Wants More on John Maughan’s Modifications

I just finished reading your article on the GE/IR boxcab and what you and the fellow in Canada had done to it. I have interest in that particular model as I worked for Ingersoll Rand in Phillipsburg, NJ starting in 1951 when I graduated from high school across the river in Easton, PA. One of those engines ran all around the IR plant moving stuff both inside and outside the buildings. I worked as a machinist in the tool room as an 18 year old. That engine scared me more than once as I was going between buildings and it just stood there and the engineer blew the horn for the heck of it. I had just turned 18 and was the youngest on the swing shift (3-11:30PM) of all the guys, so I was the butt of many jokes.

Over the years I have purchased several models of the GE/IR boxcab by Roundhouse. I’ve tried to modify most of them so that they would run better. They all run fairly well but are very noisy, as you point out. Also they have a tendency to bind on tight corners. I’ve tried several different kinds of motors but all with similar results. The pickups aren’t that dependable either as it depends on how you bend the contacts in the trucks. I said I was a machinist, but not a very good one, I’m sorry to say. Big stuff is OK, but when it comes to small things the real machinists called me a shoemaker. I left Ingersoll in 1957. I served in the US Army from 1953-1956 and then went back to Ingersoll when I was discharged. The Government offered me a job in communications (which I had done while in the Army) and I took them up on it. For the next 40 years I worked for the CIA.

Sorry, I get carried away. The reason I’m writing is that I would like to find out more about the modifications made by John Maughan, in Canada. Mostly with the chain drive that you mentioned. What kind of parts or kit could be purchased to make that mod? I think that’s where most of the noise comes from as it uses the engine body as an amplifier. I have lots of motors as I have collected a LOT of low voltage motors over the years. I turn flywheels on my lathe so that isn’t a problem either.

I’m not into DCC as it would be too much of a challenge at my age and the hand tremors that I have make it almost impossible to work on small things anymore. I would like to tackle the chain drive though, mainly because of my love for this particular engine. It is a fantastic engine for switching on John Allen’s switching problem board. It would be a lot nicer if it were a bit quieter.

Thanks for writing the article on the Boxcab. It certainly was appreciated.

Jim Allen
Fairfax, VA

John Maughan has Retired from Doing Repairs

Thanks for a very informative article in the October issue of MRN. Though I am not using DCC on my new layout, (I’m building The Harlem Transfer Co., see Model Railroad Planning 2007), I do need a boxcab engine. I have an MDC unit in non-working condition. You did not put any contact info for John Maughan. Maybe he’d like to do 40,000 and 1 repairs.

Nik Smith
Springfield, IL

Boxcab Rehabilitation

I read your article about the MDC Roundhouse Boxcab Rehabilitation in the Oct 2007 issue of Model Railroad News. As I have several Boxcabs I recently acquired that I want to rebuild, I was intrigued with the article. I have a couple of questions, however, that you may be able to help me with. First, what is the source of the chain belt drive that was used in your rebuild? Second, what method of isolating the motor from the frame was used? Finally, what was done to true up the axles, frames, and running gear? I appreciate any information you can supply; I have these boxcabs and one that I scratch-built, and would like to refine them and increase performance and appearance. Thanks

Paul W. Myers
Division Director,
Turkey Creek Division
Mid Continent Region - NMRA
Kansas City, MO

Really, all I did was the electronics installation; I did none of the basic rehabilitation. My Canadian friend, John Maughan, did the real work. The chain drive is his magic. The motor was rescued out of a camcorder and has both terminals, so that is how it was isolated from the frame. He did a great deal of work to true up the trucks, including replacing one of them. My old boxcab was truly a mess and only his vast experience could save it.

I discussed the boxcab and its trucks with Michael Stephens, President of Athearn, and he agrees that a complete redesign of the drivetrain and trucks would be the only way to re-market this model. They are looking over that prospect right now, but no decisions have been made. I’ve got my fingers crossed. — John

N-Scale Bachmann DCC Conversion Notes

To reviewer Phil Scandura:

After reading the review of the Bachmann N-scale Trainmaster in the September issue of Model Railroad News by Phil Scandura, I had an issue regarding DCC conversion, but let it go as an oversight. However, I received my copy of the October issue of MRN today, and the review of the Bachmann B23-7 has the EXACT same error, in fact, the DCC section of the article is almost a word for word copy from the September review.

