About DCC-Friendly Turnouts

Once again you have done the hobby a great service with your June column debunking the DCC-Friendly Turnout issue. As you indicated, if your railroad runs fine on DC with no dead spots or transient shorts, it will also run fine on DCC. But it is true that DCC can expose transient shorts that you perhaps were able to ignore on DC. As has always been true for track work and rolling stock, careful attention to detail and good craftsmanship are necessary to ensure good operations.

I would like to comment on the insulated frog vs. non-insulated frog debate, however, specifically with regard to my experience with N-scale Insulfrog Peco turnouts as recommended in the article. In my experience, 90 percent of all the electrical problems with Peco turnouts are dead spots, which result from poor electrical contact between the point, and stock rails and have nothing whatever to do with their “DCC friendliness.”

The terms “power routing” and “live frog” tend to be used interchangeably (and unfortunately incorrectly on Loy’s otherwise excellent web site), but in fact both Electrofrog and Insulfrog are “power routing,” in that the frog rails and closure rails only receive power through the point-stock rail contact, and can therefore be used to route power to a siding. The only difference between them is that the through and divergent route rails are not electrically connected at the frog in Insulfrog turnouts, so no polarity reversal takes place. You do not have to take my word for this. You can prove it to yourself in a few minutes on the test bench with a turnout and an ohmmeter.

If there is power supplied to the Insulfrog frog rail from the adjacent track through a normal rail joiner, all is well, but if there is an insulating joiner, for example, at the junction of two power districts or at a crossover between two lines on an NTrak module, the Insulfrog turnout is subject to the same dead spot issue caused by poor point rail contact as the Electrofrog. The solution is easy in theory, you merely need to provide power feeders to the frog rails (or closure rails), but in practice you have to be careful as there isn’t much real estate in which to solder in N scale, and too much heat can melt or distort the plastic parts.

Personally, I prefer the Electrofrog variety because, to me, they look better and also seem to have better electrical contact over the frog, particularly with steam locos that have no flywheels, traction tires, and/or only tender pick up. But I would agree that they are not as simple to use as the Insulfrogs.

Anyway, great article John, and glad that you’re back and (hopefully) healthy again.

John Heitmann
Big Flats, NY

Thanks for the input, John. Read on. — John

RE: DCC and Turnout Switches

For as long as both DC and DCC locos and power sources are available, the ultimate choice for either will be regulated by personal preferences and relative costs. So far I’m not convinced by DCC, yet I read every article pertaining to it. Your June Issue “Thinking of DCC” was very enlightening in a number of aspects.

Mr. Scandura’s wiring solution for reliable turnout performance happens to be exactly what I’ve used for “DC” turnouts. So much for DCC’s claim to simplifying one’s wiring requirements. Every article (DCC) I’ve read that’s made this claim was using a very small and simple layout as basis for it. Hey those are pretty simple to wire in DC, too!

The real strength of your essay though is what it implies without saying, and your companion article on turnout jigs reiterates the point. Despite the sophistication available in nearly every aspect of the hobby, the turnout remains its most glaring and obvious weak link. My Atlas turnouts look good and very rarely derail anything, yet their moving parts are flimsy and their electrical components have often been subject to failure (for me) within a year’s time, despite cleaning and maintenance. I’m beginning to replace them with Peco, but they’re more than twice the cost, and only time will tell if that’s justified.

I think that whoever could produce a ready-to-use turnout that was robustly constructed and electrically reliable would do the hobby a much bigger service than all the new locos, cars, structures, and power supplies combined. Given the sophistication in all these new products, that doesn’t seem to me to be a tall order for hobby manufacturers, but not being an engineer, I may be naïve about this. I’d gladly sacrifice some prototypical appearance in turnouts for a truly reliable and robust example. I’m game to constructing anything in the hobby, but I draw the line with [constructing] turnouts. I’ll do without them altogether before that.

William Underwood
Edgewood, NM

A couple of good points, William. The first is that small layouts lead to simple wiring, and larger layouts lead to more complex wiring, which DCC cannot obviate. DCC can let you automate some wiring issues such as reverse loops, signals, power districts, blocks, switches, and other issues, but you’ll pay to have doohickeys do your work for you. That gets back to your statement about personal preferences and relative costs.

In regard to Phil’s solution, since that is what you do in DC, it is not an issue of simplification for DCC but part of proper wiring and something to be done in any event. Model railroaders may have to choose between good prototypical appearance or good, solid performance in their turnouts, a choice that faces us in so many other financial issues in our lives. — John

Fast Tracks Switches

Had to drop you this note after reading the June issue. I was heavily involved in HO gauge back in the 1970s and early 1980s, and then drifted away until about 3 years ago when I drifted back in. Things sure changed (electronically speaking, sound, DCC, etc.) in that time and I’m hooked again. Your magazine is great and I read it every month cover to cover..

