The resurrection of the TMCC upgrade

Those are LC, not LC+, no sensor on the motor in those models.  They also have no cruise.

ogaugenut posted:

> "There seems to be little or no desire for other products offered by ERR, so would focusing on these two be the place to start?"

Sound is very important to me.

Bill

So, which products are important? 

SPFord27 posted:

From what I have done with ERR products, the cruise lite and Railsounds are important to me. The sounds are not a deal breaker, but are definitely a cool feature. Something I would like to see is a selection on the sound board. Set the board up so the sound board come fully loaded and let the end user select the appropriate sound file. 

While I'm much more competent in designing a motor driver, I don't see why one couldn't have a micro SD slot on a sound board allowing for any sound files to be changed.  I had some ideas a while back on using a 'system on a chip' MP3 player chip for improved sounds on Lion chief products, but never bought parts for testing.  

gunrunnerjohn posted:

I've used a lot of the boards in various projects, but I'll agree that my primary focus would be the big three.

• Cruise Commander
• Cruise Commander M
• Cruise Commander Lite

Of course, I do really love my sounds, so I'd like to still be able to get the sound boards, having an expanded selection of sounds would be icing on the cake, but at least the current set would be nice...

The Sound Converter design and code were released to the public domain, so someone could build those, however selling then could be problematic unless you got a license from Lionel.

The Mini Commander ACC is another one that I've used a bunch of, again it's a compact way to add TMCC control to accessories, etc.

I think I need to get a firmer grasp on what each product is used for and the functions it provides.  

I suppose one would need to see just how small a driver could be made given some motor current that it can support.  for home brew designs, through-hole components are nice to work with, but it's not all that hard to have boards produced to take advantage of the smallest smt parts. 

As for the sounds, while one could more or less copy the design of the ERR offerings, the sounds them selves are almost certainly covered under Title 17 copyright protections, and would be unusable without a license for the foreseeable future.  

While I'm not entirely opposed to licensing something for a reasonable fee, I'm more interested in starting from scratch with an open source project.  

Ken-Oscale posted:

I just happened to check out Lionel parts, and they have two LionChief locos for sale for $89.00!

I wonder what it would take to dissect the electronics to put into another engine - one of my Bachmann locos.   Not TMCC obviously, but it would have sound.  Any suggestions or advice?   Perhaps even the smoke unit could be transplanted?

Unless you already know exactly what version of the electronics is in a LC engine, and exactly what to expect from the swap, I wouldn't recommend it, honestly.  Every LC engine I've opened up has had a different board design and the one $89 set I bought (Dino Diesel) used a very weak motor driver that doesn't seem like it would be a god choice in a larger engine.  In addition the silver bells set plays christmas music in place of specific crew talk.  I don'y know on the other set, but imagine it has road name specific dialog.  As for the smoke, I would guess they use mechanical puffer units like the polar express. Not ideal for transplanting unless you're good at fabricating mechanical parts.  

Over all I think LC or LC+ transplants are possible, and a good way to bring some life into some locomotives without any form of radio control, but it's certainly no replacement for even the most basic TMCC functionality. (through no fault of the technology it's self, but rather the excessive handicap it was given in implementation.)

JGL

JohnGaltLine posted:

Over all I think LC or LC+ transplants are possible, and a good way to bring some life into some locomotives without any form of radio control, but it's certainly no replacement for even the most basic TMCC functionality. (through no fault of the technology it's self, but rather the excessive handicap it was given in implementation.)

I think the major reason that LC+ was done with the limitations you see was so it wouldn't compete with their high-end products.

JGL

I think there are a lot of interest area sub-groups that will have a different take on what products are important.  Boomers with a lot of pre and post war equipment are interested in the AC Commander.  Some people love sound and want engine specific sound, some are OK with generic sound, some don't like sound at all at all.  Probably the cruise commander is the single most popular item.  The real question is how many would actually buy the various products.  Perhaps a forum poll would help get a handle on this.

Bill

gunrunnerjohn posted:

I think the major reason that LC+ was done with the limitations you see was so it wouldn't compete with their high-end products.

