penny!

Kline engines exhibit differences in performance on my layout based upon two factors: whether they had cruise control installed or whether the steamer had a short boiler or not. Given that Kline is no longer around, it may not be worth fooling with.  In my case, I replaced two of the Kline tmcc engines with proto two kits.  Subsequently, I have the pleasure of using the err kits. Both work well with dcs.

Hi all, I am back from my trip and grateful for your additional input. As a result I did some additional precise testing.  I am ready to make some conclusions on this thread.

#1 -  G & Gunner,

I am in back to the belief that the components in the individual engines are the problem and I would like to pursue those questions and probable issues in a new thread under TMCC forum later. Read on.........

#2 Gary,

 I believe your input about being able to add a TMCC engines to the DCS remote from anywhere as long as you know its address was an important problem determination point. You can indeed do that regardless where you are without the layout.

Engine ‘guts’, at whatever level and mixture they are, must reacts differently to the controller based on standard commands given to the engines from it. This dispels my theory of it being software or microcode. Thank you and please read on......

#3 Joe Barker

You added the theory on the use of controllers. This advice is also true. All my testing indicates that the KLINE TMCC engines work  just as good as the Lionel TMCC engines using the CAB1 which they were designed to match. MTH did the best they could to marry the DCS controller function to the Lionel specifications and that is why the Lionel function properlywith with it. There was really no way for them to predict future KLINE (or ERR or technician) level design changes which would cause erratic operation from their handheld. The good news is (I hope) that they keep their later releases of code in tune with Lionel TMCC, Legacy changes etc.etc.

My fixation with operating using one controller comes from the fact that EVERY THING on my layout now operates from one DCS controller so each time I want to uncouple a car, throw a switch or work an accessory I do not want to deal with a second controller……especially if I am led to believe it SHOULD work. We know now it does not always do so.

I am an engineer by training and do not easily ‘shrug off’ inconsistencies without at least attempting to understand why, even if that company is defunct. Read on please...

#4 Winrose,

You have added something new to the mix which I do not quite understand but it is interesting. Here is your quote…” In my case, I replaced two of the Kline tmcc engines with proto two kits. Subsequently, I have the pleasure of using the err kits. Both work well with dcs”. I understand installing PS2 kits but do not understand how you use err kits with them. Please elaborate for us.

OK Here is my conclusions from all your posts and my most recent testing.

• TMCC addressing can be done off line. You always can learn something new.
• DCS Controller puts out the same instructions to all engines, the electronics in the engine REACT based on their design, manufacture or mucked with level. The controller has design flexibility to deal with 32 & 128 ‘speed steps’ engine design.
• DCS Controller assumes every engine is a 32 ‘speed step’ and starts up the engine in that mode.
• Quickset speed on all TMCC engines only functions in 32 speed mode, thus the reason why the Lionel engines always see it and the KLINE may not. Read on…
• As a result, my conclusion is that if you buy a TMCC engine to use with the DCS, choose a Lionel and think it over well before you choose another manufacture’s.
• There are still too many variables with regard to TMCC control boards that are not well understood relating to manufacture levels and compatabilty scenarios. I feel a need to work on this in the future.
• I can run all three of these engines together if I just use the CAB1 controller, a saving grace, but changing to PS2 in at least one (K4) is likely and making one a siding shelf queen (B6) will also happen.

Here is what the test results showed.

All Engines, Lionel & Kline:

Set their addresses into DCS remote off line without issue.

Operated very well, all functions using CAB1.They were designed for that.

Both Lionel Engines:

Operated very well using the DCS controller, demonstrated finite responses to all functions from controller. Engines come with 32 speed steps, controller assumes that, and ‘Quickset speed’ functions well.  Engines shuts down with  garbled verbal sounds.

KLINE Engine’s  each had some different results.

Mikado Cab 9628 – Started up in 32 step speed. Quickset speed available but will not effect take off. Must put engine in 128 step speed to make engine move. Engine responds reasonably well to DCS controller. All functions appear normally operational. Engine shuts down with garbled verbal sounds. This engine operates the most satisfactory of the 3 klines and resembles Lionel operation. I say this engine probably has all original electronics. This engine suitable to run under DCS along side of MTH PS2 engines.

K4 Cab 3876 – Started up in 128 step speed. No Quickset available. Moves out without having to set the speed just like the Lionel. It will not operate in 32 step and quickset when selected, though available, it is not functional. DCS controller does not have really good control over the functions. The response is weak like bad receiving of signals. All functions work, but not reliabily. Engine shuts down without any verbal garble. Not any great fun to run! This engine has an ERR cruise commander which I installed and showed signs  at that time that it had been opened up before I bought it. This engine is an OK runner but because of reliability I would not  do so at same time with any other engines.

