 |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
||
|
|
|
All I can say is by your reasoning, MTH could patent the use of an electric motor to power a train since no one else has protected the idea with a patent. I was not talking about DCS and the whole communication language,I was talking about the idea of measuring some thing with a scanner strip,running it through a computer and have something else happen on a timed basis. This is the basis for most electrical instrumentation for the last 30+ years. This is a patent on an idea to use it in a toy train, not a new technology and is absurd. Dale H Another fine product of the Cleveland Public School system. |
||||
|
 |
What we need is a direct RF multi-node command control system, so that even battery-operated trains with plastic rails, can be controlled by them, like Legos.
The direct RF connection gets rid of a base. The direct RF connection gets rid of BS like the switch problem of two rail DCS. It also needs the ability for nodes to be able to rebroadcast messages, like Smarthome's Insteon replacment for X10. Then it needs a way to encrypt, lock, or restrict control, something akin to they way a garage door opener only responds to the remotes it has been told to respond to. That way you can take the controller and engine to a show and not interfere. Michael    |
|||
|
I read somewhere that Mike had received a patent on the use of back EMF for motor control. This has been used for industrial motor control for years. There is nothing new being used for model train control. Can somebody take out a patent on something that is a standard method of control and put it in a model train and call it new. I wonder who will get a patent for boat motor control.
 Lisa Marie |
||||
|
 |
Dewey every indication seems that TAS will be working on products for manufacturers not for the general public. It seems they will be doing warranty work on their own installations (Past), but not new installation work for people. Maybe I am reading something into this, but it would seem that this would carry over to anything that would apply to end users. I am not stating the demise of the company. It appears that the new business model will be centered on OEM services.
Of course they have not given a comprehensive statement about all of their services, but what we are seeing sure points to this conclusion. That Train she's a special streamline ya know, and she's fast. That trains so fast, the hobo's don't mess with that train. They just stand by the track with their hat in their hand. -- Tom Rush, The Panama Limited |
|||
|
Okay, I'm "standing by the track with [my] hat in my hand"!
A&Y RY[NC's Southern/N&W connector]. |
||||
|
I think it is sad that these products will no longer be available, for those of us who do their own installations, or for those who's parts go bad, after the warranty has run out.
My thought is that something may be up at Lionel, as far as TMCC is concerned, that is not being told just yet. Lisa Marie |
||||
|
Sorry I confused You Earl. I should have made 2 sentances out of My Statement. 1st Part, meaning All he did was Protect a 2M investment in DCS with the Patent. 2nd Part, Others tried to Steal From Him. Plans and Drawings of Engines MTH was in the Process of Building, when the Cad Disks were stolden, and all the Law Suits were started. The Delaware and Hudson ( D&H ) the 1st Railroad in the USA |
||||
|
Amen!!
|
||||
|
 |
I'm glad you guys are finally realizing this. Not only will Legacy never be licensed out but neither will RS 5.0 or RS 6.0 or anything else Lionel. Lionel learned later on that they make more money on the sale of one of their locomotives as compared to the royalty they get when the SAW companies make a sale. MTH has also realized this which is why we will never live to see the day that DCS is licensed out. The only way I can envision DCS ever getting licensed out is if MTH came out with a system that was even more desirable than DCS, however if the new system wasn't backwards compatible they would lose a lot of sales and good customers. And if it was backwards compatible, DCS would still be desirable so there would be no motivation to license it. Basically, it would take a miracle where both companies come together and make one open protocol for the good of the customer/hobbyist.
Why not send it to Weaver? They should be able to help and they are great folks to deal with. And they actually have some of their stuff made here. 2 railer but respectful to 3 railers! Happy Railroading Everyone! Stilll waiting for 1:48 scaled autos.... Phil Gatto |
|||
|
Here's the chance for some of you who don't too much in the line of motive power; redo with DCC and sell your TMCC, which will have enough demend by some to pay the cost of re-grading to DCC with all the 'bells and whistles.
Remember, there is absolutly no reason DCC will not run on 3rail. Actually better than the other two, because you will not have the reverse loop problems that are built in to the DCS and TMCC. [and better than 2rail ] Ed R |
||||
|
Ed, TMCC, has no 2 rail reverse loop problems.
