quote:

That's not the way I remember it.  There were no licenses initially offered by Lionel.  It was only after MTH announced DCS that Lionel offered the licenses in a tactical move to "surround" MTH before DCS was released.

Original license was offered in 1997 (about 2 years after TMCC was introduced) and was not picked up by any of the train makers.  Only TA Studios and Digital Dynamics were on the first round of licensee's for after market kits.  The terms were reworked when DIck Maddox took over Lionel and at that point in time, Atlas, K-Line, Weaver, and Sunset 3rd Rail signed on (Feb 2000, announced at NY Toy Fair).  Williams decided they were better off by passing the complexity and expense of Command Control.  MTH announced PS-2/DCS during the spring 2000 York show a couple of weeks later.  PS-2 electronics started shipping that fall while the DCS hardware wasn't released for almost another 18 months after the loco's started shipping.  

Some people might consider the announcement of DCS premature and that it was in response to the license agreements the other importer/manufacturers made with Lionel.

Sometimes I think people take things way to seriously.  This is a hobby, for fun, it is not supposed to be a frustration.  I just enjoy things while the work & fix them when they don't, all part of the "fun".

Mine too, Dave.

Just me, but right now everything I want is in the Lionel RTR catalogs.  I can even get Generals with sound effects.  I understand the high end scale stuff is expensive, but thats why its high end scale stuff.  My son thinks the Coca-Cola stuff is cool! 

Its fun!  Ain't it? 

Anyone able to buy a 3rd Rail, Weaver, Atlas with the Railsounds 5 packkage. Answer is NO. Lionel keeps the most up-to-date as it's priority system. IMHO, Lionel has the best steam sounds, but DCS IS the best, most versitile command system and is upgradable for no additional cost, unless you need to buy a computer

Dave G.

4x8, 5x9, 6x10 a Lot can be done in those sizes, and CC offers the ability to do away with block limit restrictions, utilizing the limited space available more effectively, that is not an opinion.

 just because someone has a smaller layout doesn't that they have no desire to consist two or more locomotives, may not NEED to but would still LIKE too(NOTHING in this Hobby is a NEED). Consisting in conventional control is difficult and unreliable at best( Hand coupling and locking e-units in forward is not the same) CC, offers options that conventional simply doesn't offer.

 This Hobby managed just fine, even some truly large layouts, for decades, without command control, even on a large layout it is NOT a NEED, but on ANY size layout, it does make both wiring and operations much easier.

Command Control DOES offer flexibility that Conventional control does not, there are things that Command Control is capable of that Conventional Control is NOT, that is a fact, not an opinion. If someone wants to run a conventional control layout, it makes no difference to me, run whatever you like, but do not claim that Command does not offer any flexibility over Conventional control, it just ain't so.

 I am NOT sure why my opinion CONCERNS You so greatly.

 What in any of my posts has NOT BEEN TRUE? (Please use any quotes IN THEIR ENTIREITY and CONTEXT)

Doug

Actually, Pete, command control does offer additional operating flexibility even on a small layout.  My tinplate layout is about 4x9 or so, and it is command equipped.  The command capability made it possible to operate this layout with just a couple of wires to the track, so I can park a couple of trains on sidings without any special wiring required and call the engines up for duty whenever I care to.  Can also have a couple (or more) trains running on the main line without any block wiring at all.  And, of course, I have full control over whatever "special effects" (sounds, etc.) the locomotives may be equipped with.

The only additional wires to that layout are for building and accessory lights, and that's only because I have made that wiring as simple as possible and had it installed before I went with CC.

But I do agree that everything in this hobby, almost without exception aside from the basic requirements for track, a motor in the locomotive, etc., is based on a "want" and not a "need."  That's part of what makes it a hobby, and a pursuit for individual satisfaction.  

I've got DCS with the TMCC base station which runs any  CC loco.  Works for me and has for years.  I ditched twisting transformer handles years ago.