B6 Cab 505 – Started up in 32 step speed. Quickset available and functions! Switch to 128 step speed, engine still functions, quickset does not. In either speed step, it operates erratic and poorly. I suspect this engine has been mucked with. We will find out. This engine is not a reliable runner under DCS.

Summary,

 I will soon open all engines, the three KLINE plus my Lionel S2 ,take pictures and inventory boards contained in side each for the purpose of further exploring how all this TMCC technology fits compatibly together. It is just my engineering instinct and somethingto do now that my layout is complete. At that time I will open the discussion in the TMCC arena. I am sure G & Gunrunner will join me there. I hope this thread has been as educational for some of you as it has been for me. I feel much better about my knowledge of the TMCC subject matter and how it relates to my DCS operation than I did before. It is really not described well in any books or manuals, but I am sure future authors are making note.

Thank you all.

My recent Layout upgrade.

http://www.jcstudiosinc.com/BlogShowThread?id=958&categoryId=

What I have experienced is that I can have my TMCC Kline units replaced with Proto 2 (Hudson and Tank steamers) and I had my SMR Tahoe upgraded from conventional to TMCC running under TMCC or Legacy and my SMR Wooton upgraded from conventional to Proto 2. I can run all 4 engines on the same loop using my DCS controller.

Hugh (aka Captain Obvious),

You appear to be doing a good job of discovering and stating what is, I believe, quite obvious.

Are you done yet, or do you have more to discover? What exactly are you intending to do about this pressing issue? Are you going to first resurrect, and then petition K-Line to recall and correct the deficiencies in their engines, or are you going to demand that MTH fix these problems? What are you hoping to gain from all of this?

(Note that my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek...)

Hah, you think thats bad, try running DCS under Legacy.

Hi Barry (aka Mr. know it all) I have been off this kick since my last post Oct 6th. I really appreciate your interest in this. Your continued kind contributions to my effort to learn more about problems that interest me are always rewarding.

Now, since you were kind enough to ask, let me tell you this which i believe you will probably think is also quite so obvious.

1) Major complaint about control loss remains in two areas, stopping using the Direction button and firing the rear coupler. Both work reliably using the CAB1 but not so using the DCS remote. Here is why! I realized this by watching the TMCC controller light when operating.  When the DIR button on the CAB1 is pushed, it sends multiple signals based on how long the finger is on the button. I believe at least a couple of ‘blinks’ even with slightest touch. Same true about the coupler firing button.  The result with multiple signals is a high reliability of signal out to the engine and rarely a failure if ever.

2)In each of these situations, using the DCS controller, no matter how long you hold either button, it sends only one ‘blink’ signal. If engine fails to get this one blink, control is lost. Knowing this, and being prepared to provide multiple taps on the rev or couple buttons increases ability to control. Even though ‘stop’ happens, when precise is necessary this ain’t good enough, so the question remains as to why just one ‘blink’ signal in DCS? Question is also open as to the reliability of the reverse motor control board in each engine?

So you should know now that I am done fooling with these engines as  now I really understand the unique characteristics of TMCC under DCS and as they relate to the KLINE engines that I own. If I Start them up the way each likes best (each differently) and be ready to create multiple key tap blinks and they operate acceptably.

But, to further my knowledge of TMCC, I still am searching for compatability charts on all TMCC & Railsounds boards across manufacturers. Of course, since this also may be most obvious to you, maybe you can post them so all may benefit.

(Note that my tongue is also firmly planted in my cheek...)

Hugh,

It would appear that the problem with the K-Line engines could be due to the sensitivity, or lack thereof, of each engines antenna.

How does that explain they work perfectly with the CAB1 which talks to the same TMCC base and sends exactly the same strength signal to the locomotive?  The communication between the remote and the TMCC or DCS base doesn't enter into the antenna equation.

I'm not sure what is going on here, but I'm not buying that reasoning.

John,

How does that explain they work perfectly with the CAB1 which talks to the same TMCC base and sends exactly the same strength signal to the locomotive?  The communication between the remote and the TMCC or DCS base doesn't enter into the antenna equation.

Perhaps because of the "1-blink" nature of the DCS Remote's communication vs. the "multi-blink" nature of the Cab-1. The Cab-1 creates more opportunities for the engine to "see" the command, giving a less sensitive antenna a better opportunity to execute the command.