Lisa Marie |
||||
|
how is that possible? When a train exits the loop to return to the "main line" it will short out unless the loop polarity is switched. If TMCC does it for you, additional wiring still must be added. Yes? |
||||
|
 |
I think what Lisa Marie is referring to is that with an electronic reverser, which costs about 40 bucks and requires 4 wires to hook up to the rails, the polarity can be switched automaticly for DCC and TMCC while the train is running for hands free reversing loop operation. Or you can flip the polarity under the moving engine with a simple toggle switch with DCC or TMCC in 2 rail. The switch is undetectible while the train is running. Neither of these works with DCS. The comment is aimed at the comparison of TMCC, DCC, and DCS in 2 rail, not about 3 rail vs. 2 rail. |
|||
|
 |
I was planning on droping off a LIONEL 1987 READING T1 for TMCC conversion this April at YORK, very dissapointed tht TAS went OUT of BUSINESS
 Happy Rails to you Charlie TCA, TTOS PRRT&HS, N&WHS |
|||
|
Hmmm. A lot of folks making quite a few assumptions and jumping to conclusions here. Many assumptions seem rational on the surface but one can never be sure. It would appear that Lionel is trying to clear up some loose ends on their technology and that it will no longer be available to the secondary market, especially with the announcement that TAS will no longer sell to the secondary market (us). MTH, up until now, has not licensed to other manufacturers. So this would appear to leave Atlas, Weaver & (not so much) Williams out in the cold. However, people have been putting PS2 upgrades into some of their Atlas, Weaver and, yes, Williams engines.
Who knows. Maybe MTH will decide that now is the time to license PS2. Or maybe, just maybe, some ingenious entrepreneur will come along with an idea to fill what appears to be the coming void. The one thing that I am sure of is that re-fanning the flames of the Orange & Purple Kool-Aid wars will solve nothing. For now, all we can do is sit back and play with our trains and watch what happens next. Chuck TCA, MTHRRC, Atlas Golden Spike Club (Charter Member), Weaver Collectors Station |
||||
|
Lisa,
I stand corrected. At any rate, those who are just starting out in 3 rail TMCC and who want power from various choices, can still have digital using DCC and selling the proprietary TMCC to modelers like you and others who are not particulary stuck with a particular brand? Ed R |
||||
|
I hope for all of mankind Wolf does not get a patent for breathing air or a patent on the earth.
|
||||
|
|
|
Why on earth would MTH do that? MTH makes more money by selling you an entire engine or PS 2.0 upgrade kit than they would make off the royalty they get when Weaver, 3rd Rail, or Atlas sells a locomotive with their system installed. 2 railer but respectful to 3 railers! Happy Railroading Everyone! Stilll waiting for 1:48 scaled autos.... Phil Gatto |
|||
|
Guys, Give it a rest already, Once the new business plan is ready we'll let you know. Once again the OEM's are not effected. We'll publish something once we're ready to do it. Not before. All your speculations are unfounded.
Ernie ********* Happy New Year This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lionel2341, Proud Member of the OGR Family Designer of Unique TMCC Products Lionel Collector and Operator Original Train-Ca-Teer Member "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson |
||||
|
Confucious say:
Lack of information lead to rampant speculation. ______________ I'm going to lobby Congress for a rescue package for my layout. |
||||
|
Sorry but I’m not a believer……. How you can say we will not be disappointed, if you don't even have a business plan....... I'm already disappointed, I purchase some stuff than I was planning to make you install TMCC inside..... I contact your company around the 15 of December for some work, and few day after, you are close for business. For what is written on your web site a large part of your business is out of business. It will have been more wise to prepare a business plan, and explain it to your customer before told them, don’t call us anymore we don’t answer the phone. My business pass on fire 2 years ago, the first thing I do ( the next morning ) , is put a huge sign saying we are still open and relocated . How many times I have seen company saying they are restructuring, and finally see the asset sold in an auction……. I’m sorry but you make it look like that…. Unless you receive a court order to stop operation I believe it’s not a wise thing what you did…. Whatever the beautiful thing you promises will append, it will have live very bad tastes…
|
||||
|
Hi Ernie,
I have only repeated what you have said. After 30 days your products will no longer be available to the aftermarket. Meaning folks like me who do all of our engine work, will have to go elsewhere for TMCC components. I am hoping that Lionel will start selling components for the new system or at least Digital Dynamics, will continue to sell their line of TMCC components. You were a major factor in my deciding to go with TMCC 2 rail. Lisa Marie |
||||
|
Or ... I'm strongly considering not ordering or purchasing any more locomotives and just concentrating on finishing the layout with scenery and accessories while these companies, and the marketplace, sort it all out.
