As I continue the wiring of my layout, I was going to get the TMCC Cab-1 and command base. I was going to connect the command base to my TIU so that I could run both my MTH and Lionel engines. With Legacy coming out shortly, could I connect the new command base in the same fashion to the TIU? If I can, I may just purchase the new system. I think the new Cab-2 remote is pretty cool, and would love to get a new Legacy engine.
Any help is appreciated.
Regards,
John O
John,
This is an interesting question! TMCC was an open architecture, meaning Lionel opened the licensing to other companies so they could build add-on boards that were compatible with the TMCC equipment. DCS is a closed architecture, that was built so it could also incorporate or run TMCC engines, DCS is ONLY sold by MTH. From earlier reports, and I have seen nothing lately to invalidate the old information, Lionel has closed the architecture on TMCCII so it can not be copied by other companies. I do not think DCS and TMCCII will be at all compatible, nor will DCS be able to run TMCCII engines, nor will TMCCII be able to run DCS engines (PS2). I’m not even convinced that DCS will be able to operate TMCCII engines in TMCC mode…
Brent
I know that you can connect the TIU and TMCC with the connector cable but don’t know if the new Lionel will be compatible with the TIU & DCS system or allow you to connect the two systems. Also heard that there may be a new PS-3 system out within another year or two. Personally I would wait for any news about new systems before adding anything.
My question on command control is can you hook up accessories to TMCC and control them with DCS? How do you control switches or accessories with TMCC?
Right now I have DCS: one TIU & one AIU. With DCS I could Daisychain five AIU’s together, one AIU can handle ten switches and ten accessories.
Lee F.
After I posed this question, I continued my research. I have not found anything definitive, but it certainly appears that the new Legacy system will not work in the same way as the original TMCC system. I will probably just end up acquiring the TMCC system for now so that I can utilize my existing TMCC engines. Since TMCCII engines are supposed to be able to operate on a TMCC layout, I would believe that they would work if the command base was connected to the TIU. However, the TMCCII engines would be restricted to 32 speed steps and many of the engine functions would not be accessible.
Maybe if we all pray really hard, Mike and Jerry will come up with a solution that will allow both companies engines to operate unhindered on the same layout. Of course, maybe the North Koreans, the Iranians will dismantle their nuclear program and the Russians will stop poisoning people…I guess I won’t hold my breath.
Regards,
John O
My understanding from hearing Lou Kovach talk about Legacy (TMCCII) is that DCS will continue to be able to control basic TMCC II loco functions (but not TMCC II new functions) using existing hardware. This is an obvious consequence of keeping TMCC I locos still operable from the TMCC II handheld/command base. DCS will not be able to access new TMCII functions partially because MTH has chosen to only partially implement current TMCC I functions and partially because MTH has chosen not to play nice with others in the industry in terms of compatibility thus far. DCS has not implemented the programming to allow control of TMCC I trains, routes and accessory commands, so you cannot use DCS to control TMCC I devices such as the SC2 accessory or switch controller, in answer to the other question. However, while nothing is certain, it seems likely the TMCC II command base will have a port that can be accessed by the DCS TIU as is currently the case, as this is essential to maintain compatibility with some older TMCC I devices like the TPC 300.
I think operating TMCC II locos with DCS will remain feasible, but increasingly limited and cumbersome until a possible future in which both companies agree to cross-license their systems so that their developers can incorporate true full inter-operability. We’ll know more when the TMCC II system is actually in consumer hands, presumably sometime in the next few months.
And not practical. You lose the features. TMCCII engines will operate better with the new controler.
[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]
Me thinks this will only happen when Lionel buys out MTH or MTH buys out Lionel… I really think that if MTH would stop the ‘you can’t play in my sandbox’ attitude then Lionel would be more willing to open up a bit as well…
Doubt me? Which company permitted third parties access to their codes so they could build and sell add-on boards?
I honestly believe that if it weren’t for MTH locking down PS-2 that Lionel wouldn’t have locked down TMCC-II.
“I honestly believe that if it weren’t for MTH locking down PS-2 that Lionel wouldn’t have locked down TMCC-II.”
Agree entirely. And look at the availability of software written for TMCC compared with MTH’s threatening legal action against the SJC Bulldog for even mentioning he had developed a program to work with DCS. And the fact that a rich array of reasonably priced add-ons such as Train America’s stuff, Digital Dynamics and the Electric RR Co. are available for TMCC but nothing of the sort for DCS. Indeed, when Lionel found Ed Bender of Digital Dynamics had cloned the TMCC system they licensed him rather than sued him. And when Jon Z. made cool stuff for TMCC, they hired him to work on their products rather than threatening a lawsuit or writing threatening letters. A difference in attitude that tells you everything you need to know about the companies involved, their values, and which explains the blizzard of MTH lawsuits that passes for their bizarre concept of justice. A plague on the idiocy of the current patent and intellectual property system which has permitted the stupidity and venality that has swamped this industry. And don’t get me started on patenting genes or natural phenomena which has been allowed by the current system ;).
