To the “Larger View’s” John Sipple
Another great issue of Model Railroad News! And many interesting and informative articles in the March 2005 issue. But one stands out above all the rest and that is your article of “Push-Pull Train Service” in the Larger View column. It seems we have some things in common. I too am a retired teacher (high school variety) and also a grandparent. And my grandkids are developing an interest in model trains. Our oldest grandchild, Larissa Shay Linn, likes to push the cars around on a piece of track also. And by the way, she was named after the Shay engine. She is now 4 years old, and we take her to a lot of train related events. In fact this weekend, we are on our way to Denver to go to the World’s Greatest Hobby traveling show. My son got a small train set for Larissa to play with while he is working on his train layout. And she just loves to put the track together and push her trains around. Our youngest grandchild is Jacob Wyatt Linn, and he too is being groomed to love the world of trains. He is only 6 months old but already has a wooden engine he can push around. We had a Lionel train set up around the Christmas tree when they were here over the holidays. Both kids just loved to lie on the floor and watch the train go round and round the Christmas tree. Brings back a lot of memories for me when I watch them watching that train. Larissa’s eyes light up just like your grandson’s.
I have a neighbor boy who lives across the alley from us who is also interested in model trains. I had him over here to see my old layout just before I dismantled it to start building the new one. He wasn’t so much interested in watching me run the trains on the layout as he was in pushing some of my static displays back and forth on their tracks. He wanted to get his hands on the engines and cars just to move them himself. It was interesting watching him move those trains with his hands. I am sure he was imagining all kinds of things about trains while he was doing that. Now every time I see him, he wants to know how my new layout is coming along and if I am working on it a lot! Guess he wants to come back over to push trains again.
I think the hobby will be in good shape for years to come with the interest these young people are showing now. Who knows, maybe Grandpa’s layout will wind up being owned by one of them someday! It couldn’t be in better hands. Thanks again for a great article about kids and model trains. It should give us all good feelings about what is happening with some of our younger fans.
Jerry Linn
Thedford, NE
Vickie had a one word comment: “BeanSniff.”
As they got closer, they saw the Heritage paintjob and the big letters, “BNSF.” She’ll end up as the division superintendent! — John
I stumbled onto your interesting report about the Athearn company being sold to Horizon. Brought back a lot of memories. In 1950, Irving gave me my first on-the-clock job, 4 hours in the evening after school at 75 cents per hour. I started on the burr bench and finished running any machine he had. I walked from Washington High at 106th and Normandy to Athearn’s shop on 119th and Western (LA), by Red Dog Auto Salvage.
Irv was so serious he was scary to a 17 year old, but in retrospect, he, his cigar and a woman in the office carried the entire management burden. In the shop, “Murray” in polio braces and “Curly” Bob Easter were foreman, diemaker, and absolutely everything else!
John Seely, Manual Mavros, myself, and three or four others were the manufacturing staff. I learned to run the automatic setup on a Cincinnati centerless grinder that finished thousands of axles for the cars, with the correct number of rivets, grab irons, and real coil springs. I still have a couple of 25-50 cent burn scars that occurred when residual “flash” prevented the die from closing completely on the zinc die-caster that I often ran! We made HO car kits and newer products were O gauge kits, a “Plainsman” CO2 pistol and Athearn’s first railroad wrecker. I believe everything was metal except the wood floors in some of the cars. I made a lot of sides, ends, tops, doors, etc. on punch presses and side frames, couplers, brake wheels, wheels, etc. on the die caster. Interesting work for an Okie who had been either chopping cotton or hauling pine fence posts out of slash-pine thickets!
I recall that the ugly competitors were Truscale and Varney, who built a “ghost car” with a motor hidden inside it. Never had a layout but have walked into a couple of shops over the years: “They don’t make ‘em like they used to.”
Roy Sharp
Torrance, CA
I have a partial answer to Robert Londer’s question about if there is an N-scale model of the Pennsy S-2 steam turbine (February 2005). By point of fact: no, not yet. I did specifically ask a small group of three brass importers at the Seattle NMRA show if one could be produced. The answer was, “It is being considered.” Unfortunately I don’t recall which representatives said so.
As a practical matter, the S-2 was a one or two of a kind which Pennsy reworked a few times to try ideas. Too few folks outside Pennsy fans would have much interest for a mass-produced plastic model. It would be most likely released in brass.