Except for 3rd Rail. I'll keep buying locomotives they offer which appeal to my NW rails addiction. The seem to have it under control as it were for at least the next couple of years. And they always stand behind their products. On the TMCC conversion of older locomotives, I feel like the actions by Lionel sort of left me hanging out in the wind. |
||||
|
The wasn't any "after 30 days not available" stuff Lisa. I had received a quote from them before TAS folded the tent, and asked if I could still have it done or at the least, purchase the upgrade kit and I didn't even get a response to my email. I thought that was a little rude, but chalked it up to confusion at TAS with a sudden shutdown, which was what the web site indicated.
ps, I still never received an email reply. |
||||
|
 |
TAS might have had their ducks in a row before they announced anything on their website. They must have had good reason to do this in such an unfortunate manner. To stop all business to individuals who have enjoyed their products for years with a somewhat cryptic announcement and not answering phones and email, taking orders, etc. would GENERATE wild speculation.
Chuck TCA #07-61087 LCCA #27776 |
|||
|
 |
We did have Christmas just a few days ago, maybe they are all on vacation. Let's reserve judgment until the holidays are over.
Regards, Gary Long live the Boston & Albany. |
|||
|
Not for nothing, but, shouldn’t you have done the business plan first? And all the speculation was caused by TAS not us. "It's 3-Rail. In 3-Rail you can do anything you want" - Larry Harrington, WBB |
||||
|
Great engineers are not always good businessmen.
Tony Up on "The D & H Bridge Line" |
||||
|
I agree.It's time to give it a rest. This stuff is nothing new. I wish the best to all the guys and gals at TAS. There are challenging times ahead for everybody.
|
||||
|
I am very sadden to hear about this great loss. Phil, Scott and Brian ran a good business and I was very satisfied with the work they did for me. There are very few people who know how to repair the electronics in these trains. I called about ten shops in Ohio and could not find one person to look at three year old engine. I even called Lionel and they said as log as the engine was out of warranty they could not help me. In addition, they could not recommend one service station who was proficient in fixing TMCC electronics. TSA were the only people who could help me. Does anyone know how to contact either Brian or Scott? Thanks!
|
||||
|
 |
Give it a rest? When has this group ever given anything a rest. Speculation, gossip, rumor and just plain B.S. is what this discussion is all about. Give it a rest? What fun is that? Even after the facts are known, no one will want to give it a rest. LOL. |
|||
|
Sorry, but after that response, I just can't resist reposting.....
|
||||
|
If the toy train manufacturers ever use the term "throw a way electronics", we'll have our suspicions confirmed.  |
||||
|
 |
I think TAS went to the Jerry Calabrese school of Public Relations. Say something too soon out loud, then have to clarify it later (After the fecal matter has hit the fan)
I am looking forward to hearing what they say when they say it |
|||
|
TrainHead, Call TK Hobby in Bridgeport Ohio at (877) 633-4779 and ask for John the manager. They have two technicians on staff who do both Lionel and MTH repairs. |
||||
|
And how they say it ...
 |
||||
|
In IT it's called the Microsoft approach. Shove it out the door before it's ready and see if anyone squeels about it.
|
||||
|
|
|
At my job we call it the scream test. I shut down a server or switch and see who screams.