Well, yes.  That and the fact that even while the technology would allow for more than Legacy, it costs less than anything else to produce.  I wouldn't mind investigating completely replacing the R4(2)LC and track signal with a Bluetooth standard (or similar) and a bridge to convert the serial connection on a TMCC/Legacy base, but that's a conversation for another time.  At the moment I think it is more worth focusing on trying to reengineer products that people are comfortable and familiar with.  

ogaugenut posted:

JGL

I think there are a lot of interest area sub-groups that will have a different take on what products are important.  Boomers with a lot of pre and post war equipment are interested in the AC Commander.  Some people love sound and want engine specific sound, some are OK with generic sound, some don't like sound at all at all.  Probably the cruise commander is the single most popular item.  The real question is how many would actually buy the various products.  Perhaps a forum poll would help get a handle on this.

Bill

Perhaps so.  Maybe I'll get a better handle on all of this over the weekend while working out of town and come back with some solid plan or something.  

gunrunnerjohn posted:

JohnGaltLine posted:

Over all I think LC or LC+ transplants are possible, and a good way to bring some life into some locomotives without any form of radio control, but it's certainly no replacement for even the most basic TMCC functionality. (through no fault of the technology it's self, but rather the excessive handicap it was given in implementation.)

I think the major reason that LC+ was done with the limitations you see was so it wouldn't compete with their high-end products.

To add to that, I think there are additional issues at hand. If you notice, they are going to more “build to order” locomotives. I would be curious to know how the scale and collectors items are selling. I would be willing to bet the bread and butter of the Lionel train business model is still the entry level sets. With the introduction of the LC and LC+ they are more appealing to the tech era. They know the diehard collectors will pay for the build to order locomotives, but it makes t difficult for the average joe to justify spending 500 plus on a nice diesel and north of 1000 for a nice steamer. With ERR it makes it simple for the average joe to buy a conventional scale locomotive cheap and then convert it. It’s simply bad for business unless you are moving a ton of conversion kits that are pennies on the dollar to make. 

I don't think they were getting hurt on the conversion kits, if they were only making $5,000 a year, I suspect there was some overhead we don't understand.  I can make more than that selling my silly little electronic products, and it's sure not a product line like the ERR stuff!  Something is wrong with what I'm hearing, at least IMO.

Time for an update on status of ERR

It seems to me that Lionel should give us an update every 2 weeks  on the status of the possible ERR continuation. If nothing more that an indication that negotiations  are still progressing. This way if things fail we will know within a two week period.

I think John may be onto something. A lot of things have changed with Jon’s retirement. 

This is pure speculation on my part but having seen a similar situation with a company I do business with. I would suggest it may have something to do with the building where ERR were located.  

In the situation I have come across the owner sold the business but retained ownership of the building with a clause that the new owners had a 5 year lease. Obviously  paying him rent for 5 years.

Now there is the overhead we don’t understand. As I say total speculation, but if ERR lease was up or Jon owned the building and Lionel had a discount deal on the rent....Maybe the numbers just don’t stack up to rent/buy a new place at market rates?

Nick

Nick12DMC posted:

 

Now there is the overhead we don’t understand. As I say total speculation, but if ERR lease was up or Jon owned the building and Lionel had a discount deal on the rent....Maybe the numbers just don’t stack up to rent/buy a new place at market rates?

Nick

 

They don't need a new building. Lionel owns ERR. They can continue to sell kits from their existing building in North Carolina with staff already on site with even less overhead.

Pete

Here is the last item in a little thank you video to ERR. I was able to get a sound card for the TMCC conversion on the MPC era engine that I did a few years back.

CaptainCog, Thanks for the video. Ken and crew have done a fantastic job over the years. Very personable customer service. I had many questions answered... I have been able to upgrade two engines to TMCC because of them. The one last being an MTH Southern Daylight #4449 that I'm still working on. They surely will be missed.

ogaugenut posted:

JGL

Boomers with a lot of pre and post war equipment are interested in the AC Commander, some are OK with generic sound,

Bill

Like myself.  I was also interested in ERR's operating car kits for the milk & barrel cars.

Notch 6 posted:

As many of you have noticed, Lionel released an official statement regarding the future of ERR today. I wanted to take a moment to express my thanks to Howard, Dave, Jon, and the many Lionel employees that play a role at Lionel. 

My sincere thanks to ALL of you who expressed your concern about the future of TMCC. I'm glad we still live in a time an hobby where the consumer and the manufacture can have an open dialogue.

