Dear Phil,
Thank you for the information.
Unbelievable amount of information just to assign the locomotive number to DCC !!
I shutter to think when I am done with both F40ph’s what speed matching will be like.
Do you know if PS3 plays nice-nice with JMRI ?
thank you once again!! John
John, I think so but I have not used JMRI with MTH PS3. IIRC someone in this thread said they used JMRI with PS3 locomotives.
If you are consisting 2 MTH locomotives you don't have to speed match them it is built in. If you are consisting an MTH locomotive to some other DCC locomotive then you do have to do the speed matching. I believe it can be done but I have never done it.
You can do this in just a FEW SIMPLE steps -- without involving any CV's.
This 2:53 long video shows the process: https://youtu.be/LnYcZHXqW2k .
This shorter 0:58 long video shows the same thing, but without narration: https://youtube.com/shorts/3Q4A5ircGts?feature=share .
The written instructions are in NCE's help pages article 'Super Easy Programming On The Main (POM)': https://ncedcc.zendesk.com/hc/...ing-on-the-Main-POM- .
It's actually quite a SIMPLE process -- using this method.
For MORE info, you can search Youtube (or Google) for phrases similar to "how to change loco number using nce program on the main".
@James Ingram Thank you James for the additional information. I knew about that method but for some reason I did not think that what was in that video worked for MTH PS3 models. I know it works for most other DCC decoders.
Sorry for the late response. I agree with James,.no need to program a CV just to set the address with NCE, it's very simple. My PS3 DCC engine are exactly like every other DCC decoder, full featured and just run and program like any DCC decoder. You can do it right in the program on main menu, and just pick ADR option. Takes a few moments, just make sure only 1 engine is on the main when you do it.
Ted Ansley
@jdunn John I didn’t realize there was an easier way to program MTH locomotives. Sorry about that. You learn something new all the time on this forum.
@T Ansley You mention in your above post "BTW, I can also run Lionel Lionchief engines on the DCC track along with the DCC locos, I just use the lionchief remotes (or Lionel App) to run those independently." So just to confirm, you have run Lionchief locos using the dcc for track power without any adverse effects on the Lionchief locos?
Thanks
Bobby
Yes. DCC puts an AC power signal(ok, it's not technically AC, it's a digital square wave signal) in the track. I can adjust my system, usually I put about 16.5-17 Volts out of my booster, I have an adustable 24V power supply, so I turn it down for O scale. That's the input voltage, that actually track voltage, measured RMS voltage, is probably around 16V. Remember, the DCC command signals are low voltage digital waves combined with the power signal, sent out on the rails in conjunction with the the power wave, as if they were signal wires. Everything ignores them on the rails except for the address of the engine receiving the signal. LionChief is an over air system, uses Bluetooth I believe. They don't use the rails for train control. All you need for LionChief is a 16v+ DC or AC voltage on the track, which DCC provides. I've run 2 DCC engines and 1 LionChief many times in my smaller layout. The LionChief engines simply filter the power to DC, this what they actually use to power the trains. EDIT: This post was edited to clarify some of the things I mentioned, ie. square wave digital instead of AC, etc. DCC is AC-Like, but not AC.
Ted
@T Ansley posted:Yes. DCC puts an AC power signal in the track. I can adjust my system, usually I put about 16-17 VAC out of my booster.
Remember, the DCC command signals are low voltage digital waves sent out on the rails in conjunction with the AC power wave, as if they were signal wires.
Everything ignores them on the rails except for the address of the engine receiving the signal. LionChief is an over air system, uses Bluetooth I believe. They don't use the rails for train control. All you need for LionChief is a 16v+ DC or AC voltage on the track, which DCC provides. I've run 2 DCC engines and 1 LionChief many times in my smaller layout.
Ted
On another thread Ed Rappe said that DCC was not AC. Like you I always thought it was AC but when I researched it I found that Ed Rappe was correct. I could not find one official place where it states that DCC is AC.
Your second sentence seems to indicate that the command signals are "low voltage" and separate from the power. With DCC the power and the command signals are one and the same. This I am sure of. This is why if a locomotive is touching the rails it is impossible for it to receive power and not the command signals or bit/data or the data/commands without the power. It could hit some dirty track and get nothing so with DCC it is either all or nothing. I have found it to be much more reliable in getting the signal/instructions to the locomotive than either of the proprietary systems.
