# LGB Parallel VS Serial - What about Decoders?



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

A lot was made by LGB over recent years regarding the need for "P" (parallel) products. My LGB Central Stations 2 & 3, LGB Remotes, LGB Transmitters and one LGB Receiver have the "P" upgrade but another LGB Transmitter and Receiver do not. Since the LGB Central Station 1's are Serial only I might as well keep a Serial receiver for use with them (and for use with a LGB Analog Throttle). Strangely this Receiver will apparently work in Parallel but only with specific Transmitters. 

I have six questions: 

1. I would presume that all decoders sold by all manufacturers today have parallel capability. Is that correct? 

2. How do I (you) know if older decoders perhaps including old production LGB 55020/21's are serial or parallel? 

3. Is Parallel or Serial capability a factor at all when a LGB Universal or Loco Remote is TETHERED to a "P" rated LGB Central Station? In other words is Parallel and Serial strictly a radio control function? 

4. Would an LGB ANALOG throttle be affected by whether a TETHERED LGB Universal or Loco Remote was Parallel or Serial capable? 

5. Would an LGB ANALOG throttle be affected by whether a LGB Universal or Loco Remote WITH Transmitter and Receiver was Parallel or Serial capable? 

LGB said: 

"To take advantage of parallel function commands, you need an MTS Central Station "Type 2" (LGB 55005) with upgraded software that includes "p" capabilities or "Type III" (LGB 55006). 

In addition, any input device and wireless component used to transmit the "parallel" commands to the Central Station must have "p" software. These include: 
55015 Universal Remote 
55016 Loco Remote 
55050 Wireless Transmitter 
55051 Wireless Transmitter, USA 
55055 Wireless Receiver 
55056 Wireless Receiver, USA 
55060 MTS Computer Interface" 

6. Since the LGB 51070 Analog throttle is not listed above and the 51070 instructions do not make any reference to "P" rated accessories I assume this means the the "P" upgrade has no effect on analog operations. Is this correct? 

Thanks, 

Jerry 


Note: I am not planning (or looking for advice) on buying anything beyond some cheap decoders. I am simply trying to better understand the capabilities and limitations of what I already have so I can get the best performance from what I already own.


----------



## KGierman (Jan 21, 2008)

Jerry, 

As near as I can tell, only the LGB 55027 is parallel capable. 55021's are all serial only unless they are converted (and I am not sure they can be). Some of the decoder equipped locos are supposed to be parallel capable but the only one I have is the undecorated mogul and that is serial only. The main issue is the LGB digital sound systems, none of which are reported to be parallel capable. The Phoenix Sound Systems P5 works fine on parallel and it is nice to have the instantaneous response to pushing a function button. This is gleaned from a conversation with Klaus Stork at Massoth USA who was very helpful. The good thing from my perspective is that everything I have tried so far with the Massoth central station is capable of 28 speed steps with makes for much smoother operation. 

Hope this helps, 
Keith


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Keith- 

Your LGB #23191 should be able to understand parallel and serial commands. When you set up the #23191 in the Navigator, did you select parallel commands? 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi Keith, 

Yes it does. 

Thanks, 

Jerry 

Posted By KGierman on 07/30/2008 10:07 AM

Hope this helps, 
Keith


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Keith- 

A few additional notes: 
-55021 decoders (from V2.8+) are serial/parallel. Older decoder versions must be upgraded or replaced with Massoth decoders to generate the rapid F1 pulse chain needed with “P-upgraded” sound boards from “decoder interface” and “direct decoder interface” locos. 
-LGB 6500x series sound modules are serial/parallel 
-All onboard decoders are serial/parallel. 
-All sound locos with onboard decoders understand serial/parallel commands. 
-Early 55021 decoders and 6500x sound modules cannot understand 128 speed step commands. All versions of these products understand 14/28 speed steps. 

If you are curious, here is some additional information. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gscalegroup/message/27973 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Jerry- 

Here is a useful website for the serial/parallel discussion. There is also some helpful information regarding the various LGB/Massoth decoders: 
http://homepage.bluewin.ch/reutimann/digital.html#digitalneu 

The text is in German, but you can rinse it through a translator and get the general meaning. 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

deleted


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Jerry- 

I tried three translators and all three worked. Here are two: 

Google 
http://translate.google.com/transla...l.html#digitalneu+&sl=de&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 

Babelfish 
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translat...http://homepage.bluewin.ch/reutimann&lp=de_en 

Perhaps you didn't cut and paste properly? 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

deleted


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Jerry- 





1. I would presume that all decoders sold by all manufacturers today have parallel capability. Is that correct? 






All NMRA decoders for largescale are parallel. Some decoders can understand both serial and parallel. 






2. How do I (you) know if older decoders perhaps including old production LGB 55020/21's are serial or parallel? 





Read the decoder version in CV#7. There are other visual clues given on the Reutimann website, but I suggest reading the decoder version number. 






3. Is Parallel or Serial capability a factor at all when a LGB Universal or Loco Remote is TETHERED to a "P" rated LGB Central Station? In other words is Parallel and Serial strictly a radio control function? 





No. There are other performance enhancements. 

1. Moving between two locos is much easier. The “hand-off” function is no longer necessary. 

2. Short circuit timing was fixed on the central station. This improves reversing loop module operation. 

3. Wireless range is enhanced. 

4. Upgraded devices can transmit serial and parallel commands. 






4. Would an LGB ANALOG throttle be affected by whether a TETHERED LGB Universal or Loco Remote was Parallel or Serial capable? 





No. 






5. Would an LGB ANALOG throttle be affected by whether a LGB Universal or Loco Remote WITH Transmitter and Receiver was Parallel or Serial capable? 





Yes. The Universal/Loco Remote wireless range increases with the P upgrade. 







6. Since the LGB 51070 Analog throttle is not listed above and the 51070 instructions do not make any reference to "P" rated accessories I assume this means the the "P" upgrade has no effect on analog operations. Is this correct? 






The “P upgrade” has nothing to do with the 51070 analog throttle. 



Best regards, 

Bob


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

UPDATE AND CORRECTION: 

My "serial" operations of the Digitrax and MRC decoders only involves the motor output of those decoders. 

Based on subsequent posts it is apparently correct that these decoders ARE NOT capable of serial operations with the exception of the motor output. 


I am happy to say that I have not run into any problems using the Digitrax DH123D, DG583S or MRC AD322 decoders when running their motor output to run locomotives with the LGB MTS Central Station 1 (Serial Only). 

So far all decoders I have tried have been able to control the motor output both under Serial and Parallel operations. 

Jerry


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Jerry- 


I am happy to say that I have not run into any problems with the Digitrax DH123D, DG583S or MRC AD322 decoders when running them with the LGB MTS Central Station 1 (Serial Only). 
So far all decoders I have tried have worked both under Serial and Parallel operations. 
Jerry 



Your statement is misleading. 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are using the decoder's motor leads to power the loco circuit boards. You are not controlling lights, smoke, sounds, etc. from the decoder's F2-F8 function outputs. 

Obviously, there would be no serial versus parallel function compatibility issues if you do not connect the decoder's F2-F8 outputs. 

If you did connect lights/smoke/etc. to the F2-F8 function outputs of these decoders, you would not be able to trigger these function outputs with an MTS I or MTS II (serial) system. 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

to mislead (third-person singular simple present misleads, present participle misleading, simple past and past participle misled) 

To deceive by telling something that is not true. 
To say something for purpose of causing the receiver to think or act in a certain way. 
To lead astray. 



Perhaps stating that my comments are misleading is in itself misleading. 

Since my stated purpose for my inexpensive decoders is to use the decoder's motor leads to power the loco circuit board and that purpose seems to be served both in parallel or serial mode the result is that for me serial and parallel operations are functioning satisfactorily with the inexpensive decoders. 

I make no pretense of being any sort of MTS/DCC expert and my comments reflect my experiences (nothing more and nothing less). 

Suggesting that I am somehow misleading is to suggest that there is some intention on my part to provide inaccurate information. 

If a serial command to a decoder results in a locomotive speeding up, slowing down or changing direction that suggests to me that the serial command is communicating with the decoder. 

If someone else wishes to provide further clarification on other limits that may exist in the serial communications with a decoder they are welcome and encouraged to do so. 

My comments may be less than comprehensive due to my limited knowledge of DCC operations but they are not misleading. 

