Dangeroo Boys! You Bet Yer Bippy! http://coilcouplers.com/hirail/hirail00.shtml Jon
Dangeroo…Is that a word? [%-)]
Oh, well I will believe it when I see it. [zzz]
So far all I’ve found out is 200 speed steps and some kind of remote volume control for the Big Boy ( seems like a multi channel sound system)
I’ve heard endless speculation and claims from Clyde on how this will totally revolutionize toy train operation but aside from these two items no facts.
Oh, well I will believe it when I see it.
I think we’re done with the when, now it’s down to the what. [?]
[zzz]
Guess it all depends on how you want to define “revolutionize?”
Maybe Clyde could give us a sneak peek at some of the new upcoming RMT products. C’mon Clyde - even you’ve said this is supposed to be a great affordable “family hobby.” The BEEP is affordable, decent quality at its’ price point, perfect for kid or an adult, runs on any diameter track, has dual motors, is available in a rainbow of roadnames and is easily upgradeable to digital control for those who desire.
Hmmm, these days that sounds pretty revolutional. Maybe the revolution happened already while Clyde was out in the mountains trying to hunt down a wolf.
Something that is revolutional, at least to me, effects everyone. The latest so-called advances in TMCC will obvously make some happy. Probably the only way these so-called advances will effect everyone is that Lionel will once again have to raise list prices on all products (regardless of whether you use TMCC or not) to help pay for these so-called technological advances (or glitches).
My anticipation is now a reserved table with seating for RMT and Atlas Industrial Rail.
Thans for the head’s up, Jon. Nice to see/hear Lou is actively involved again, always liked the former IC Controls stuff . Maybe we’ll finaly find out what that extra teminal on the TPC is for!
2nd article posted regarding the new memory module upgrades that will work with the CAB-2.
The one thing we know for certain is that Neil Young and Lou Kovach have proven themselves the most creative and innovative minds in toy train electronics in the last ten years, bar none. The fact that their company has contracted with Lionel to provide this system means that over time they have the best available talent in the industry working for them. The products will no doubt reflect this as did TMCC in 1996 and ICC’s a year or so later. ICC pioneered the action recorder function about five years before MTH introduced it to their TIU :). Speaking personally, I’m in no rush as TMCC I is working just fine for me, simple, functional, robust, trouble free. I’m happy to let others be the early adopters for the first year or so, and see what Neil and Lou have come up with. I’m reasonably confident it will have some neat, simple yet extremely whizzy and novel features.
Maybe we should take a poll of who is the better shill or groupie for their favorite manufacturer - nblum or mthrules?
Fred W
-
one who prefers facts and real user reviews of actual products to spin and press releases, regardless of manufacturer
-
feeling particularly grumpy this morning about drivel on the forums
" feeling particularly grumpy this morning about drivel on the forums"
No kidding? No one would ever know :).
My statements about Lou Kovach’s and Neil Young’s abilities and contributions are readily supportable by products and accomplishments. If you disagree, might I suggest you address the content of my post, rather than your opinion of me. Thanks!
You’re on, I’ll bite. It’s the use of unsupported adjectives and praise that rubs me wrong and still does. (Warning) I’m known for being blunt.
How do we know that Young and Kovach have proven themselves the most creative and innovative minds in toy train electronics in the past 10 years? I know nothing of the sort for certain. I don’t dispute that they and inviduals working for them developed TMCC. Nor do I dispute that developing TMCC took some talent and innovative thinking. But does that make them superior to Allen Keller and his work in command control? How about the folks that developed the PFM sound system? The folks at Lenz and Digitrax that developed DCC? And their direct competitors at MTH (who had the advantage of seeing TMCC as they were working on DCS)? What about the early experiments in command control and sound (Lionel’s 1949 radio freq control and Herb Chaudiere’s HOn3 sound system in 1966)? Who rank ordered all these folks and declared Young and Kovach the most creative and innovative? And based on what criteria?
How does the fact of the contract guarantee the best available talent? Based on what criteria?
