Email to Lionel and MTH re: Smart Phone Apps

A great first step toward facilitating and brokering a deal between the two. 

 

I would suggest that the publisher, with his clout, schedule a summit between Mr. Wolf and Mr. Lionel (I have no idea who is running the Lionel ship, but whomever it is, that person) to see if something can be worked out in concept.

 

Another thought as well: the publisher put this in the format of an "open letter" in a one page presentation in an upcoming issue of OGR magazine, do a press release on it, and see if anyone (main stream press or other hobby mags) pick up on it to perpetuate the thought.

 

 

I'm not entirely sure if this concept was covered earlier in the thread or not, but if Lionel and MTH don't want to work together, maybe a completely new system should be developed independent of either company, one that could replace the current systems entirely rather than try to get them to work together.  And when I say replace, I literally mean it.  Like installing a new DCC decoder into an HO engine, I'd almost be willing to gut even a high-end Lionel or MTH locomotive of their respective command control components and replace them with something that could be installed in any manufacturer's locomotives.  Sure, I might lose some features such as sound and special lighting effects, but as long as the engines run correctly and run together, I'm fine with that.  Anything just to bring some kind of standardization!

Aaron

People have already done that, there are people who have installed DCC decoders on Lionel and MTH equipment (PS3 engines already support DCC) and are running with it. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles that DCS and Legacy have, but it can control the engine speed..I believe there is  forum on here for DCC users. 

 

If the market was bigger, someone might have the brass to reverse engineer legacy and PS codes and build a universal controller that can handle DCS or Legacy equipped engines, including a replacement for the legacy and PS hardware that interfaces with the track..but they would need to have deep resources to fend off the inevitable legal challenges reverse engineering brings, plus it is very, very difficult to reverse engineer stuff in a clean way (i.e those developing the code and hardware have no access to the real units code or hardware components, it has to be developed from a spec written by others and be compared to the real thing to make sure nothing is the same).....so not likely to happen. 

 

I don't think it really is competition between MTH and Lionel with the command control features, unless you want to install both systems, it means in command mode you have to buy both units or stay with one of them, which kind of locks you in. I know DCS can control the TMC base, but it is limited functionality....If there was some sort of industry standard for three rail Ogauge command control, it could mean decoders and such would be available easily to upgrade engines, it would mean other manufacturers like Weaver or Third rail could have the advanced command control features, and Williams could theoretically, as is done on HO, have a connector where you can plug in a standard decoder and upgrade their units (I realize it may not be as simple as that, with the timing mechanism on the flywheel and such, which williams doesn't have..).....and the companies could compete on the look of the units, their performance, and maybe price.....heck, they could probably save themselves money not having to develop the decoders and such, leave that to third party firms and concentrate on the engines and rolling stock.......I know, it is a fantasy,  having an open standard would help the consumers, give us a lot more choices, but MTH and Lionel would never go for that, they want to compete having incompatible systems that force consumers to make choices (like spending almost double to have both legacy and DCS command units)....it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the reason DCC came about under NMRA standards was that the HO (and now N) market is so huge, with so many players, that a proprietary system done by one manufacturer would flop if forced people to use only one manufacturers products, they would vote with their feet, so a common standard was the only practical way. With 3rail there is such limited choice (Lionel, MTH, Atlas and some smaller companies like Weaver and Third Rail), that if you want command control but didn't want to get locked in to proprietary systems, you either grin and bear it, or do without, and MTH and Lionel know that..the other side is if there was a standard, the market could likely grow as new firms could use the open standard. What is even worse is neither Lionel or MTH will license their latest systems, for example, allow a manufacturer like third rail to have a decoder that could work with either DCS or Legacy, and I think in many ways they are sacrificing the future of the product for short term gains, but what else is new?

I don't have a layout, but this would be one of the best things that they could work on together.  One thing I wish they would add is a cab view, where you can view what the engine sees, along with being able to run one layout with multiple phones for clue layouts and group sessions. 

I think this ship has likely already sailed.  Neither MTH nor Lionel has much to gain from a system that controls both DCS and Legacy.  The reality is that DCC was developed because there was no one or even two dominant HO or N gauge manufacturer of locomotives, so there was a clear benefit to a common standard.  Even back then, large companies with significant followings such as Märklin and LGB developed their own command systems for HO and large scale and ignored DCC,  because they could.