My best scream was caused by me shutting down a server which (unknown to us) ran the entire "Black" section of our bases operations, teach them to use thin clients |
|||
|
Dale, Lisa Marie and all men of good will (to use a little Christmas lingo )Erol/Locolawyer has done great work factually covering legal proceedings over the last several years but his work seems to have only been widely read in the O gauge community. I have been reading other model railroading forums from time to time and there seems to be a lot of "I heard somewhere" bad info on MTH patents, especially in the HO world regarding BEMF. MTH received a patent for control of model trains in scale miles per hour. They did not invent the optical flywheel tachometer or other components used to measure actual locomotive speed but they were the first to use that method for control in scale miles per hour and received a patent for it. To get the patent they had to demonstrate that there were no earlier products, prototypes, published articles, papers presented at conferences, etc using or advocating control in SMPH. Further, they have posted the patent documents on their web site and stated that if anyone has evidence of prior use of the methods for which they have received patents they will voluntarily withdraw the patent. As obvious as control in SMPH might seem to you or me so far no one has stepped up with any articles, ads or conference presentations on control in SMPH. In HO circles the "MTH claims they invented BEMF" talk seems to come out of a press release form BLI/QSI some years back. It is kind of laughable to those of us who are familiar with Proto II since it has never used as imprecise a method as BEMF for speed control. Proto II uses an optical tachometer to determine actual speed, not infer speed from EMF. MTH sent out a letter years ago to inform other train manufacturers that they held a patent on control in SMPH and that any other systems that used SMPH would infringe on the MTH patent. Simply getting the letter seams to have freaked out some people, although it is a very common practice in industry. After the letter, BLI/QSI advertised a locomotive as having control in SMPH. MTH filed suit for patent infringement and BLI/QSI backed down. However, rather than deleting the SMPH feature, BLI/QSI disabled the entire BEMF cruise control feature on the locomotive and publicly blamed it on MTH. As near as I can determine, that is where the whole "MTH says they invented BEMF" urban legend got started. The ironic thing about the BLI/QSI BEMF urban legend is that QSI filed suit against MTH (not vice versa) and BLI head man Bob Grubba is the guy who got Lionel into financial trouble by taking advantage of what he knew were stolen MTH engineering drawings and later killed K-Line by getting them into legal trouble with Lionel by again stealing designs. Legacy uses a tachometer for precise speed control although it uses a speed curve and not the DCS linear SMPH control. Both are great systems and well ahead of anything available in other scales. I would love to see either system offered to OEMs like Atlas and 3rd rail. Failing that, the new MTH Proto 3 electronics hold out a real possibility for interoperability by working with both DCS and DCC. And MTH gives anyone the chance to run in approximate SMPH by using a Proto 3 locomotive as the benchmark against which to set your DCC speed curves. |
||||
|
QSI used back emf for the chuffing on proto 1 and the aftermarket system they produced. I would guess that was ironed out in the lawsuit that qsi had against mth and vice versa. |
||||
|
I understand your post. However you made my point. Scale MPH is obvious and a trivial in scale model railroading. How could someone get a patent for it? No one yet has marketed LED lighting in passenger cars that I know of. Since it has never been marketed in trains does that mean the first one who does it can get a patent and prohibit everyone else from doing it? How about scale buildings or scale people or scale crossing gates? All this information is in the public domain,there is nothing new. A patent of scale MPH would be like Chrysler patenting "automatic transmission". They could patent a method such as "Torque flight" but not the concept. As far as synchronizing chuff and smoke with a computer,again there is nothing new as to method used. I think a competitor could beat it in court but they are afraid of legal expenses. I do not think this kind of thing serves the hobby or the consumers well. Just my opinion,I am not a lawyer. Dale H Another fine product of the Cleveland Public School system. |
||||
|
Hi Dale,
I tend to agree with you that MTH shouldn't have been able to get a patent for SMPH. However, as obvious as it seems now, no one has been able to produce any tangible evidence that they thought of it before MTH. If they had, MTH offered to drop the patent without going to court. It's funny though that you tried to reinforce your point by suggesting Chrysler could patent the "Torque flight" method. In the early days of automatics when Chrysler introduced their first "TorqueFlite" they did have to pay a licensing fee to use the Simpson planetary gear set. Planetary gears had been in use in transmissions for decades at that point but Simpson came up with an implementation that was uniquely well suited to building 3-speed automatics. This is one of the reasons that many early automatics, like the Chevrolet Powerglide and Buick Dynoflow, were 2-speed transmissions that used the Ravigneaux gear set. |
||||
|
 |
I disagree. History is full of instances where someone took what seemed obvious, to the next level. Marconi "invented" the wireless? No, he patented a small compenent and figured out a use for it that nobody else could figure out. History says he invented the wireless, but many disputed that at the time. Give Mike the credit he deserves. Jim M TCA# 04-57609 |
|||
|
 |
In the case of speed control/scale miles per hour - the speed control is definitely prior art in my opinion. Closed loop microprocessor control of motor speed and position with variety of feedbacks is pervasive. Whether this control is inside a toy train or a battleship turret makes no difference - it's not an invention.
