I was mislead by the article. Not that its a big deal,because i still love CTT and all, but the article did make it seem as though this was the only way to run TMCC and DCS at the same time and retain all functions. A little paragraph explaining that this setup is another option how to run the systesmt together would have made things a little clearer for us newb
A small follow up in the next issue (in the readers letters section) simply stating that this is not THE ONLY way to run the systems together would surley resolve the problem( And really the only problem is newbie’s to either TMCC and DCS may shy away from running both systems where there is extra wiring and switches needed… as per my feeling when i read the article)
"“On the other hand an article that says ‘just hook up each system as in the instructions and they work fine’ isn’t much of an article " is exactly what CTT should do.”
Earl, we are in complete agreement. I suspect the letters column will address this issue, as Bob mentions.
If you wanted to run each system completely independently, it’s a lot simpler to unplug the system you don’t want operating, or use two separate power strips, than it is to have the setup described, IMO.
I waited to post on this thread until I had a chance to pick-up a copy of CTT at my LHS and read Mr. Riddle’s article. I found it difficult to believe some of the comments being offered, which made the article sound so misguided. Sadly, having now read the article, I believe the comments so far have been too kind. First, let me share with you a little of my own background so you can judge the credibility of my comments. I’m a fulltime layout builder who specializes in command control installations. I’ve been a model railroader my entire life, and started selling my wiring services five and a half years ago when DCS hit the market. Since then I have built a reputation for expertise in both DCS and TMCC. I have installed dozens of TMCC and DCS systems on layouts ranging in size from simple carpet central loops to a 10,000 sq. ft. outdoor layout.
Thanks to my experiences growing up building conventional layouts with my Dad and older brother I learned the ins and outs of wiring early in life. I have never needed a reference book for conventional wiring, and thus have never had occasion to read any of Mr. Riddle’s books on the subject. I cannot make any statement as to the voracity of his other works, but his article How to Operate Lionel & MTH Command Control on the same Layout in the Dec ’07 issue of CTT demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of these two command control systems. The following three quotes are from the second, third and final paragraphs of the article:
“However, there’s one significant difference that sets them apart – and limits their use on the same layout.”
“These two command-control systems are not entirely compatible.”
“Perhaps someone will eventually develop a way to make the two systems work together without issue or loss of functionality.”
Regardless of the statements in defense of the article by CTT Associate Editor, Bob Keller, these quotes are CLEARLY misleading to the reader. They leave the impressio
I’ve never posted here, but felt the need to after reading this article.
In my opinion, this is the poorest article I’ve ever read in a toy train magazine. It’s misleading, poorly researched, and very incomplete, regardless of whatever defense might be offered by CTT.
A correction/more complete article should be prepared and printed asap.
Welcome to the bandwagon gentlemen. There a few seats left in the back. I just feel really bad for someone new to the hobby that doesn’t know any better.
I have to say that I, too, thought the article was misleading because it certainly put me off trying anything like the author describes and the net impression was “Gosh, way too complicated, who needs it?”. Only the various knowledgeable people explaining other options more clearly, put me back into the “might try it someday” frame of mind.
What concerns me more, though, is staff members of CTT being unwilling to admit the editorial staff goofed on this one. It is quite obviously the majority opinion (of this forum) that the article wasn’t successful in its stated intent and so whether or not the authors solution is viable (which it apparently isn’t) is neither here nor there.
We all make the occasional mistake, so admit it and maybe offer the rebuttal of printing the best of the other explanations.
