Write us a letter at: letters@modelrailroadnews.com

Regarding Stainless Steel Track Being a metallurgist by training, I read with interest your article on stainless steel track even though I have no plans for garden railroading. You did a nice job in explaining some of the technology of stainless steel and noting its strength and corrosion resistance. As you mentioned, the chromium content results in a surface film rich in chromium oxide that limits further oxidation and corrosion. As you noted, the comparatively thin protective oxide on stainless steel rail enables better conduction between the rail and the wheel than for brass or carbon steel rail that form thicker oxides. All of these oxides are electrically insulating layers separating the rail from the wheel, and must be penetrated in some areas for conduction to occur. Fortunately, these areas of penetration can be very small, and the pressure exerted by the wheel produces tiny spots where metal contacts metal unless, of course, the insulating layer becomes too thick. One might ask if there are conductors that do not form an insulating film and therefore might be better than stainless steel? The answer is yes, there are such materials, and they would work nicely, but you probably would not want to leave them lying around your back yard. Silver might have some potential but it forms a sulfur-based film that would degrade its performance. The better choices all cost in the hundreds of dollars per ounce range (think gold and platinum group metals) and a pair of rails the length of your locomotive would probably cost more than the locomotive. If there was a large market, one might investigate coating the top of the rail with one of these noble metals, but even that design probably would be uneconomical for most users. You noted that stainless steel is quite strong and requires extra effort to cut. Its strength is certainly an advantage once you have it in place, but it does require some extra attention in operations like cutting, drilling, and tapping. In engineering terms, austenitic stainless steel work-hardens rapidly when it is deformed. By way of illustration, if one bends it to the point beyond where it springs back to its original shape, the area deformed in the bend becomes stronger than before it was bent. The more you deform it, the stronger the deformed area becomes. The practical impact is felt when you try to cut the material because in cutting you are deforming a region of the material until it breaks. As your saw deforms the material trying to sever one area from another, that area becomes stronger requiring more force to continue its deformation. Eventually, if you apply enough force, you can tear one area from another but it takes much more effort than most metals that you may have encountered. A sharp saw minimizes the area deformed and thus works significantly better than a dull one. Cutting stainless with a saw is preferred over trying to cut it with a tool like bolt cutters where the deformed region is larger. Drilling is also challenging — use a sharp drill. A dull drill will tend to smear material in front of the drill tip producing a layer much harder than the original material and thus more difficult to penetrate. Tapping a hole is very hazardous to taps! The experts (those great machinists in the model shop) recommend using generous cutting oil and backing the tap out frequently. Clean the chips off the tap before continuing. If you break off a tap or drill and cannot extract the broken piece from the hole, you can dissolve it out with nitric acid, as nitric acid has little effect on stainless steel. Ed Sproles Lawrenceville, NJ

Thanks, Ed. I read some explanations of all this which were far more technical (read: dry) and wished I could find a way of making them more readable. You did it! — John

Life-Like’s Proto 2000 Diesels (February 2004 article) To reviewers John Sipple and Dave Otte: Thanks very much for your excellent article on the new Proto 2000 diesels, including the SD45. I’m particularly grateful for your explanation on how to remove the SD45 shell since I was unsuccessful following what I believed the instructions were saying. I sent an inquiry to the company in late January but had not heard back by the time I saw your article on February 8th. I’ve been servicing and repairing locomotives for about 12 years now and could not, for the life of me, figure out how the shell came off even after removing all of the visible screws underneath. When I found the small screw hidden beneath the rear truck as described in your article, it reinforced a valuable lesson in locomotive repair and maintenance: if the shell won’t budge even after you’ve tried everything that should work, keep looking for that hidden screw or latch. Thanks very much for saving the shell on my SD45! Steve Van Goor Anchorage, AK

You are very welcome, Steve. Glad we could help. — John

Lionel’s Challenger Review My first Lionel set was under the Christmas tree when I was 6 years old (1937). GOOD NEWS! Based on Dave Otte’s review, February 2004, Lionel’s HO Challenger is a winner. BAD NEWS! For a MSRP of $699.95, could Lionel put an engineer and fireman in the cab? All my Bachmann steam locos do. John O. Roy Wallingford, CT

Interesting question, John. I’m certainly not an apologist for Lionel, but I have heard manufacturers state that they get complaints from guys who feel the figures in the cab shouldn’t be there. Lionel has gone one way, Bachmann the other. What about it, readers? Figures in the cab or not? — Ed.

New Haven Question I have been collecting HO scale diesel locomotives, passenger cars, and some freight cars from the “defunct” New Haven RR since I was 14 (now 57 and retired) and I have yet to find the EMD FL9 as a model from any manufacturer, in NH or undecorated. Can you suggest a source or might I be able to add the C-C trucks from a E8 to the rear of a F7 and have a close relocation? BTW, this was my first issue of my new subscription, and I look forward to the next in earnest! Thanks Rich Caldwell, NJ

Good questions, Rich. If any of our readers would like to put in their two cents, I’d be glad to publish some helpful responses. Meanwhile, an FL9 is a special version of the F9 produced just for the NH. It is 8 feet longer than a standard F9 and four feet longer than an FP9. The rear truck has a six axle AAR type truck fitted with pickup shoes for the third rails, making this a dual-power machine. Inside the Big Apple, the diesels had to be shut down, so these locos would run on third rail power. Out of the city, the engine could be fired up. Photos I’ve seen of FL9s have them with AAR type B four-wheel front trucks, as well. I understand that some of the FL9s have worked into the nineties. How about it readers? Can we help Rich? — Ed.