Moving from speed control to scale miles per hour control is simply calibrating the control loop in a set of arbitrary units. Again, in my opinion, you can't patent a numerical constant. You can bet that a given Lionel engine at a given speed step is going at some number of scale miles per hour. And when the speed is advanced to the next step it is going at a different number of scales miles per hour. If this relation is repeatable (which I presume it is) then you are in effect controlling speed in scale miles per hour if you chose to look at it that way. This shows just how silly this claim is. Re the smoke generation, my opinion would be that inserting a microprocessor between the engine physics and the smoke generator is in no way novel. However, a particular design of smoke generator that is condusive to control for effect by a varied signal could be patentable. Cam |
|||
|
 |
Lionel has once again wasted untold sums of money buying up a competitor when it should have used the free legal services of forumites thus saving itself millions of dollars and years of bunkruptcy. You'd almost think Jerry is going to run for Congress.
 --------------- dewey cheatham and howe! |
|||
|
Interesting Thanks Dave I had a 55 Plymouth with the pushbutton automatic. Every trip was an adventure,actually cars were a lot of fun way back.. Dale H Another fine product of the Cleveland Public School system. |
||||
|
Cam If you have any evidence to support your opinion please share it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. We all have our opinions, but theirs actually matters. |
||||
|
 |
This threat of lawsuits for trivial items will continue to stiffle competition and result in higher-priced, less capable engines for us, the consumer. Mike ought to do the right thing and give up the threat of lawsuits on such things as SMPH, software controlled chuff, sychronized smoke etc. He did a good thing when in negotiated the licensing agreement with Union Pacific and making the deal for all manufacturers. I think Mike would be well-served to issue a similar statement with all his patents on trivial items. I am in no way referring to his legitimate patents on his DCS system. I am just referring to the aforementioned trivial patents.
Mike has been a great and innovative leader in O-Gauge. His DCS system is outstanding as well as his train engines and cars. But at this time, Mike is a roadblock to the other manufacturers with his threats of lawsuits. It is time to end that. Earl |
|||
|
Well, since this thread is already going way off topic, I dont feel bad about continueing down the road to Tangetville... Hate to nit pick, but I have to make a correction. (its my other hobby) The Powerglide, early FMX, and other 2-speed automatic transmissions use a single, simple planetary gear set. One sun, one set of planets, and one ring gear. The "simpson" set is also known as the compound set. Two planetary gear sets that share a common sun gear. The Ravigneaux set is two planetary gear sets that share a common ring gear. A single "simple" set can give you two forward speeds and one reverse with only using two holding devices. Add another clutch pack and one-way clutch and you can get three forward speeds. (thats an additional two holding devices) A compound set with four holding devices can usually get you three, but sometimes even four, forward speeds and one reverse. A Ravigneaux set can give up to five forward speeds and two reverse, depending on the configuration of holding devices. The Tourqeflite, T/H-350, C-4 and C-6 transmissions use the compound planetary gear set. All have three forward speeds and one reverse. What is rather unique to these is that the sun gear (common) actually changes direction when going from 1st to 2nd gear. This presents an engineering challenge because it can be difficult to get a rotating mass to suddenly change directions. The only saving grace in these applications is that the sun gear is a relatively small and therefore lightweight component. The later models of the FMX were three speed and used a Ravigneaus gear set. Ok, that all I've got for now. Talk amongst yourselves. The natural order of things is disorder. |
||||
|
 | View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
