Will There Ever Be Any More MTH DCS Controllers Made?

On the Trainworld video tonight the MTH/Prime mover guys seem to suggest its a possibility, but not to count on it.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lfv27SeWkU

The primary issue is the old remote used 900MHz radio technology between it and the TIU. Those original modules are no longer available. Keep in mind too- understand the manufacturing hurdle of anything RF has to get FCC approval on the new design. So this isn't just substitute brand X module for brand Y and it's all good, it has to then be tested and approved and that assuming you found a compatible module, the firmware worked, it was certified, within price range, and had quantity and future supply making such up front costs of redesign and testing even viable.

Searching the FCC database for the current approvals

On the other hand, they don't have to use the 900mhz technology, that is outdated. With the new DCS base system, a controller could be built that talks to the unit via wifi (or bluetooth, if that is being supported, I don't recall) the way the phone app does via a smart phone or tablet. For users of the old TIU, a user could add the wifi interface (WIU?) to it, and the controller should be able to talk to it.

Not saying that this is easy or that MTH even will do this, just saying that they don't have to, at least in theory, use the old 900mhz transmission given they already supported Wifi (and could support bluetooth, at least in the new DCS base). If they are using existing wifi or bluetooth technology, I suspect getting it certified may be a lot easier (I leave that to the tech guys on here to confirm or deny, I would assume most of it would be the power output of the wifi signal being transmitted by the controller and (new) base.

Great question. Hopefully, someone from MTH will respond. Fortunately, in addition to the DCS handheld I am using, I have four additional ones, two of the old model, and two of the new model, plus some thumbwheel replacement kits, so I should be set for the long haul.

Pat

Shall we start a pre-order/request post for both Lionel and MTH? Perhaps if it’s long enough they will push it along. I’d be willing to pay a sizable amount for new remotes for each system. ??

According to MTH THEY ARE manufacturing the WTIU and it should be here by the end of the year. AND YES you can use your remote with it albeit via tethering only. As for molds sold, It was stated they still own between 70 to 75 % of their molds. All HO and S were sold. Lionel and Atlas together purchased between 25-30 % of the original MTH Molds. Also stated was the fact that they are working on some new molds with some already being done (Caboose).

Also remember that all HO and S molds were sold. MTH still has G gauge molds also. Due to chip shortage they are having a rough time supplying the parts dept with electrical components. Remember they are using what they have in new product for them and Atlas! Also the new Z4000 is still scheduled to be released at the end  of 2022 or beginning of 2023.

Things are really looking up for the new MTH Companies. R&D, Parts and Manufacturing Sales.

Just another heads up I finally received one of my Diesel PS3 upgrade kit ordered three years ago. Only got one of all those ordered but at least I go one. Had interesting talk with Rich Foster who CONFIRMED all I stated above!

The latest Trainworld video addresses the current status of MTH electronics. Watch from 36:30 to 46:00.

While there is a possibility of a WIFI enabled remote in the future its just a concept right now.

Ken

I only have 1 DCS handheld remote and 1 TIU. They work flawlessly and I treat them like they were were made of gold. If you are in the same boat, you might want to do the same.

Would it be nice to have a spare? Yes!

just my thoughts. after watching the tw special it seems rich and andy are not really keen on a newly developed remote.

on the other hand they said listening to their customer base was a signature quality that set them apart from the other manufacturers.

this may be where we may have an uperhand and a loud voice in the room and could change the tide here or at the very least rich and andys minds.

let me explain. If dave kribel is exsploring a new handheld wifi remote or at least tinkering around with the idea. seems he hinted back awhile ago he was. this may be good news for us that want one and the oguage hobby overall.

if such a remote was designed and done properly. by this I mean the remote was able to handle all the dcs button features as well as control lionel legacy/tmcc engines and handle all of lionels respective icons and buttons. plus have a dedicated whistle slider button and thumb wheel or red knob this would make mth the leader in controll systems in oguage.

since this new remote would only work with the tiu and wiu. mth would have the exclusive on the remote market. this would means sales dollars for a long time in the foreseeable future.

now I know this remote I am suggesting is a long shot but, this would solve the 3 rail operating system woes people always talk about. HO has dcc standards and while oguage has none at least mth being able to controll tmcc and lionel is a good thing.

while I understand lionel and mth controllers and systems are vastly different. if and I say if a new remote was developed that could at least be somewhat user friendly and have at least the icons or buttons used the most by an operator for each system via touch screen or physical buttons plus a dedicated speed nob or thumb wheel and whistle slider. this may solve this long standing control protocall issue and put mth in the lead again as far as command systems go.

this is just my opinion and its probably never going to happen,but never say never in this crazy hobby.