Aside from HH's single letter more than half a month back, I see no signs whatsoever of Lionel wanting to engage it's O scale customers in an open dialogue or discourse on the ERR issue. Perhaps Notch 6 has been privy to additional communications with the management of Lionel that would warrant our continued optimism? Without divulging specifics, please let us forumites whether Notch 6 has received any subsequent comminications from HH that might rekindle  our wanning optimism?  Simply put, dismissing speculation, has Notch 6 to date, actually uncovered concrete plans of a future for the TMCC upgrade?

Ok, let's use this thread to talk about the future of the TMCC upgrade. 

Thanks again everyone!

Good question Kenn, if there was really an effort afoot, wouldn't you think we'd at least rate a mention of ongoing negotiations?  The silence is deafening!

I have to believe GRJ is correct in his cynicism. BTW, I would not place to too much meaning in the "$5000" profit number. When Private Equity buys out a company it charges the cost of buyout as an expense against the company, and its products, including the interest on the loan it likely used for the buyout. It is very rare that the equity firm uses its own capital for the purchase as there is no tax advantage in this.  Additionally, it charges management fees, for the new owners, and can even distribute costs from one division against another making one product line carry the burden of another.

LOL. 

To answer the question. I have not had any further communication with them about this topic since the announcement. At that time things sounded positive based on the announcement and things that were told to me outside of the formal announcement.

I still have faith that something will come of this and if not I know there are talented and passionate folks in this group who could start working on a bridge for the future between DCC and TMCC. For myself this has certainly been a wakeup call. Now more than ever I am leaning towards the idea that DCC in O gauge with some kind of way to still use TMCC in the same environment may be the way forward. Whether that happens in the immediate future or down the road, I believe it is something that we are going to need to address. 

Well, much as I have resisted it, DCC is looking more attractive by the day!  Maybe it's time to start over with S-gauge, I could fit more in my limited space for the layout and go DCC from the get-go.

Business is business and business is private. Public communication about potential business deals changes the positions of everyone in the game. If there is money to be made, good things will happen for us as customers. If not, well nothing lasts forever. When there is something useful to say, the players will tell us. Until then why make a soap opera out of it? 

Don

I always thought S-gauge was the perfect size and 2 rails too. But everytime I start looking into it I just can't convince myself. Always find too many drawbacks to actually make the change. OTOH, I have always been interested in DCC and wanted a DCC system.

I’m going back to 2 rail and cancelling everything I have on order with Lionel. I’ve got a bunch of customers wanting ERR upgrades and now I’m left with only the 5 sets I have on hand and no hope for more. If they’d have said order now cuz there won’t be any more then I would’ve placed a huge order to cover things. 

Been watching, haven't had anything to say. Prior to the ERR announcement, I had identified 21 small-ish locomotives that cannot be outfitted with DCS (owing to drive systems lacking flywheels) that I was going to outfit with TMCC electronics to make them usable in a command-control environment. I already have DCS and TMCC controllers and have operated both on my test track. Two of these locos I've already bought kits for, leaving 19 up in the air. Neither cruise or sound was deemed necessary since these conventional runners didn't have either to begin with. Indeed, some of these units are actually worth less than the price of a basic ERR board, but I'm focused strictly on 'no unit left behind'.

So, at the announcement of the closing of ERR with literally two weeks notice, I figured there was going to be a run on its inventory and there's be nothing left in short order, and I was right. Even if this wasn't the case, I'd be looking at somehow snarfing up  nearly $1300 of kits on short notice. That wasn't going to happen.

So now, going forward I start wondering about the possibilities in case TMCC is to become a non-starter.

--DCS is not on the table. I do have PS1 and Williams units I intend to add PS2 or PS3 boards to, but that leaves 19 locos that are not flywheel-equipped, and it's an open question (albeit one I've never got around to asking) as to whether DCS* is even capable of talking to a hypothetical limited-function receiver that only provides basic motion control and horn/bell (recalling that I'm looking at locomotives that retailed for less than a PS3 upgrade kit).

--Train Engineer (remember them?). I recall hoping this would be an option, but the boards were expensive, and you sacrificed the ability to run conventionally should you bring equipment to a layout that wasn't command equipped. Yes, I know you can simply bring the remote, but operationally you face the same issues as trying to run conventional and command on the same track.

--DCC doesn't 'play nice' with DCS or TMCC/Legacy. I wonder if it's possible to transport DCC signals to locomotives in a manner that doesn't interfere with our existing communication protocols. Well, anything is possible, but it may still wind up making the cost of conversion more costly than the locos it's being installed in.