The June issue reviewed Fast Tracks’ jigs and kits and I had to write you about these. The most complex track work I ever did was flex track and Atlas Customline turnouts. Even though I haven’t started my layout yet, about a year ago I bought the Fast Tracks kit, thinking it would be interesting to try..

About an hour after reading the instructions, I had the most beautiful, fully correctly gauged turnout you could ever hope to see. About 25 turnouts later, I’ve got the build time down to about 30 minutes and still have fun doing it! These jigs and fixtures they provide are just wonderful and easy to use..

A suggestion or two... use a good electronic soldering iron with a very small chisel tip (about 1/8 inch works great) and high quality thin rosin core solder for best results. Never use acid core, as it will only eat everything over time. Also, avoid putting solder in the flangeways; limit it to the outside. A slightly oversize blob of solder in the flangeway is only asking for trouble and is a potential derailment site. For those of us who have never built a turnout or laid track, give these a try; you’ll have a lot of fun, get a very high quality turnout to boot, and save some money over factory built turnouts..

Alex Kaplan
Naples, FL

Thanks, Alex. That gives us something else to think about on the issue of turnouts. — John

News of NYC Tugboat

RE: July MRN, page 7, letter from Herb Kern of Mobile, AL. The New York Central steam tugboat on display at Bourne, MA on the west bank of the Cape Cod Canal has, alas, been cut up. It was in the way of a highway improvement. Efforts to find someone willing to move it to a new home proved fruitless so it was scrapped. I understand that some artifacts from it have been preserved.

I’m looking forward to MRN’s size change in the Sept. issue.

Ron Salters
Weymouth, MA

Thanks for the update, Ron. Too bad the news is sad. Going small is what kept us from being cut up, and I’m one of the artifacts that might have been preserved. — John

Response to Jerry Linn’s Letter

You are right to read everything you can on DCC. The technology advances almost every day. I, too, started my personal layout with a Zephyr system. I am planning to upgrade.

I am president of our local club, Pecos Valley Society of Model Trainmen. Our club layout uses the Digitrax Super Chief system. I am converting my home layout to this unit. I first learned DCC with the DT400 throttle. Once you get familiar with it, you will be amazed at what it can do. All you need to do is replace the DCS50 with either a Super Chief command station or an Empire Builder command station. You should not have to change anything else. You should be able use your Zephyr as an extra booster.

If you run into any problems, Dave at Digitrax Customer Service is tops! He can answer any question you’ve got.

Dick Lapierre
Roswell, NM

Thanks Dick. There’s your answer, Jerry. — John

Helix Question

I have a two-part question and I’m hoping you can answer me. Do you or anyone in the office know who has a Helix for sale or do you know anyone who has plans of Helixes for sale? Please let me know as soon as you can. I have sent letters to [other magazines] but haven’t gotten any answers.

Larry Yurick
Fort Myers, FL

Hi Larry. Your PS asked me not to let you down, so I won’t, though I’ll have to be very general about this. I don’t have any specifics regarding plans or actual helixes for sale. I will give you the concepts of construction so that you can design and build your own. The idea, as I’m sure you know, is to have a hidden spiral of track that lets you change from one level to another. The spiral will have to do two things at once: have sufficient diameter so that all trains will operate with reliability and sufficient clearance so that nothing gets hung up. You didn’t state your scale, so you’ll have to base it upon your knowledge of your scale. In HO, I have heard guys down at the club say they wouldn’t want to operate a helix less than six feet in diameter with a clearance of at least four inches. If you wanted one level to be a foot higher than the next, your helix would need to have three loops if you used that standard. Good luck, and maybe our readers would care to offer suggestions or tips. — John

Converting Old Locos to DCC, Again

My question is regarding converting older model locomotives to DCC. I have seen several articles on conversion of Athearn locos, of which I have many. I know that I will probably not ever convert all of them to DCC, however, I do have a pretty good sized collection of older Rivarossi steam locos, a lot of Hobbytown locos, and various other steam locos from different manufacturers.

Is there a book available that spells out which need the motors isolated and which are already isolated? For instance, I have two, very early Rivarossi cab forward locos as well as two other articulated locos from Rivarossi. I have been told that they are extremely difficult to convert. Is this true or where can I find out for sure?

I have been planning (only in my head) a layout for many years but have never had the time, space, or resources to actually do it. I now have the space and resources and will have the time soon as I plan to retire within 2 years. (There go the resources). I am torn between building the layout DCC and staying with conventional wiring, which I really understand quite well. The more that I read, the more I tend to lean toward DCC, as my job requires that I be heavily involved with computers.