 

In three rail O, Lionel was essentially the only major player in 1996 when TMCC was introduced.  As MTH became a second major player, they could develop their own system or become dependent on Lionel.  The answer is obvious as what they had to do.

 

As someone pointed out, unless one company acquires the other, only a third party is likely to have any interest in developing a common technology that incorporates compatibility with DCS and Legacy. The market is likely too small to attract the deep pockets that would be needed to develop that system, and more practically, defend against the lawsuits that would inevitably evolve.

 

That said, it would be a good thing for the long term interests of the hobby and industry,  and three rail O gauge if Lionel and MTH jointly supported development of software for handheld devices/computers that accessed PS3 (and PS2), TMCC and Legacy locomotives.  But I'm guessing that ain't happening. 

Bravo, Rich!

 

Peter

Marty's comment may very well be accurate.  But IMO, nothing is lost by sending an email to MTH and Lionel.  As with many things, not much ever gets changed or fixed until enough people voice their concerns.  It just makes so much marketing sense to have 1 app to handle both.  Then consumers are free to buy whichever brand trains suits their fancy.  Having 2 apps will just add unnecessary complexity and probably aggravate more people then its worth.  

 

I really like both companies and both are about equally represented on my layout.  But I am getting tired of this approach by both companies to develop yet another product that is incompatible with each other.  And makes it harder for their customers to simply run their trains.

 

So I really hope they both begin to take notice and change course.

 

Ed

 

 

Yeah, it would be great, but I am not waiting.

 

I am rolling my own for total computer control via a touchscreen monitor. Others have done it, such as Professor Chaos.

 

I am not interested in control via any i-devices, and the kids that have seen my layout (about 20 so far, ages 6 through 15) have been thrilled running my trains with the existing remotes, both Legacy & DCS (they like the Legacy better, though) and that is good enough for me.

 

Why computer control? So I can set the trains to run on their own and can talk to my guests without worrying about something going wrong while the trains are running.

 

Just my 2¢.

 

Alex

Jon Zahornacky (santafefan) has said that the Protocol codes ..I believe including Legacy.. will be available to Third Party Developers, that may include 'HIKEL TRAINS', who makes the MTH Apps... Right now 'Bluetrain' is making an App for Android devices for LCS...

Daniel Raible

That is a nice idea. However they had to protect their systems. It was not wasted but necessary, unfortunately. Don't look back at TMCC without going back in time where this hobby's control system's development was. It was great for the time. It wasn't timeless. These large companies pushed the development of command for all of our gain.

 Why is it in the development of DCC, couldn't something as simple as the horn function location be standardized? Couldn't they agree on just that much? I've bought decoders that were so different, I had to print out a cheat sheet to remember what function button did what.

 I'm glad that someone like Lionel got involved and started pushing command development. 

 

Joe

 

"And world peace". 

Makes you wonder: what exactly are these command control systems really controlling, the trains or the hobbyists?

Aaron

Correct, we will make available all of the protocol codes for our system, especially the WiFi protocol, in hopes that folks will rally around the WiFi interface and create a "de facto standard" in the smart device arena.

 

We also plan to make available to our partners shortly, an iOS sample App to build upon.  There are so many ways to add to LCS, computer control, smart device apps, even unique hardware to expand the LCS modules for a particular purpose.

Are model railroaders, or computer geeks?   

 

I have never yet used a push button throttle (such as a phone would be) that is worth a darn for actually operating trains and doing switching on a real model railroad.   

 

My opinion this is a waster of resources and time.

Rich,

 

You missed one important point, it can't run solely on IOS (iPhone and iPad) only!  The number of androids has surpassed that of apple in the "smart" device arena for a few years now. 

 

It may not seem that way to people that got early iPhones and stayed with them or handed them down, but the market as a whole has changed.  Many people have switched over or got into the smart market using androids and never looked back. 

 

In my immediate family we have 5 android devices and only one apple.  While not a realistic market model, MTH and Lionel for some reason are targeting apple first or exclusively which is narrow minded. 

 

In this day and age, most new apps are cross ported to both operating systems.  Its not about which is better.  Having both, there are pros and cons to both and it's up to the individual to decide whats best of them (like the MTH vs. Lionel arguments that can't be won).  However, ignoring the largest smart device segment is just ignorance.