A lot of text and nothing to show for it but wait-and-see. Ah well...

---PCJ

*(either in its current form, or with additional software)

The Bluetooth option may work for you.

Wasn't there a rather low limit to the number of locomotives a Bluetooth system could address, or was that just one particular implementation?

---PCJ

Matt Makens posted:

If they’d have said order now cuz there won’t be any more then I would’ve placed a huge order to cover things. 

I think they kinda did which resulted in a run of the remaining current supply. 

Just checked.  Sky still pretty much where it was a month ago .  (Returns to usual activities of daily life).

I have tried to be some what positive on this whole subject but personally I’m kind of done with Lionel as far as locomotion is concerned.  ERR is gone “probably for good” I’m forced to use Lionel brand smoke fluid under warranty not to mention a variety of issues with there engines on an “almost” regular basis and the price points of new locomotive are well; Forget about it! 

I don’t see myself going to DCC at this point but I’m seriously thinking about learning more about installing DCS especially since most of my engines are DCS now.  I’m not boy cotting Lionel but I don’t see myself buying any more motive power Legacy or not. 

Over all I think the manner in which ERR was discontinued was rather awful.  I understand how things can come up and business decisions need to be made to discontinue a product line, however this is very out of line with Lionel's typical business model.  Customers are expected to order locomotives a year in advance without even a guaranty of what features or details will be provided on the final model.  The customer base is used to waiting weeks or months for a particular repair tech to do an upgrade and spending years planing out things.  Giving a couple weeks notice is an impossible time line for most of the folks interested in upgrades.  I have to wonder how Lionel's business model would have to be changed if folks refused to pre-order products unless they were to be delivered in two weeks.  

It would have been nice if maybe a year ago they had announced that ERR would be closing after a year, and filling all orders made by some date.  

All that said, I don't believe the sky is falling.  Most of the products ERR offers are easily duplicated by anyone with a hobbyist level of electronics knowhow.  The components needed are cheap, and even low quantity runs of PCB's are reasonably economical, with price per board drastically reduced with larger runs.  

If Lionel wanted to be nice about it they could consider simply releasing the designs and code to the public domain and allow anyone who wanted to to produce open source boards.

MartyE, that’s kind of what they did except there weren’t any left to buy

JohnGaltLine posted:

If Lionel wanted to be nice about it they could consider simply releasing the designs and code to the public domain and allow anyone who wanted to to produce open source boards.

Dreaming the impossible dream again John?

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Dreaming the impossible dream again John?

Well it all depends how honest Big L has been in what little information they've given out.  if it's actually a business decision intended to drive customers towards purchasing new products instead of upgrading old ones, then it will be a cold day you know where before they made it open source.  

On the other hand, if the dialog thus far is honest, then the original decision to close ERR means they decided they had made all the money they wanted to off the ERR products, and simply do not want to make them any longer or put any effort into maintaining the product line.  if that's the case, there is no good reason not to provide a service to the customer base by providing the technical information to the public to do with what they like.  

I think if they wanted to put a lock on the market for a command system, offering a legacy upgrade at a reasonable price, and making the entire system open to third parties would kill off support for all but the most die-hard fans of the competing system.  Instead, the've chosen to drive people toward other command systems by removing the only currently viable upgrade path.  

I have to wonder, if all the folks writing letters and voicing outrage here on the forum instead just said, 'hey guys, you do you, but just make it all open source so folks can keep upgrading how they want to' they might just cave to the pressure. Then again, this is more likely:

JGL

Landsteiner posted:

Just checked.  Sky still pretty much where it was a month ago .  (Returns to usual activities of daily life).

A month ago ERR was still alive, well and taking new orders.

Explaining the closure of ERR to the people who are bringing me stuff wanting TMCC with no upgrade path is becoming a depressing affair for them.

"Explaining the closure of ERR to the people who are bringing me stuff wanting TMCC with no upgrade path is becoming a depressing affair for them."

How about suggesting they wait a few months to find out what the next approach is going to be for toy trains for those who would rather not use DCS/DCC/etc? 

Some of this hand wringing and rending of garments, seemingly of biblical proportions,  about events during an inevitable transition period, seems a premature overreaction.  If a nice upgrade path comes out of this, those suffering depression now will have done so utterly unnecessarily.  If the upgrade path isn't to one's liking, you get to suffer now (prematurely) and when it becomes reality.  Totally unproductive angst at present.