I think the reason that TMCC and/or DCS seems expensive to many people is that we are used to electronic devices becoming cheaper each year -- televisions and computers get cheaper and more capable every year, and more and more inexpensive toys have incredibly sophisticated electronics.  Take a look, for example, at the Parrot AR Drone Quadcopter -- it is about $300, but contains two high def cameras, range sensors, electronic gyroscopes, a built-in WiFi base hub, and a signal processor and computer for auto-stabilization and collision avoidance -- it can be flown by a child.  A couple of years ago anything like it would have cost > $10,000.  Compared to the electronics in this and similar toys, the electronics needed for a train engine -- which doesn't need to dynamically stabilize itself in the air! -- are almost trivial.  Everything and more that TMCC or DCS do could be done with a couple of dollars worth of parts.  Every engine could have it built with for essentially no premium -- once you are putting in a sound card, you could just has easily put in a board with a super-cheap ARM and radio.

So, why does command control add $100 to the cost of an engine?  Part is probably marketing, but part is also the way Lionel and MTH designed the boards -- they are full of discrete electronics -- making them incredibly expensive to manufacture.  These controllers are being designed the way electronics were designed 25 years ago.  I would guess that the best and brightest young electronic engineers are not going into the model train industry (the model aircraft industry, yes, but not model trains!).

The cost of model trains has hardly changed at all over the last 70 years.  In inflation-adjusted dollars, the prices in the 1938 Lionel catalog are the same for comparable low, medium, and high-end models as in the 2012 catalog.  However, modern electronic remote control capability should be standard issue now -- part of the cheapest models.  A $200 set that could be controlled from an iphone or ipad would end up under a lot of Christmas trees!

Am I the only person on this forum who takes offense to the title of this thread?

I find both Lionel and MTH to be fine upstanding companies trying to create a place for their companies in a very competitive market.  We as customers are offered a plethora of product that has always worked out of the box or been repaired in a reasonable amount of time.

 I just did a train show for two days and talked to a good many HO and G gauge people who mentioned their frustration with finding ways to add command or sounds or both to their engines.  Four or five mentioned leaving the other scales and going to O gauge because the ease of using the systems available in O.

And as an aside, I really like having both TMCC and DCS on my layout because I have learned to use the DCS remote in my left hand and the Legacy controller in my right.  This allows me to run four trains at one time (2 DCS and 2 TMCC) because I can toggle between two engines on each remote with the push of a button.  Try running four trains on one track with one remote.

I am thankful for the suppliers we have and the competition that keep each of them at the top of their game.

Happy railroading,

Don

No you're not.  The content is interesting and informative.

Am I the only person on this forum who takes offense to the title of this thread?

And here I'm celebrating the fact that I was able to set the clock back one hour on my new "hi-tech" car yesterday!

If I was going to spend that much I would rather spend it on that 1990 Lionel made in the USA, as opposed to buying yet another "toy made in China".

Its not a question of IF, its a question of WHEN, that a conflict arises with China and I do not want to fund their military machine.

Right now they are seizing islands from the Phillipines, Vietnam, Thailand and Japan.

These Islands are rich in natural resources.

While we in the USA do nothing, except borrow money from them and provide huge profits to them by doing the worlds manufacturing.

I say, if the cost to build something in the USA makes it cost more, then charge more.

For we are already paying $1000 on average anyway for "Toys made in China".

So where is the savings? Also, by providing jobs, even if these jobs cost more, these jobs cause the people holding them to SPEND.

Which is good for everyone.

Frankly, its not rocket science...all these politicians do nothing, when all they have to do is TAX the heck out of companys that do manufacturing in China and give TAX breaks to those who send the jobs back here to the USA, Sure the prices will go up, but so will the salaries by raising the minimum wage.

Nothing will ever be accomplished by sending ANY job to China except to make the RICH RICHER and the poor and middle class POORER.

When I returned to the hobby last year and began investigating what had developed in the 30 years I'd been away, I was surprised to see proprietary control systems. Seems like an industry specification would have appeared early on... something like MIDI for trains.

When there's a universal standard, everything becomes "open source", which translates to maximum innovation from individual people's talents.  When you see what folks are capable of doing with their layout design, construction, and electrical work, it's not difficult to imagine what some could do with a universal command specification.  We'd be able to buy/share computer files designed by random talented people that would allow our trains to do just about anything.

It was definitely a factor in my decision to stick with conventional.  I figured if I couldn't readily purchase some kind of command-upgrade chip for ~$20 a pop for my fleet of MPC and earlier locomotives that I love to run, it wasn't worth going down that path.