No problems wi
Reasonable people will differ, and I hold to my initial comments, which were intended in the spirit of “wait and see what they come up with before bashing and hashing,” as some have done (not yourself necessarily). If one reads the comments on some internet forums, based upon fragmentary information from Clyde Coil, and amusing misinterpretations thereof, one would think that valid opinions could be generated about the system at this point. It hasn’t even been described in full on paper, much less demonstrated. I am confident, based upon the original innovations of TMCC and Railsounds, ditto for ICC’s products, that Lou and Neil are going to come up with neat stuff. Will it be cheap? No. Then again have you priced out wireless DCC systems capable of handling several amperes? The separation of power and signal is the most brilliant part of TMCC, IMO, because it enables great simplicity and reliability, words I will use again.
My comments applied to toy trains (i.e., three rail O and perhaps large scale) and recent (n=10)years, not the long decades of history of toy train control. I think TMCC and Railsounds were arguably more innovative and superior products than what MTH ultimately came up with six years later and what LGB has done, for examples. To me that’s ample evidence that Neil and Lou are head and shoulders above the others working on these problems, until proven otherwise. I’ve worked with TMCC and DCS, and seen the LGB system in action enough to see the simplicity, reliability and cleverness of TMCC’s implementation relative to the other systems.
DCC is an entirely different beast that represents the work of many, many folks over decades, whereas TMCC represents a few years work by one team. As someone who works in a high tech world (medicine), I know how reliability and simplicity, sheer functionality if you will, are more important than gimmicks. Neil and Lou’s designs and implementations have met those standards, IM
“But unless prices drop down into DCC territory ($15-$30 per locomotive, $150 for a complete control system), my personal opinion is that TMCC 2 will quickly level off at a percentage of the current number of TMCC users. There will be very few converts from DCS or conventional AC unless the price of admission into the world of TMCC2 becomes more reasonable.”
I agree. The price won’t drop down to that level, ever. I don’t think there will be any converts from DCS to speak of, because they are off in their own little MTH proprietary world, which is the way MTH wants it. I also agree the number of converts from conventional AC will likely be small because any command system is more complicated than none, and many conventional users don’t have and/or want to spend the money for TMCC I, much less II. The target audience is the slowly shrinking three rail O gauge market of serious hobbiests who are technically inclined and spending thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on their hobby. Most of these folks are Lionel customers to some extent.
Three years after the introduction of DCS, when surveys have been performed on the OGRR Forum, the number of TMCC users still outnumbered the DCS users by 2:1. Given that the OGRR Forum is a heavily pro-MTH locale, this is quite telling. Both are probably still outnumbered by conventional only people is my guess. Lionel has a large audience (compared with, say, MTH, Atlas, or, chuckle Williams) for these three rail locomotive products. Those who adopted TMCC in 1996, like myself, will eventually incorporate TMCC II in many cases because it will add operating play value if I’m correct about my predictions.
But on balance, you’re likely going to turn out to be right on these points ;). Which may be why the brain trust at Lionel dragged their feet about moving forward with TMCC II all this time. It needs to be done, but it isn’t going to be a big revenue producer its
nblum
Thanks for the well thought-out responses. I think we’re in pretty close agreement on the subject of TMCC 2.
I am not a command system user in either my 3 rail O or my HO/HOn3 at present. I’m an electrical engineer and systems implementation project manager that has been interested in sound and control systems in model railroading and toy trains since I was a kid.
Since almost all my 3 rail equipment is pre-1993 (mostly MPC and PW, some 1990-era, and a couple of Rail King items), TMCC would be the most likely upgrade path. Since for whatever reasons - I have my suspicions but not facts - DCS is not available for other than MTH products, DCS doesn’t make much sense in my situation, no matter the pros or cons in comparison to TMCC.
In HO/HOn3, until/unless I start having more than 1 operator, there is no real reason for DCC. Since I model 1900 era short line and narrow gauge, the locomotives are pretty small for a speaker system. But if that hurdle can be overcome, current state of the art in HO is that sound systems do much better with DCC control than with DC.
Again, appreciate the thoughts and tone of your last 2 posts. I learned from them.
yours in training
Fred W
I really appreciate intelligent discussions. Thanks guys.
[#ditto]
Amen!!!