@Vernon Barry posted:

The primary issue is the old remote used 900MHz radio technology between it and the TIU. Those original modules are no longer available. Keep in mind too- understand the manufacturing hurdle of anything RF has to get FCC approval on the new design. So this isn't just substitute brand X module for brand Y and it's all good, it has to then be tested and approved and that assuming you found a compatible module, the firmware worked, it was certified, within price range, and had quantity and future supply making such up front costs of redesign and testing even viable.

Searching the FCC database for the current approvals

OTOH, 20 years on from the original design of the DCS remote, there now exist plenty of off-the-shelf and commodity hardware that could be used that all ready have FCC approval.

@Lionelzwl2012 posted:

if such a remote was designed and done properly. by this I mean the remote was able to handle all the dcs button features as well as control Lionel legacy/tmcc engines and handle all of lioness respective icons and buttons. plus have a dedicated whistle slider button and thumb wheel or red knob this would make MTH the leader in control systems in o gauge.

since this new remote would only work with the tiu and wiu. mth would have the exclusive on the remote market. this would means sales dollars for a long time in the foreseeable future.

And lo and behold Lionel has a new remote without lifting a finger or spending a dime and still sells Legacy Base3s, SER2s, and Legacy engines.

@rplst8 posted:

OTOH, 20 years on from the original design of the DCS remote, there now exist plenty of off-the-shelf and commodity hardware that could be used that all ready have FCC approval.

It has to be approved in the DCS remote. Off the self hardware isn't rubber stamped approved to be used in any handheld of your choosing. It has to be constructed into the remote you want and then tested again to meet FCC guidelines.

@H1000 posted:

It has to be approved in the DCS remote. Off the self hardware isn't rubber stamped approved to be used in any handheld of your choosing. It has to be constructed into the remote you want and then tested again to meet FCC guidelines.

So if i took an Arduino board that had a wifi radio on it and an SMA connector and put it in a plastic shell and sold it, it would need to back through the FCC?

while marty you are correct lionel still has a new remote app comming and base 3 and sells all the legacy components and engines.

I am talking about a completely new physical handheld remote not a phone app. which most people are wanting to be developed again. even ken sr. said guys were wanting a remote vrs. a phone app. I am amoung that group.

lucky for me I have remotes stockpiled for my future layout if a new one is never developed.

an ESU stlye remote for O gauge is really whats needed. the ESU remote for the HO market is marrying the two worlds the phone app and physical remote and selling well.

NCE sells remotes and so does digitrax. digitrax just came out with a new remote. plus TCS just relest two new handheld controllers and a command station.

if HO scale can have physical remotes why are O manufacturers saying apps on our phone is the new way and only way to go. the reason probably is they just dont want to invest the money into it thats probably the bottom line in there pushing phone apps.

@Lionelzwl2012 posted:

while marty you are correct lionel still has a new remote app comming and base 3 and sells all the legacy components and engines.

I am talking about a completely new physical handheld remote not a phone app. which most people are wanting to be developed again. even ken sr. said guys were wanting a remote vrs. a phone app. I am amoung that group.

Yes I understand that but if MTH incorporates ALL of the Legacy functionality into a hardware remote, as long as someone has a DCS TIU and WiFi, they have a new Legacy hardware remote without doing a thing.  Of course this does rely on the DCS system to get to that point.

@rplst8 posted:

So if i took an Arduino board that had a wifi radio on it and an SMA connector and put it in a plastic shell and sold it, it would need to back through the FCC?

Not necessarily, but if you take that Arduino board and rearrange the components & antenna to build a new DCS remote around it and then cram it into a new handheld remote, then yes it would need to be tested.

The transceiver components listed above are not off the shelf components that MTH just ordered up 1000's of.  They were built specifically to fit the DCS remote/TIU and the components arranged so that it would fit properly inside of the casing.  No one else in any other industry uses this assembly.

If you take a WIU apart and look at the radio board that actually drives the entire unit (the main motherboard doesn't do much other than provide power and interfaces and feedback lights). It's about the same size as the transceiver in the DCS remote.  Even if you cram it in the remote and build the proper interface to the DCS remote, the whole thing would need to be tested again.

The WIU is a good example of the plastic shell situation you described.  The generic part used in that device is used by other companies for other devices and the testing is completed. The WIU is nothing more than a (very) cheap wireless router with some special software running on it to communicate with the TIU via a USB/Serial connection. I can order that part, load the WIU Firmware from MTH and have fully functional WIU for about 10 to 20 bucks.