Rather than challenging my comments it would be much more helpful to everyone to provide detailed information regarding how serial operations might be possible to control motors but yet not be able to control F2-F8 functions. I don't think these decoders even have all the F2-F8 functions. 

If I knew what to look for I might find time to check for further serial compatibilities (if anyone is concerned about it). 

I am not selling or promoting anything. If there are limitations to the Digitrax and MRC decoders I would be the first to want to know (and to want others to know) about them. 

Jerry 




"Your statement is misleading. 

Since you are using the decoder's motor leads to power the loco circuit board, you are not controlling lights, smoke, sounds, etc. from the decoder's F2-F8 function outputs. 
Obviously, there would be no serial versus parallel function compatibility issues if you do not connect the decoder's F2-F8 outputs."


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Jerry- 


to mislead (third-person singular simple present misleads, present participle misleading, simple past and past participle misled) 

To deceive by telling something that is not true. 
To say something for purpose of causing the receiver to think or act in a certain way. 
To lead astray. 

Perhaps stating that my comments are misleading is in itself misleading. 
... 
Suggesting that I am somehow misleading is to suggest that there is some intention on my part to provide inaccurate information. 



You can lead someone astray without intent, so my original comments were correct. 

By providing an incomplete description of your installation, your post gives readers the impression that NMRA function outputs F2-F8 can be controlled by an MTS serial pulse chain. 


Rather than challenging my comments it would be much more helpful to everyone to provide detailed information regarding how serial operations might be possible to control motors but yet not be able to control F2-F8 functions. 



Serial function commands have nothing to do with motor control. They affect DCC functions F2-F8. 


If I knew what to look for I might find time to check for further serial compatibilities (if anyone is concerned about it). 



Try controlling the F2-F8 function outputs of the referenced decoders with a serial MTS system. (To test, you can simply connect 24V bulbs between the appropriate function output and V+.) You will not be able to trigger these functions with a serial MTS system. 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By rwbrashear on 09/02/2008 9:25 AM
Jerry- 

I am happy to say that I have not run into any problems with the Digitrax DH123D, DG583S or MRC AD322 decoders when running them with the LGB MTS Central Station 1 (Serial Only). 
So far all decoders I have tried have worked both under Serial and Parallel operations. 
Jerry 


Your statement is misleading. 





To state that Digitrax or MRC DCC decoders support LGB serial operation is not misleading, you're too kind with that statement, it's *dead wrong!* 

Neither Digitrax not MRC have ever supported LGB serial operation and they will also never support LGB serial operation in the future. 

If you need LGB serial operation, there are a handful of European decoder manufacturers who support this LGB proprietary serial pulse chain concept, and even there it can vary from decoder type to decoder type. 

Knut


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

I would much rather be dead wrong than misleading. 

Considering the fact that most of the used LGB MTS products that are being sold on eBay tend to not have the "P" (parallel) upgrade it is amazing (to me) that there are no clear cut statements by decoder manufacturers in their specifications about support or non-support of serial operations. 

Sometimes it takes an inaccurate comment to bring out the full facts about something. 

At least now someone (Knut) has finally stated clearly that Digitrax and MRC decoders are NOT capable of serial operations. 

Some people might suggest that serial is a LGB only consideration but as far as I know LGB is the ONLY large scale manufacturer to have adopted a policy of factory installations of decoders. 

In my opinion to try to ignore LGB serial operations is like trying to ignore an elephant sitting in your front yard. 

In my case it appears that for whatever reasons (that I do not understand) I will still be able to continue my installations of the MRC AD322 and Digitrax decoders in my locos since I am only using the motor output of the decoders which apparently are capable of controlling the motor output of those decoders via serial commands. 

Cheers, 

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

This brings up the question of other manufacturers such as QSI. 

Can anyone say whether the QSI sound decoders are capable of LGB MTS serial operations when plugged into the Aristo-Craft DCC socket? 

For that matter which manufacturers other than Massoth are capable of serial operations? 

Thanks, 

Jerry 



Posted By krs on 09/02/2008 6:01 PM
If you need LGB serial operation, there are a handful of European decoder manufacturers who support this LGB proprietary serial pulse chain concept, and even there it can vary from decoder type to decoder type. 
Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Jerry - 
I get the feeling that you may not understand exactly what "serial" operation means. 
Not surprising - I never liked the terms serial operation and parallel operation that were coined by LGB. 
A few of sentences on history: When LGB initially brought out MTS (which was quite similar to DCC but not identical), one of their early throttles was an MTS mouse. It was really geared for very easy operation for kids, after all we are talking about Toy Trains here, and that mouse had a button that would activate a function on the loco. 
Didn't take long and just activating one function on a loco was not enough, people wanted to blow the horn, turn on the bell, and activate more than one function. 
With DCC, the NMRA standard allowed for that by assigning different coded 'packets' (the electrical control signals embedded in the DCC signal on the track) for each function output. So when you pushed function button 1, the central station would send the appropriate 'packet' signal for F1, the decoder would detect it and turn on the F1 output of the decoder, same for F1 to F8 and later for higher function outputs. Each function outputs had a different 'packet' signal that was generated by the central station based on which function button was pushed. 
Well, on the MTS mouse there was only ONE function button, so how do you control functions 2 and functions 3 and 4 etc.? 
Instead of stating the obvious - if you only have one function button you can only control one function, LGB decided to come up with the serial pulse chain idea where you just push that function button multiple times to activate the higher function outputs. 
So if you want to send function 3 for instance, you push the function button on the mouse three times. the MTS centarl station sends out the 'packet' for F1 three times, the MTS decoder counts the number of F1 packets it receives and in this case turns on the F3 output. Note that the MTS/DCC signal on the track is still fully NMRA compliant, but any decoder that cannot be programmed for this serial pulse chain operation will recognize that signal as three F1 signals not as one F3 signal. 
With only F2 and F3 to activate this way, that process worked reasonably well, but it not only became cumbersome with the higher functions, say F7 where you had to push the mouse button seven times, but it also became unreliable. If noise on the track for instance distorted one of these F1 packets sufficiently, the decoder would not detect it and would trigger an F6 output for instance instaed of F7, Then there was also the delay while all these pulses were being sent and of course the functional incompatibility with DCC. 
So LGB eventually introduced what they call "parallel" operation which is simply the normal DCC operation, each function has its own unique DCC packet and the function is activated as soon as the packet signal is received. 
So..........any DCC decoder will work fine with any MTS system (as far as this capability is concerned, there may be other incompatibilities) as long as you have no need to operate functions 2 and up. 
Jerry - to answer your last question, I think it's safe to say that only European Manufacturers are compatible with LGB serial operation and then only a few of them. I don't think any US manyfacturer ever implemented this either on the decoder end or the Central Station end. A while back, someone made a converter that would accept serial pulse chain at the input and output the proper DCC signal (called parallel by LGB), but since that still left you with the inherent unreliability and delay of function activation, I doubt it's still being sold. 
Zimo for one has a decoder that provides serial pulse chain operation at the output of their decoder to drive an LGB sound system that requires serial pulse chain. 
And - just to confuse things a bit more (maybe you should not read this) - the standard DCC signal which LGB calls parallel is actually a string of serial pulses that make up the packet - they are just sent so fast that it seems like one signal and the SUSI interface and the latest LGB sound interface from decoder to sound unit is also serial - but also very fast.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hello Knut, 

Actually I do understand what you said and I did understand the serial (multi-pulses) vs parallel (fast pulse) operation. 

What confuses me and had caused my misinterpretation of "serial compatibility" was/is the issue of motor control. 

When I run MTS/DCC I get the "steps" of speed increases which to me seemed to fit in with the serial pulse concept (more pulses = more speed). Actually this is one reason I have preferred tethered analog operations (no steps). 

If motor control is not an "F" function then what is it? 

How is it possible that a motor function can work with a serial controller when the F functions cannot? If serial cannot talk to the functions how is it able to talk to the motor? 

For my primary operations with MTS/DCC I use and will continue to buy and to use the more expensive LGB/Massoth (and perhaps Zimo) decoders but with my multiple layouts (especially my portable trailer layout) I prefer to continue to use the LGB Central Station 1's because of their low cost ($50). They will be used with low cost locos (Lionel, LGB Starter Sets etc.) and for that layout and those locos I am unwilling to spend $80+ for a decoder. 

