Email to Lionel and MTH re: Smart Phone Apps

Rich I too agree its long overdue and wish they would unite in this manner!!!!

Rich,

Wholeheartedly support your comments 100%!

A-MEN!!!!

I disagree and not to be a Debbie Downer but...

MTH's and Lionel's approach are completely different.

MTH is pushing heavily on train control and running along with layout control.

Lionel is pushing control of trains from the remote and layout control from the iPad.

Based on what I have seen there are already 2 different paths pretty much down road.  To stop and do a u-turn is too far gone.  I'm all for trying to make as much compatibility as they can but that ship has sailed long before the iPad apps made their appearance.  MTH have kept the DCS codes closed and Lionel followed with the Legacy feature set.

So email as you may but the likely hood of this happening is about the same as seeing whistle smoke on the Lionel J or Mike Wolf putting his arm around Dr. Neil.  LOL!

Bravo!

Marty, perhaps what you have said is true and it is too late. But the suggestion had to be made.

How about for the computer like DCC?

Thank You

the suggestion had to be made.

And maybe if we keep making this suggestion, they'll eventually get the idea.

I see no reason why a joint DCS - TMCC app could not be created.

In any case a user would still require a Legacy base AND TIU.

Both the TMCC and DCS (iPad/iPhone) apps require an interface through a home computer, connected to the layout through a serial link. The computer program is what actually sends the commands to the layout.

Just make the computer program capable of sending the appropriate commands to both TMCC and DCS.

You would still have to buy a base for each system but after that it's just software.  I already have both. Many of us run engines from both MFG.  Please make the apps so they work with both, it's not too late.  Competition is great to a point but lets work together on this one.

Dan

Competition is a good thing to a degree, why should another manufacturer have to cater to another manufacturers product? 

Since I fit in the described demographic (barely I must admit on the high side) I agree with Rich. Each system does many things well with their own quirks. Problems arise when trying to use one system with another and I do since a couple of engines made by one are not made by the other. Share some code and build a better product. Really simple. Yes the code would have rewrites and all the stuff that does happen but really these are toys and I for one will play with what makes me happy.

I am willing to bet there are more folks like me than not out there............

you are SO right, Rich. This ridiculous Hatfield & McCoy mentality has IMO limited the growth for the O gauge/O scale category (unlike HO in which anything works with everything). If the O gauge manufacturers would finally wake up to this fact, and direct their energies to growing the category rather than fighting each other, we, the consumers and they, would all benefit. 

jerrman

I agree with the sentiment of your letter Rich, but I think the die is cast and the opportunity for compatibility between Legacy and DCS is lost.  Even if a single ipad app would work for both systems, users new to the hobby are still going to have chose between Legacy or DCS rather than run both, for a host of reasons including initial investment in equipment necessary for each OS and wiring method. The manufacturers have trenched in, and the consumers are caught in the crossfire.  It feels like we are forced to pick a side.

Rich, I couldn't agree more. I will vote with my dollars. Let's see what they do.

Andy

I think that it was a good idea for you to send the letter.  Coming from a bigger name in the industry might make them pay a little more attention.  However, I am not sure that "working together" will be the answer either.

Those that have pointed out that you will still need both bases are correct.  As Dan said, after that, it is just software.  What would help is the ability for third parties to be able to develop software to leverage what both manufacturers are doing with their hardware.  From what I have seen, neither company wants to develop or support software but then they don't want to let others do it either.  In my opinion, this is what is holding things back and not a failure to "work together".

Not to hijack the thread but there are a couple of assumptions here that aren't correct.

• Wiring:  I have both DCS and Legacy and this is my first layout.  It is relatively small and simple but I didn't have any problems with the wiring.  I wired for DCS and all I had to do for Legacy (so far) was connect the base to my TIU and add a wire from the Legacy base to the track.  It wasn't hard.  There was no big investment for different wiring methods.
• Choice: This really isn't that complicated either.  Pick your engine/starter set and go with the appropriate control system.  If someone can afford $800, $1000, $1200 or more for an engine, another couple of hundred dollars for the appropriate control system isn't that much of a stretch.

I also tend to think that there is plenty of room for both systems.  I like and use both.

Well , the problem is MTH, because I'm using eTTC and I can control my train from an Android phone, if MTH allow peoples to control the TIU from a PC, Harv from ETCC will have no problem to port his apps to work with both, MTH and Lionel 

It's can be done if MTH allow us to control the TIU from a PC , Lionel is already setup for it 

have a look at eTCC 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/251042935319?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

and the Android Apps 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.applications.etraincommandmobile&hl=en

Just to be clear, Lionel does not require a PC for there IPad application.  They use a WiFi to serial converter to receive info straight from the iPad.

The MTH app does but I am not sure if this is only an interim measure.

I can't say if one is better than other, just different.

Well that certainly makes their app unique and probably comes at a higher cost.

Other (free) programs and apps such as JMRI and WiThrottle require a PC.

I'm curious how the configured the converter.

I'm no tech guru but it seems like a good idea to me.

Standardisation in O Gauge?!! Can anyone say Betamax, Vinyl, Cassette Tape, Quadraphonic Stereo, PS1, 8 Track, Railsounds, Videotape player? 

Propitiatory systems are bound to have a short shelf life and are meant to be upsold. Two competing systems heading toward V.4.0 with two competing engineering teams means twice the expense for those who dare to use both, and one would think there would be some R&D savings long term, to be put back into new models in that we have enough K4's to build a land bridge to Madagascar.

But, there would be a qualifier in that both system features would have to be molded into a single hybrid. I think it's a great idea, but I think that boat of reinventing that wheel sailed along time ago. twenty years too late.