I suppose the proprietary approach means more money to be made for Lionel/MTH, or perhaps the hobby simply isn't large enough to demand an industry spec.

That's certainly been true recently. Maybe only since about 1930.

Very well said, and all true, IMHO. This may be a good reality reminder for those lodged far down in that niche, where sometimes daylight is scarce.

ALLAN.....excellent points.  By the way, it was great talking with you at York...and sharing some of our military history!!!  Jim

Not for some, if they don't mind the not-insignificant expense and the not-insignificant complication that brings. Many others would rather just have that new locomotive and spend their limited time trying to master just one control system. Same with those choosing just DCS and not Legacy.

As Chuck noted quite correctly:

"The main issues with this hobby is that it requires a significant investment in time, money, and space.  Three things that seem to be in increasingly short supply in our society.  When you throw in "expertise" and "patience" that's usually the death knell in terms of mass market appeal for a hobby."

That's correct; as previously mentioned, signing up to be a TMCC licensee was a limited time offer (long since closed), and Lionel licensed out selected RailSounds sound sets to their licensees, but they kept much of it to themselves.  That's why nowadays there are the occasional complaints from purchasers of K-Line, Atlas O Weaver, and 3rd party upgrade kits about the engine sounds being too "generic" on some models (Alco prime mover sounds on a Baldwin model for example) while the equivalent from Lionel tends to be more prototype-specific.

As previously noted, open-source can be a curse as well as a blessing.  It's great since it opens technology wide open for outside development, in many cases at no cost to consumers, but can also be a potential nuisance when it comes to consistency and accountability in regards to support & updates.

And yes, money does have a lot to do with it also.  If you invested hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars to develop and market a new product, it's only natural as a business that you would want to keep tight control of it to recoup your investment in it and maximize profit out of it for as long as you can.

I agree.  I'm relatively new to the hobby but have stuck to convention so far not only for the cost, but because of the complexity of researching both command systems and not wanting to commit to one.  In a hobby that is by no means in its most growing years, it does make sense for manufacturers to consider self-preservation.  They already have the enthusiasts.  Now is the time to focus on how to attract newcomers into it.  And there is no bigger turnoff than having two competing systems, each with their own sets of acronyms and features to try to understand.  And no one wants to be locked into a proprietary system.  Further, there is no better way to turn off newcomers than to have outrageous prices.

Look, most of us own trains from all of the manufacturers.  You'd be dumb not to because there are some great offerings from everyone.  Most of us aren't buying trains because of the command system.  We buy them because we like the train.  It's not enough of a lure anymore because of how far each system has come.  Now that the technology is mature, it would make sense to combine forces on the command to save their R&D budget and bring the prices down for everyone.  Normally I agree that it's best to have competition to drive innovation, but come on, this is not a huge hobby anymore and they have got to be making some changes to draw more people into it.

I also think that the manufacturers still have a way to go to make the command experience easy to understand.  For Joe Blow who's only experience is the RTR set they bought for around the tree, you need to make it super easy to say, ok, this is what you need to upgrade this engine.  Or buy this command control as a stepping stone and I'll walk you through it.  Make it easy as pie.  This is the day and age when products are made with easy instruction manuals and "they just work".  I think the manufacturers need to make it more clear to newcomers how to upgrade and walk them through it.

I think alot of folks "assume" command control is more complicated than it really is, and this has become the "urban myth" of the hobby. The legacy remote shows pictures of what each key on the touchpad does,can't get much easier than that. My 7 year old daughter can run my TMCC crane via legacy without incident. You could place a new cc engine on the track push eng 1 and begin running it without even opening the  manual. 

I am a DCS guy, and I run conventional and TMCC through the DCS system.  I spent the weekend running trains on the floor at Cal Stewart, and having a blast.

Whether it was a Lionel Trains Brute (made by MTH and equipped with PS-2), or a 1929 American Flyer Wide Gauge Box Cab, we could and did run it.

Very easy to run whatever you want with DCS connected to a TMCC Command Base and have a great deal of fun doing so.

Enjoying running trains is the name of the game-whether you use a Command Control System, a post-war ZW, or Pre-War Type K and a No. 81 rheostat, it's all good, as long as you are having fun.