Brian,
This is an affordable family hobby, if you are Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, and Robert Zemeckis.
You might mean this hobby needs more available for the average family.
Andrew
" I’m an electrical engineer and systems implementation project manager that has been interested in sound and control systems in model railroading and toy trains since I was a kid."
If you really like sound systems (I am a sound junkie) in toy trains, do yourself a favor and listen, better yet - operate via a Cab-1 controller, to a Lionel steam engine with Railsounds 5.0 (or even 4.0). If you don’t agree its state of the art and like having a real steam engine in your basement then I would be very surprised. Neil Young and crew must have of had a lot to do with this technology, and they get my vote for best (and funnest) feature in toy trains ever (and I have other manufacturers products to compare against).
As for TMCCII, if Jerry Calebrase was sincere in his interview with OGR, it should add some interesting operating characteristics to running trains. I honestly don’t know how it can get better; I can only surmise it will feature some sort of load/momentum feature whereby engines will respond to load/track conditions.
Paul
oooooh, You almost got me - but I’m not biting!
I re-read the Jerry Calabrese interview tonight along with some past statements from former Lionel CEO’s. So I do find all this “dangeroo” over the latest flavor of TMCC a real contradiction and rather humorous. By Lionel’s own admission, usage of TMCC is a “disappointment” with at last count only 25% of the market utilizing it. This figure is over the course of a decade. So maybe… maybe the figure is now a whopping 30% of the market.
Calabrese seems to have an understanding by his own words, on how foolish both Lionel and the market in general have been over the past decade. And yet, so it seems, they continue to head full-tilt ahead down a dead-end siding that leads off a cliff. It almost seems like Lionel is enjoy trying to come up with some angle that will allow TMCC to control DCS stuff. And of course, MTH has spent millions to make sure TMCC can’t control DSC locos. Childish? Foolish? The lawsuits are only the tip of the iceburg on how these 2 companies feel about each other.
Once again, by Lionel’s own admission, starter related low end products account for the true bulk and majority of Lionel’s overall sales. Maybe they figure since this is already good, they can ignore the true majority of buyers by continuing to re-issue the same old same old products in the same old worn-out postwar road names. Hey, seems to work.
But here is Lionel (along with MTH and the defunct K-Line) pouring millions of dollars into product development for the true minority of buyers. How about a simple version of TMCC that would give wireless control using absolutely any Lionel transformer? How about wireless control receiver single boxes to control track blocks? There are two products th
CCA answer recent OGR Board questions…
by Clyde Coil
July 28, 2006
Are the rechargeable batteries built in or replaceable?
Yer CAB2 batteries are replaceable and are charged whenever yer CAB2 rests in its charger-base. There is only one command base needed per layout and yer first base will be a charger-command base. All other remotes only require a charger base. You can tell the difference in yer new catalog by looking at the monitor lights on the LEGACY base. That is yer command-charger base. The LIONEL base is a charger only and has no extra command lights.
Do all Legacy locs travel at the same speed at the same speed step?
Yesiree Hoss!
Are TMCC locs compatible with Legacy locs in a lash-up?
They can be. Since TMCC1 locs have varying speed tables. Yer gonna have to user pre-set the 5 railroad standard speeds on yer TMCC 1 locs to match pre-programmed railroad standard speeds on yer TMCC2 Legacy locs. Once that is done, there are 5 official railroad standard speeds that yer TMCC1 and TMCC2 engines can be run in lash-ups. These speeds are accessed by pushing the speed button on yer remote and using the 5 speeds available on yer touchscreen. These speeds are based on prototypical mph speeds used by American Railroads.
What about SMPH?
SMPH is patented, however LIONEL TMCC2 LEGACY locs run at twice the resolution or 1/2 smph speeds. Whether those speeds can be monitored in SMPH is a legal issue for LIONEL lawyers to decide. The speed graph can be set to read numbers 1 - 200 or numbers 1 - 100. No SMPH labeling is anticipated for legal reasons. DANG! How 'bout that Hoss? Lawyers are gonna decide what you can look at in yer screen! Who can we thank for that? DANG!
Do we need the old plastic overlays anymore for TMCC1 locs?
No. Ne