The end result is that while I have converted my primary layouts to MTS "P" capability I still want to maintain serial capability whenever possible. At least I know that LGB's MTS Central Stations are backwards compatible with serial decoders. I would not be willing to consider a higher level DCC system that might not recognize some of my old decoder equipped locos. 

The more I learn about DCC the more incompatibilities I seem to run into. It seems one almost has to become an expert in order to build a compatible system. 

I thought I could talk to some local HO DCC guys but they did not know much about what I was asking. 

At least I am making progress and I am ending up with more MTS/DCC capable trains than would have been possible without these inexpensive decoders. 

Thanks, 

Jerry


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Knut- 

Good explanation. 

You wrote: 
And - just to confuse things a bit more (maybe you should not read this) - the standard DCC signal which LGB calls parallel is actually a string of serial pulses that make up the packet - they are just sent so fast that it seems like one signal and the SUSI interface and the latest LGB sound interface from decoder to sound unit is also serial - but also very fast.


Just to clarify, with a "P" upgraded LGB system, the commands through the rails are NMRA parallel commands. The commands between a "P-enabled" 55021 and a "P-upgraded" loco circuit board are high speed serial pulse chain. 

Onboard decoders communicate with factory installed sound/accessory modules through a proprietary high speed, 4-pin interface. As a side note, there are several decoders which have the ability to produce this same signal, allowing users to replace/upgrade LGB onboard decoders. 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 09/03/2008 10:39 AM

If motor control is not an "F" function then what is it? 

Thanks, 
Jerry




Jerry - 

The "F" terminology in DCC is reserved for function outputs, ie decoder outputs you control directly by wiring the item you want to control to a specific function output. 
Function output 0 is usually reserved for lights and function outputs 1 to whatever can be connected to anything you want to control assuming the device meets the electrical "Function output" requirements of a particular decoder. The more sophisticated decoders can then also modify the function outputs to sayprovide a latching function or a timed pulse or a lower voltage than the DCC track voltage or or or - varies by decoder and you need to consult the manual. 

The motor control is not considered a function output - it usually can't be controlled directly; the output is a combination of user input (via the throttle and DCC packets from the central station) and preprogrammed parameters or feedback parameters from other devices like the back emf from the motor itself. 
The *basic* DCC packets from the central station that control the motor are the same for MTS and DCC except that DCC allows for more sophisticated control than MTS did initially - but the MTS controls are still a subset of the more sophisticated DCC motor controls. 
In general, any MTS central station should be able to control the motor of any MTS or DCC decoder - there are a few subtle issues created due to the evolution of DCC over the years that need to be taken into consideration. the most obvious is the 14 and 28-speed step incompatibility if the central station supports one and the decoder supports the other, but in general DCC decoder motor control is compatible with pretty much all DCC (or MTS) central stations. The serial vs "parallel" issue strictly relates to function outputs from F2 onward as I explained in my previous post. 

Hope that helps, Knut


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hello Knut, 

That explanation helps a lot. 

In the meantime my friend phoned to tell me that he has no problem with switching his LGB White Pass diesel (with a MRC AD322 decoder) lights on and off using the F9 key. 

That suggests to me that the MRC AD322 decoders just might be serial capable after all. 

Regards, 

Jerry


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Jerry- 


In the meantime my friend phoned to tell me that he has no problem with switching his LGB White Pass diesel (with a MRC AD322 decoder) lights on and off using the F9 key. 
That suggests to me that the MRC AD322 decoders just might be serial capable after all. 



No. The MRC decoders are not serial capable. Headlights are controlled by F0(front) and F0(rear). 

I recommend you purchase a good DCC primer. It would really help your confusion. This is my personal favorite: 
http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Command-Control-comprehensive-guide/dp/9185496499 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By rwbrashear on 09/03/2008 3:44 PM 
I recommend you purchase a good DCC primer. It would really help your confusion. This is my personal favorite: 
http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Command-Control-comprehensive-guide/dp/9185496499 
Best regards, 
Bob


This is an amazing book. 
It was published in 1998 - ten years ago - and there was so much foresight included that in most areas it covers it's still very much current. 
It certainly covers what we are talking about but it may be too technical for Jerry. Still an excellent book to have for anyone who is into DCC. 

Knut


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Very true. I really have no desire to learn any more about DCC than I absolutely have to. 

All I want to do is to figure out what I can and what I cannot do with cheap decoders. I doubt the book will discuss MRC AD322's or Digitrax DH123D and DG583S decoders. 

On the other hand if there was a small book or magazine that specifically addressed what I can and cannot do with these specific decoders - that might be something I would buy. I would probably need to find information published in 2003 which is the date on the MRC AD322 decoder instructions. 

Once I get the decoders installed and working (to whatever extent is possible) I doubt that I will have any desire to further my DCC education. 

I just want to learn the minimum necessary to obtain the minimum performance from minimally capable decoders. For the rest I will stick to decoders that plug and play with my LGB locos and MTS systems. 

Jerry 

Posted By krs on 09/03/2008 4:27 PM
it may be too technical for Jerry.


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Knut- 

You wrote: 

It certainly covers what we are talking about but it may be too technical for Jerry. Still an excellent book to have for anyone who is into DCC. 



I think the beauty of the book is that it explains DCC in fairly non-technical fashion. For about the cost of four feet of brass sectional track, Jerry can get a basic understanding of DCC. (I am sure Jerry will argue that 1) he would rather have the track, or 2) that $4.50/ft is too much to pay for sectional track. ) However, he wouldn't even need to read it cover to cover to get his money's worth. 

For example, if he had read the book, he would certainly know that headlight functions are controlled by F0. Leafing through the pages, I notice these other topics arising in his posts are discussed in the book: 
-LGB F1 pulse chain, 
-how to reduce DCC track voltage, 
-reverse loop wiring, 
-DCC track voltages by scale, 
-decoder programming, 
-PWM versus DC, 
-DCC interoperability, 
-motor/track wiring isolation, 
-zero stretching, 
-filtering a decoder's PWM motor output, 
-consisting (F7A-B-A), 
-constructing a non-polarized capacitor from two polarized capacitors, 
-combining DC and DCC operations on the same layout, 
-power supply selection, 
-decoder installation, 
-decoder selection, etc. 

Jerry stated the following: 

I just want to learn the minimum necessary to obtain the minimum performance from minimally capable decoders. 



His statement sounds simple, but when you start cutting (price) corners by mixing DCC products from various scales and manufacfurers, you really need to have a basic understanding of DCC. Jerry's frequent questions over the past several months speak to this fact. Clearly, the book will not answer all of his questions, but a little bit of background reading would definitely help him. 

Why am I picking on Jerry? I'm not. I've recommended this book to friends who are planning the leap to DCC. The book is also featured in the 'Additional Reading' section of the MTS Seminar presentation. I believe I also recommended it on the LGB Family Forum a few months back. 

Of course, this is strictly my opinion. My advice plus $0.99 will get you a cup of coffee.  

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted on 09/05/2008 12:56 PM 

I am sure Jerry will argue that 1) he would rather have the track, or 2) that $4.50/ft is too much to pay for sectional track.


Nope. 

Jerry would simply say that he has said time after time on forum after forum that he ain't gonna buy the stupid book no matter how many times he is told to buy the stupid book. 

If someone is so obsessed with my having the stupid book I will give him my address and he can buy it and send it to me for Christmas because that is the only way I will ever end up with the stupid book. 

I buy toy trains. I go to the library to get my books for free. 

Posted on 09/05/2008 12:56 PM 
Clearly, the book will not answer all of his questions


For instance I am sure that the book would not tell me which brands, models and version numbers of decoders are or are not serial capable - or even which brands and models of Central Stations, Remote Controls, Transmitters and Receivers are serial capable. 

LGB makes it simple. 

ALL LGB products are serial capable and those that are parallel capable are so marked. If someone wants to sell me a decoder they will have to first tell me that it is serial capable - or that it is dirt cheap. I don't need to buy a book for that. 

I doubt that "the book" would tell me what I could do with a non-serial decoder while under serial operations but even if it did I can buy a couple of cheap decoders for the same money and find out for myself. 

Posted on 09/05/2008 12:56 PM 
Why am I picking on Jerry? I'm not.


Picking on or broken record? There is no difference from my perspective. It is like having a male mosquito buzzing around - annoying but harmless. 

A friend might volunteer the information about how someone might accomplish something. 
A non-friend would probably tell him to go buy a book and then be careful not to actually offer any really useful information. 