HO scale "got it" a long time ago...but O seems stuck in a shrinking niche category, both in expense, variety and non standardisation. Love the scale but this is why I backed off the latest and greatest when PS1 became the equivalent of a tube radio. Just more of the same.

You are on the right track Electroliner, but you've missed something. This problem only exists in 3 rail O.

All of the 2 railers use the NMRA as their governing body. Standards are set and manufacturers conform willingly, for compatibility's sake. If patents exist they are shared and open to all. That's why 2 railers have DCC and we have a mess.

This boat actually sailed over 100 years ago, when Lionel used patents to try to fend off competitors. The coupler wars have been going on forever, with Lionel trumping all. With MTH's entry into the market, now we have a control system war too. Our branch of the hobby has become the wild west. 

The genie isn't going to go back into the bottle anytime soon. The egos and mentality of the players have made that pretty much impossible.

The NMRA would gladly act as governing body for 3 rail O, if enough people would be willing to serve and create standards. Of course getting the manufacturers to cooperate is a different story.

At the risk of starting an old war again, Lionel extended the olive branch and openly published the TMCC codes. MTH took that branch and returned nothing. Lionel returned the snub by locking down Legacy

Sadly I do not think we will ever see a system which will control all the features on engines from each manufacturer. 

While I think this new way of controlling our trains is great and it just might get some much needed younger blood into our hobby, I would hate to see everyone staring at their smart phones and tablets instead of actually watching their trains run !!

IT. AIN'T. GONNA. HAPPEN.

I applaud Rich's effort with the email.  I have little faith though that MTH will be willing to budge from their position regarding the DCS code or participate in such a joint venture.

Dave appears to have gotten MTH to give a bit, or they just realized they really needed an app. Maybe more will come.

as for the right approach I see strengths and weaknesses in both. MTH gives you a complete replacement for the handheld, bit there is no way to know which button you are using without staring at it

Lionel still requires you to use a Cab-2 (or cab-1L) to do most functions, but gives you a great layout controller and not many buttons to hunt for

This could be done today if they work together. MTH PS3 supports DCC. Lionel's newly cataloged S gauge SD-70 ACEs have DCC compatability as well. It probably won't be long before DCC is an option for all Legacy engines. The only rub to using DCC as a common denominator would be that new DCC boosters would be required but hey, it's a start.

I strongly support Rich's letter.  O 3-rail really needs a compatible system.  

As far as ease of use goes, this morning I was running a Legacy engine with a Cab-1 at the club.  A father brought his 3 year old son to the club.  His son was running the engine like an expert within 5 minutes of me handing him the Cab-1.  We were even able to access most of the Legacy features using the Cab-1.

The club has Legacy, DCS and TMCC.  TMCC with the Cab-1 is clearly the most reliable and popular system for running trains at the club.  What we really need is a simple reliable system similar to TMCC / Cab-1 in my opinion.  

Joe

I don't think Lionel anticipated a competitor taking advantage of publishing the TMCC codes.  From a protection of "intellectual property" standpoint, it was a mistake.

But, as Jonnyspeed indicates, an unofficial standard for O may emerge from the DCC compatibility of DCS and the recent DCC announcement on the Flyer SD70ACe's.

Rusty

I don't know him personally, but I remember the postings you refer to.  (and I believe your summary is essentially how it played out)

I believe his screen name was something like sjcbulldog.

-Dave

I think we need to remember it was a different ball game way back when those codes were published.  Lionel at that time had no product development (at least none that they advertised to the public)  that they were trying to use the RS-232 interface for additional products to control the trains.

It was not until around 7 years later when the "my system can control your command control trains, but your system will never be able to control mine" scenario played out when DCS arrived on the scene.

Along the way somewhere there was an attempt at a system to add computer control to TMCC (I am thinking it was called LCS, developed by Train America Studios).  This was going down the path of trying to add some of the capabilities for autonomous responses that we actually give up with TMCC when compared to a PW engine locked in forward using some simple block control.  (nifty things like having the train automatically stop when the bascule or lift bridge is up(and then restart when it's back down), for example) 

I seem to recall that it was going to involve specialized modules for adding the ability to sense where the trains were relative to one another (consider them a more specialized version of what Lionel is marching towards with the track sensor for Legacy, though back then the engines of course did not have IR devices attached to their undersides, so it was probably a big challenge back then).  There might have been other types of modules too, it's been quite a few years now, so my memory is fading a bit.

I don't know actually why LCS didn't take off (might have been public interest and also some development delays), but I don't think it was because they were told to legally cease and desist.

Of course, no once was running around with I-phones/I-pads back then either, so for the public it meant you needed at minimum a laptop computer in your train room, which many people weren't interested in.

-Dave

I see no reason to standardize anything.

Jeff

I'm not really seeing your point.  That looks pretty neat and tidy.  LOL!

On the DCS side, I believe the PC was required only because the demo they did used to PC to host a web interface.  I don't think the final product(s) will need a PC as part of the system.

I'm hoping that when MTH gets this (hardware) item to market, it will provide coding info to multiple "third parties", as in "any developer who wants to create software".  It seems like they may be headed toward a single third party (Hikel) to implement the system (software), which would keep all of the control codes secret and proprietary as they are now... that would be disappointing.

We'll see!

Ed

ps. Jeff - I don't see a GPS in there.  How do you figure out where your trains are?

Actually what we are working on at work is getting 18 programs to talk to one bus and give all the needed data to one app when asked by that app, all it takes is money, a lot of money. and a lot of time.

John

I agree completely with the e-mail.  If there is going to be a App for controlling model trains that I am ignoring entirely and not using at all, I prefer to be ignoring and not using at all only one App.  

It would get too confusing for old codgers like me to have to ignor two Apps!