From: macman+@pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:19:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Aug11.164254.15152@linus.mitre.org> sra@bistromath.mitre.org (Stan R. Ames) writes:

>passed around.  It should be pointed out that all manufactures 
>that desired to present a clinic were given space.  Clinics by 
>Badger and CTC16000 come to mind of other manufacture 
>clinics that were presented.

Unfortunately, I could not attend the convention... but the way I see it,
this is basically a waste of time.  All you're doing is showing the 
different versions on the market right now, and each mfr. is going to
point out their advantages (i.e. OnBoard using a DC carrier... errant
locos just run away, rather than suffer damage on an AC-carrier system).

>At the Marklin booth their was much interest and curiosity but 
>not much strong interest in buying.
>
>At the CTC 16000 booth the serious model railroaders 
>converged and spent many hours looking at the latest CTC 
>16000 command station.
Neither of these facts surprises me in the least... I've always avoided
Marklin's booth myself (the system looks strange to me, and the last I 
saw it, it was too expensive for the market).  Meanwhile the CTC 16000
(a beast I've never heard of... not been following this thread till now)
sounds like something I'd look into out of curiosity.  The name implies
(possibly wrongly) a compatibility with CTC-16 and it's derivatives
(CTC-32, I believe, and the Mann-Made system).

>3) Achieve some form of CTC backwards compatibility.

With what?  Just CTC-16?  What about Onboard, DynaTrol, and the others?

>5) Work to have at least 2 US Manufactures have product to 
>demonstrate at the 1993 convention

What manufacturers?  Knowing this industry the way I do, you have to 
go to a Marklin-sized company to find anything more than a few-man 
operation.  You want a small one-product company to invest in this
new system (which competes against their old system, IMHO) "just to 
see if it'll fly"? I don't think *I'd* take that kind of risk... 
especially since the system will be open to me to make fairly easily once
the standard is adopted.

>7) Generate a simple build it yourself command station.

Absolutely necessary.

>13) Prepare a clinic that shows some of the creative things you 
>can do with the standard.  It is important that this clinic be 
>manufacture independent.  Have committee members present 
>this clinic at regional and gauge specific conventions over the 
>next year.

IMHO, the standard isn't strict enough to be called a standard if
it's loose enough to "be creative".

As I said before, I've stayed away from this discussion, mainly because
I will not be in the market for a system for at least a few years, and 
because I had no idea that things were this far along.  The current
manufacturers have invested a lot of time and money in their products.
This shows up in some systems.  The only way I can see a standard is
if it's backward-compatible with almost anything on the market... and
I think that's a technical impossibility.  My second preference is for
a CTC-16 compatible system.... because it's the one the do-it-yourselfers
have been using for many years (14 of 'em, in fact).

-Den -owner of no command-control, user of many-
-- 
===============================================================================
Dennis Lippert   -   macman+@pitt.edu or macman@vm2.cis.pitt.edu
The "Mac Maniac" operator at the Hillman Research Lab - Univ. of Pittsburgh
"All comments are mine, you'd look like a fool if *you* used them"
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad