Because Ken wants to retire, can you blame him they guy is 80 and has been helping us for quite omse time. I appreciate all hsi support and am sorryu to see him go. Its not relaistic for linonel to move the whole biz to NC and continue selling the boards. I get it, they can still make em but they have nobody left to sell them or support them and the peeps in NC have better stuff to do.
necrails posted:Kind of hard to discuss the future of a TMCC upgrade when nothing was offered with regards to any kind of future other than ongoing discussions. I suppose I will be guardedly pessimistic.
Well, Remember we had guys like Digital Dynamics. Who wanted to continued to make boards. But, was crowded out by the whole electric railroad deal. Ed Bender was a great guy. There are probably others that are willing to get involved. Who knows -So, we will see. At least we have gotten a response from the horses mouth. Now, All we need is to hope the negotiations go well.
I will wait and see what comes of this. Thank you Lionel for listening to us.
The third party sounds good, but also don't hold your breath for it to still be called Electric Railroad as they may not want the cost of buying that name. I'm sure if it comes thru Lionel will tell us that xyz is now producing tmcc boards that will be available for us to continue upgrades to our other trains.
This is a hopeful sign, but I'll believe it when I see it. Not that I'm accusing anyone of subterfuge. I'm not.
If it happens, and the website of such a company shows up, I will be among the first to place an order.
I need some kits, and my last order (last year) was for just under $600 - for my own equipment. I know that many order thousands of dollars worth, but even $600 shows that we're not an "occasional kit" bunch. I've been a customer for years.
What I do not understand, though, is why TMCC was termed "dated technology" in Lionel's statement. How could something reliable, accessible, fairly low-cost and what the customers want, be "dated"? Desirable functionality can never be "dated" - it works. Age is irrelevant. That Lionel is bringing out new this and that is beside this particular point.
Lionel has a real niche market here, that is healthy and obviously brimming with customer loyalty ("customer loyalty"; now, there's a collectable for you). I hope that a third party can be found or created to tap this. My older locos - never mind those non-TMCC locos that I want to upgrade - that didn't worry me before now begin to look like un-fixable doorstops, now or eventually. Who fixes a 20-year-old (or so) TMCC USRA 2-6-6-2 with a sudden case of constant Odyssey Lurch? I haven't de-bugged it yet, but I said last month "Oh, well - at worst I'll have to put ERR in it". Yeah. Right.
I, too, remain cautiously pessimistic. Would love to be so very wrong.
(P.S. - if these products do return, please don't "improve" them.)
Landsteiner posted:To me this is the really intriguing and promising stuff:
"Lionel’s team of talented engineers have been hard at work on an enhanced platform hardware and code that leverages all of the positive things about each of our current platforms and will allow all of our technology (TMCC, Legacy, LionChief and Bluetooth) to remain viable well into the next decade. "
If Lionel is able to pull this off, it might be the biggest news since TMCC.
If there's compatibility across Lionel's platforms, well .................................... A new standard is born.
We'll see. 
rthomps posted:Landsteiner posted:To me this is the really intriguing and promising stuff:
"Lionel’s team of talented engineers have been hard at work on an enhanced platform hardware and code that leverages all of the positive things about each of our current platforms and will allow all of our technology (TMCC, Legacy, LionChief and Bluetooth) to remain viable well into the next decade. "
If Lionel is able to pull this off, it might be the biggest news since TMCC.
If there's compatibility across Lionel's platforms, well .................................... A new standard is born.
We'll see.
Assuming it actually works reliably, is easy to implement, and doesn't further raise costs to even more prohibitive levels.
D500 posted:This is a hopeful sign, but I'll believe it when I see it. Not that I'm accusing anyone of subterfuge. I'm not.
If it happens, and the website of such a company shows up, I will be among the first to place an order.
I need some kits, and my last order (last year) was for just under $600 - for my own equipment. I know that many order thousands of dollars worth, but even $600 shows that we're not an "occasional kit" bunch. I've been a customer for years.
What I do not understand, though, is why TMCC was termed "dated technology" in Lionel's statement. How could something reliable, accessible, fairly low-cost and what the customers want, be "dated"? Desirable functionality can never be "dated" - it works. Age is irrelevant. That Lionel is bringing out new this and that is beside this particular point.
