nblum - are you Neil? Man that was a great response! You are 100% correct in understanding my present setup. Keeping the Powermaster and running in passive mode seems the clear winner at this point. Sorry for belaboring my concerns, everyone.
Jim Duda
Neil is who I am, Jim. Not Neil Besougloff, he has more hair and editing experience. 
Neil Young has more musical talent AND more hair and more Lionel ownership :). I’m a medical researcher/doctor (blood transfusion/hematology).
If you need help with your setup, I’m sure there are enough DCS savvy folks to help out.
One point I might mention is that MTH transformers such as the Z750 or Z1000 already have a male connector that mates with the TIU auxiliary power input, which makes their use especially convenient for this purpose. One receives a transformer like this in each MTH set or one can be picked up relatively inexpensively on eBay or at some hobby shops.
I also was not overwhelmed with using the variable cannels on the TIU. I use the two fix voltage cannels. When I run my conventional engines, I do it the old school way, I adjust the handles of the transformer. DCS does not have to run at 18 volts. If you have both types of engines on the same track, the DCS engine can only run as fast as the voltage will allow. I have not seen this as a problem.
Jim,
The DCS Variable channels work very well. I have run Pre-war Ives Standard Gauge, Post-War Lionel, PS-1, conventional. There is no problem with doing using them. I have run TMCC, PS-2, and Lionel Post-War on the same track at the same time on one of the variable channels.
Again, there is no reason to use the Powermaster in the DCS environment. If you use the Powermaster in Passive Mode I am still not sure what the unusual wave form will do.
I would also not run recommend running in passive mode if you don’t have to. Your E-Stop (which I believe Neil pointed out) will not work, and and, obvioiusly the variable channels will not work as you are bypassing them.
I was an early advocate of Passive Mode, I still use it occasionally so I am very, very familiar with both.
Neil - have one of your research colleagues snap a pic of you in your lab coat and paste it in your profile so we can associate a face with a name. You too, RAK. Spank already has his in there.
I can’t thank you gentlemen enough for your help!
Jim,
You do not want to see a picture of me. Far too hideous.
Suffice to say that I will be happy to assist you if I can. It is too bad that you are as far away as Texas as we do demos about once a month at the local TCA Meets in Arcadia, California. You could play with the various facets of DCS and see for yourself.
I would like to suggest that you ask these very same questions on the OGR DCS Forum, if you wouldn’t mind. I think that you will be very interested in the responses that you get. Hopefully, Barry Broskowitz, Dave, or Ernie will see it and respond.
Gentlemen…I bit the bullet and just ordered the DCS system and the cable to connect it to the TMCC command base. I’m going to try and simply replace the Powermaster in my present setup with the TIU and take it from there. I take it the TIU must have a Conventional mode just as the Powermaster does…we’ll find out! I know RAK is smiling and if anyone else is - great! Maybe in a few days I’ll be smilin’ with ya!!!
Just so you know, I come out of the 135 watt LW txformer through a DTK-2 suppression device, through a 15 amp fast blow, and this is where I’ll add the TIU. Existing track connections will go right into the TIU outputs. Wish me luck!!!
Jim Duda
HI Jim,
Good Luck with DCS. It sounds good what you are planning.
By the way, I received my birthday present today, the MTH F40PH. (see first page of this thread) It runs great. The smoke unit is fan driven and set a medium its not bad. You can tell that it is on thou.
tom
I don’t use DCS. I don’t use TMCC. I tried them, and don’t feel that they enhanced my enjoyment of my trains. If anything, they added steps to an otherwise seamless process.
No DCS or TMCC for me! [8D]
Jim,
I am glad to see that you are moving forward, sir!. I look forward to watching your progress.
And yes, I am smiling (grinning from ear to ear)! Enjoy and keep us posted.
THOR,
I hope that you are doing well. I know that you are not a Command Control kind of guy, but I will get out one of my Marx locomotives and run it in conventional mode from a Variable Channel via DCS in your honor (and attempt to get a picture of it doing so)!
Jim, most Railking deisels do not have smoke[sigh]. The newer (2003/2004) Railking scale units, which are the older Premier shells, some do have smoke units. All MTH steamers(Railking and Premier) of course smoke. The main reason for not having a smoke unit is there really isn’t enough space in a Railking engine for the MTH smoke unit.
I don’t get that feeling every time I read comments from Mike Wolf.