 

Paul

 

 

I grew up with orange and blue boxes, ZW's, TMCC and now Legacy. I for one, am not willing to buy another operating system to run my trains. Do I know what I'm giving up, yes, do I like it, no.

 

I would like to see an all encompassing system that opens up all the features of all the manufacturers. Probably just a dream, but it would be nice. 

 

Paul, this post is over a year old. Both are developing apps for IOS and Android . Lionel demoed a Android friendly app in October being built by a 3rd party

Anyone interested the Android type App for LCS go look at the 'BLUETRAIN' App on Google Play...And at lionel.com/lcs thay have a large list and descriptions of LCS Devices, compatible Lionel Engines and pictures of the 'BLUETRAIN' App, which is available right now for Downloading...

       
       


I agree, and thank you for the perspective.  I think there is plenty of room for the manufacturers to compete with their control systems and features, but it would be nice to have a common fundamental architecture such as locomotive addressing, speed and direction control, dare I add whistle and bell, haha!


The time for open standards here may not seem right, but history has not been kind to those who chose to manufacture an artificial, unnecessary problem by engaging in a format war.  We now use standard 3-point implements on our tractors, Microsoft Word on our Macs, IEEE 802 on our wifi and TCP/IP on the Internet.  Whodathunkit?

The model railroading hobby is such a small group comparatively, and after you pare that down between gauges and now control systems the market share is so small.  Even with O you have 3 rail, 2 rail, P48, narrow gauge, and then conventional, command control, now which system, blah blah blah...it's all so unnecessary.

The NMRA should have took a harder line at the beginning with DCC, there still isn't a comprehensive standard, and they seem completely uninvolved with regard to 3-rail control standards.

For the past many decades despite having the wrong track gauge and an extra rail all O-Gauge equipment operated together - from the wheel sets to the couplers to the power system and control.  It is still hard in this day for  companies to wrap their heads around intellectual property when it comes to software, and this control system incompatibility is proof of that.

I really want these companies to succeed, and perhaps these software front ends are the key to starting some compatibility, like Rich was advocating here.

For what it's worth I am a PhD Electrical Engineer who develops both RF and optical communication systems for deep space, and I serve on an international committee to reach consensus on things like protocol and waveform standards.  Furthermore my dissertation was related to a form of command control over power, so I have an appreciation and deep respect for how difficult these things can be at the strange intersection of the technical, legal managerial and financial junctions.

I am mentioning this because I would be happy to offer my services, review documents, serve on a standards working group, consult, prototype, etc. in the interest of driving the development of these systems for the hobby, and especially so in the spirit of interoperability.  If interested please contact me offline.

Heck, I've got a few brilliant colleagues that appreciate my train hobby from afar, and would probably love to develop apps to do some cool stuff, but I will tell you that they are dyed-in-the-wool LINUX open source guys and would want their stuff to remain that way.  I think they are not alone.  Power to the people, haha!  Looking forward to this wifi stuff to see what we can do!

There is much good work to do, fun to have, and after that is done we can get the west on the metric system, haha!

Sorry, but I don't think this will move anyone into trains who don't have some interest already.  IT can be done, yes, but I won't be holding my breath.  Personally, I don't fantasize about controlling everything with my phone anyway.  Some things are conducive to touch screen, some not.  I also do a lot of hobby level RC and none of the phone type controls are of interest to me nor do they work well.  The problem with touch screen is you have to spend too much time looking at the screen and not enough time looking at the object moving.  On the DCS or Legacy remote, you can feel the buttons and know what you're pushing without looking for the most part.

 

I also think the competition has given many features that DCC lacks.  I have run both and other than compatibility, I prefer the two O systems.  It's not a perfect situation but nothing in the hobby world is.  The fact the two can run along side each other is good enough for me.

 

I don't fault either company for their respective approaches, I'll end up with more MTH motive power because their approach and price points fit me better.

       
       


I agree with you about the lack of tactile feedback on the RC side, but it is pretty cool controlling the plane with a touchscreen device running Google Earth with waypoints.  Great for aerial photography or when your trying to do something else besides aerobatics.

With regard to trains consider this, although the products mentioned here are targeted toward mobile touchscreen devices like phones, the wifi element unlocks the possibility to use a future hardware controller, perhaps looking like the Trains Simulator controller, to talk through the software as a bridge to drive both the Legacy and DSC stations.  In this way you could have a single tactile cab-looking controller to control all products.  Such a device would be easy for the electronics hobbyist to homebrew (flight simulator guys do it all the time), or relatively inexpensive to manufacture (just like video game controllers).