I think that it is really cool that you can run LionChief locomotives on a track powered by the DCC signal. I assume the LionChief locomotive's electronics are rectifying the DCC signal and turning it into power and then getting their command instructions via the Bluetooth or however Lionel has the remote talk to the locomotive.
The thread I am talking about can be found here:
https://ogrforum.com/...3#172048746214097773
Here are some highlights from that other thread so you don't have to read the whole thing. (From DCC Wiki)
NMRA Digital Command Control, unlike other analog and digital Command Control systems, puts a 100% digital signal onto the rails, delivering both power and data in the same signal. The digital information is encoded in the time domain by pulse width, not amplitude. It is not superimposed on a DC or AC waveform, nor does it use a high frequency carrier, unlike past and current command control systems. Since the rails are alternately energized or held to zero, there are no issues with polarity.
Since the signal is completely digital, the NMRA Digital Command Control [1] waveform is a square wave. The nature of a square wave results in more demanding requirements for wiring to avoid voltage losses and signal distortion compared to analog control methods.
and...(from NMRA.org)
"The baseline method for providing the power to operate locomotives and accessories, which shall be
supported by all Digital Command Stations and Digital Decoders, is by full-wave rectification of
the bipolar NMRA digital signal within the Digital Decoder. In order to maintain power to the
Digital Decoders, gaps in bit transmission are only allowed at specified times (see S-9.2, Section C)."
From DCC Wiki:
Digital Command Control has no concept of polarity. Binary signals do not have the concept of negative. A negative voltage would be considered an Undefined Value.
The track voltage on an oscilloscope's display indicates the presence of a plus/minus signal. It "sees" a negative voltage when the booster flips the rails, as the reference point is floating. There is no common reference point held to a zero potential. Another way to look at this is how the current is flowing: It will flow from A to B, then B to A. The scope trace will display this.
"Another way to look at this is how the current is flowing: It will flow from A to B, then B to A. The scope trace will display this."
This is the very definition of AC power. DCC is a square wave AC signal.
Darrell, for many years I thought the same thing. This is why I didn't believe Ed Rappe on that other thread when he said it wasn't AC. However, I could not find any official source that says it is AC to refute him. Would a regular 60Hz sine wave have a common reference point that is held to zero potential?
Now when it says above that negative voltage would be an undefined value doesn't make sense to me because in the early days of DCC systems there was a way you could control one conventional locomotive with a DC can motor in command mode. I believe the system did this by changing the lengths of the top of the square wave but if you wanted to go in reverse than it changed the lengths of the bottom of the square wave so it had to be getting reversed polarity voltage to go in the opposite direction. I guess it wouldn't be negative voltage just positive voltage but in the opposite polarity.
Then when it says "the rails are alternately energized" this would also indicate to me that it is AC. I don't know, I am not an electrical engineer. The whole thing is very confusing to me. Maybe I was correct all along and it is actually AC and Ed Rappe got some misinformation? It would be cool to clear this up once and for all.
They are glossing over the details. It is two signals combined into one. Basically it is a voltage square wave power signal (technically not AC as it's a phase changing square wave) combined with a digital command signal into one power signal. Engineers are specific, so yes, it's not a positive/negative changing voltage sine wave. However, it is a square power wave that combines to zero, it quasi AC-Like, but not AC. Here's a similar technology that sends signals over power. Have you heard of internet adapters you plug into a wall outlet that carry internet over your AC power in your house? Basically you plug an internet transmitter into your outlet, with an internet cable attached, then on the other end the internet comes out on a 2nd receiver. Basically, a low power digital signal running on the houshold AC power. This is how DCC works. This is exactly how DCC boosters work. They take a lower power digital signal and combine it with a higher power signal. The low power phase shifting signal has zero impact on the actual power that runs the motor. Did you know that some early DCC systems could run one Analog DC engine? It was a similar setup, but different in that the system would through a DC power signal on the line(rails) just for thatt one DC engine. Those low power digital signals will have zero effect on a lion chief engine. All the Lionchief engine needs is power from the rails. Plus, Lionchief conveniently works on DC or AC. LionChief sends its commands over air, via Bluetooth (early LionChief may not use Bluetooth?), it only gets power for the motor from the rails.