Patents have long been a part of the train industry - look at the issues surrounding the E-unit patent and the skullduggery involved in Lionel’s acquisition from Ives.
Stupidity and venality arise from what you do with your property. Both Lionel and MTH have IP in their command systems. Lionel has chosen one course of development, MTH another. I think Lionel’s approach has been more successful but that has nothing to do with the current patent system. Had MTH tried to sue Bulldog they would likely have been bounced out of court - just as UP would have been bounced out of court had they sued MTH for trademark infringement. The problem is that, as with any kind of power - legal or otherwise - big players have more of it than underdogs.
Agree, although the current patent system awards patents for absurd claims that are patently (pun intended) unpatentable in principle. The system is overwhelmed with non-innovative and obvious claims.
One reason for many of these patent filings is that they can be used to threaten/manipulate competitors, particularly weaker and/or smaller competitors. These threatened actions, as you point out, can and do suffice to deter legitimate competition/innovation, even when the claim or complaint is illegitimate. That’s true in areas other than patent law, of course, and represents a weakness of the current civil justice system in many experts’ view (see Philip Howard’s “The Death of Common Sense” for some examples).
Assuming that I will be able to connect the new legacy command base to my TIU, will I be able to use the Cab-2 to access all TMCC II functions? From a wiring perspective, this would make things much simpler. I do not mind using multiple remotes for different engines. I just don’t want to have a bunch of dpdt switches going two the TIU and to the command base and be forced to only run one company’s engines at a time.
Regards,
John O
If you don’t mind using two remotes, don’t bother with the interconnecting cable. The systems will play nice and not interfere with each other as they use completely different signaling technologies. If you wire for DCS (aka paired wires, star patterns) and have a good earth ground for TMCC, you don’t need to worry about isolation dip switches.
DCS emulation only allows you to control TMCC ENG’s. No TRack/TRain, no SWitch, not ACCessories, no RouTE’s. You can wire up the layout with parallel controller for Switch/Accessories and program all of this into both systems if you have the time, patience, and funds to so. Or pick one of the systems for layout control and use the other strictly to control locomotives. The serial communictaion cable that links a DCS TIU to a Lionel Command Base is pretty lame anyway as it blocks echo’s of commands normally used to control former IC Control devices like the TPC, ASC, ARC, BPC, etc.
One cannot be certain until the products are tested together, but there is rarely any interference between TMCC I and DCS, and you should be able to use the DCS handheld and TMCC II handhelds to control, respectively, PS2 and TMCC I/II locos. I’d suspect that will turn out to be the preferred method for any number of reasons. Since TMCC uses the outer rail for its signal propagation, and DCS uses the center rail, there’s no inherent reason they should interfere with each other.
Neil and Chuck:
Thank you for the information. I will wait for TMCC II to be released and see how it actually works.
Thanks again,
John O
I run TMCC engines and PS2 engines on the same track[s] all the time. I use the DCS remote to run PS2’s and the CAB1 to run the TMCC’s. I use to use the DCS remote to run TMCC but found that was NOT the way to go. Also found that a CAB1 & TPC is the best way to run conventionals.
[#ditto]
Chuck and Chief:
Thank you for the feedback. Do you run conventional engines at the same time you are running TMCC engines? If so, are they on different blocks? How do you like it? Both myself and my three year old son love using the throttles on the transformers. My plan was to put in a dpdt switch to bypass the TIU so that any engine on the track could be run conventionally via transformer throttle. I will have two isolated loops that will allow for two trains to be run simultaneously. I could then switch the dpdt to the other position to resume command control. I don’t envision wanting to run conventional engines (I don’t own any currently) along with either TMCC or PS2 engines.
Thanks again,
John O
Good news for me! I found a copy of issue 218 of OGR. In it, they had a piece on the new TMCC II system. The article says: “The original TMCC codes can still be accessed by the MTH Digital Command System (DCS) through a TMCC OR LEGACY Command Base…” So, the TIU can still be connected to the new command base.
I should be able to use one remote if I want to, or use both the DCS and Legacy remotes for their respective engines. I am eagerly looking forward to TMCC II being released.
Regards,
John O
Glad you are happy with that. Personally, the DCS remote reacts too slow for me. Running conventionals with a TPC is a lot better than using a transformer handle. The Brake and Boost buttons will easily adjust the voltages and the air whistles seem to blow better too.
Hello Chief:
Well, I am like you, when it comes to conventional engines, I would rather just use the transformer handles. However, I do not have a collection of conventional engines. All of my engines are TMCC or DCS. If, after I have tried out the DCS running through the TMCC command base, I find that the response from the DCS remote is too slow, I won’t mind using the new Legacy remote. I have a hard enough time running two PS2 engines at the same time from one remote! [:P]
Anyway, I am still looking forward to seeing the new Legacy system.
Regards,
John O