Yes both DCS and TMCC can be made to work together on the same layout, but DCS does this by turning the TMCC command base into a SLAVE by translating and repeating the commands. A clever trick exploited the DCS design.
Can DCS accept commands from a regular computer, ie can a user write software to directly control trains with a computer using DCS??? My understanding is NO, and if that is the case, for my purposes DCS is useless. Sound is not important to me, control is.
Furthermore even if DCS is a better product, because of it’s creator’s attitude, and all of the controversy that it has caused within the model railroading community (especially with the people in HO, as a result of the patent) I will not consider buying it.
I read Mike’s statements in OGR, and felt that he was using the space to advertise his products, and not discuss the issues. Other manufacturer’s spokesmen, used that opportunity to talk about the industry in general. A couple even made references to MTH without actually naming names, a fact that I found very interesting.
That is why I think this IS a versus thing. It is Mike versus the rest of the world, and while his business style may be financially successful, it is very damaging to this hobby in general. And, THAT IS HOW I SEE IT!!!
Elliot,
I am not sure that the point of this whole thread should be a “one system is better than the other thread” type of thing.
I think that the statement of Macdannyk1 that you quoted is accurate for many of us:
“QUOTE: Originally posted by macdannyk1
Exactly. It isn’t a versus thing. It’s a complimentary thing.”
I am not sure how many are working on operating their layouts from a computer. I think probably a lot of us just like running trains and do not like to be limited to one brand or the other, or one control system or the other. For those running command from a handheld device, both DCS and TMCC are excellent and both work very well together.
You obviously have very specific goals for the operation of you trains (i.e. operation controlled by the computer). Goals which, for the moment, seem to be better suited to TMCC operation than DCS. That is why it is nice to have choices in the market place. You can do what you need to do, and that is a good thing.
You stated:
“Yes both DCS and TMCC can be made to work together on the same layout, but DCS does this by turning the TMCC command base into a SLAVE by translating and repeating the commands. A clever trick exploited the DCS design.”
I believe that this is a pretty accurate statement. This is the same “clever trick” that the software manufacturer’s have used to allow a computer to controll the TMCC Command Base in the manner that you are using it. This is a very intelligent and logical approach. Aside from the proprietary issues, it would probably not have made financial sense for MTH to develop its own version of the TMCC Command Base, when the Lionel version works so well and is so inexpensive (I think my last one was only $50.00).
MTH wanted to make sure that their system was not “closed” and could run anything (conventional, TMCC, and PS-2). By setting it up so that it could control the TMCC Command Base, they did
RAK 402, you are right when you say that it isn’t about better and worse, because the two systems are quite different. I’m not sure how the computer interfaces with DCS, but I suspect that it uses Lionel’s published codes to address the command base which sends the TMCC signal to to any TMCC equiped engines. The real question is, does the TIU ever “listen”, and if so can consumers get the codes? Getting the codes may be the problem. Lionel publishes theirs, and that’s how MTH designed DCS to “work with” TMCC. If DCS has the capacity to listen to a computer, it most likely uses different codes to do so.
I plan to use TMCC and CMRI (Computer Model Railroad Interface) together to create what I call a “virtual operator”. I have designed my layout to operate just like a real railroad, and want the computer to have complete control over some trains, while humans operate others in the mix.
I call CMRI “smart track” because I will be using it to detect trains over the automated portion of the layout, and run all of the signals and turnouts along the mainline. TMCC will give me “smart trains” that the computer can talk to. Put the two together, and the computer has all of the information and control it needs to start, stop, and slow the trains as necessary. The computer will generate traffic, and the human operators will join in, as the computer plays dispatcher sorting out traffic on the main.
As you can tell from my explanation, sound is a total after thought, since the computer can’t hear. If there are enough trains running, sound will become a bother to the humans in the room, and may have to be turned down or off.
This concept goes way beyond what most people will ever want to try, but there are a few of around. The technology is here now, the trick is to understand all of the elements and combine them into one operating system.
As for the MTH’s impact on people outside the O gauge community, there is a very interesting discussion over on the MR forum
Elliot,
Thank you for the information regarding what you are doing computer-wise with your railroad. Very, very interesting! I am resonably certain that MTH used Lionel’s published codes in the same manner as the computer software to control the Command Base as you suspected. As to whether the TIU will listen? Again, I did see MTH reps with a computer connected directly to the TIU operating as Cal-Stewart, prior to DCS’s release, so, at least at that time it could be done. Whether the codes will ever be available to the public, I do not know.