@H1000 posted:

Not necessarily, but if you take that Arduino board and rearrange the components & antenna to build a new DCS remote around it and then cram it into a new handheld remote, then yes it would need to be tested.

The transceiver components listed above are not off the shelf components that MTH just ordered up 1000's of.  They were built specifically to fit the DCS remote/TIU and the components arranged so that it would fit properly inside of the casing.  No one else in any other industry uses this assembly.

If you take a WIU apart and look at the radio board that actually drives the entire unit (the main motherboard doesn't do much other than provide power and interfaces and feedback lights). It's about the same size as the transceiver in the DCS remote.  Even if you cram it in the remote and build the proper interface to the DCS remote, the whole thing would need to be tested again.

The WIU is a good example of the plastic shell situation you described.  The generic part used in that device is used by other companies for other devices and the testing is completed. The WIU is nothing more than a (very) cheap wireless router with some special software running on it to communicate with the TIU via a USB/Serial connection. I can order that part, load the WIU Firmware from MTH and have fully functional WIU for about 10 to 20 bucks.

Well, if I were working as an engineer for MTH, what I would suggest is building the remote around a standard Arduino part (or something similar) that has wifi, and then just design some button matrix that can connect to it via whatever general purpose bus the board supports. I’m sure a simple dot matrix display could be driven by the board as well.

Mth said no new remote in the foreseeable future.

I bought 5 after the last 2 runs. Glad to hear last night I'll only need a telephone handset cable (tether).

@Gary Yada posted:

I bought 5 after the last 2 runs. Glad to hear last night I'll only need a telephone handset cable (tether).

IMO, that's no solution!  I don't consider remote control being leashed to my TIU!   I have a few TIU's stashed away as well as a few remotes.  Having used both the Lionel and MTH phone apps, I have no desire to use my phone to control my trains.

I am with john on this one. when I was in N scale and had digitraxs. my remotes were tethered via phone style cables. when I went to oguage and got tmcc I never had to worry about a cord again.

to me a tether to the tiu would be like going back to standing at a zw and controll panel.

you said it at the end of your last statement  marty. yes lionel would not have to make a remote,but mth would sell more wtiu's and remotes. all someone would need from lionel hardware wise is a legacy base 3. this is assuming they dont get into the lcs stuff.

I agree with John as well. Tethering a remote to the TIU makes the remote......well, no longer a remote. MTH or somebody else needs to continue making remotes. Plenty of people want them. With the remote I can perform basic tasks without taking my eyes off the trains. I do model trains for fun. I spend enough time in front of computer, phone and tablet screens.

"on the other hand they said listening to their customer base was a signature quality that set them apart from the other manufacturers."

Except for one problem: they're not listening when it comes to the remotes. In the video, Andy pretty much said we, the paying customers, need to adjust to the reality that MTH has very little, if any,  desire to produce the remote because the way of the future is running trains with a phone. There clearly is demand for a remote.  Every time this subject is brought up, many people respond saying they still want a designated remote. I believe it is a matter of not wanting to make it as opposed to being unable to make it. If future sales depended on it, I bet they'd find a way to make a remote fairly quickly. MTH didn't get to where it is by having its leadership saying, "It can't be done."

As much as I like the idea of running trains with a smart phone or tablet, I will continue to use my Legacy Remote to run my trains as well as using the app when I get the new Base-3.

Here's a brilliant suggestion for an all-in-one remote control for O-Gauge model trains that would have the following features (I don't know who would make the dock, though):

-The remote could interface with either Legacy or DCS control systems using Wi-fi depending on which app an operator is using.

-The phone has a physical connection to remote dock (or perhaps it could connect via Bluetooth or Wi-fi).

-The remote dock includes rechargeable batteries; phone uses its own power.

-Using DCS App or Cab-3 App, operators would get physical throttle knob/thumbwheel, horn/whistle (including quilling whistle on both DCS and Legacy locos) and bell buttons, brake controls, and a few other functions.

-Phone provides touchscreen controls and engine data.

-The remote dock would need a charger for its batteries, which could also include a phone/tablet charger cable attachment point.

-Since DCC users have smart phone/tablet apps for their systems now, perhaps this system could also be integrated into HO, N, S, and G-Scale DCC layouts as well.

-The Cab-3 App will also allow operators of Bluetooth and IR-equipped Lionchief locos to run those engines with a Legacy remote, so this system would provide the same functionality.

"on the other hand they said listening to their customer base was a signature quality that set them apart from the other manufacturers."

Oh really?  Being tall sets me apart from most shorter people.   Has any company bragged about NOT listening to their customers?  Talk is cheap. Actions are more persuasive.

Since this is the number one burning question on these forums (controllers and the scarcity of them), make the patents open source for Lionel and DCS and I bet  both of them would sell more trains.