Hi Hugh;

Good thread. I love a good debate!

I have no startling news to add; only my experiences.

Like you I have acquired a few K-Line scale steamers, simply because I like the looks and detail. (I don't care that K-Line is long gone. I wish they were still around.)

One Mike and the Hudson have been converted to PS-2; and they run like champs. I have put in custom tach tapes to produce the correct SMPH speed, so they can run with any other PS-2 engine. They smoke great like any other PS-2 engine. Smooth runners, except my beloved NYC Hudson seems to have heartburn with 031 curves in general, for some reason. Haven't figured that out yet.

Three are TMCC:

One is a Mike with K-Line cruise, and works well.

My SP Berk has K-Line cruise and it works well also.

Another PRR Mike has EOB cruise, installed before I got it, and it is useless. Never has worked right. I may switch it to PS-2 someday, or sell it.

Another is a GTW tank engine with no cruise. Works OK, but kind of jerky.

I have been overhauling and modding the smoke units on these engines as well. They are better, but none will ever smoke as good as a PS-2.

I have found that even though I have the TMCC engines entered in my DCS, I tend to use the cab 1 for TMCC. It just seems to be easier to use somehow.

I have never tried the quickset feature with any Lionel or K-Line TMCC engines, so I have no idea how this may work. It never occurred to me to try it.

I like the idea of being able to run PS-2 engines and TMCC engines simultaneously using two controllers. It keeps them independent and avoids constantly switching the DCS between different engines. But that's just me.

I like the research you have done, and all the comments that have come out. I believe this kind of interchange of information is important to the hobby, and it's what makes this forum great. As was said though, I doubt MTH or any other commercial enterprise is going to put forth any effort to help with compatibility issues. As always it will fall on us, the users, to explore options and discover what we can and can't do.

Keep up the great dialogue!

Rod

The issue is that some TMCC engines misbehave consistently when operated from the DCS Remote, while others work just fine. Therefor, it's obvious that there are some differences in the misbehaving engines, all of which just happen to be K-Line.

It appears to me that the only way this can ever be resolved is by a change to the DCS handling of the TMCC communications.

The DCS system (hardware and software) was designed to send all commands the same way, i.e., once for each key press. That's integral to the system and is unlikely to change, for the following reason: the system then looks for a response from the engine that acknowledges the command. If it's not acknowledged within a predetermined period of time, the command is resent. This works well with a two-way system of communication, which is DCS.

Unfortunately, since TMCC and Legacy engines are mute and cannot respond, the DCS Remote just issues the command once and then moves on. This seems to suffice for all of Hugh's Lionel TMCC engines, which makes sense since Lionel's TMCC standard is the one that MTH designed DCS to be able to control.

The fact that K-Line engines are the only ones that are presenting control problems is absolutely no reflection on DCS's ability to control TMCC engines, per se. Rather, it points out that K-Line may have deviated from the Lionel standard in some way, similar to their non-standard (as regards Lionel's TMCC) speed control.

At the same time, since Lionel withheld Odyssey speed control (along with Railsounds 5) from TMCC licensees, K-line was perfectly within their rights to develop their own speed control, and were under no obligation to maintain any TMCC standards while doing so.

It's possible that the TMCC antenna spec was implemented more robustly by Lionel than it was by K-Line. Actually, I remember seeing in  the past several posts on the forum that relate where some TMCC engines had difficulty receiving a TMCC signal at all, and where modifications had to be made to the engine's antenna. What we may have here is a less damaging occurrence of an antenna problem.

Well, I guess we have a difference in opinion.  I'll keep running my TMCC/Legacy systems with the CAB2 and put this behind me.

Hi Hugh, My experience with running TMCC with the dcs remote on a large layout (4 tiu in super) over  7 scale miles of single track is good. However we have done the tiu antenna modification on the tiu so range over the layout is pretty good, (over 80 feet long) . One thing no one has mentioned is.... there is no equivlant of the  cab-1's set button on the dcs remote so anytime you fire up TMCC engine you have to set it up each time. The engine won't remember the previous settings. ETC .. speed steps, cruise,

I suppose you can set up  some of the features  first with the cab-1 but not all of them.

It is not an antenna problem

I want nobody to fix anything. I was interested in understanding the details involved in the issue and I now do. Lets stop defending and attacking and just appreciate the good nature of better understanding the equipment we are dealing with.

And the people we're dealing with as well.