It is easy to see where he fits in (friend or non-friend): 

Posted on 09/05/2008 12:56 PM 
For example, if he had read the book, he would certainly know that headlight functions are controlled by F0. Leafing through the pages, I notice these other topics arising in his posts are discussed in the book: 
-LGB F1 pulse chain, 
-how to reduce DCC track voltage, 
-reverse loop wiring, 
-DCC track voltages by scale, 
-decoder programming, 
-PWM versus DC, 
-DCC interoperability, 
-motor/track wiring isolation, 
-zero stretching, 
-filtering a decoder's PWM motor output, 
-consisting (F7A-B-A), 
-constructing a non-polarized capacitor from two polarized capacitors, 
-combining DC and DCC operations on the same layout, 
-power supply selection, 
-decoder installation, 
-decoder selection, etc.


It is obvious that he has spent a lot of time researching the questions that I have posted on this as well as on other forums. What is not so obvious is that he has carefully avoided helping me with any of the questions I have posted preferring instead to butt in with no helpful information but instead telling me to buy a stupid book. 

Fortunately for me others stepped in and helped me with the information he either did not know or was unwilling to share with me. 

He has made a significant effort to show how smart he is and how much he knows while providing me with no assistance of any value whatsoever (which is perfectly OK with me - I've never asked him for any advice or assistance of any kind). 

If offering "the book" as helpful information to readers was the objective, it would have been much more logical and responsible to post it under its own topic such as "A Great DCC Book Everyone Should Buy." Then again that would not be as much fun as telling me for the zillionth time to buy a book knowing full well that I will never buy it. 

Why someone, who claims to have so much DCC knowledge to share with others, lowers himself to the level of being nothing more than a pesky irritation to me puzzles me no end. 

******************************************************************************** 

Sometimes it takes me awhile to make sense out of things. For a long time now I have been puzzled by his constant unhelpful interruptions of my posts accompanied by instructions to go and buy a book. 

A good reason for this just occurred to me. 

The high number of people who view my DCC questions suggests that many others share many of my questions. The fact that he continually tells me to go and buy a book suggests that he wants me to away and shut up (on the forums) and stop asking all my questions on the forums but until now I did not understand why it could possibly matter to him how many questions I ask. 

Then suddenly it just hit me... 

He is a master of redirecting everything away from himself by suggesting that I am mysteriously attacking someone I never attacked (or ever heard of) or that I am stealing intellectual property of someone else (by sharing information I read in magazines I purchased). 

Why would he do that unless perhaps he may want to stop the information flow (about MTS/DCC) that has been coming - TO EVERYONE - as I ask and obtain answers to not only my questions but perhaps to the same questions many others have been wondering. 

If I keep asking all my questions (and getting the answers to them) about MTS/DCC - perhaps he is afraid that the mystery/secrecy/confusion about MTS/DCC might be lifted and the number of people willing to pay to attend his seminars might be significantly reduced as people figure out MTS/DCC for themselves. 

As long as I DON'T buy any DCC books - and I continue to ask my DCC questions (and get answers to them) on PUBLIC FORUMS - not only will I be improving my own DCC knowledge but also many of the members of the various forums I ask those questions on will also get answers to their questions. 

He is welcome to sell all the seminars he can and it is unimportant to me how many people do or do not pay to go to them. I am not in any way in competition with him other than I am personally unwilling to pay for my personal MTS/DCC education/information and what I learn on free public forums is by the nature of public forums available free to everyone who reads my questions and answers. 

His many messages to me to buy a book seem to reinforce an attitude that MTS/DCC knowledge is intellectual property that should/must be paid for. My attitude is that MTS/DCC knowledge is NOT intellectual PROPERTY. It is information about how to play with toy trains and as such it should be available to everyone - FOR FREE! If someone (anyone) does not wish to share their MTS/DCC knowledge with me that is perfectly OK. They should just quit telling me to spend MY money. 

I don't work for or represent anyone or any company. I don't sell or charge for anything. I am happy to share any information or knowledge I have with anyone - FOR FREE. 

Perhaps THAT is what he is afraid of. 

******************************************************************************* 

Personally I prefer to ignore pests. I never go looking for him. He has to make the effort to find me if he wishes to "bug" me. Now that I am comfortable with the knowledge I had been seeking the buzzing has become more amusing than annoying. Kind of like a lightning bug instead of a mosquito. They carry their own little light around telling the world "hey look at me."  

As for "picking on Jerry", it is easy to count how many times in this topic alone comments have been made to or about me by the same person - and this is AFTER a Moderator of MLS requested we take our discussions to private email. 

The good news is that thanks to the assistance I have received from everyone else (those who have NOT told me to go and buy a book) I have now accomplished 99% of my MTS/DCC projects. 

Thanks to my savings from NOT buying "the book" (and to NOT buying the decoders and sound decoders that he also told me to buy) I have saved enough money to buy all of the decoders and sound decoders that I needed (that he DID NOT recommend) plus I now have a surplus of cheap decoders that should last me for many years to come. 

Information is always appreciated (by me) but when I am told to do something it invariably results in a disinclination to follow any such instructions. Information I listen to and evaluate. Unrequested and unwelcome instructions are ignored. 

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

My apologies to Stan Ames etc. for calling their book stupid. I am sure that it is a great book for anyone who is interested in developing a comprehensive knowledge of DCC (I am not). 

Digital Command Control - the comprehensive guide to DCC (Paperback) 
by Stan Ames (Author), Rutger Friberg (Author), Loizeaux. Edward (Author) 

What is stupid is for someone to persist in telling me to buy a book (any book) after I have repeatedly told him that I am not going to buy the book - especially a book that was written over 10 years ago which by that fact could not possibly address my questions about MTS/DCC products that were not even on the market when the book was written 10 years ago. 

The MRC AD322 decoder (the decoder I just bought in quantity) instruction sheet is dated 2003. It does not take a rocket scientist (or a DCC expert) to tell me that a book printed in 1998 will not have any specific technical information about a decoder introduced in 2003. 

By the same token if Digitrax does not provide maximum voltage data on their DH123D HO decoder I doubt that I would discover that information published in a 1998 book. 

Jerry


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Jerry - 

Do you keep modifying your posts or am I going bonkers? I think it's the former even though the mls software doesn't indicate your post was edited. 


Sometimes it takes me awhile to make sense out of things. For a long time now I have been puzzled by his constant unhelpful interruptions of my posts accompanied by instructions to go and buy a book. 

A good reason for this just occurred to me. 

The high number of people who view my DCC questions suggests that many others share many of my questions. The fact that he continually tells me to go and buy a book suggests that he wants me to away and shut up (on the forums) and stop asking all my questions on the forums but until now I did not understand why it could possibly matter to him how many questions I ask. 

Then suddenly it just hit me... 

He is a master of redirecting everything away from himself by suggesting that I am mysteriously attacking someone I never attacked (or ever heard of) or that I am stealing intellectual property of someone else (by sharing information I read in magazines I purchased). 

Why would he do that unless perhaps he may want to stop the information flow (about MTS/DCC) that has been coming - TO EVERYONE - as I ask and obtain answers to not only my questions but perhaps to the same questions many others have been wondering. 

If I keep asking all my questions (and getting the answers to them) about MTS/DCC - perhaps he is afraid that the mystery/secrecy/confusion about MTS/DCC might be lifted and the number of people willing to pay to attend his seminars might be significantly reduced as people figure out MTS/DCC for themselves. 

As long as I DON'T buy any DCC books - and I continue to ask my DCC questions (and get answers to them) on PUBLIC FORUMS - not only will I be improving my own DCC knowledge but also many of the members of the various forums I ask those questions on will also get answers to their questions. 

He is welcome to sell all the seminars he can and it is unimportant to me how many people do or do not pay to go to them. I am not in any way in competition with him other than I am personally unwilling to pay for my personal MTS/DCC education/information and what I learn on free public forums is by the nature of public forums available free to everyone who reads my questions and answers. 

His many messages to me to buy a book seem to reinforce an attitude that MTS/DCC knowledge is intellectual property that should/must be paid for. My attitude is that MTS/DCC knowledge is NOT intellectual PROPERTY. It is information about how to play with toy trains and as such it should be available to everyone - FOR FREE! If someone (anyone) does not wish to share their MTS/DCC knowledge with me that is perfectly OK. They should just quit telling me to spend MY money. 