John

@BlueComet400 posted:

If future sales depended on it, I bet they'd find a way to make a remote fairly quickly. MTH didn't get to where it is by having its leadership saying, "It can't be done."

OTOH, maybe they did get where they are that way.   Think about MTH of a few years ago and MTH now. 

@BlueComet400 posted:

"on the other hand they said listening to their customer base was a signature quality that set them apart from the other manufacturers."

Except for one problem: they're not listening when it comes to the remotes. In the video, Andy pretty much said we, the paying customers, need to adjust to the reality that MTH has very little, if any,  desire to produce the remote because the way of the future is running trains with a phone. There clearly is demand for a remote.  Every time this subject is brought up, many people respond saying they still want a designated remote. I believe it is a matter of not wanting to make it as opposed to being unable to make it. If future sales depended on it, I bet they'd find a way to make a remote fairly quickly. MTH didn't get to where it is by having its leadership saying, "It can't be done."

As we know from econ class, demand is the desire for a product AND the ability and willingness to pay for it.  What price would a sufficient number of people be willing to pay for a new remote?  $300?  $500?

I suspect MTH is making the assumption that the potential market is too small for hitting a price point.  IMO, the answer to this conundrum is for MTH to do a thorough study of what it would cost to accommodate the "demand" for a non-phone remote.  Seems like they could come up with a pretty good idea of the number of potential sales and what they would need to charge the customer.  Tell us the price for a remote and take preorders - that should clarify things.  Although I would prefer a non-phone remote, I suspect that the potential market is too small to support a price I'm willing to pay.

@Dylan the Train Man posted:

...

Here's a brilliant suggestion for an all-in-one remote control for O-Gauge model trains that would have the following features (I don't know who would make the dock, though):

-The remote could interface with either Legacy or DCS control systems using Wi-fi depending on which app an operator is using.

-The phone has a physical connection to remote dock (or perhaps it could connect via Bluetooth or Wi-fi).

-The remote dock includes rechargeable batteries; phone uses its own power.

-Using DCS App or Cab-3 App, operators would get physical throttle knob/thumbwheel, horn/whistle (including quilling whistle on both DCS and Legacy locos) and bell buttons, brake controls, and a few other functions.

-Phone provides touchscreen controls and engine data.

...

There is a forum member who is playing with this concept using a tablet and gaming controller. 

I am still in the remote camp. somthing like ESU handheld could run both lionel and dcs apps. it is phone app based,but with physical assignable dedicated buttons and a large knob for speed controll.

if lionel and mth would allow there protocalls to be open then someone could develop a similar remote for oguage. heck maybe the ESU remotes would work as it is  basically a android phone with deticated train knobs.

Many businesses also have "loss leaders." I worked in the rental car industry many years ago, and our loss leader was a Geo Metro, which was advertised at a daily rental rate of $10 or $15. It made the phone ring, and got people in the door, and in many cases, we were able to up-sell the customers into a larger car. Many pharmacies are doing that today with generic prescriptions. At $2.00 or $4.00 for a generic drug, the store is likely only breaking-even or maybe even losing money on that sale, but they know that once the customer is in the store, he or she is buying milk, bread, etc. and spending more than just the price of the drug.

Even if MTH only breaks even on continued production and sales of remotes, if it keeps customers coming back to buy trains, it may be wise for them to re-think this and find a way to make it work. On the other hand, as long as the money keeps flowing in their direction, there's no incentive for them to do so.

Here’s one for ya. Why don’t MTH and Lionel both get together and come up with one remote that will run both systems.

The problem with dedicated hardware remotes is the cost to R&D, produce, and support the device long term. It can been done, but Like Rich & Andy said, the remote will cost more than a new phone. So many people here want... nay DEMAND remotes but watch them rethink & run when the price tag is $500+ just for a remote. And at that price point it will take years and 1000's of remote sales just re-coop the costs and start making money. IT DOESN'T MAKE GOOD BUSINESS SENSE ANYMORE.

Our firm has spent the last 10 years developing phone apps that are replacing dedicated hardware controls for a good number of popular devices on the market.  The companies who sell these products, do so in far greater numbers than that of MTH & Lionel control systems. They realize that this is much easier & more cost effective than dedicated multi-function hardware. It's cheaper, easier & faster for them to develop & release new products without employing a dedicated team of engineers for these devices. Bugs can be fixed via software updates & patches vs. recalling hardware.

Let the customer use their own hardware and the manufacture can develop (or outsource) the software to run on that hardware is a more sustainable business.  It eliminates a great deal of overhead.