Lionel has a real niche market here, that is healthy and obviously brimming with customer loyalty ("customer loyalty"; now, there's a collectable for you). I hope that a third party can be found or created to tap this. My older locos - never mind those non-TMCC locos that I want to upgrade - that didn't worry me before now begin to look like un-fixable doorstops, now or eventually. Who fixes a 20-year-old (or so) TMCC USRA 2-6-6-2 with a sudden case of constant Odyssey Lurch? I haven't de-bugged it yet, but I said last month "Oh, well - at worst I'll have to put ERR in it". Yeah. Right.
I, too, remain cautiously pessimistic. Would love to be so very wrong.
(P.S. - if these products do return, please don't "improve" them.)
I think the next board maker is going to get swamped for orders!
An earlier post ...
"I'm going to spread the blame around a bit; maybe someone above has already, but: back in the early 3RO Command days, we had a company offering open, licensed access (not worrying with all the legal nuances, here) to a rather friendly system - TMCC. The other Big Player in the room as determined to continue on his own DCC-like path: DCS. Had this player decided to license TMCC (as a few others did), perhaps - just perhaps - TMCC and its descendants woulda/coulda become the true, non-proprietary Standard of 3RO command control, and filled the DCC role (but more simply, rationally and dependably). Not actually blaming you Mr. W., and the above does have some holes, but, geez, thanks a lot. I still don't use DCS - but those ERR-converted PS1/PS2(one) locos are sure nice. Great models."
This is an important post - though it has a "water under the bridge" character.
Certainly many in the hobby back in the days when "the word" was that DCS was in development wondered "why-for".
I could not agree more that the "player" who went with DCS essentially blocked standardization for the hobby. A toy-train, three-rail open system (which we might have had) like DCC would have benefited all of us. Instead, we have a simple system (TMCC - Legacy) that is quite robust in competition with DCS that is a more complicated system with a 200-page companion to understand how to make it work properly.
Who knows how things would have progressed? Who knows how and where ERR and Jon would have taken the system that would have benefited the three-rail O Gauge hobby immensely.
Simply an opinion. My opinion. 
gunrunnerjohn posted:acoastline posted:What components would become obselete.From what I see on the boards you have the following . Scr/triads Capacitors resistors,Intergrated circuits, Are they going to stop making these type of components. I forgot wire and connectors
As a guy that designs boards, and has for some time, I can tell you that when a "specific" IC or similar part goes obsolete, sometimes it takes significant rework to use a replacement. At the very least, even with my little enhancement products, I've had a couple of parts that were no longer made and I had to make a board change to use a replacement.
When I worked in aerospace, parts obsolescence was a constant headache, some of those systems were designed for a 20 year lifespan, and toward the end of a production cycle, there was frequently a re-spin of the board(s) necessary to update for obsolete parts.
That being said, I didn't see any major parts on the Cruise Commander that were obsolete, but something like the opto-couplers might be, that would require a board change for the new footprint in some cases.
You are spot on. Some markets have seen major changes in sales due to IC obsolesence. One good example is the sector of firms that specialize in refurbishing /repairing vintage analog musical synthesizers. The Moogs and Arps that were made in the 70s and early 80s -- and which are valued collectibles now -- used many specialized waveform and octave generator ICs, , which went out of production when the synth manufacturers moved into digital in the late 80s. Consequently, the vintage analog repair specialists have been struggling, since the NOS chips they need are either completely unavailable or insanely expensive.
The letter from Lionel hardly sounds like a resurrection to me, more like just a temporary stay of execution. It states that Lionel will not spend any development resources on developing new TMCC products or in making design changes that may be required by the discontinuation of electronic components. This also doesn’t sound good for support of any current items as well. It seems pretty obvious that we are indeed now in the era of disposable model trains, however expensive they may be. We have no choice but to sit and wait and watch to see where this goes. In the meantime, I have cancelled any plans I may have had to buy any more digitally controlled locos, whether from Lionel or any other manufacturer. I don’t really use the ones I already have enough to justify the space they take up on the shelf, much less justify the amount of money already spent in acquiring them. I have them, I should use them, without needing to acquire any more “shelf queens”.
Bill in FtL
MartyE posted:Lets try not to over think this. It is IMO a positive sign that they heard us and are at minimal looking into keeping ERR alive in some form of 3rd party deal.
I am with Derek in thanking Howard, Dave, Jon, and other at Lionel that have listened and formulated a plan. It's a small step but it is better than we were 24 hours ago.
I want to thank everyone here who took the time to write Lionel in a civil way that garnered their attention. It obviously did some good. Let's take a breather and see where we go from here.
MartyE and Derek, Many thanks for your efforts here. Basically, our hobby is a cottage industry made up of a lot of small businesses and one or two person shops, so this announcement by Lionel looks like a good faith statement that among the things that they can control, they will make an effort to keep a path open for TMCC.
Thank you again,
gunrunnerjohn posted:A board that encompasses all the technologies, while possible, certainly won't be less expensive I would imagine.
John, while I would not think less that say Bluetooth alone, very likely that using new devices and driving volume of a single board, lower than the TMCC or legacy boards.
rthomps posted:An earlier post ...
"I'm going to spread the blame around a bit; maybe someone above has already, but: back in the early 3RO Command days, we had a company offering open, licensed access (not worrying with all the legal nuances, here) to a rather friendly system - TMCC. The other Big Player in the room as determined to continue on his own DCC-like path: DCS. Had this player decided to license TMCC (as a few others did), perhaps - just perhaps - TMCC and its descendants woulda/coulda become the true, non-proprietary Standard of 3RO command control, and filled the DCC role (but more simply, rationally and dependably). Not actually blaming you Mr. W., and the above does have some holes, but, geez, thanks a lot. I still don't use DCS - but those ERR-converted PS1/PS2(one) locos are sure nice. Great models."
This is an important post - though it has a "water under the bridge" character.
Certainly many in the hobby back in the days when "the word" was that DCS was in development wondered "why-for".
I could not agree more that the "player" who went with DCS essentially blocked standardization for the hobby. A toy-train, three-rail open system (which we might have had) like DCC would have benefited all of us. Instead, we have a simple system (TMCC - Legacy) that is quite robust in competition with DCS that is a more complicated system with a 200-page companion to understand how to make it work properly.
Who knows how things would have progressed? Who knows how and where ERR and Jon would have taken the system that would have benefited the three-rail O Gauge hobby immensely.
Simply an opinion. My opinion.
So far, this is among the best posts here this evening....
Technology moves in strange ways. Lionel's first move with TMCC was via Lou Kovich and his technology, You can still find some of the original stuff ASC and BPC without the Lionel stamp. Second name, some early TMCC upgrade boards, Ed Bender, Digital Dynamics, again an independent contractor, I have a couple of his upgrade boards. Big move was Train America Studio's, Mike Reagan. I have lots of this stuff in an assortment of Weaver and Atlas models. and most recently Jon Zahornacky , with ERR. Each of these inventors/contractors/developers have contributed. Corporations tend to be, less than friendly to those who contributed big time to their success IMO. These contractors, I mentioned, are independents, only staying for a short time, and moving on, It's a way of life, part of the American system IMO. Those who sit on the boards, of a lot of major corporation, making decision, need to review history a bit, as has been noted, it's not all raw profit, and accounting forms at the end of the month.
Next move radio control and no electric power from the tracks, Battery technology will creep into the hobby. IMO.
Best wishes, Mike CT.
In the ideal, Lionel could license TMCC over to a 3rd party to produce ERR or ERR-like boards (not to mention all the various kinds of them and the switch upgrade) to the secondary market. I hope that happens.
necrails posted:Kind of hard to discuss the future of a TMCC upgrade when nothing was offered with regards to any kind of future other than ongoing discussions. I suppose I will be guardedly pessimistic.
Lionel is a business. Telling you all the details while it is still on the drawing board, and awaiting a patent, does nothing but spoon feed the competition.
Dave Funk posted:
I am glad Lionel heard our voices.
More like they had a plan all along, they just didn't share it with the public. Imagine! Lionel is a business, and has competition. Lionel goes to great lengths to make things backwards compatible.
Landsteiner posted:To me this is the really intriguing and promising stuff:
"Lionel’s team of talented engineers have been hard at work on an enhanced platform hardware and code that leverages all of the positive things about each of our current platforms and will allow all of our technology (TMCC, Legacy, LionChief and Bluetooth) to remain viable well into the next decade. "
Talk is cheap, I'll reserve judgment until we see some action.
Gentlemen,
Lets just watch and see what actually happens, it seems Lionel has responded to our OGR concerns, now wait and see what actually happens before jumping to any conclusions.
PCRR/Dave
Pine Creek Railroad posted:Gentlemen,
Lets just watch and see what actually happens, it seems Lionel has responded to our OGR concerns, now wait and see what actually happens before jumping to any conclusions.
PCRR/Dave
Sound Advice.
There is hope, yes lets wait and see what comes of this announcement
superwarp1 posted:There is hope, yes lets wait and see what comes of this announcement
Like we have a choice? 
I will never understand why the larger and small manufactures didn't get together back in the day and adopt DCC decoders and operating systems instead of their proprietary systems. O 3 rail is the only scale/gauge from Z to G scales that didn't adopt the standard of DCC. DCC is plentiful and cost effective. Just my opinion and water under the proverbial bridge at this point.
Actually this announcement spurred me into overdue action. I got out my loco list and figured out which ones I was committed to upgrade, both ERR and MTH. Then i ordered the ERR upgrades. PayPal processed the order so maybe it got in okay? Or maybe they will just refund it. Wait and see. The ones on my list that are not being upgraded I have to make decisions about. Will they ever get any track time? Plus this now puts some worthwhile boundaries around my future purchasing. So this is inconvenient but useful in the end.
Here my two cents;
I agree with PRR Joe I am not making any purchases until the layout is done and see where this saga ends up. It is in the building stage I can wire for DSC/Legacy or DCC or both.
I also agree with John and Dave I worked in the Corp world talk is one thing but action is another.
Also I forgot tell Ken enjoy your retirement you will be missed.
Shaw I thing you are right on the spot with whoever restarts the ERR/TMCC program, no one will take a chance and get caught by surprise again. The pend up demand came out of as Lionel stated "6 months of orders in 5 days." I think we will be waiting months for orders to come in for the third party not the two weeks with ERR. I believe that was the hobbyist look at there shelf queens and try to get the ERR to fix them now. Just image how may other engines are in the boxes we forgot about under the table or in the storage.
The saga continues stay tuned.
Seacoast posted:I will never understand why the larger and small manufactures didn't get together back in the day and adopt DCC decoders and operating systems instead of their proprietary systems. O 3 rail is the only scale/gauge from Z to G scales that didn't adopt the standard of DCC. DCC is plentiful and cost effective. Just my opinion and water under the proverbial bridge at this point.
Remember Neal Young started developing this in the late '80s and early '90s. How many DC motored engines did Lionel have at the time? Has anyone ever made an AC decoder? Hindsight is 20-20.
Pete
Seacoast posted:I will never understand why the larger and small manufactures didn't get together back in the day and adopt DCC decoders and operating systems instead of their proprietary systems. O 3 rail is the only scale/gauge from Z to G scales that didn't adopt the standard of DCC. DCC is plentiful and cost effective. Just my opinion and water under the proverbial bridge at this point.
The answer is partly in the uniqueness of 3 rail O, the scale stuff from Z to O scale was based on a common platform from the start, they all use 2 rail DC as their base, which meant a much larger market was involved. In a large market situation like that trying to 'corner the market' with proprietary technology would not likely work, if let's say Athearn developed a command control system that was proprietary, it likely would kill them, because there were enough other firms in the business or even not, who would see the size of the market and jump in. Plus developing your own protocol is expensive, as Lionel and MTH know they had significant cost, whereas DCC was developed as a standard protocol which made it a lot easier for the engine manufacturers to support.
Okay, so why didn't Lionel et al go that path, why didn't they adopt DCC? The prime factor was the size of the market, when Lionel developed TMCC originally they were the largest supplier of 3 rail trains I believe, and they didn't face competitive pushback, they were the only game in town and going proprietary sounded like a big win, offering something no one else did, and in a market where there weren't deep pockets or enough market overall to support a third party challenge. In computers something like this happened with PC's in the 2nd or 3rd generation, IBM tried to develop a proprietary bus standard for cards you put in a pc, basically trying to make it proprietary...and it failed, because the other manufacturers came up with a common standard and board manufacturers were not going to support both (likewise IBM tried that with OS/2 as a replacement for windows)..but that was because the market was big enough.
Since Lionel did not want TMCC to be an industry standard, but rather proprietary technology, MTH had to develop their own standard (among other things, had Lionel even offered to license it to MTH, likely it would be at a price point so high as to try and make MTH engines non competitive price wise).
