As a result of the article in Dec CTT regarding the independent wiring of DCS and TMCC, AND the wiring tip in the November CTT (pg 45), I’m a wondering…
There MUST be some reasons that some people are INTENTIONALLY avoiding comingling both DCS and TMCC. I don’t understand why.
Granted, there are a couple of TMCC features that cannot be activated with the DCS remote, but those features can be activated with the TMCC remote. Even when they are both operating on the SAME track. So why would you NOT want them cohabitating???
Given that a RS232 TYPE cable is required to interconnect the TMCC Comand Control to the DCS TIU, and that the new Legacy is supposedly backward compatible to TMCC. As I understand the new Legacy WILL require a cable to connect to the TMCC Command Control. I called MTH this morning to ask if they have plans on a cable with a pigtail, or something to accomodate the implementation of Legacy. They probably will.
Maybe something as simple as a RS232 splitter will suffice?
But still, why would anyone be reluctant to have TMCC and DCS together?? It seems strange that CTT has published wiring methods in two consectutive issues to do this, without mentioning that they will operate fine together?? Confusing…[%-)]
I don’t care how they want to spin it. There is no reason. I can run all 3 modes, conventional, TMCC and DCS all together. I aviod conventional with Command because it just not practical. The 2 command systems run great together…no toggles required.
OK, there may be SOME reason to do this, but the way it was presented is what kills me. Someone already posed about using two seperate power strips, one for each system, only turn on the one you want to use. The article reminded me of the old Mousetrap game/Rube Goldberg solution.
I’m NOT trying to bash that article. In the November issue there is ALSO a “solution” to both systems on the same track at the same time part of the “60 Tips”.
My question is: That since there is two references, their must be a “camp” that prefers segregated systems. I can’t think of a reason WHY that would be prefferable. Can anyone else???
Maybe help depopulate a surplus of toggles switches?
I appreciate your good humor in addressing the two articles you mentioned. To put it plainly, the ONLY tent in the “on mixing of DCS and TMCC” “campground” seems to belong to the CTT editorial board.
Their attitude towards command control reminds me of the owner of my LHS. He’s a nice guy who loves his toys, but command control just doesn’t spark his interest. He owns dozens of TMCC locomotives in his private collection, and every one of them is still addressed as engine #1. When I asked why he doesn’t change the addresses his reply was telling. He asked “why would I want to run more than one at a time?” I chuckled, and watched him happily return to running his one engine. If it make him happy, that’s great. But when a customer in his store asks him for advice about command control, he doesn’t refer the customer to a more knowlegeable sales person. He just muddles through offering what little he does know. CTT seems to be doing the same thing. If they don’t have a good internal knowledge base for command control they need to hand off those article assignments to someone who does, not just try and muddle through.