What do you think about MTH HO products? Half of my friends are very happy, but the other half, no.
David B
Yes, David. I agree. Just like MRC decoders.[:D]
Rich
While I largely agree with David and Rich, I will say this, if you use DCC you may well be very happy with an MTH product. If you run on DC you will be very unhappy.
Sheldon
Not too likely, MTH locos with DCC are about as limited as Broadway Limited sound locos are on DC. To fully utilize the features of the proprietary DCS decoder you need the proprietary MTH DCS control system. Supported and available to NO ONE ELSE in the industry.
At least there’s NMRA standards for DCC and DC control.
–Randy
First, some history:
MTH is still largely an O-gauge company. Their products are pretty well respected there, and they have quite a line of models. They have only recently moved into HO, and have a small number of models which generally get good reviews. All of their HO stuff is at the top end of the price scale relative to other manufacturers.
Almost all HO equipment is designed to run either on DC or on DCC. DC is the old standard - power from a direct current supply, direction determined by polarity, and speed determined by track voltage. DCC is Digital Command Control. It is an NMRA standard. All DCC control systems will work with all DCC locomotives, regardless of manufacturers.
MTH has chosen to go with its own proprietary control system, DCS. You can not run a DCC engine on a DCS system, so, if you have a DCS system, you must buy your engines from MTH. The newer DCS engines have a “dual-mode” decoder, which will respond to either DCS or DCC. DCS engines will run on DC, with some limitations. (Again, thanks for the clarification, Randy.) There are features of the DCS engines which can NOT be activated with DCC.
Now, back to the present day. MTH is introducing a number of new engines for HO every few months. They are all DCS-equipped. Unlike some other manufacturers, they don’t offer a DC option.
To their great credit, they have announced the “Little Joe” or EF-4 electric locomotive. Nobody else makes these at the present time, so I was impressed that they would actually do this, since most of their engines have been popular locomotive models produced in abundance by other companies. (Wikipedia’s article on the Little Joe: [htt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Joe_(electric_locomotive)
The MTH locos also run on plain DC. They need way more than the standard 12 volts to reach top speed though - and that’s not like at 12 volts it runs a realistic top speed and the ‘true’ top speed is turbo speed. Check any of the recent reviews. You can;t control any of the sounds in DC, like you can with QSI/Blueline decoders - you just get the basic chuffs or motor sound.
–Randy
Just what features of the MTH locos won’t work on a standard DCC system. If it is just advanced features, that is of little concern to me since I don’t do access those with my current DCC fleet.
I would prefer to buy a pure DCC loco, but if what I want is only available through MTH, what choice is there. Specifically, I have been wanting to obtain the BLI Dreyfuss Hudson since they announced it 2-3 years ago. It’s been so long I’ve lost track. It was announced that they would finally deliver it in December but so far, I haven’t been able to locate it. I have been wanting to give them my money for this loco ever since they announced it but apparently, they don’t want my money. I think they would rather I buy it from MTH. If BLI doesn’t deliver this product this month, as far as I’m concerned, they will cease to exist. I will buy the Dreyfuss Hudson from MTH and probably get their Empire State Hudson eventually as well. I will never buy another BLI product. There is no excuse for the foot dragging that has been going on at BLI. What difference does it make how good a product you make if you can’t deliver it?
I’ll never understand why companies announce products that aren’t even close to going into production. I remember when Walthers announced their 130’ turntable. The delivery date kept getting pushed back 3 months at a time. I think they finally delivered it two years after it was first promised. Here’s a suggestion for all companies. Don’t announce a product until you’re ready to put it into production. All you do with premature announcements is anger your customer base.
Sorry about the rant.
It’s all an attempt to prevent having a warehouse full of product that no one wants because everyone who wanted one already has one. BLI made this mistake in their early production. Now they seem to only build when there are enough pre-orders, plus a few, which they instantly dump at half off through Factory Direct Trains. The stock at FDT never lasts long, so I suspect when they get there, there’s only the few extras they made left.
Eithe3r way, it’s all a huge pain for the buyer, and you can’t please everyone. But given that tooling for a new product is extremely expensive, I don;t see this changing anytime soon. Do you know Atlas does the same thing? I’m signed up for their newsletter and it will state right in there to place your order for a new product by a certain date if you expect to get one - and that’s still months out from the actual delivery of said product.
In return, we’re getting more specific products, not generics painted for every railroad that ever was.