I don't work for or represent anyone or any company. I don't sell or charge for anything. I am happy to share any information or knowledge I have with anyone - FOR FREE. 

Perhaps THAT is what he is afraid of.


I read that and thought "Jerry can't be serious"............ 

For one there is no "mystery/secrecy/confusion about MTS/DCC", at least there shouldn't be. There are thousands of webpages all over the net explaining all the various aspects of MTS and DCC and the differences. Google is a big help here but you have to use it. 

And if I remember correctly, LGBoA a few years ago, before this bankrupcy issue, pleaded and begged Bob to agree to run these seminars so that LGBoA could boost their MTS sales. Nothing wrong with that, companies do that all the time, run seminars to make sure people understand the benefit of their products and thus increase sales. 
But to suggest Bob is withholding information so people are "forced" to attend his seminars is rather ludicrous IMHO.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By krs on 09/08/2008 12:31 PM
Jerry - 
Do you keep modifying your posts or am I going bonkers? I think it's the former even though the mls software doesn't indicate your post was edited.. 

But to suggest Bob is withholding information so people are "forced" to attend his seminars is rather ludicrous IMHO. 



Knut, 

I occasionally reread posts I made to check my wording and grammar. In this case there had been a sentence or two that I had a problem with trying to make them grammatically correct - not to change what I had said but to make an unclear sentence or two easier to understand. 

I have no idea why an edited post does not show up as having been edited. It may have something to do with the new MLS system. 

As I touched up my wording the thought recurred to me about what has (for a long time) appeared to me to be an intentional effort on his part to obstruct (on multiple forums) my efforts to learn various things about MTS/DCC. 

I did not attempt to hide my changes - I highlighted the fact that I had made changes with a row of asterisks both before and after them. 

For a very long time now I have been unable to post hardly anything on MLS, GSM or LGBFF (regarding MTS/DCC) without him jumping in and in effect hijacking my topics while never providing any really useful information or assistance. 

I have asked him time and time again to ignore me just as I ALWAYS ignore him yet it makes no difference. 

There is no question that his actions are deliberate and intentional. The only question is why does he do it? 

I did not say he is trying to force people to go to his seminars. My point was that rather than allowing me to ask questions (unhindered) on MLS and on other forums about MTS/DCC and to let others answer the questions I ask, he persists on telling me to buy a stupid book. 

My point was that by his making it difficult for me to get answers to my questions (the same questions others may want answers to) regarding MTS/DCC the only alternative would be for me and for others to spend our money because we are being denied the ability to get our answers on free Internet forums. 

I am a paid lifetime member of MLS. I have a RIGHT to ask questions about MTS/DCC or anything else here and on other forums. He HAS NO RIGHT to interfere with my ability to ask everyone else for information or help about and with MTS/DCC. 

If I prefer to get answers to my MTS/DCC questions by asking a dozen or even a hundred questions here on MLS it is nobody's right to question my right to post them and nobody's right to interfere with my getting answers to my questions no matter how many questions I may elect to post. 

It is arrogance and an attempt at intimidation for him to post a list of subjects I chose to ask about on multiple forums. He IS NOT a moderator for MLS. He is NOT a moderator for GSM. He is NOT a moderator for LGBFF. He HAS NO RIGHTS regarding those or any other forums or to say a single word about what I say or do on those forums. 

What right does he have to post a list of my comments on various forums? 

What right does he have to tell me on a public forum that I should buy a book rather than to post my questions? 

You tell me. Why does he do it? 

If my guess about his motives is wrong then the obvious conclusion is that he is simply doing it out of pure maliciousness. 

Either way I don't see much difference. 

Jerry


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Jerry- 

I am truly sorry to hear my response to your six original questions fails to meet your expectations. There were a lot of questions and the original topic sat for a week with no thorough responses, so I took at crack at answering. I took the time to also include additional information which I thought would be helpful, yet once again, it's not good enough for you. I also took the time to correct some of your misconceptions and I was lectured on the meaning of the word 'misleading.' 

In another thread, I stated my distaste for your posting of a copyrighted MTS article from an LGB Telegram magazine. You have since removed the offending posts, but you now distort the meaning of my "intellectual property concerns" into an attack on my character - drawing me as an arrogant, intimidating, narcissist who hoards information to force people to pay for knowledge. 

At the end of the day, for offering my thoughts, opinions, observations, and advice in a public forum, I get to suffer through another session of "39 reasons why Jerry thinks Bob is a bad guy." 

Thanks! 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## kdtsolutions (Jan 20, 2008)

I would like to add a little nuetral perspective here. Jerry is asking questions on a fairly complicated subject. The problem seems to be that he does not have enough knowledge of the subject matter to understand the answer. Without trying to ruffle anyones feathers, I would say that Bob spent a lot of time trying to help Jerry and provide useful information. I would respectfully suggest that Jerry learn more about the subject so he can understand the answers given. If he did have a better understanding of DCC, I do not think he would be offended. As a nuetral reader I never got the impression that Bob accused Jerry of trying to mislead anyone. He simply made a point that the "statement" could be misleading. Remember lots of us read these posts to gain knowledge. I appreciate the work both Bob and Knut put into these answers. Jerry, I agree this is a complicated subject. I have fealt your frustration and found that by taking the time to read and learn about DCC, it has become a lot less confusing. BTW I did not buy a book but read lots of online information and asked lots of questions. Klous Stork (Massoth)and James Shourt (Shourt Line Softworks) have both answered many questions. I really enjoy the electronic side now and have got my trains running well. Once you get a little understanding of the DCC it is actually really fun. 

I hope no one gets offended by this, my intention was to smooth things over and not make things worse. Good luck and have FUN with your trains! 

Mark


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

My frustration has nothing to do with MTS or with DCC or with anyone or with anything else. 

It has nothing to do with his meeting or not meeting my expectations. 

My frustration is very simply stated and very simple to understand. 

I wish to NEVER say anything to Bob Brashear and I wish that Bob Brashear would NEVER say anything addressed to me by name or about me by name on this or on any other forum. 

A Moderator of this forum has asked us to take our communications to private email. This is what I want as well. 

I DO NOT WANT his "thoughts, opinions, observations, and advice in a public forum" when they are addressed to me by name or when I am mentioned in them by name or by quotation. 

If I ask a question on this or any other forum I would prefer dead silence to a response (any response) from him. 

If he takes offense at anything I say it can only be to a RESPONSE by me to something he said (and addressed directly to me or that mentioned me by name in it) on this or on other forums. 

If and when someone is told publicly, privately and even by a forum moderator to avoid discussions with another individual on that forum and he persists (over and over and over) to continue to address his remarks to that person BY NAME it is both logical and normal for that person to find any such communications offensive - and I do. 

I have been trying for many months to disengage from ANY AND ALL communications with him whatsoever. 

There is not (never has been) and never will be any reason for him to EVER "suffer through another session of "39 reasons why Jerry thinks Bob is a bad guy" if he will simply do as I have requested (over and over on forum after forum) and just leave me and my topics alone. 

There are plenty of other MTS/DCC experts both online and offline who have answered my questions very well. All I ask is to be ignored by one single "MTS/DCC expert." 

The real truth is easy to verify. If I continue to do as I have done for many many months and NEVER address ANYTHING to him (here or on any other forum) and he continues to address me by name, as far as I am concerned that will prove that his intentions and actions have malicious intent. 

If he finally starts to ignore me - the problem (my problem) will finally be resolved. 

Is that too much for me to ask? 

Jerry 

PS In case anyone thinks I am overreacting and that this is something new: 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LGBFamily/message/5201 




Posted By rwbrashear on 09/08/2008 3:35 PM 
Jerry- 
I am truly sorry to hear my response to your six original questions fails to meet your expectations. There were a lot of questions and the original topic sat for a week with no thorough responses, so I took at crack at answering. I took the time to also include additional information which I thought would be helpful, yet once again, it's not good enough for you. I also took the time to correct some of your misconceptions and I was lectured on the meaning of the word 'misleading.' 
In another thread, I stated my distaste for your posting of a copyrighted MTS article from an LGB Telegram magazine. You have since removed the offending posts, but you now distort the meaning of my "intellectual property concerns" into an attack on my character - drawing me as an arrogant, intimidating, narcissist who hoards information to force people to pay for knowledge. 
At the end of the day, for offering my thoughts, opinions, observations, and advice in a public forum, I get to suffer through another session of "39 reasons why Jerry thinks Bob is a bad guy." 
Thanks! 
Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Jerry- 

To be honest, I don't care for your conditions which attempt to limit how and where I may contribute to this or any other public forum. 