I just don’t want to have to go out and replace what it has taken me years to accumulate. Any suggestions? Thanks,

Jim Racle
Olympia, WA

Hi, Jim. Though I’ve dealt with this issue before, it also comes up from time to time. I know of no such book, and I’ve had to face it myself, so here goes. The old Athearns actually are pretty easy to convert, once you get the hang of it. Buy one of the Digitrax Athearn conversion decoders to teach yourself how. Once you’ve done one, you can use just the basic decoder and wire it yourself. As you get proficient, you can get fancy with the lighting, if you wish.

I hate to say it, but the old Rivarossi, Hobbytown, and many other, older locos are not easy to convert since these locos ground one pole of the motor to the chassis. If you disturb the motor, you misalign it with the worm gear. The better issue is to declare some days to be DC Days and just run some of your old stuff with DC. Other days will be run with DCC while your nice, old DC stuff gets put on display. In time, you’ll decide what you want to do about your collection. — John

Letters Regarding Changes to Our Publication

New Cover Hater

I love your magazine and I’m on my third subscription. I must say I do not like the new cover (May 2007) at all! In my opinion it is ugly and stupid. I would like to see it changed back to the original. It was nice, fancy, and classy. If you’re taking votes to change it back then you can count me in. Please change it back to the way it was.

Leslie Carr
Fort Madison, IA

Likes New Cover Design

John, it’s good to see you back at the helm of MRN! MRN is still the best magazine for people looking for model railroad happenings! Keep up the great work! I like the new name header on the cover.

As always, the first thing I do with each new issue is to pour through it looking for word on an HO-scale EM1 (B&O). Someone: please build these!

Also, did LBF mfr. go out of business? Their web site seems to be gone, except for a strange re-direct. This may be old news to everyone else, but as I only get MRN magazine, anymore, if the word isn’t in there I don’t see it.

Blair Marston
Tunnelton, WV

July Editorial Feedback

Regardless of your magazine’s format size, I will continue to subscribe to your great publication without hesitation.

I have purchased products solely because they have been advertised in, or reviewed by, your magazine, and I have established very satisfying relationships with several retailers because they placed advertisements in MRN. A reader cannot ask for more than that for his return on investment!

Greg Willis
Brookfield, VT

Quality, Not Size Makes the Difference

Just read your editorial concerning changes in MRN. Although I like the tabloid size a lot, I think the quality of MRN will continue to make it be at the top no matter what format it comes out in. There is something about the tabloid size I have always really liked. I worked in the printing business for 23 years and we printed a number of this size of publications. But change is sometimes inevitable whether desired or forced. I am reasonably new to the model railroad hobby, but I have gleaned an enormous amount of information from MRN.

Keep up the good work, no matter what size it’s in.

Chuck Nickle
Cassville, MO

Looks Forward to Change

Thank you for your explanation [of the upcoming format change], it makes sense. I will not grieve for the tabloid size. I have had to mutilate your magazine to save the articles I really needed to save so they would fit on my shelf. Hurrah! I will be able to save the whole magazine now!

Richard Shook
Winchester, MA

Subscription Rates with the New Size

Having read about the new format to appear next month, I just want to say that I will miss the large “life-sized” centerfolds, but as far as the rest of the changes, I’m sticking with the best publication out there for news of the model railroad industry.

You never really mentioned any new subscription rates in your Editorial. Are they going to increase or stay the same?

Finally, with the change to size, I sincerely hope that you continue with the “Thinking of DCC” column, the most informative column in any model railroad publication.

I’m also looking forward to the new N-scale column by Phil Scandura.

Pete Catalano
Conception Bay South, Newfoundland

Content is Most Important

Sorry to hear about the forced format change due to our “friends” at USPS. While I must admit that I did enjoy your 11 x 14 inch format, which is unique among other model railroad publications, I agree with your recent editorial that it is the content that is most important.

I consider Model Railroad News the bellwether of news and important information in the model railroading press. I admire and respect your test reviews of new equipment, the “Thinking of DCC” column and, being an S Scaler, the “S Curves” column.

Please keep up the good work with the product reviews and informational content that my fellow model railroaders depend on. On a personal note, might we see a review of American Models new S Scale 4-8-4 sometime soon?

Merlyn Jarman
Lawrenceburg, IN

A Bit of Encouragement

Your July editorial sounded like you need a little encouragement. Out of all the Periodicals’ (not just model railroading) I have ever subscribed to, MRN is by far the most informative and enjoyable. I fully support your decision to change the size, rather than increase the price or cease publication. I am confident the content will be every bit as good, if not better, in the new size. I’ll definitely be signing on for another two years when my current subscription is up.

While my main interest is N scale, I read MRN cover to cover thanks to the detailed information about the prototype, which you include in every article or review. I enjoy all that railroading past and present has to offer, so I have modeled my layout as a present day northeastern town complete with a fictional railroad museum, turntable, and steam excursion train.

Keep up the good work!

Nicholas Yuschak, Jr.
Bethel, CT