As for MTH, you can access nearly all the sounds (if your DCC system goes to F28), but what you can;t do it much if any programming - even basic stuff liek address and momentum. You can’t remap functions (so that if you only go to F12, you can put useful sounds in the first 12 and move the useless junk to the higher ones). I’m not sure you can even change the address without using a DCS system You can’t adjust the settings for the smoke.
When it comes to product I want vs a completely incompatible proprietary control system - I’ll wait until someone using STANDARDS make the model. If Mike Wolf thinks DCS is SOOOO awesome, why don;t they sell standalone decoders or license it to others to also build DCS compatible products? Oh yeah, they’d rather wait til someone else adds features to their products and then sue them.
&
I have been reading this thread with interest, because I believe the comments demonstrate a failure of the organization set up to handle such issues, the NMRA. Now, before you start on the song about I am bashing the NMRA, I am a long time member, I have the MMR certificates, I stay active with the local NMRA groups. But I recall, as an also garden railroader besides being an HO indoors modeler, that for years we tried to get standards set for the G gauge, and really failed to bring the two sides together to agree. The only way we have as individual modelers to help bring order is to have a “lobby group” that comes up with workable standards that are supported by the vast majority.
DCC standards are set by the NMRA, but MTH has chosen to design and market a system that doesn’t meet those standards. At this point, the NMRA has “no teeth showing” to force MTH to follow standards, and Mike and his group are in effect thumbing their noses at the NMRA and the modeling community. I believe he has the right to build products outside the NMRA standards and to sell those products to make money, but, before we beat our righteous breast bones in indignation, I would point out that he is obviously selling product and making more and doesn’t care one whit for the NMRA, and if in my opinion, if the NMRA collapses, so does the hobby. the NMRA does have some life, even though it is not often shown, it has some teeth, just not baring them, but, the body is too dead to take the lead they purport to have in the hobby.
So we live with what we have today. Personally I won’t buy any product from MTH, but my one vote is pretty meager against those who do buy and then complain about the product. Just my thoughts.
Bob
Oh lovely. I just visited the FDT website. The ETA is January 2010. Why do they bother putting a year on it? Cue Buddy Holly, “That’ll be the day…”.
I agree that MTH is doing the hobby a disservice by continuing to build a non-compliant control system. But, the problem is still a relatively new one, at least as a “practical” issue. As a “theoretical” problem, it’s been around for quite a while, but it’s only been in the last few months that MTH has made it clear that they plan to be a significant player in the HO-scale engine game.
I was looking at the review of MTH’s SD70 in this months Model Railroader. I thought it was very indicative of the market that MTH has announced a future free upgrade to provide more functionality for DCC users. MR, to their credit, has consistently pointed out the “missing” features when trying to run these MTH engines on DCC.
In the long run, I think MTH will give in to the economics of the large installed base of DCC users in the HO scale community. They haven’t yet given up on trying to get HO users to buy DCS systems, but they will not be a big player in the engine market until they start equipping their engines with decoders which are fully DCC compatable. At that point, of course, they will be fully compliant with the NMRA standards, even if their decoders also support DCS.
We are all indebted to Lenz for DCC, by the way. Most of the NMRA’s standards came from the original Lenz design, and Lenz gave that to the NMRA so standards could be set.
jecorbett,
MTH’s DCS locos do not have Advanced Consisting, which is the basic method used for running Multiple Units together on all non-Digitrax DCC systems. This is basic stuff. Advanced Consisting information is kept on the decoder, so if you consist locos at home, they will stil be consisted even if you take them to another layout. Digitrax uses UniVersal Consisting, which keeps the consisting info in the command station. If you consist locos at home, they will not be consisted anywhere else.
MTH DCS locos cannot be read by a DCC system. If you want to know what your decoder is set at, you are out of luck. Say you lose the address for the loco… With DCC you can scan it and find out what you programmed it as. With DCS, you can’t…unless you buy their DCS system (and maybe not even then…I don’t know if they can even read their own decoders). Again, this is basic stuff that all but the worst DCC decoders can do.
Other features that are common on DCC are not available to DCS owners. You cannot speed match an MTH loco…ever. It runs as it runs and there is no option available. You cannot re-map any functions at all. Say you want to have a sound effect that’s in the 20’s relocated so that you can use it somewhere in the 1-10 range… That can’t be done with DCS. Don’t like how loud the air compressor on your MTH DCS loco is? Want to make the horn louder or the bell softer? Forget about it with DCS…they don’t allow that. Want to change the horn to more accurately model your prototype? Nope, sorry, you are stuck forever with whatever single horn that MTH gives you for that model. And, what if you like DCS so much that you bought their system and you want to convert all your DCC locos into DCS locos? Sorry, you can’t do that, either. They don’t offer their DCS decoders for sale.