This is why I decided to respond to your question; to reinforce your vote because I want one, too. It would be nice if it came with a premium motor, lighting, and DCC since it will probably run over $1,000.00.
John W. Hunt
Houston, TX
I enjoyed your article about Kadee going up against UP in the March issue. It proves the fact that UP is only flexing their muscles. Why are they so determined to force the model industry to comply with their demands? When you mentioned that insider information said that UP would use their size to beat down any counter claims, it only reminds me of the early days of railroading. If you look at railroad history, the railroad tycoons who started this industry have always thrown their weight around. They have lied, cheated, stole, and much more to get to the top of the heap! They all did their share of underhanded deeds to get what they wanted. Even the railroad right of ways were gotten past the government by shady means.
So, it comes as no surprise that UP and CSX are flexing their muscle, not for profit but because they can! Squash the little guy no matter what it costs! A few less model trains sold because of their nasty attitude won’t even cause a slight ripple in the giant’s stride! They will move merrily on until someone bigger comes along and swallows them up! I still enjoy the hobby and will continue to purchase what I want as long as I can afford it. All UP and CSX have done is make me lose respect for the railroading industry giants, if that means anything to them at all!
Dave Taverner
Denton, TX
In your story on Kadee Quality Products, you mention that CSX would license the use of names like PRR, NYC, P&LE, roads that were a part of Conrail. How did CSX and NS split things up? They each got parts of Conrail, so who owns what? Which of the fallen flag names is property of NS? So, who would own TP&W, or LIRR, Michigan Central, or the Big 4, names and logos? How do we tell if it’s a CSX property, or property of NS? As I see it, it’s a real can of worms.
J. Frederick Roberts
Winchester, KY
Just received you March 2005 issue. WOW. How on earth does the corporate world (Union Pacific-CSX-etc.) expect us modelers to put up with this? My solution is sell the locos prepainted in their colors and only pay licensing on the decals that they include. Certainly they cannot charge license fees because a loco is painted similar to what they have. The user decides how to decorate. What do you think?
Don Schmidt
Grand Island, NE
Congratulations — you have begun unfolding the broad ramifications of the whole licensing issue. So many internet and personal comments by modelers sound like “so what, I don’t model the UP.” The lists of affected roads and the effect on staffing and record keeping staff/programs (that can vary from license to license) that you exposed should begin to explain why this is more than a “UP Thing.”
Unlike Kadee, virtually every prototype specific kit we design and market is unique to a particular railroad (such as the B&O Wagontop boxcar we’ve been advertising in MRN). Dodging troublesome logos as on a Pullman Standard is not an option. Work on our entire new line of specific prototype Red Ball styrene cabooses and many other kits (like the SP Economy baggage) ground to a halt while there was such a whiteout obscuring clear vision. If any railroad (as the UP originally said it intended) could lay claim to the tooling for such a kit — almost at will — why invest in it? With the other legal cases swirling in the industry, it wasn’t too hard to lay awake nights envisioning a higher license fee bidder suddenly shipping our (made-in-USA) tooling to the Orient and bringing in a half price version of our own product to compete with us, even for roads not currently claimed by UP — after all they could merge or the UP lawyers could pick up a new client.
We have now proceeded on Red Ball kits for roads in the CSX camp and those that still seem “innocent.” CSX licensing of decals for our kits is a reasonable expense and blanket in nature. By marketing the decals as separate items they do not have three critical exposures: 1) The product value isn’t so high that the railroad salivates; 2) Little added records and accounting involvement; and 3) Pre-release approval does not apply to the tooling expensively “set in stone” (really steel). So why aren’t the kits pre-lettered (our expensive pad printer is sitting silent) or why aren’t the decals in the kit? Because neither the model builder nor we can afford that convenience.
In years past I have dealt with licensing issues with Monsanto, Coca Cola, and Mail Pouch to name three. Their issues and concerns were sane and reasonable. Amicable arrangements that promoted them and absolved them of liability (at no cost to the model builder) were possible. Given the current self-image UP is creating with unmoved containers and trains, it is rather difficult to envision any model railroad manufacturer damaging their reputation with a kit, isn’t it? Maybe they’ll get over that complex when they head ‘em up and herd ‘em out. Someone in accounting might even notice the difference between the licensing income and the legal beagle costs. We can hope.