There was no one else really to push for a standard, just not enough companies interested in developing DCC for three rail. Basically when a company because of the size of the market and their market position can make money out of proprietary technology, they will, and usually they get away with it until better technology comes along or the size of the market dictates it. If the market was bigger for 3 rail O, and there were more players, it might have happened. Lionel ended up licensing TMCC to Atlas and Third rail and the few other firms because by the time they did that, legacy was either on the way or out there, so licensing "older" technology didn't dig into their business per se.
I have read HH's letter three times and I have read nothing that makes me believe things will get better anytime soon.
The whole letter reminds me of political speak, get it off the front page and in time most people will forget what they were arguing about.
Then in time we will be able to do what we want.
Dave
The original post talked about dwindling ERR sales. As usual it is the vocal minority making all the noise. While loud, if in fact sales are off, how will this work?
I talked about the move away from TMCC several years ago when LC was release? No one really complained. Now that the upgrade market is being closed now that small majority is up in arms.
TMCC besides being 1994 tech, is limited tech. directional lighting, couplers and one other output. No cruise with out a special Motor driver and a tach.
Guys that complain DCS being closed miss the whole point of what it brought to the table, and it forced Lionel into Legacy.
LC and LC+ is the new TMCC. Cheaper to make, better profit margin and newer tech. Different features unfortunately, but a more complete integrated package.
Unfortunately, Lionel has never really been an upgrade company. They just have let other third parties use there older tech. K-line came up with their own cruise, similar but different. Others never got cruise until TAS built theirs.
Jon Z was the revolution with his Back EMF upgrade. Once bought by Lionel some was integrated into their product, but again you only got older tech, not the latest Lionel offering in control or sounds.
Those that think LC can be turned into an upgrade kit, under estimate what that will take. Sure it can be done but what address is the kit, what sound does it have. If you by 3 kits to upgrade a GG-1 do they all have the same address.
Lionel has always stated Legacy would not be an upgrade kit.
Now, because an employee retires does not mean you shut a product line down. Sure there are potential obsolete parts and such. But until you get to a critical part the like the Processor chip (PS-2 3V is an example), PS-1, your product can still be made. Having said that. TMCC is the PS-1 of Lionels world. There are still PS-1 purist like there are TMCC purist, but it is obsolete in todays world.
Frankly, the market is driven by inexpensive upgrades vice buying a new Legacy engine.
As mentioned DD went out of business as did TAS. There system can't really be repaired, instead you gutted them and went with ERR. Same when K-LIne Cruise boards died. It was ERR Cruise M repair. Also a repair for ODY 1.
As pointed out, if Lionel is producing Cruise CDR for 3rd Rail and Atlas, it is not a stretch to produce 500 extra boards and sell them from the Lionel Web site. Managed by Lionel employee in NC.
But there is no resources to do the engineering that may come if parts go obsolete.
We will see if a third party steps up, but who stepped up to take over QSI? If Legacy and LC+ or a break through in DCC/Bluetooth upgrade kits became viable who would add TMCC?
I am breaking out the popcorn to watch this unfold. 
G
bigkid posted:......................... Lionel ended up licensing TMCC to Atlas and Third rail and the few other firms because by the time they did that, legacy was either on the way or out there, so licensing "older" technology didn't dig into their business per se.
The license to the other train companies was around 1998-2000(?) I think. Legacy was far from the users hands or an announcement at that point. (I recall Legacy coming out in late 2007 or early 2008)
It may have had more to do with the impending release of DCS at the time. Not that MTH was offering to license DCS to anyone, but Lionel saw offering a limited version of TMCC to everyone else as a step towards some standardization that happened to favor their system. 
I say "limited" because as TMCC features advanced in the Lionel products, they did not immediately include those features for the 3rd Rail, Weaver, etc. And people generally were just fine with that arrangement.
Dave45681 posted:bigkid posted:......................... Lionel ended up licensing TMCC to Atlas and Third rail and the few other firms because by the time they did that, legacy was either on the way or out there, so licensing "older" technology didn't dig into their business per se.
The license to the other train companies was around 1998-2000(?) I think. Legacy was far from the users hands or an announcement at that point. (I recall Legacy coming out in late 2007 or early 2008)
It may have had more to do with the impending release of DCS at the time. Not that MTH was offering to license DCS to anyone, but Lionel saw offering a limited version of TMCC to everyone else as a step towards some standardization that happened to favor their system.