@Dylan the Train Man

I am working on an interface with the DCS app that will allow you to control the app with a commonly available phone/tablet gaming controller on amazon.

I was working on a device that would allow the current DCS Remote to work with the new WTIU wirelessly.  Work on this projected has halted due to the hardware for the project is unavailable right now and I really need to have a WTIU before this can resume again.

@H1000 posted:

Our firm has spent the last 10 years developing phone apps that are replacing dedicated hardware interface for a good number of popular devices on the market.  These companies who sell these products in far greater numbers than that of MTH & Lionel control systems realize that this is far easier & more cost effective than dedicated multi-function hardware. It's cheaper, easier & faster for them to develop & release new products without employing a dedicated team of engineers for these devices.

We'll have to agree to disagree on what it would cost to produce remotes, assuming there would be a reasonable demand for them.  You said it, this is far easier & more cost effective than dedicated multi-function hardware.  However, I didn't see the words better or user friendly in there.  For many people, the phone app just doesn't get it done.

As far as the remote costing more than a new phone, plenty of very capable new phones can be had for very low cost.  It's only the flagship phones from places like Samsung and Apple that end up costing a bundle.  I can buy a perfectly capable smart phone for as little as $100-$200.

The Best Cheap Phones for 2022

For example:

Moto G Pure | 2021 | 2-Day battery | Unlocked | Made for US by Motorola | 3/32GB | 13MP Camera | Deep Indigo, $130

Moto E | Unlocked | Made for US by Motorola | 2/32GB | 13MP Camera | 2020 | Blue, $158

@BlueComet400 posted:

Even if MTH only breaks even on continued production and sales of remotes, if it keeps customers coming back to buy trains, it may be wise for them to re-think this and find a way to make it work. On the other hand, as long as the money keeps flowing in their direction, there's no incentive for them to do so.

Support is the problem. Those GEO Metros are even bigger loss leaders if they keep your work force busy contacting tow trucks, troubleshooting other problems and replacing cheap rentals with more expensive ones vs. renting & up selling (making money) for the company. MTH R&D doesn't have the work force like it used to for handle large volumes of support.

Developing a new product with the idea of breaking even isn't great business sense for a small company. Especially when that product is the central control system for all of the other products you sell. If it isn't done 110% perfect, not only will your loss leader turn into a PR nightmare, folk won't buy the one thing that does make money.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

We'll have to agree to disagree on what it would cost to produce remotes, assuming there would be a reasonable demand for them.  You said it, this is far easier & more cost effective than dedicated multi-function hardware.  However, I didn't see the words better or user friendly in there.  For many people, the phone app just doesn't get it done.

As far as the remote costing more than a new phone, plenty of very capable new phones can be had for very low cost.  It's only the flagship phones from places like Samsung and Apple that end up costing a bundle.  I can buy a perfectly capable smart phone for as little as $100-$200.

The Best Cheap Phones for 2022

For example:

Moto G Pure | 2021 | 2-Day battery | Unlocked | Made for US by Motorola | 3/32GB | 13MP Camera | Deep Indigo, $130

Moto E | Unlocked | Made for US by Motorola | 2/32GB | 13MP Camera | 2020 | Blue, $158

I can put those words in there if you want John, that's a great idea!

Those phones are subsidize. They cost more than that to build, the cheap price lures you into the store to buy them and the carriers make up the lost profit of the phone on the service contract they sell you.  My local cell carrier is currently offering a free $1000 (MSRP) iphone for new customers, and the same phone to current customers for $100 after trade-in.

Those phones are made by 100,000's in quantity. Component makers will work with MTH & Lionel for cheap remotes if they order 100,000 units per year and somebody subsidizes a pay as you go monthly service. I don't think either company can sell that many per year, nor do customers want a monthly service fee to run trains.

@H1000 posted:

Those phones are subsidize. They cost more than that to build, the cheap price lures you into the store to buy them and the carriers make up the lost profit of the phone on the service contract they sell you.

Look again, they're unlocked phones without a plan.

@H1000 posted:

The problem with dedicated hardware remotes is the cost to R&D, produce, and support the device long term. It can been done, but Like Rich & Andy said, the remote will cost more than a new phone. So many people here want... nay DEMAND remotes but watch them rethink & run when the price tag is $500+ just for a remote. And at that price point it will take years and 1000's of remote sales just re-coop the costs and start making money. IT DOESN'T MAKE GOOD BUSINESS SENSE ANYMORE.

I'd walk away from the hobby rather than rethink.  It's that important.

"It costs too much" is an excuse.

Something you learn over the years is that it ALWAYS costs too much.

Time for innovation, not excuses.

Mike