Ted
One other thing, the signal on the rails doesn't change at all for forward or reverse! The DCC decoder handles all that. It reads the commands from the command station then the processor in the decoder does the work, it reads the command and will reverse polarity when it is instructed to reverse. A DCC decoder is nothing more than a digital communication device and digital computer. It reads commands, in a specified communication protocol from the rails, then performs an action (basically a small microcontroller then does the action). It also has the circuity to perform the actions, like voltage regulator for output voltage or logic to turn off/on lines like to lights, etc. One more note. Let me clarify some things. Essentially DCC is not AC, because it does not have a negative combined voltage between rails. It is a square wave (not sinusoidal) from 0 to the top voltage ( can vary by scale from 12v-24v). Essentially embedded in that power wave is digital bits sent as phase changes, similar to Modems and other digital communication. However, that power is there and can be measured. If you use an AC meter it will be off by about 10-12% due to square wave vs sine wave. You really need an RMS volt meter. However, the reason it's not important is LionChief engines use a bridge rectifier anyway to convert AC to DC voltage, so any sine wave or square wave will be smoothed out to DC by the loco, as it really runs on DC. Yes, it can be confusing by I'm 99% certain that DCC power is perfectly fine for LionChief and engines.
Thanks guys, I had a feeling the question would bring up the "is dcc ac or dc" subject. I'm not an elec eng either. But since the LC engines (at least the later versions) will run on ac or dc, it seems logical that they could use dcc for power as long as the capacitors after the bridge are large enough to absorb any dc spikes remaining. Thinking about it, I suppose I could have recreated and tested the LC track power circuit on dcc (with a load) to see if there is/was any ripple/noise getting through. It might still be a fun experiment. Anybody know what value caps the laterst LC locos use?
Bobby
NMRA Standard S-9.1 Most definitely describes it as a AC signal.
And I Quote "Digital Decoders shall be designed to correctly decode signals with transitions whose slope is 2.0 volts per microsecond or faster across the voltage range from -4 volts to +4 volts."
This clearly shows Alternating Current, i.e AC
And yes, the rectifier would convert to signal to flat DC anyway so there should be no issues running the lionchief loco's.
@T Ansley posted:This is how DCC works. This is exactly how DCC boosters work. They take a lower power digital signal and combine it with a higher power signal. The low power signal has zero impact on the actual power that runs the motor.
I am not saying you're wrong but I have never heard it explained that way. Using the word "power" doesn't make sense to me but maybe that is just me.
Did you know that some early DCC systems could run one Analog DC engine? It was a similar setup, but much different, it would throw extra DC on the track for that one engine.
That is exactly what I was trying to explain earlier. The DCC system (I think todays systems no longer do this but I am not 100% sure) would lengthen either the top of the wave for forward or the bottom of the wave for reverse. The problem was that the wave would sometimes overheat can motors or make them whine loudly and I think this is why they stopped trying to control a conventional locomotive (no decoder) this way.
Those low power digital signals will have zero effect on a lion chief engine. All the lion chief engine needs is power from the rails. Plus, lion chief conveniently works on DC or AC. LionChief sends it commands over air, via Bluetooth (early LionChief may not use Bluetooth?, it only gets power for the motor from the rails.
Ted
Agreed on the LionChief. One time I put a MTH PS 2.0 locomotive on a track powered by DCC and I heard a loud whine coming out of the speaker. I immediately turned off the power. No damage occurred to the engine. I decided I didn't want to chance ruining the electronics. I wonder what Lionel does differently than MTH so that you don't hear that same noise in the LionChief locomotives? Most likely a much better rectifier? I guess what is important is that they will work with the DCC wave.
@T Ansley posted:One other thing, the signal on the rails doesn't change at all for forward or reverse! The DCC decoder handles all that. It reads the commands from the command station then the processor in the decoder does the work, it reads the command and will reverse polarity when it is instructed to reverse. A DCC decoder is nothing more than a digital communication device and digital computer. It reads commands, in a specified communication protocol from the rails, then performs an action (basically a small microcontroller then does the action). It also has the circuity to perform the actions, like voltage regulator for output voltage or logic to turn off/on lines like to lights, etc. One more note. Let me clarify some things. Essentially DCC is not AC, because it does not have a negative combined voltage between rails. It is a square wave (not sinusoidal) from 0 to the top voltage ( can vary by scale from 12v-24v). Essentially embedded in that power wave is digital bits sent as phase changes, similar to Modems and other digital communication. However, that power is there and can be measured. If you use an AC meter it will be off by about 10-12% due to square wave vs sine wave. You really need an RMS volt meter. However, the reason it's not important is LionChief engines use a bridge rectifier anyway to convert AC to DC voltage, so any sine wave or square wave will be smoothed out to DC by the loco, as it really runs on DC. Yes, it can be confusing by I'm 99% certain that DCC power is perfectly fine for LionChief and engines.