Correct Dave45681. It was the impending release of DCS in 1998-1999 that Lionel was attempting to corner the market with TMCC that the Licencing began to the Other O gauge companies. NOTE later in 2005 or so when SMR tried to obtain the TMCC license, Lionel "cut them out" . Also NOTE that DCS is exclusively MTH and NO other importer/mfg has been given license to use DCS and it's still going strong.
Irrespective of how sincere the letter it is or isn't, the key part in my opinion was the mention that current orders far exceed existing inventories Which means many or most of those who have or are in the process of rushing in orders before the doors close are likely going to end up receiving "sorry, sold out" or "backordered" (read: for a long, long time) messages.
Originally posted by BigKID :
Okay, so why didn't Lionel et al go that path, why didn't they adopt DCC? The prime factor was the size of the market,
when Lionel developed TMCC originally they were the largest supplier of 3 rail trains I believe,
and they didn't face competitive pushback, they were the only game in town and going proprietary sounded like a big win,
offering something no one else did, and in a market where there weren't deep pockets or enough market overall to support
a third party challenge.
What!
Lionel was under extreme competitive pushback in the 1990's!
You had very nice Scale brass offerings from Williams/Samhongsa, then Weaver/Samongsa and Rowi. Rowi had a meltdown but then MTH became a Mfg/importer in 1993. K-line started announcing Scale offerings in their product lines - first with Heavyweight passenger cars and modern stack cars in the mid 1990's slowly building up new scale tooling instead of relying on the old Marx tooling. then in 1998 Atlas O came in on the scene with their scale track and modern 1960's to 1980's scale freight cars.
Lionel's push into TMCC/Railsounds was Lionel's gamble to hold their marketshare or "stop the slow bleeding" from the competitors with the competitions scale equipment that the marketplace was sorely demanding! By 1997 and Moreu at the helm- Lionel took a loss of millions because management failed to see the market didn't care about the name and nostalgia and Lionel's higher prices as much as the market wanted quality scale equipment at a reasonable price!
GGG, vocal minority or not the closure of this product line has unintended consequences. Lionel has priced me out of their market. WBB makes a fine product and was easily upgraded. So were some Weaver items. Now there is no need to look at those or consider Lionel for that matter. Lionel's low end product line is just that, low end. MTH does a far better job in that arena. Lionels high end stuff hits a price point that turns me and perhaps others off. You can't grow a business if you price folks out of the market AND turn off the individuals who previously advocated for the hobby. That vocal minority will share their displeasure sowing seeds that will shrink the potential customer base. I understand obsolescence, we are in an age when nothing last long at all. That being said now I question why I should purchase anything if I cannot support it going forward. The great thing about the PW stuff is it is bulletproof. Nothing kills that stuff. The age of electronics has gifted us with fragile innards that cannot be repaired easily. One of the things I learned back in business school back in the day was to involve customers in the process whenever and wherever possible. Sure it was messy sometimes, sure it slowed things down sometimes but that involvement prevented mistakes and earned you loyalty. That loyalty paid off bid time and was measurable. I am not sure how you measure the impact of this announcement. One can hope there are future developments, if not some of us are going to look back at our time in the hobby fondly and move on to something else.
I’m with George, I will sit back and watch this unfold. I ordered a few upgrades last Sunday and I’m curious to see if Ken can fulfill my entire order. I’d hate to see the cruise M go by the wayside as it’s a great product that helps to save those older locos from the scrap line.
Regarding supplying TMCC boards to Atlas and 3rd Rail Sunset Models, while Lionel might presently have sufficient numbers of boards to fulfill their immediate contractual obligations to those two manufacturers, only Lionel knows how much further into the future they will be able or willing to do so even if those contracts aren't close to their end? Could Lionel's game plan be to force those two smaller competitors to license Lionel's proprietary Legacy system for an exorbitant price which Atlas and 3rd Rail would have no choice but to turn down with Lionel reckoning that tactic would be the catalyst forcing those two competitors out of locomotive manufacturing?
prrhorseshoecurve posted:
Originally posted by BigKID :
Okay, so why didn't Lionel et al go that path, why didn't they adopt DCC? The prime factor was the size of the market,
when Lionel developed TMCC originally they were the largest supplier of 3 rail trains I believe,
and they didn't face competitive pushback, they were the only game in town and going proprietary sounded like a big win,
offering something no one else did, and in a market where there weren't deep pockets or enough market overall to support
a third party challenge.What!