Now, may we please return to the DCC discussion? 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

MY CONDITIONS are nothing more than that you can say anything you want to anyone you want as long as you stop addressing me by name and stop trying to pretend that you are only trying to help me with your "contributions." 

If you have a "contribution" just leave my name off of it and do NOT address it to me personally. 

It is when you address me by name or refer to me by name that I take offense to your comments and to you. 

Pretending that you do not understand or that you don't care for my conditions insults my intelligence and that of everyone who has read this. 

If I take offense at your comments that you address to me and you continue to address your comments to me (as you have done yet again) you are acting with malicious intent pure and simple. 

I live in the middle of the woods in the middle of rural Arkansas. I play with toy trains and I go on the internet to find answers to my toy train questions. I do not understand the motives of someone who has nothing better to do with his time than to seek me out on the various internet forums for the singular purpose of annoying me. I don't know or care what your motives are but it seems really dumb to me for someone who has worked to develop a level of knowledge and respect within the large scale community to be showing the world that there is a side of you they have not been aware of - that of a petty individual who takes pleasure in maliciously annoying a fellow member of the large scale community who thinks you are in serious need of psychiatric help. 

I do not like you and I long ago lost the last shred of respect I once had for you. Why on earth would you want to talk to me when I have such a low opinion of you and I want to have nothing to do with you? 

I don't even hate you. I feel sorry for you. 

Jerry 

Posted By rwbrashear on 09/08/2008 11:05 PM 
Jerry- 
To be honest, I don't care for your conditions which attempt to limit how and where I may contribute to this or any other public forum. 
Now, may we please return to the DCC discussion? 
Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Jerry- 

I am not interested in playing your childish games. If I am responding to your comments or questions, my posts will begin with an appropriate salutation. 

If you have a problem with me or my posts, perhaps you should change _your_ behavior by either (1) formulating non-personal rebuttals which communicate your differing views, or (2) simply ignoring my comments. 

Are we back to the DCC discussion yet, or do you still need the final word on this nonsense? 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Jerry- 

I can't seem to keep track of your constantly changing posts. While I was replying, you took the liberty to change your original post to add this comment: 


I don't know or care what your motives are but it seems really dumb to me for someone who has worked to develop a level of knowledge and respect within the large scale community to be showing the world that there is a side of you they have not been aware of - that of a petty individual who takes pleasure in maliciously annoying a fellow member of the large scale community who thinks you are in serious need of psychiatric help. 



I guess you thought the original post was missing that little _je ne sais quoi_? 

My original response might have been a worded a bit differently after reading yet another of your personal attacks, but I'll let my original comments stand. 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

I have had so many posts disappear because I accidentally clicked on backspace twice or some other unknown reason that I now often post a draft copy to keep my typing from being lost and then I edit my unfinished post to complete it and check it for spelling and grammar. 

If someone rushes to respond it is possible that they will not have seen my completed and error checked post. 

Jerry


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Hello all, 

I tried to resist jumping in here, but things are getting just too far out of balance. I have spent a lot of time reading DCC threads from many different forums, and I can tell you there are a lot of people out there (including myself), and from all around the world, who have benefitted from Bob's willingness to share his DCC expertise in an objective and professional way. I honestly believe Bob has had the patience of a Saint with you, Jerry. As Mark states above, it is a challenging subject, but I believe that once you gain a little more knowledge and experience with it, you will agree that Bob has been acting in what he believes is your best interest at all times. The best analogy I can come up with is that it's like when you are a teenager, you think you know everything and that your parents know nothing. When you're finally a parent, you realize that maybe your own parents weren't so dumb after all. 
While I admire your tenacity at trying to engineer your own solutions to your own unique situation (and God knows it's unique), I do think that your negativity towards Bob is unjustifiable. I enjoy all the diverse opinions and personalities on these forums, and that's why I continue to support MLS. So in conclusion I guess I'm just asking you to take a step back, keep things in perspective and continue to encourage constructive discussions in the DCC forum. After all, no one has a monopoly on the truth. 

Keith


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hello Keith, 

It is easy for me to understand why DCC guys think that the problem is with me. The reason for this (I believe) is because you guys LIKE DCC and you are happy to have either started with DCC or to have converted to DCC. 

You went to DCC because you wanted to go to DCC. I DO NOT want to convert to DCC. I never have wanted to convert to DCC and I NEVER will want to convert to DCC. 

I started with Analog Track Power. I am perfectly happy with Analog Track Power. I will never change from Analog Track Power to DCC or Battery Power or to Live Steam. 

What you have to understand before you can start judging me is that first and foremost I DO NOT like DCC. I PREFER the simplicity of hard wired Analog Track Power. 

It is OK with me that you like DCC and I am happy for you that you are happy with it. I do not promote Analog Track Power and I do not claim that it is superior. I am just happy with it for me - and what I like is all that I am concerned about. 

I have nothing against MTS/DCC. It is simply an option that does not appeal to me. On the other hand I like to try everything so while I prefer Analog Track Power since I have a quantity of LGB locos that came with free decoders built into them I dabble with MTS/DCC. 

I also have nothing against Battery Power or Live Steam. I have a few of those as well and occasionally (infrequently) I drag them out and play with them as well. When I am done I go back to my Analog Track Powered layouts. 

"The Trouble with Bob" is that he never satisfied with letting me tinker with MTS/DCC the way that I want to tinker with MTS/DCC. He is always trying to force his opinions on me that are totally irrelevant to my chosen (clearly stated) preference for a MTS/DCC that does nothing more than to trick my locomotives into running under MTS/DCC as if they were still running under Analog Track Power. 

All I want from my trains is "Chuff Chuff, Woo Woo and Ding Ding." Beyond that I am perfectly happy with pushing buttons that are hard wired to make things happen. I am even happy with getting my "Woo Woo" and "Ding Ding" from track magnets. I don't feel any irrepressible desire to be able to push a button on a remote control to do that. I am also totally happy with my current analog powered digital and analog sound systems. I have no desire to replace them with anything. 

Aside from everything else, Bob mentioned "39 reasons why Jerry thinks Bob is a bad guy." 

I'll bet I can come up with 39,000 reasons why I do not want Bob's advice. Lets change the 39,000 into $39,000.00 and see how close I can come to it. 

I think my first clash with him was when I was looking for a cheap way to get my 20 or so LGB 4135 type sound cars to work cheaply under MTS. Bob's solution (and the only solution he ever offered) was to tell me to replace my LGB sound cards and instead buy $300 Massoth decoders. 

$300 times 20 cars = $6,000 of MY money Bob wanted me to spend. 

My solution of Digitrax DH123D decoders plus a filter circuit ended up costing me about $17 per car or $340 rather than the $6,000 he wanted me to spend (of MY money). 

I later said on another forum (NOT to Bob) that I wanted to convert just a few locos to MTS/DCC for visitors and I was looking for a cheap decoder. 

Bob's uninvited advice was that I was not going to find a cheap decoder and that once I tried MTS/DCC I would convert everything to MTS/DCC (AFTER I stated clearly that I had NO INTENTION and NO DESIRE to convert to MTS/DCC). 

What would it cost me to convert to MTS/DCC as per Bob's advice? 

At least 75 locomotives would require decoders and since all of those locos already have analog powered sound systems (most digital but some analog sound systems) that bit of advice would cost me $22,500 (75 X $300) and since I would not be willing to even consider installing those decoders myself I should add $100 per loco (labor plus two way shipping) to ship the locos to someone to install those decoders for me. That makes it $30,000. 

Lets see now. We have $6,000 for the decoders to replace the LGB sound cards plus $30,000 for sound decoders for the locos so we are up to $36,000 (of MY money) that Bob is wanting me to spend. 

Next considering that there are at least 50 FA-1's, FB-1's and F7's that would probably require two decoders per loco we can add another 50 decoders at $100 each (sound would not be required). 

$36,000 plus $5,000 brings us up to $41,000. 

Next there are perhaps 100 lighted coaches that would have to be modified to keep MTS/DCC from burning their lights out so lets say $50 each (I'll throw shipping in for free) for someone to modify them so that brings us to $46,000 (of MY money that Bob wants ME to spend). 

OK. Now we are getting somewhere. 