I am with you on not really liking touchscreens when compared to actual controls, but these software advances will go a long way toward unlocking some cool peripherals!

...by the way, in general I strongly believe that control system expansion will entice younger folks to get involved.  I know because they tell me.

I do a lot of education and outreach for work, and in support of that I constructed a large Hexapod robot characteristic of a next generation Mars exploration vehicle.  Sequencing 18 servo motors to actuate in concert from an FPGA brain through VHDL is no easy task, but what most kids key on strongly is that I use a standard wireless Sony Playstation video game controller for all of the wireless functions.  Most of them are fascinated how a person can take something off the shelf like that and reuse it for something else.  They want to learn how to do it themselves, and this leads us into discussions of computer programming, protocols, robotic control, etc.  Lego has been mining this fertile ground with their Mindstorm offerings, and kids can't get enough of it. 

The possibilities with the future of model railroad computer control are limitless, and these mobile apps are great ways to get small hands working on the next great things.

 

"With regard to trains consider this, although the products mentioned here are targeted toward mobile touchscreen devices like phones, the wifi element unlocks the possibility to use a future hardware controller, perhaps looking like the Trains Simulator controller, to talk through the software as a bridge to drive both the Legacy and DSC stations."

 

Without a doubt, the most insightful comment I have read so far.  This is exactly right, once you have an interface - then a physical controller does not need to be an Android or iOS device.

 

One perspective I have always promoted:  The LCS App should control the layout, with limited control of the trains.  The remotes are perfect for the trains, however to control the layout you usually need some sort of a control panel.  A control panel can be a array of buttons or a touch screen.   An iPad (1st gen) is going for LT $150.   At that price point, you have a lot of capability in a small package for a control panel.

 

When the latest release of the LCS app arrives this month, you will see a great deal of energy has been placed into controlling accessories; both the Lionel TMCC and ElectricRR products.  The accessory controls include sounds, so one can augment an accessory with realistic sounds if desired!!  Tap the accessory, and you get a control panel that makes running the accessory come to life.  Much better than pressing an ENG # related ID for the Accessory with some key presses taking away from the train you are controlling via the remote.  And once setup, no more remembering ID numbers for accessories or switches.

 

Works without Legacy, if so desired.  The design I created works in other environments, conventional, DCC, any interface.  Of course with Legacy you get a lot more functionality with the locos and accessories that are TMCC.

 

Once you use it - you're hooked.  It is simple, adds to the fun, an it does not divert your attention from running the trains.  This is a new paradigm of operation, to fit an increasingly more technological society, for those who wish to hop "aboard".

 

Well said Rich. A DCC like meeting of the minds would do wonders for O gauge. You can argue, the shortcomings won't allow O gauge to replace the NFL as Americas best thing to do on a Sunday, it won't even replace HO as the most popular gauge. You can't argue, the won't help both companies and the O gauge in general.

Of course here is me not being able to type on my mobile touchscreen device, hahaha!  I meant 'DCS' above, not DSC!

You all probably knew that

 I am glad where this discussion is airing stuff out, with all the comments.

  I'm personally hoping this software helps remove some of the drawbacks of each system. Less fumbling thru the keys for functions and programming.

 Just like guys who went to computer software to run their trains, except this will be accessible to all who chose to try it.

Joe

 

There is no reason that 1 platform using WiFi could not use 1 interface.  Both Legacy and DCS controllers have whistle, bell, various on/of etc.  So why can't the interface look exactly the same for both? 

 

There are unique parts to each but they are mostly fluff that could be in a sub panel per type of engine.

 

It can be done IMO now that both MTH and Lionel are sharing protocol with 3rd parties.

Yes, I agree overall. However, I'm sure that some kind of safeguard needs to remain for each system. If they turn over the controls to a common third party, they are agreeing to work together. I must be overlooking something?

I use the bluetrain app on my android tablet. I use my tablet just like I would a CAB-1 because the app does everything a CAB-1 can do. Also, the app has two additional features that I really like.
1. It displays your speed steps
2. It stores your train information so that I only have select the engine I want to run from my list of saved engines.

Joe

I suspect there are legal docs to sign.