You had very nice Scale brass offerings from Williams/Samhongsa, then Weaver/Samongsa and Rowi. Rowi had a meltdown but then MTH became a Mfg/importer in 1993. K-line started announcing Scale offerings in their product lines - first with Heavyweight passenger cars and modern stack cars in the mid 1990's slowly building up new scale tooling instead of relying on the old Marx tooling. then in 1998 Atlas O came in on the scene with their scale track and modern 1960's to 1980's scale freight cars.
Lionel's push into TMCC/Railsounds was Lionel's gamble to hold their marketshare or "stop the slow bleeding" from the competitors with the competitions scale equipment that the marketplace was sorely demanding! By 1997 and Moreu at the helm- Lionel took a loss of millions because management failed to see the market didn't care about the name and nostalgia and Lionel's higher prices as much as the market wanted quality scale equipment at a reasonable price!
Those were nice offerings, there is no doubt, but they were still king of the hill at that point in terms of percent of the entire market, Williams was mostly doing their repro offerings of traditional lionel stuff, and Weaver and Rowi were small, as was even MTH initially. I don't doubt that Lionel was looking at TMCC at the time as a way to keep market share, but I don't think they were 'bleeding' then. My point was that at that point, no one else had command control out there, and their competitors were small enough that they wouldn't get together and make a command control system (the way non IBM makers got together in creating the EISA bus standard), because they were the big player (and only player going into command control), they didn't have to worry about TMCC being proprietary. Like I said, if 3 rail O was the size of HO, Lionel could not have gotten away with a proprietary system, but because they were still kind of the hill they could get away with it *shrug*. And when MTH made DCS, they likewise didn't have to worry about a competing group of companies standardizing around them, so they could go proprietary too. Industry standards work out great for the consumers, but aren't as profitable as proprietary stuff tends to be, consumers like competition, vendors like monopoly situations.
Let's hope for the best here.
I'm disappointed in how Lionel handled this. They pull the rug out and watch us squirm for a few days and it takes severe backlash to get a response that still doesn't give us anything definite.
I hope they get something worked out or provide a different solution.
c.sam posted:rthomps posted:An earlier post ...
"I'm going to spread the blame around a bit; maybe someone above has already, but: back in the early 3RO Command days, we had a company offering open, licensed access (not worrying with all the legal nuances, here) to a rather friendly system - TMCC. The other Big Player in the room as determined to continue on his own DCC-like path: DCS. Had this player decided to license TMCC (as a few others did), perhaps - just perhaps - TMCC and its descendants woulda/coulda become the true, non-proprietary Standard of 3RO command control, and filled the DCC role (but more simply, rationally and dependably). Not actually blaming you Mr. W., and the above does have some holes, but, geez, thanks a lot. I still don't use DCS - but those ERR-converted PS1/PS2(one) locos are sure nice. Great models."
This is an important post - though it has a "water under the bridge" character.
Certainly many in the hobby back in the days when "the word" was that DCS was in development wondered "why-for".
I could not agree more that the "player" who went with DCS essentially blocked standardization for the hobby. A toy-train, three-rail open system (which we might have had) like DCC would have benefited all of us. Instead, we have a simple system (TMCC - Legacy) that is quite robust in competition with DCS that is a more complicated system with a 200-page companion to understand how to make it work properly.
Who knows how things would have progressed? Who knows how and where ERR and Jon would have taken the system that would have benefited the three-rail O Gauge hobby immensely.
Simply an opinion. My opinion.
So far, this is among the best posts here this evening....
I'm the poster of the "water-under-the-bridge" post mentioned above, and you are absolutely right - I almost didn't post it, as it had a sour grapes edge to it, but I am glad that I'm not the only one who seems to see it that way, at least a bit. I do not object to proprietary products, and am glad to pay for those special features if they suit my goals, but a truly open - more than one manufacturer of compatible boards - system that performed the command control/cruise basics only and was used by every 3RO manufacturer would have been a good thing. Possible? Dunno. It's always been a very small pond.
I like Brand M products; great models, well made, I have some - but because of their oddball (to me) operating system, I have often passed them by for purchase (new catalogue items, especially) and bought Brand L and Friends, or nothing at all.