Trademarks I’ve been reading about all this UP trademark stuff. The other night I was watching a train video, and it mentioned that years ago Santa Fe paid Lionel to use their logo. What’s up with that, talk about opposites? William Wilson Ridgeville, SC

That was then, this is now, William. Back then, ATSF was trying to market its passenger service and thought painted models might improve what we thought of them. Today, UP is trying to market its freight service and really doesn’t care what we think. — Ed.

Union Pacific: Clean up your act! I have been following the editorials and comments regarding Union Pacific’s licensing requirements for model railroad equipment with interest, as it directly impacts the cost of my model railroading. I have come to believe that the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) is not as interested in protecting the “trademarks” of others it uses as it is in protecting its own trademarks. By way of explanation, look carefully at any of the newest UP diesels — the ones with the Flag of the United States on their flank. First, I doubt that the US Government has required the UP to pay “royalties” for using the flag, and second, and more importantly, most of the UP locomotives I have seen lately “flying the flag” have been so dirty that it is difficult to see it. It is a disgrace to us as citizens to see our flag in such filthy conditions. UP — either clean up the flags or do not use them. Bill Woodward Carmichael, CA

Good point, Bill. When you fly our flag, you should fly it with pride. Your message has been sent; now will UP listen? We tried to get up an office pool, but everyone wanted one side and not the other! — Ed

More about the UP trademark I would like to add a few words on the trademark discussion. Model railroaders have lived in a unique world until recently. In the past, I have never seen any reference to a license on a model product to produce a given prototype item, be it a specific type of equipment or a copyright emblem on the product. That is not to say that railroads have not persuaded protection of their trademarks in the past as was evidenced by an incident that happened at the TP&W some years ago. When the parent company, ATSF, took over active ownership, local TP&W management, in keeping with the new ownership, repainted their engines within the TP&W initials in the ‘Santa Fe’ cross emblem, a violation of the trademark and it lasted all of one day. Fortunately, that day coincided with a regional NMRA meet and an open house at the TP&W facility in E. Peoria, Illinois. In regards to other model products and toys, that has not been the case. For years, model cars have a reference to a license from the prototype on their packaging. This is even evident on diecast toys. This is a complete turn around from the early model days when prototypes sought to have their products “advertised” in the form of models. Even then, I would imagine there was some sort of paperwork between the model maker and the prototype but maybe with the money flowing the other way to help offset costs of production startup. A company will want to, at the very least, regulate what their name appears on and if it is an appropriate product promoting their company and image. To what extent they feel they can capitalize on these products over and above the intangible free advertising they receive remains to be seen as fair or greed. Sorry... more than a few words. Bliss S. Phillips Peoria, IL

No apologies needed, Bliss. To my knowledge, UP prez Dick Davidson has not addressed this issue in public, so who knows what he and the UP board know about the issue? Most of what we hear out of UP comes from Director of Communications Kathryn Blackwell. I gather she isn’t a model railroader. — Ed

RE: UP and Merle Rice’s Letter For a trademark to be valid, it must be in current commercial use or planned to be so in the near future. So UP’s lawyers cannot claim rights to previously absorbed railroads’ logos unless they are painted on at least one piece of rolling stock for each logo. And, these (boxcars for instance), must then be put into service! Think of the interchange confusion that would cause. If the UP lawyers start suing for compensation for models that sport these logos, they can be sued for barratry. [Editors note: Barratry is a legal term describing the practice of inciting or encouraging lawsuits or quarrels.] Those of you who have read a Lionel catalog will see one item, or track clip labeled “IVES” and, if you purchase this item, you will see “Ives” not “Lionel” stamped on it. Lionel does this in order to retain its right to this once very famous company/brand that it purchased in 1933. Some of you may remember the famous and very popular “MacGregor” sportswear line in the 1950s and 1960s. Though now out of business, I come upon the exact copy of its logo on labels on all sorts of wear items in low price stores. It’s perfectly legal. UP’s lawyers could attempt to market a few HO cars (say 5 of each previously absorbed road) and then advertise them for $200 each just to keep sales “low.” But until they have brought these to market, any model manufacturer can still use these names. While I’m somewhat hazy on this point, I think strongly that UP may not be able to get away with this step. Something about the prevention of anyone locking up multitudes of brand name potentials (going through the dictionary or using a computer program) and then “marketing” these “trademarks” on bags of jelly beans priced at $200 each, in order to keep sales nil. So, don’t register the Packard auto name unless you have serious intentions of going into automobile production. Rodney Nebocat East Islip, NY

A lot to think about there, Rod. I have heard reports of UP marking cars in their claimed fallen flag paint schemes, purportedly for just this reason, though I haven’t seen it myself. The bottom line is that the courts will sort all of this out in a dozen years or so. As of this writing, I haven’t heard of any suits being filed by UP against any companies, but that could change on virtually any business day. Anybody wanna buy some $200 freight cars or bags of candy? — Ed

We welcome all comments and letters from our readers! e-mail us at: letters@modelrailroadnews.com or send us a letter to: LETTERS c/o Model Railroad News P.O. Box 1080 • Merlin, OR 97532-1080 Fax: 541-955-0346