OOPS. I forgot about the turnouts. 

There are 150+ electric LGB turnouts. 

At around $50 each for Switch Decoders we can now add around another $7,500 to bring the total to $53,500. 

Gee. $53,500 sure is a lot of money but at least that covers everything doesn't it? 

Nope. 

The $53,500 does not cover the cost of a single Central Station, a single transformer, a single remote, a single transmitter, a single receiver or anything else to run that $53,500 "improvement" to my layout. 

By the way the above system cost will need to be multiplied several times to accommodate my two line crawl space layout; two line outdoor layout, two deck garage layout, trailer layout and shop layout. 

With the benefit of all the unwelcome and uninvited "advice" I received from Bob, what did I end up with? 

I spent about $100 on some Digitrax DH123D decoders (never mentioned by Bob) 

and another $200 on some Digitrax DG583S decoders (never mentioned by Bob) 

another $307 on 28 MRC AD322 decoders (never mentioned by Bob) 

another $25 for filters to convert 20 LGB sound cards to MTS/DCC (never mentioned by Bob) 

another $200 to buy (4) four LGB Central Station 1's (never mentioned by Bob) 

So, the short version is that if I happened to have tens of thousands of dollars I wanted to throw away (and if I had any desire to convert to MTS/DCC) I could have spent $55,000 - $60,000 and have a nice DCC system. 

Instead I chose to ignore Bob's "advice" and by ignoring him I have spent less than $1,000 and ended up with what I wanted to do rather than what Bob wanted me to do. 

Perhaps if Bob had just once asked me what I wanted to do or paid attention when I said what I wanted to do (and if he really wanted to) he just might have given me some advice that might have been of some value to me. 

I have never questioned or challenged the help/advice Bob may have given to others. I am happy for them that he was of assistance to them. 

What is important to me is not what he may have done for someone else - it is the simple fact that his "assistance" has proven to be of absolutely NO VALUE to me to do WHAT I WANT TO DO. 

I don't suggest that I know everything or that I know anything about what others want to do with MTS/DCC. I just say that I DO KNOW what I want to do just as I DO KNOW how little I am prepared to spend to do it. Bob WILL NEVER be of any value to me unless and until he first decides that what I want to do with my layouts and with my money is more important to me than what he thinks I should do with my layouts and with my money. 

Judging by my past experiences with Bob I do not anticipate that to ever happen. 

No one has a monopoly on the truth (I have absolutely no idea how that fits in) but there is more than one way that a person may elect to run MTS/DCC on his layout even if it means throwing NMRA standards and preconceptions of traditional MTS/DCC operations out of the window. 

THE FIRST RULE OF GARDEN RAILROADING IS: It's YOUR layout so anything you choose to do with it is OK. 

I choose to build, run and configure MY layouts in whatever forms that suit me regardless of whether it meets with anyone else's approval or not. 

I simply request that Bob honor and respect the First Rule of Garden Railroading and leave me and my layouts and how I choose to do things and how I choose to spend (or not spend) my money alone. 

Before anyone else jumps in and tells me how much I should appreciate Bob I would first ask them to send me a cashier's check for $50,000 (US dollars) and I will then start to pay attention. 

Jerry 







Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 09/09/2008 3:56 PM
.While I admire your tenacity at trying to engineer your own solutions to your own unique situation (and God knows it's unique), I do think that your negativity towards Bob is unjustifiable. 

After all, no one has a monopoly on the truth. 
Keith


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Keith- 

Welcome to my world.  

Best regards, 
Bob 



It is easy for me to understand why DCC guys think that the problem is with me. The reason for this (I believe) is because you guys LIKE DCC and you are happy to have either started with DCC or to have converted to DCC. 

You went to DCC because you wanted to go to DCC. I DO NOT want to convert to DCC. I never have wanted to convert to DCC and I NEVER will want to convert to DCC. 

I started with Analog Track Power. I am perfectly happy with Analog Track Power. I will never change from Analog Track Power to DCC or Battery Power or to Live Steam. 

What you have to understand before you can start judging me is that first and foremost I DO NOT like DCC. I PREFER the simplicity of hard wired Analog Track Power. 

It is OK with me that you like DCC and I am happy for you that you are happy with it. I do not promote Analog Track Power and I do not claim that it is superior. I am just happy with it for me - and what I like is all that I am concerned about. 

I have nothing against MTS/DCC. It is simply an option that does not appeal to me. On the other hand I like to try everything so while I prefer Analog Track Power since I have a quantity of LGB locos that came with free decoders built into them I dabble with MTS/DCC. 

I also have nothing against Battery Power or Live Steam. I have a few of those as well and occasionally (infrequently) I drag them out and play with them as well. When I am done I go back to my Analog Track Powered layouts. 

"The Trouble with Bob" is that he never satisfied with letting me tinker with MTS/DCC the way that I want to tinker with MTS/DCC. He is always trying to force his opinions on me that are totally irrelevant to my chosen (clearly stated) preference for a MTS/DCC that does nothing more than to trick my locomotives into running under MTS/DCC as if they were still running under Analog Track Power. 

All I want from my trains is "Chuff Chuff, Woo Woo and Ding Ding." Beyond that I am perfectly happy with pushing buttons that are hard wired to make things happen. I am even happy with getting my "Woo Woo" and "Ding Ding" from track magnets. I don't feel any irrepressible desire to be able to push a button on a remote control to do that. I am also totally happy with my current analog powered digital and analog sound systems. I have no desire to replace them with anything. 

Aside from everything else, Bob mentioned "39 reasons why Jerry thinks Bob is a bad guy." 

I'll bet I can come up with 39,000 reasons why I do not want Bob's advice. Lets change the 39,000 into $39,000.00 and see how close I can come to it. 

I think my first clash with him was when I was looking for a cheap way to get my 20 or so LGB 4135 type sound cars to work cheaply under MTS. Bob's solution (and the only solution he ever offered) was to tell me to replace my LGB sound cards and instead buy $300 Massoth decoders. 

$300 times 20 cars = $6,000 of MY money Bob wanted me to spend. 

My solution of Digitrax DH123D decoders plus a filter circuit ended up costing me about $17 per car or $340 rather than the $6,000 he wanted me to spend (of MY money). 

I later said on another forum (NOT to Bob) that I wanted to convert just a few locos to MTS/DCC for visitors and I was looking for a cheap decoder. 

Bob's uninvited advice was that I was not going to find a cheap decoder and that once I tried MTS/DCC I would convert everything to MTS/DCC (AFTER I stated clearly that I had NO INTENTION and NO DESIRE to convert to MTS/DCC). 

What would it cost me to convert to MTS/DCC as per Bob's advice? 

At least 75 locomotives would require decoders and since all of those locos already have analog powered sound systems (most digital but some analog sound systems) that bit of advice would cost me $22,500 (75 X $300) and since I would not be willing to even consider installing those decoders myself I should add $100 per loco (labor plus two way shipping) to ship the locos to someone to install those decoders for me. That makes it $30,000. 

Lets see now. We have $6,000 for the decoders to replace the LGB sound cards plus $30,000 for sound decoders for the locos so we are up to $36,000 (of MY money) that Bob is wanting me to spend. 

Next considering that there are at least 50 FA-1's, FB-1's and F7's that would probably require two decoders per loco we can add another 50 decoders at $100 each (sound would not be required). 

$36,000 plus $5,000 brings us up to $41,000. 

Next there are perhaps 100 lighted coaches that would have to be modified to keep MTS/DCC from burning their lights out so lets say $50 each (I'll throw shipping in for free) for someone to modify them so that brings us to $46,000 (of MY money that Bob wants ME to spend). 

OK. Now we are getting somewhere. 

OOPS. I forgot about the turnouts. 

There are 150+ electric LGB turnouts. 

At around $50 each for Switch Decoders we can now add around another $7,500 to bring the total to $53,500. 

Gee. $53,500 sure is a lot of money but at least that covers everything doesn't it? 

Nope. 

The $53,500 does not cover the cost of a single Central Station, a single transformer, a single remote, a single transmitter, a single receiver or anything else to run that $53,500 "improvement" to my layout. 

By the way the above system cost will need to be multiplied several times to accommodate my two line crawl space layout; two line outdoor layout, two deck garage layout, trailer layout and shop layout. 

With the benefit of all the unwelcome and uninvited "advice" I received from Bob, what did I end up with? 