Ted
@T Ansley Now you are saying here what Ed Rappe said on that other thread that DCC is not AC but @Darrell is saying that it is AC. Which is the answer? Below is a picture of the DCC Wave form. Assuming the dotted line is O volts how can it not be AC? Here is the definition of AC:
Alternating current, abbreviation AC, flow of electric charge that periodically reverses. It starts, say, from zero, grows to a maximum, decreases to zero, reverses, reaches a maximum in the opposite direction, returns again to the original value, and repeats this cycle indefinitely.
That graph is NOT the actual voltage, that is the digital signal. Read this, it clearly says there is no negative voltage. The digital signal rides above 0 volts. This is a good explanation.
Here's an excerpt:
"This is not an AC[15] signal, as the rail will have positive voltage or none at any point in time. What is happening is the current is changing direction as it moves from one rail to another. Measuring this with an oscilloscope will display a peak-to-peak signal, which many will claim supports their assertion that the signal is an AC waveform. Since this measurement is made with the track outputs floating, the trace indicates which connection was more positive than the other at a point in time.[16]
Mathematically, the signal would be expressed as X +jY + X − jY, where X is time and Y is the amplitude or voltage.
This method of transmitting data and power in the same signal results in a very robust signalling technique with a high signal to noise ratio while reducing the space charge around the rails and the electrostatic attraction of contaminants. A multifunction decoder can receive data regardless of the orientation of the locomotive, as either rail has data available."
Ted
I don't trust wiki where anybody can edit. Read the NMRA Standard. It is an AC signal per the NMRA.
I have been in the industry for 40 years, everything from simple radios to high power missile guidance systems, I do know the difference between DC and AC.
Two things. The entire NMRA standard NEVER mentions AC in any of the specs, I have read through them. It does talk about RS422 communication, and the signal. If, as you say, you've been in the industry then you should understand that a square wave digital signal is NOT AC. Yes, it looks somewhat like AC, but it is not, it is explained in the link I provided. Second, the Wiki I linked is referencing the NMRA standard, and much of it is taken directly from the NMRA standard as well. Again, a square wave digital signal is not AC. Here's the definition of AC Power: "Alternating current (AC) is an electric current which periodically reverses direction and changes its magnitude continuously with time " The DCC signal does not meet that definition, it is technically not AC. I too worked for the Gov't as a Computer Scientist, and Engineering Project Lead, with a degree in Computer Engineering Technology for over 31 years. I did say in my first post that DCC had an AC component, I was just trying to convey that it was "AC-like", because most people really don't understand digital communication very well. However, it is NOT AC.
Again, my point in bringing this up was because someone asked about running LionChief engines on the track running DCC. Regardless of what type of power is supplied with DCC, it works fine with LionChief engines.
@T Ansley posted:That graph is NOT the actual voltage, that is the digital signal. Read this, it clearly says there is no negative voltage. The digital signal rides above 0 volts. This is a good explanation.
Here's an excerpt:
"This is not an AC[15] signal, as the rail will have positive voltage or none at any point in time. What is happening is the current is changing direction as it moves from one rail to another. Measuring this with an oscilloscope will display a peak-to-peak signal, which many will claim supports their assertion that the signal is an AC waveform. Since this measurement is made with the track outputs floating, the trace indicates which connection was more positive than the other at a point in time.[16]
Mathematically, the signal would be expressed as X +jY + X − jY, where X is time and Y is the amplitude or voltage.
This method of transmitting data and power in the same signal results in a very robust signalling technique with a high signal to noise ratio while reducing the space charge around the rails and the electrostatic attraction of contaminants. A multifunction decoder can receive data regardless of the orientation of the locomotive, as either rail has data available."
Ted
Ted, thank you for trying to explain this. I clicked on your link and read it several times but I am still having trouble fully understanding it. I also read some other information on digital signals but they weren't a whole lot of help. I am not scientist nor an engineer but I would really like to understand how this works.