John, all of BLI’s production items have been slipped by about three months. This was alluded to on their site in early November. They announced a second run of their fabulous Y6b Mallets back in July, and they are now moving out to the distributors. The Q2 was supposed to be available in November, but I figure late Jan may be a bit optimistic yet. The UP 4-12-2 was supposed to be shipping about now, and I think you’ll find it available next March/April. The Dreyfus Hudson still seems to be in the developmental stage as they don’t show a close-to-production example with paint and details on their site,so it is likely to be out in the late spring at the earliest.
People posting to the BLI forum have been clamouring for more Y’s, and perhaps BLI was able to swing it quickly with the idea that it would improve their liquidity (bank balance) in the near term and help them to stay robust in dealing with their supplier(s). This is just a hunch…no evidence.
-Crandell
From the MR review of the SD70 by MTH:
"An MTH representative informed me that the company will soon be offering a free user-installed upgrade for the SD70ACe. This will allow you to set speed tables, remap functions, and advance consist the locomotives using DCC. These upgraded electronics will also be included in future MTH HO locomotives."
This indicates to me that MTH understands it has a weak product with respect to DCC compatability, and is working to change that. It’s a good start. But, there’s no information about engines other than the SD70, or when these upgrades will be applied to new engines. Also, what about engines already in people’s hands? Will they get a free upgrade? (Admittedly, Advanced Consisting isn’t something you do a lot with steam engines, although some do.)
In considering a DCC system, I have avoided the MTH version for all the reasons already stated. Likewise, this redirects my money away from their HO locomotives - that and that butt-ugly coupler they have adopted. Exclusivity is not always synonymous with market share leader.
Sorry, Crandell, but I’ve seen this movie too many times before. I am pretty sure when they first announced it on their website, it was listed as Coming Soon. I waited patiently and nothing happened. Trainworld continued to list it in their ads but everytime I called, they never had it of course. Apparently they made the mistake of believing BLI also.
If, as you say, the Dreyfus Hudson is still in the developmental stage, why did they lie again and announce a December release? Why have they lied again about a January 2010 release? That’s what infuriates me and what I find inexcusable. If they don’t have it, they shouldn’t advertise it. I find this sort of practice inexcusable and it is why I will neve
My OP was focused to the quality of the products, in HO. We know that MTH want that everybody buy their DCS system, so when DCC modelers buy a MTH, knows the narrow scope of the model. I want to know about running way, sounds quality, details, lights conforming NMRA rules, customer service, etc. Thanks everybody.
To answer you last question first, yes, I think they should make everything they announce. If they aren’t going to make it, don’t announce it, or at the very least, put a disclaimer on the announcement that the release is dependent on customer demand. Above all, don’t announce a release date if you don’t intend to release it. Just be honest with your customers. I don’t think that is an unreasonable expectation.
As for all the issues you addressed with the DCS based locos, I’m not utilizing any of those functions now with my DCC fleet other than MUing and I don’t see any reason I would want to MU this particular locomotive as long as it can pull a reasonable consist up my 1.5% grade. I’ve never tried to speed match or re-map any functions so again, these are non-issues with me.
In short, I see no reason to wait any longer for BLI to make good on their promise to deliver a Dreyfus Hudson to the market when there is a competitor wh
Hi from Belgium,
Even if the MTH locos are surely fine running models and handsome looking one, I am afraid by their policy.
WHY?
Because they are outside the sandards we are looking for since so many times with their DCS control system.
NMRA with in the beginning the LENZ company have figth togheter to create a good standard for any DCC system, and as far we could see these standards are very good and far from what we expected really.
With all the features the system offer, and the new ones coming, we are often surpassed by them…
Dont’ forget, it’s the first time we have since 50 years, a complete interchangeable system.
A DCC loco with a Soundtrax decoder can run with a Lenz system without any problems for example. By this way you could take one of your loco to a friend layout DCC equiped whithout any trouble.
MTH tried to impose a system, it’s their rights anyway but it’s dangerous because it’s a “torpedo” in the NMRA standard; and in fact in our standards.
So a good thing to do to preserve this so fine standard we are so many to use today, is to not accept the products outside this wonderful standard, DCC, we were waiting for a so long time.
Here in Europe we have know such a disaster whit the Marklin system which had impose a standard whith AC current during years which was obsolete whit all the others.
Marc