Merle Rice
Model RR Warehouse
It was with great pleasure and interest that I read your item on Kadee & Goliath. I never knew why I liked Kadee products so well and bought them, but I always felt good about buying their products. Now I know: Made in the good old USA. I think it is great that I know one model train supplier that does not send their dollars overseas, or out of this country. I will always be willing to pay a little more if that is necessary to keep jobs at home.
Now about Goliath! Well I have a little idea how to bring him down to size. You see he has lots of money and clout to use in Washington DC. Well he does not have our vote to sell, and that is where we can get him. Even though the leaders in Washington take Goliath’s money, we can still vote against those that support Goliath. Thus anytime any legislation that comes up that Goliath wants passed we can write our representatives in Congress and the Senate to let them know how we feel, and if they want our votes then they won’t pass the Bill. Votes do get their attention.
Then there is something else we can do, and I think this stone would really hit old Goliath right between the eyes. We go before our local city and town councils and get speed limits for Goliath as he passes through our communities. You know 15 or 20 MPH ones. There are plenty of safety issues to prove the need for this, such as Railroad Crossing Safety, All those hazardous chemicals, you know a slower moving train wreck would mean less chance of a tank car or container carrying hazardous chemicals being ruptured. Think about our local law enforcement people aiming those radar guns at trains, and our city coffers getting all that fine money. Remember, Goliath has deep pockets, and our cities and towns sure could use that money to meet the budget. Believe me, if we slowed down all those Z trains, it would be like blocking the railroad. There are parts of this country that they are running trains as fast as they can, and the railroad is still very congested. Maybe if they had these things to contend with, they might not have so much time to worry about LOGOS.
If we could put together a web site where our efforts could be coordinated and help each other, I think we could give old Goliath something to think about, us Davids. (Model Train People and Train Buffs). Well it’s an idea!
Bob Bartholomew
Texarkana, AR
To “Larger View’s” John Sipple:
Thank you for the nicely done article “Model Railroad Scales,” in Larger View in the February 2005 Issue.
You correctly pointed out that 1:32 (#1 Scale) is the correct scale to represent standard gauge on #1 gauge track. In the future you might want to include the two manufacturers producing affordable 1:32 products: M.T.H., and Accucraft/AMS.
These are in the same price range as Aristo-Craft and U.S.A. but offer the advantage of not being over-size (as are all 1:29 scale products) for #1 gauge track (commonly mislabeled G gauge).
Keep up the good work,
Gary Raymond
Thousand Oaks, CA
I have a question concerning the difference between using plastic or metal wheels on the rolling stock on my N scale layout. I have been reading a lot lately about track cleaning and ran across an article that indicated that all-metal wheels made it easier to keep the track clean for longer periods of time. I have a layout that includes approximately 50 linear feet of mostly nickel silver flex track and find that I need to clean the track almost every time I run the trains. Just about every piece of rolling stock I own has plastic wheels.
I recently read of an experiment that was conducted on a large HO public display layout that ran 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week. The layout had several independent loops, all laid with nickel silver flex track of identical age. On most of them, trains of 6 to 10 cars with plastic wheels ran behind single 4-axle diesels.
As part of the experiment, one loop was equipped with all-metal wheeled rolling stock, and the track cleaned. The test ran for four months. Apparently the only cleaning needed on the track where the metal-wheeled cars ran was after some type of scenery was put in, while the track with the plastic wheeled cars needed to be cleaned constantly.
I’m not really sure what to make of the experiment, or the stated results. I would be very interested in hearing what the rest of your readers may have to say about their experiences with “metal or plastic?”
Don Courliss
Jonesborough, TN
I enjoyed your review of Con-Cor’s N-Scale USRA Heavy 2-10-2 in your March 2005 issue. However, you neglected to mention one very important point about this engine. The wheels do not conform to NMRA standards for the width between the wheels. Not on the engine, nor the tender. These engines will not run on code 55 track. They will not go smoothly through the frog. They bounce around and derail. This is a big problem. Con-Cor is not the only offender. Bachmann’s new 2-6-6-2 also does not come close to conforming to NMRA standards. Neither do some of the new Model Power releases.