Okay, I get that the voltage never goes below 0 volts. Does the booster send the signal down one rail and use the other rail for a return or does the booster alternate sending the signal between rail A and rail B? If it does alternate the signal between rail A and rail B at what point in time does it switch rails? Can this be seen on the graph?
"The track voltage has phase, one rail is always the inverse of the other." What exactly does this statement mean?
Anther thing I found confusing was these two statements at the bottom of the page from your link:
"The 0V reference point is the chassis of the booster."
"The output of the booster is floating, as there is no fixed reference point such as a chassis ground for zero volts."
They seem to contradict one another.
During my research I found this Marklin forum where guys were talking about the same thing we are talking abut here.
https://www.marklin-users.net/...log-on-DCC-Mea-Cupla
Doesn't add much to the conversation but I thought it was interesting to know that we weren't the only ones discussing this.
I hate when you try to help but somebody else just has to be right, no matter what.
Over, under, and out.
Sorry @HudsonJ1e, it really is not this complicated but I will not continue to try and explain this here. Hopefully you will understand some day although it's not vital to just to run trains.
@Darrell posted:I hate when you try to help but somebody else just has to be right, no matter what.
Over, under, and out.
Sorry @HudsonJ1e, it really is not this complicated but I will not continue to try and explain this here. Hopefully you will understand some day although it's not vital to just to run trains.
True it isn't vital to running trains but I am just curious to learn how this works. Those guys on the Marklin forum came to the conclusion that it is not AC. I am just trying to get there as well.
Read this from another thread, he is much better at explaining it than me.
@Darrell posted:I hate when you try to help but somebody else just has to be right, no matter what.
Over, under, and out.
Sorry @HudsonJ1e, it really is not this complicated but I will not continue to try and explain this here. Hopefully you will understand some day although it's not vital to just to run trains.
I'm the one who specifically in my original posts did not go into detail because I was answering the question, yes, about running trains. I was purposely glossing over most of the details. I'm not the one arguing here, but I will supply detailed and correct information if needed. I did not bring up my credentials until you seemed to find it necessary. We need to keep things civil, I have zero problems being polite and posting references, but again, I was just answering questions to run trains, not the details of DCC until pressed. I was trying to keep it simple, hence my analogy to running internet signals over power in the house.
Regards,
Ted
@Hudson J1e posted:Ted, thank you for trying to explain this. I clicked on your link and read it several times but I am still having trouble fully understanding it. I also read some other information on digital signals but they weren't a whole lot of help. I am not scientist nor an engineer but I would really like to understand how this works.
Okay, I get that the voltage never goes below 0 volts. Does the booster send the signal down one rail and use the other rail for a return or does the booster alternate sending the signal between rail A and rail B? If it does alternate the signal between rail A and rail B at what point in time does it switch rails? Can this be seen on the graph?
"The track voltage has phase, one rail is always the inverse of the other." What exactly does this statement mean?
Anther thing I found confusing was these two statements at the bottom of the page from your link:
"The 0V reference point is the chassis of the booster."
"The output of the booster is floating, as there is no fixed reference point such as a chassis ground for zero volts."
They seem to contradict one another.
During my research I found this Marklin forum where guys were talking about the same thing we are talking abut here.
https://www.marklin-users.net/...log-on-DCC-Mea-Cupla
Doesn't add much to the conversation but I thought it was interesting to know that we weren't the only ones discussing this.