Just an alternate take on those predicting the end of civilization as we know it based upon currently inadequate information .  

"but it's certainly no replacement for even the most basic TMCC functionality."

I disagree. I have both, and LC+ provides essentially all of the locomotive based TMCC functionality that I use.  Direction, speed, command control, whistle/horn/bell/electrocouplers/added sound features.  Obviously no consisting, no switch or route controls.  But all the basics are there, as far as I can see.

An upgrade path that provided LC+ functions inexpensively would be a hit, although some people would prefer a TMCC to LC+ bridge rather than having to use a separate remote. It would work for many people who do not use all of TMCC's functions right now.  And for whom Legacy is overkill and more complicated than desired.

I like your optimism.

Landsteiner posted:

If a nice upgrade path comes out of this

I am optimistic but I’ve always felt a bit beholden to Big Orange and Big Purple by being locked into their proprietary command systems. Coming from N Scale I am very familiar with th3 standards and open source for DCC. I’ve longed for the compatibility and wide selection of options for some time. I still have lots of N, maybe I just change gears. At least with Big Purple I have the PS3 boards I can install if I lose a board in one of my locos. Be a shame to trash a $500 diesel or a $1000 steamer because I can’t get the part. Maybe MTH can give us the ability to change gear ratios in the loco file then their upgrades become much more appealing.

JohnGaltLine posted:

Over all I think the manner in which ERR was discontinued was rather awful.  I understand how things can come up and business decisions need to be made to discontinue a product line, however this is very out of line with Lionel's typical business model.  Customers are expected to order locomotives a year in advance without even a guaranty of what features or details will be provided on the final model.  The customer base is used to waiting weeks or months for a particular repair tech to do an upgrade and spending years planing out things.  Giving a couple weeks notice is an impossible time line for most of the folks interested in upgrades.  I have to wonder how Lionel's business model would have to be changed if folks refused to pre-order products unless they were to be delivered in two weeks.  

It would have been nice if maybe a year agonced that ERR would be closing after a year, and filling all orders made by some date.   they had annou

All that said, I don't believe the sky is falling.  Most of the products ERR offers are easily duplicated by anyone with a hobbyist level of electronics knowhow.  The components needed are cheap, and even low quantity runs of PCB's are reasonably economical, with price per board drastically reduced with larger runs.  

If Lionel wanted to be nice about it they could consider simply releasing the designs and code to the public domain and allow anyone who wanted to to produce open source boards.

 

"It would have been nice if they announced that ERR would be closing in a year, and filling all orders made by some date." Ya think! Even, the scarecrow before he got to the land of OZ could figure out that game plan! What was the name of the other guy in OZ? The cowardly Lion?

Matt Makens posted:

I am optimistic but I’ve always felt a bit beholden to Big Orange and Big Purple by being locked into their proprietary command systems. Coming from N Scale I am very familiar with th3 standards and open source for DCC. I’ve longed for the compatibility and wide selection of options for some time. I still have lots of N, maybe I just change gears. At least with Big Purple I have the PS3 boards I can install if I lose a board in one of my locos. Be a shame to trash a $500 diesel or a $1000 steamer because I can’t get the part. Maybe MTH can give us the ability to change gear ratios in the loco file then their upgrades become much more appealing.

Ditto, totally agree!

Generally I am very annoyed with the situation. I personally have put a lot of time and money into getting TMCC/Legacy and LCS to work correctly here in the U.K.

I am sure other people are even more unhappy as they attacked the 50Hz issues by replacing original TMCC boards with ERR products that solved the problem. While I use an pure sine inverter to generate 60Hz so I can keep the original boards. 

While DCC may be a option. I like to remain positive that someone will ether take over ERR product or invent a new bridge board that combines TMCC control with DCC sound enabling us to use commonly available downloadable sound files.

Although a little off topic I personally think Lionel did a wrong’un by having so many control boards LC, LC+ etc all Lionel engines should have the same electronics. I’m fine with Bluetooth but the board even in the starter sets should have TMCC/Legacy. How much would they save by just having one board fits all? Not to mention the ease of replacing one standard board for repairs.

I have to say from personal experience I think Mike got this right with DCS. My 9 year old can run his Railking locos on the same system as my Premier engines using his iPad.

Nick