I did look at the link and found it pretty interesting. My feeling is that if MTH does have the patent on this technology, they have the right to defend it. I thought Andy Edelman’s letter was quite clear. I met him once-he is a pretty straight forward guy-definitly not a “marketing spin” type.
At any rate, the courts will sort it out. I remember back when Lionel was Lionel LTI, they threatened legal action to many businesses who were reproducing things using the Lionel name (I can’t remember if MTH was one of them, but it may have been). They stopped several too, acccording to my Lionel Dealer.
On an entirely different note: I kept wondering where I knew you from. I kept thinking I knew Elliot Feinberg, but could not figure it out. I went back and read one of the “Welcome” posts and saw your discussion with Neil. I have seen you many, many, times on the video. It is nice to actually meet you, if not in person, via the internet!
Thanks RAK, the part about the MTH reps using a computer has me curious too. What I think may be happening there is, that they may have some pre recorded events that they are playing back through the TIU. These events would have been created using the handheld remote. The problem is that it is speaking an unknown bit pattern, and without the codes it would take a lot of work to decipher.
This is only my best guess, and I will have to do some research, but there aren’t too many people around to ask about such technical things. There is only one dealer locally that really handles DCS, and he is by no means a “techno wizard”. One of these days I’ll have to make the schlep to his store, and ask to see all of the paper he can muster.
Because TMCC has been around longer, and has the broad based acceptance in the marketplace, combined with all of the information available, for my purposes it is the clear choice. Adding DCS to my mix would only complicate matters, and at this stage that is the last thing that I need.
With regard to the lawsuit, the problem is that some of the technology used to create DCS had been deliberately left unpatented, so that it could be used by anyone and everyone. But MTH came along and created DCS and scooped up the rights and claimed the patents. The sad fact in all of this is that the HO community is being adversely affected, and MTH does no buisness in HO. Mr Edelman’s comments, only go to reinforce my opinion that MTH doesn’t “play nice with others”. There may be no untruth in his statements, but they do little or nothing to calm the sense of outrage among the HO community. Keep in mind that most people in one scale don’t care one bit what happens in another scale. I’m strange, I do.
All of this is rather unfortunate, because MTH really makes some nice looking engines, but until all of this stuff gets sorted out, I can’t see buying any. Another unfortunate fact is that we are having this wonderful discussion at the tail end of a topic
Hi Big boy and RAK 402,
I do read almost everything you two write. There is so much to learn for both of you.
I believe the demo in point was pre-release of DCS and before the remote was complete, thus the need for the lap top.
DCS remotes can record a scrip by just running the trains and then asking it to repeat it.
It’s good to see both sides without any hair raising on the neck
Thanks
tom
Elliot,
I believe that the MTH reps were actually controlling the trains via the computer on a real time basis (i.e starting and stopping them, blowing the whistle, etc). By the way, there is, on the AIU, a “data port for future use” but I have no idea what the future use is.
As far as the law suit goes, I don’t know anything other than what I read, but I would think that, in the areas of two-way communication and scale mile an hour speed increments, MTH is probably on pretty firm footing. Again, it will be up to the legal types to determine this. I do not know and I do not wi***o get into that debate.
As far as purchasing things, I rarely buy anything that is not MTH (although I did pick-up three Lionel locomitves last year: The Tunnel Motor, the NYC S-1, the Standard Gauge Commodore Vanderbilt). I have, as many of us have, limited resources with which to purchase hobby items, so I like to purchase those things which will make me the happiest and give me the most “bang for the buck”-in my case those things are made by MTH. Again, you and I have very different goals.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever operated PS-2’s under DCS? I realize that it does not fit in with your project. Just curious.
The truth is that I haven’t put voltage to a track in over TEN YEARS!!! No conventional, no DCS, and no TMCC, even though I have bough ten engines in the last 5 years. I haven’t even run anybody else’s trains in that time. My little confession. Check this out.
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13652
My new layout is progerssing slowly, and I hope to get enough of the permenant track completed and a temporary cutoff installed fairly soon so that I can begin testing.
From what you two have said about the computer and DCS, there may be hope, but it is still going to take a back seat to TMCC. However, you have me very curious now.[bow][:)]
I have TMCC and am very happy with it. I don’t see the need to add a second control system at three times the price so I can buy MTH engines. If there is an MTH engine I really need to have, I will run it in conventional and get almost all the features.