I would recommend the DCC Wiki for further reading, and the NMRA DCC standards (however, they are complicated and hard to understand). You can also learn quite a bit by reading the manuals of various manufacturers. Also, I don't believe Marklin is fully NMRA compliant, they may be, but I know in the past their systems were had some proprietary changes that weren't, now they might be. Some of the other European manufacturers also have multiple modes, some that are fully DCC NRMA compliant and some that aren't. I would also look at JMRI.org, they make great FREE software to run trains using computers. I personally have JMRI running on a Windows Laptop with a connection via USB to my NCE system, and I also have JMRI running a a small Raspberry PI 4 computer using a home built DCC++EX DCC system. DCC++EX is a another wonderful way to control trains using DCC, and very inexpensive. With both of those systems you can use free phone or tablet software to control your trains with DCC. Maybe that was a bit of information overload, sorry about that. :-)
The main reason I like DCC is it is the defacto Standard, every DCC decoder I have from about 8 or so manufacturers has worked with my 3-4 different DCC systems I've used over the last 15 years, including some non Standard not fully compliant decoders like LGB MTS systems. I don't like that Lionel, MTH, and other manufacturers keep trying to re-invent and re-do digital train control with their own system, and lock you in. I do like that MTH was forward-thinking enough to allow full DCC compatibility! I like the fact that with DCC I can use the same system right now on any N, HO, O 3-rail, and G scale locos I use that have decoders! I also have some 2 Rail O engines, track, and have setup a layout a while ago. I just purchased some more 2 Rail O scale engines and cars, and I like that I can take the same $160 fully featured DCC Soundtrax Tsunami2 decoders I just installed in 3 of my G scale engines into those O scale engines, and could also put them in 3 rail if I so choose. It all just works! One time I had a multi-scale Christmas layout with N, HO, O, and G scale loops of track, I used the same DCC system for all 3 loops of N, HO, and G scale. I just used different addresses on the LOCOs, turned the voltage down to about 14VDC (didn't need high voltage for my G locos if I'm not running them fast), and ran all 3 on the same controller and booster! That is exactly why DCC is so good, it can run anything in any scale if it follows the standard. IMHO ALL Command systems should be DCC compatible.
Ted
"IMHO ALL Command systems should be DCC compatible."
There's something we do agree on!
Wish I would have found out how compatible DCC was years ago! Lucky for me my Loco roster is only 30 units and 6 are converted to Tsunami 2 4400's so far. It was cheaper to go with the Soundtrax decoders than to install the ERR TMCC, which is far, far, lower in sound and control quality and more complicated to install.
@Darrell posted:"IMHO ALL Command systems should be DCC compatible."
There's something we do agree on!
Wish I would have found out how compatible DCC was years ago! Lucky for me my Loco roster is only 30 units and 6 are converted to Tsunami 2 4400's so far. It was cheaper to go with the Soundtrax decoders than to install the ERR TMCC, which is far, far, lower in sound and control quality and more complicated to install.
Bottom line, is most people in this thread/topic like DCC, or are curious, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it. Also, my Tsunami 2s are 4400s in my 3 latest G Scale engines, and that's what I plan on putting in my new O purchases as well. Great decoders!
Ted
"IMHO ALL Command systems should be DCC compatible."
Ted, I also wholehearted agree!!
I got into O gauge in the late '90s. I built a layout and I used toggle switches for train control. Really, really hated it. I talked to a guy at a LHS. He said you need TMCC which was new at the time. At this time there was no OGR forum or anywhere other than the LHS to get help. I didn't know anyone else into these trains back then. Oh the troubles I had with that system. The constant flickering lights on the locomotive and the crazy crazy intermittent signal problems. I literally was pulling my hair out of head. Then MTH comes out DCS. I talk to Mike Wolf at a LHS and he tells that his system (and I quote him almost word from word) "was derived from [some sort of] military system. It will be VERY ROBUST." That second sentence is word for word. Eventually I got DCS and the same thing. Constant "CHECK TRACK" or "ENGINE NOT ON TRACK" messages and what made it worse was is it seemed I always got these message when a crash was imminent!! A couple of years later I discovered DCC. In my entire time using DCC only once did a locomotive get track voltage and not get the DCC signal. I think the electronics in that engine got temporarily scrambled and it took off like a bat out of ****. A quick reboot of the engine and all was well. But this is ONE TIME in about 20 years! And this what I love the most about DCC. The engine can't get the signal without getting the power and vice versa. It works! I have often said the most important thing to me in a Command Control system is when I give it a command the engine responds and obeys to that command. Now I have had an engine hit a dead spot on the track where it didn't respond but it didn't get any power either so at least no accidents occurred.
I have always said this: All systems have their pros and cons. I do agree the 3 rail proprietary systems do have their pros and they are easier to use, etc. I have wondered recently. Why have the 3 rail systems discontinued their remotes? None of the DCC system manufacturers have done this. I assume if Lionel and MTH can't get the chips for their remotes how do the DCC system manufacturers able to get chips for theirs?