I spent about $100 on some Digitrax DH123D decoders (never mentioned by Bob) 

and another $200 on some Digitrax DG583S decoders (never mentioned by Bob) 

another $307 on 28 MRC AD322 decoders (never mentioned by Bob) 

another $25 for filters to convert 20 LGB sound cards to MTS/DCC (never mentioned by Bob) 

another $200 to buy (4) four LGB Central Station 1's (never mentioned by Bob) 

So, the short version is that if I happened to have tens of thousands of dollars I wanted to throw away (and if I had any desire to convert to MTS/DCC) I could have spent $55,000 - $60,000 and have a nice DCC system. 

Instead I chose to ignore Bob's "advice" and by ignoring him I have spent less than $1,000 and ended up with what I wanted to do rather than what Bob wanted me to do. 

Perhaps if Bob had just once asked me what I wanted to do or paid attention when I said what I wanted to do (and if he really wanted to) he just might have given me some advice that might have been of some value to me. 

I have never questioned or challenged the help/advice Bob may have given to others. I am happy for them that he was of assistance to them. 

What is important to me is not what he may have done for someone else - it is the simple fact that his "assistance" has proven to be of absolutely NO VALUE to me to do WHAT I WANT TO DO. 

I don't suggest that I know everything or that I know anything about what others want to do with MTS/DCC. I just say that I DO KNOW what I want to do just as I DO KNOW how little I am prepared to spend to do it. Bob WILL NEVER be of any value to me unless and until he first decides that what I want to do with my layouts and with my money is more important to me than what he thinks I should do with my layouts and with my money. 

Judging by my past experiences with Bob I do not anticipate that to ever happen. 

No one has a monopoly on the truth (I have absolutely no idea how that fits in) but there is more than one way that a person may elect to run MTS/DCC on his layout even if it means throwing NMRA standards and preconceptions of traditional MTS/DCC operations out of the window. 

THE FIRST RULE OF GARDEN RAILROADING IS: It's YOUR layout so anything you choose to do with it is OK. 

I choose to build, run and configure MY layouts in whatever forms that suit me regardless of whether it meets with anyone else's approval or not. 

I simply request that Bob honor and respect the First Rule of Garden Railroading and leave me and my layouts and how I choose to do things and how I choose to spend (or not spend) my money alone. 

Before anyone else jumps in and tells me how much I should appreciate Bob I would first ask them to send me a cashier's check for $50,000 (US dollars) and I will then start to pay attention. 

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

That quote of what I said conveniently left out my salutation to Keith where I said "Hello Keith." 

By the convenient elimination of my salutation, the quotation leaves the impression that I was being disrespectful to Keith. 

I was not. 

I took no offense at anything Keith said and I intended no disrespect to him with my response. 

Once again you attempt to divert attention away from yourself by implying that somehow I am attacking someone else while you continue your pretense of being an innocent victim. 

Noticeably you did not deny anything I said (probably because you know I can bring up exact quotes of your "advice" to me to prove that you told me exactly what I said you told me). 

The point of my comments was to show that your "advice" to me would cost me more than the combined total of what I have paid to build my entire layout including everything on it. 

I would actually have to take out a huge mortgage on my home to do what you have been telling me that I should do (and of course you knew that as well as the fact that I would never consider it). 

At no point was any consideration (in the volumes of advice you forced on me) given to my ability to afford your "wisdom" or to any less expensive alternatives that might have been available that I could afford (such as the Digitrax and MRC decoders and the decoder analog sound filter). Thankfully others gave me the advice you were incapable of or were unwilling to give me in those areas. 

The only "advice" you ever gave me about my inexpensive solutions (to do what I have been wanting to do) has been to ridicule them or tell me they could not work or when I reached the level of success I had been looking for, you looked for everything that might be wrong with my ideas without ever offering any constructive information about how to achieve what I eventually achieved with no help from you. 

Even then your "advice" that my cheap decoders would not work was incorrect because they ARE working - to meet my expectations. It is far less important to me if they are not 100% serial capable/NMRA compliant than the fact that they work the way that I need them to work and they far exceed my expectations of $10.99 decoders. Once I was done you then miraculously found ways to claim credit for things you never did. 

Noticeably missing was any suggestion that you might finally start to respect The First Rule of Garden Railroading. No surprise there either. 

Jerry 


Posted By rwbrashear on 09/10/2008 3:07 PM 
Keith- 
Welcome to my world. 
Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Jerry- 

You wrote: 

Noticeably you did not deny anything I said (probably because you know I can bring up exact quotes of your "advice" to me to prove that you told me exactly what I said you told me). 



I don't need 1,500 word epistles to sculpt reality or justify my comments. Members can always go back and read my posts to determine the truth for themselves. Of course, the same cannot be said for you, since you have deleted over 30 of your posts. You've also _edited_, read sanitized, dozens of others. 

By my count, I notice 12 missing posts from this thread alone: 

http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...rumid/34/postid/39508/view/topic/Default.aspx 

Of course, I am sure you will now either (1) return to the above thread and repopulate the empty posts with shiny, happy comments, or (2) draft another tome here explaining why the deleted posts are actually _my_ fault. (Or (3) you may actually do both!) 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

My posts were deleted (by me) for one of two reasons. 

1. We were requested to avoid personal confrontations on MLS so I deleted the posts in which I had responded to you by name for the purposes of complying with the wishes of the MLS moderator. 

2. I had posted a copy of a 11 year old LGB Telegram article by Heinz Koopmann (LGB Chief Engineer) after trying (unsuccessfully) to contact him for permission to post his article. I understand he was in poor health and may now be deceased. 

I had mistakenly assumed that LGB would have owned the rights to the 11 year old article and that it had been intended to be made available to all owners of LGB Sound Cars (and that LGB would appreciate rather than object to my sharing their information). 

Since I did not want to give a false impression that I had come up with the filter circuit myself I carefully gave full information about the fact that Mr. Koopmann had written the article and that I got the article and schematic from a specific page of a specific issue of the LGB Telegram. 

I had nothing personal to gain by sharing the article with fellow MLSers (I was only trying to help fellow owners of LGB Sound Cars who would not know about the 11 year old article) but you accused me of theft of intellectual property (rather than a simple email suggesting it was not a good idea). 

As a result I did some further checking and when approval to post the article did not come I immediately deleted every reference I had made to the article. 

After awhile someone had made a comment that suggested that my posts had been deleted by a moderator. Rather than leave that false impression (and since I was unable to delete my posts) I substituted a few words where I had left the single word "deleted." No big deal and no intention to make any particular changes in anything. 

I had also posted Mr. Koopmann's article on another forum (for the purpose of assisting owners of LGB Sound Cars on that forum) so at my request they deleted those posts of mine as well but they accidentally deleted more than the requested posts. I told them not to worry about it and to not bother with trying to recreate any of my deleted posts. 

Basically Mr. Koopmann's article showed me how to convert my analog LGB Sound Cards to work with DCC decoders. With a bit of experimentation I figured out how to use a combination of part of Mr. Koopmann's circuit with MRC AD322 decoders for a total cost per car of about $12.50 instead of following your advice to get rid of my LGB cars and buy $300 Massoth sound decoders instead. 
I thought my savings of $287.50 per car (by not following your advice) might be something other LGB owners might like to know about. 

As for rewriting my old posts I can't be bothered. I have no concern about what I said yesterday because yesterday I was not telling anyone to do anything (except to tell you to quit addressing your comments to me by name). I only concern myself (slightly) with what you say because it might eventually help me to get you off my back so you will start to ignore me and what I say. 

Jerry


----------



## rwbrashear (Jan 5, 2008)

Jerry- 


1. We were requested to avoid personal confrontations on MLS so I deleted the posts... 



So, I guess you'll delete the posts in this thread later, too? 

Jerry McColgan wrote: 

I don't know or care what your motives are but it seems really dumb to me for someone who has worked to develop a level of knowledge and respect within the large scale community to be showing the world that there is a side of you they have not been aware of - that of a petty individual who takes pleasure in maliciously annoying a fellow member of the large scale community who thinks *you are in serious need of psychiatric help.* 



Tsk, tsk, tsk. 

Best regards, 
Bob


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

We were requested to avoid personal confrontations on MLS 
Didn't seem to do much good did it? You guys either need to knock off the petty bickering or this topic will be locked. Kindergarten is over. If you can't play nice, I suggest you ignore each other.


----------