We as modelers shouldn’t have to, nor do we want to, adjust wheel width on brand new engines. In this day and age, I find it hard to believe that manufacturers would put out a non-conforming model of anything. Poor business if you ask me. Maybe you could address this problem in one of your publications in the near future. Thanks,
Tom Trenkmann
Yorba Linda, CA
I talked to Dave Otte, who wrote the review, and he said, “If the manufacturer does not advertise that their locomotive is designed to be used on fine scale track such as code 55, people should not assume that it will operate under these conditions.” He also stated, “N scale still has a long way to go until it achieves true scale-like drivers and wheels. The wheel flanges alone on most models are not able to function on code 55 rail.”
We will investigate the process of evaluating Code 55 track, but our main testing will remain the same. Given the differences in manufacturers, even the adoption of a Code 55 test track won’t guarantee that a product will run on your railroad which uses a different brand of track. But if we have problems on Kato track, you can be fairly certain that you’ll have problems with it, too. — Ed.
The March 2005 MRN review of the Atlas N scale Shay stated this locomotive operated at Floriston, California. While the Crown Willamette Paper Company did have a plant at Floriston, the locomotive was based out of Hobart Mills, many miles to the West.
The CWP railroad logging operation was located adjacent to Hobart Mills, headquarters for the Hobart Estate Company. Hobart and CWP had an operating agreement, giving the CWP trackage rights over the Hobart lines to access the CWP railroad. The Shay was serviced and parked at the Hobart roundhouse as part of the agreement.
Floriston itself, located in the Truckee River canyon, just west of the Nevada state line, had only minimal trackage allowing for movement of loads and empties in connection with the paper products business. All switching was done by the Southern Pacific; the Shay being a true logging locomotive and working in the woods to the West.
David W. Braun
Sacramento, CA
I wanted to make a few comments about your editorial. I have been away from the hobby for about 8 years. And I am trying to return. I say trying because many dealers make it difficult.
I have requested several catalogs. After a month and nothing, these folks will not get any business from me. I have even sent a donation to help with postage in each request. (Why do they bother wasting money on ads?)
I have ordered from a couple dealers. It is a song and dance. They promise delivery and nothing happens. Each time it is a different excuse. I send e-mails requesting clarification — or availability — on an item, and no response. With a lot of dealers it is a chore to do business with them.
I will say, I have hit two excellent dealers and they will get any and all business I can throw their way. They have been most helpful, and with prompt service. One even called me back to cover a point I was not aware of, and saved me a nightmare I would have had if I proceeded. A rare person!!
As an aside, there have been many changes in the hobby over the time I was away. Many gone, many mergers, takeovers, etc. And perhaps, the general attitude has developed on both sides from not being able to provide the service that used to be there, and the consumer getting tired of getting the run around.
One important point not covered in your USP is communication! Let the person know! If you can’t make delivery, let the customer know — don’t wait for them to contact you. At that point they are a little ‘fired up’ already.
My experience has been if you let someone know of a problem, you will get a lot more co-operation than trying to hide and hope it will go away. But I agree the person answering the phone has little to say about the service, product, or anything else other than saying who the company is.
Jess Johnson
Lake Elsinore, CA
To Reviewer John Sipple:
In your February review of the Model Power Semi-streamlined Pacific you indicated in a photo caption that it was equipped with Walschaerts valve gear. I actually think it is a model of Baker valve gear. No big deal but it might add a point of confusion for some folks.
While on the subject of valve gear, there is one thing that has always bugged me about the way Walschaerts gear is modeled. The radius bar is always centered and the expansion (reverse) link is always in “neutral.” As modeled, the locomotive shouldn’t move at all. I think it would look a great deal better if the radius bar was lowered on the link which would impart some prototypical motion to it. I suppose one could argue that this wouldn’t be correct for a reverse movement but we usually run our locomotives in the forward direction 99 percent of the time.
Bob Troop
Satellite Beach, FL
When doing the reviews of the loco with sound, would it be possible to verify the loco’s whistle sound for the prototype? I have a BLI N&W 2-6-6-4 and a couple of BLI PRR engines and the whistle sounds right on.
I just got a Proto 2000 USRA 2-8-8-2 Clinchfield and the whistle sounds like the N&W 2-6-6-4. Did the Clinchfield 2-8-8-2s have hooter whistles?
Bob Bednarik
Vandergrift, PA
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