I remember getting into arguments back in the early 2000s because I said Lionel should have started with DCC from the get go. But the answer from the some people was that the technology for controlling a Pullmoor motor with a DCC decoder wasn't available yet. I have never been able to find out if this was true or not. It's what folks said. Maybe they were right? There was a guy York in 2001 selling DCC decoders for 3 rail. His company was called 3RDCC but it didn't catch on because Lionel was building locomotives with TMCC and sound factory installed. He didn't have sound. He had a demo layout showing an engine running under DCC but I don't remember if it had a Pullmoor motor or a can motor. I think it was a can motor.
Anyway, I would have responded sooner but I went away for the weekend with the family. I never meant for there to be any arguing on this thread. I was just trying to learn.
I have read the thread that Darrell references and I agree with Darrell that it is some form of AC. I am not a scientist nor an engineer but I did study electronics in HS. When I first got into DCC I bought a book for beginners. The book is called Digital Command Control by Stan Ames, Rutger Friberg, and Ed Loizeaux. The way Chuck K explains DCC (in the thread referenced by Darrell) is the same way I always understood it from reading that book until the thread where Ed Rappe told me it wasn't AC. I agree with Chuck K's reason for believing it is AC and his two main reasons are that #1) all decoders have rectifiers and why have a rectifier if it isn't AC? and #2) and this is the big thing for me, back in the day when these systems could control one conventional locomotive (just two wires to a motor) by manipulating the DCC signal the system could control speed and direction of that one locomotive. It made the locomotive move by stretching the "0" bit. If it wasn't alternating from rail to rail then the system would never be able to change the direction of the one conventional locomotive. And also in the book I mentioned they do show a drawing very similar to the one I posted and next to the line that I said was Zero volts is "0v". So in my opinion I was right all along in thinking it is a form of AC and it really stinks that because of that other thread I went down this rabbit hole. I do appreciate your efforts in trying to explain it. One last thing I feel the DCC Wiki page is very confusing for a beginner but the book I have explains it so someone like me can understand. I understand you feel it is not AC and that's fine. We just agree to disagree.
" But the answer from the some people was that the technology for controlling a Pullmoor motor with a DCC decoder wasn't available yet. I have never been able to find out if this was true or not. It's what folks said. Maybe they were right?"
Yes, they were right. Why would Neil Young and Dick Kughn spend the time and money developing TMCC if DCC would have been cheaper and easier? In the early to mid-1990s you simply could not purchase decoders that had the amperage capacity for AC open frame motors. There was no need to have them for the can motors used in most 2 rail applications, so no one made them. In addition, the power boosters needed for DCC were both expensive and limited as well. Not designed for the higher amperage needs of O gauge three rail, and for larger layouts, the expense would be substantial. Whereas TMCC was designed so that the power and command signal were independent, so existing layouts could be easily and relatively inexpensively adapted to the new system, compared with DCC.
TMCC was actually a cost effective solution to operating three rail AC locomotives and providing decent quality sound (also not available for DCC 25-30 years ago). Hindsight is always 100% accurate 
. But the reality is that nothing commercially available in the mid-1990s in DCC would provide the ability to easily retrofit 75 years of AC open frame motor locos with command control and digital sound. That's why Young and Kughn developed a new system.
You also have to realize that Lionel has been and still is a toy train company, not primarily focused on the needs and desires of 2 rail O gauge scale modelers. The priority was on making sure they didn't make it impossible for collectors and operators to operate their previous purchases. TMCC was (1) available for upgrades through third parties such as Ed Bender's TrainBrain and Train America Studios devices, (2) required no modifications to existing layouts to operate the new TMCC stuff. In contrast, when MTH introduced PS2 and DCS, they initially failed to provide an upgrade path for PS1 locos, which caused much complaining, leading to a change in policy .
Okay, Landsteiner.
"Whereas TMCC was designed so that the power and command signal were independent, so existing layouts could be easily and relatively inexpensively adapted to the new system, compared with DCC."
Just curious but what does keeping the power and the signal separate have to do with adapting the system to a layout?
"decent quality sound (also not available for DCC 25-30 years ago)"
Not true. 18 years ago I had Soundtraxx sound only decoders and back then they were old tech. Originally they were released in 1998. The sound wasn't great but I would say it was decent.
https://soundtraxx.com/history/
I am not going to argue about this but I never liked TMCC and DCS due to the many, many signal problems I experienced. If you love TMCC and it works for you then I am happy for you. It didn't work for me. I just wish that Niel and Dick would have come up with a better system.
Heck, I remember an article in OGR where a guy was having so many signal problems he actually mounted antennas on top of all his locomotives. It looked ugly but he got the system to work for him. Maybe that isn't the norm but to me it speaks volumes.
"Just curious but what does keeping the power and the signal separate have to do with adapting the system to a layout?"
With DCC you need to have the power and signal adequate in all areas of the layout. In 1994 or so, when TMCC was under development, this meant multiple power boosters per layout in many cases. With TMCC, the power was already there on your layout, and you just needed to supply the TMCC signal (command base). Very simple and adaptable compared with DCC at the time.
""decent quality sound (also not available for DCC 25-30 years ago)"
Not true. 18 years ago I had Soundtraxx sound only decoders and back then they were old tech. Originally they were released in 1998. The sound wasn't great but I would say it was decent."
Not to be too glib, but 1998 isn't 1994. There was no high quality DCC sound in the early to mid-1990s when TMCC and Railsounds were developed. Those who were familiar with the available sounds felt that Railsounds was much better sound than that available for DCC. Neil Young, who is renowned for being particular about sound quality, felt he could develop a better sound system than that which could be developed for DCC. Feel free to argue with him if you like 
.
DCC is neither simple nor problem free all the time, if that's what you are stating. TMCC is very simple and usually problem free for most people. The relative lack of magazine articles about TMCC problems over the decades and the multitudes of DCC articles speaks to the complexity and reliability/ease of use of the two systems. Your mileage may no doubt vary, but hundreds of thousands of Lionel customers were and are perfectly happy with TMCC and Legacy (and LionChief).
Perhaps if you are a 2-railer you are living in a different universe and market space? Lionel is not addressing your needs, to be sure. They have largely kept their customers in mind, which included, back in 1995, 70+ years of three rail O gaugers with large collections of locos with open frame AC motors. That was their target market. There were no suitable DCC decoders then for that application. The power boosters available were expensive and not well suited, which explains why not even gifted individuals were adopting DCC for three rail O gauge. That happened after TMCC was developed.
@Landsteiner posted:Not to be too glib, but 1998 isn't 1994. There was no high quality DCC sound in the early to mid-1990s when TMCC and Railsounds were developed.
DCC is neither simple nor problem free all the time
You didn't say "High quality sound" You said "decent quality sound ". I agree with you at the time RS was better.
Never said that. What I said was: "I have often said the most important thing to ME in a Command Control system is when I give it a command the engine responds and obeys to that command. That's what I get with DCC. As I said I have one time in 20 years that a locomotive got power without the signal compared to literally hundreds of times this has happened TO ME with the 3 rail proprietary systems and I didn't have these systems that long! Imagine if I was still running them today how many times the signal would not have gotten to the locomotive? I also said many times that all 3 systems have their pros and cons. One of the pros of your system is that it is easier to use than DCC. I have never said otherwise but I will take the DCC learning curve for getting that command to the locomotive RELIABLY ANY DAY over the ease use of use of TMCC.
"Your mileage may no doubt vary, but hundreds of thousands of Lionel customers were and are perfectly happy with TMCC and Legacy (and LionChief)."
My mileage did vary. While I highly doubt it is that many people as from articles in OGR most guys run conventional and I don't count Lionchief because that system works differently than the original TMCC and I have used it and it is more reliable than the original TMCC.
But let me say yes, you win your control system is better than mine!! 
Enjoy it as I will undoubtedly enjoy mine.
Not interested in winning, just having an accurate history of TMCC's development and the state of the market at that time. I think it is correct that each person needs to assess the tradeoffs, strengths and weaknesses of the available systems, which differ strikingly in some cases. DCC has many strong points and I own a system for use with my N gauge trains.
@Hudson J1e posted:I will take the DCC learning curve for getting that command to the locomotive RELIABLY ANY DAY over the ease use of use of TMCC."Your mileage may no doubt vary, but hundreds of thousands of Lionel customers were and are perfectly happy with TMCC and Legacy (and LionChief)."
Oddly, I find TMCC/Legacy to be very reliable, and I've run it on many layouts. While DCS has some neat features, it is certainly a bit more challenging to get first-time, every-time results from the remote, I'll agree there. LionChief and BlueTooth have been way less reliable for me, so I guess my mileage most certainly does vary.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