Both of these locomotives are DCC ready, as are the SD45s, and Dash 8s, and we don’t have to wait for someone to develop a board, the factory board has DCC solder pads for installation. For the sake of sending a smaller file, I will skip sending my own photos, but will refer you to the ones in the articles: for September issue page 34, for October issue page 30.

Near the middle of the PCB in the picture, you will see two bronze clips on the side of the board, these are the DCC jumpers, removing these clips will expose the 7 numbered soldering pads for connecting a Digitrax DZ123, Lenz Mini, or the micro decoder of your choice. It almost takes longer for the soldering pencil to heat up then it takes to have the decoder ready to install, and the wire color/pad number is included in the paperwork that is included with the loco. Before trimming the wires, slide each one through the correct hole, and when all seven are in place, with the decoder seated where you want it, trim each wire allowing, an extra 1/8-1/4 inch for stripping and tinning. Each wire can then be soldered into its pad, and the loco is ready for programming/testing.

Robert Buesking III
Hermann, MO

Greetings, Robert. Thanks very much for your letter. I had not realized the instruction sheet included DCC conversion instructions — it takes a while to unfold the fanfolded instructions :-) It was my impression that the conversion was a drop-in, not a solder in. I’m glad you pointed this out.— Phil

Fantasy Paint Schemes

Thank you for revealing the fact that at least two of the BLI AC6000s are fantasy paint schemes. Without your review, I wouldn’t have known. I like to stay relatively prototypical, and I count on higher end manufacturers to produce prototypical products — such has been the trend since Proto 2000 came out with their BL-2. To find a fantasy paint scheme on a product from a high-end manufacture like BLI puts all of their work into question — how do I know, without a lot of research, what is “real” and what is fantasy?

Stephen Lowens
Montara, CA

Hi, Stephen. This is one of the reasons for our Prototype Section in our reviews (see my Editorial in this issue). I’ve got tons of books on this stuff and so do the rest of our writers. We also are pretty adept at scooting around the internet and viewing pictures and seeing specs on all sorts of rail equipment. Still, it isn’t our desire for those skills to atrophy in our readers. If you have a favorite railroad you like to model, you should treat yourself to books, videos, and bookmarked web sites. A large number of manufacturers produce fantasy paint schemes, and I don’t think it places anyone’s work into question. It just helps to know your favorite road. — John

Atlas Signals Clarification

To reviewer Phil Scandura:

I am very excited about the new Atlas 21st Century Signal System. Especially now that the N&W/PRR PL signals are available.

However, I must take exception the photo caption of the Atlas Signal at the bottom of page 65 in the October 2007 issue of MRN. In the interest of not confusing the unknowing railfans, I offer the following as to how the signal should be in the real world.

First, the proper and more common placement for the signal should be on the right hand side of the track somewhere before, not after, the switch points.

Second, the signal is only one signal, not two as the caption suggests. The entire signal (both boards) would show an aspect for either the main line or for the siding. Not both at the same time. The signal aspect as shown on page 65 would indicate a clear block only for the main line.

I feel that this photo and caption would tend to mislead hobbyists that are new and/or know nothing about signal systems and the way they are used to protect train movements. Could you please print a correction to this effect?

Jimmy Lisle
Roanoke, VA

Hi, Jimmy. While signals typically tend to be placed to the right of the track, this is not required, nor is it always possible. In the case of Dick’s layout, note the cliff on the right side of the track. I do, however, agree that it should be placed before the turnout, not next to the turnout.

To be more precise, the upper green indicates the main is clear, the lower red indicates (typically) that the turnout is aligned for the main and not the siding. Of course, one could also argue the lower red indicates the siding is occupied (since the train is there). Including the position of the turnout in the signal indication is typical, but not mandatory (I’m not sure all railroads did it).

I fall back on my original statement in the “signaling primer” section of the review (page 59): “In fact, doing justice to the topic of railroad signaling requires an article of its own. There are many good books, articles, and web sites dedicated to the topic, as listed at the end of this review.” — Phil

To reviewer Phil Scandura:

Absolutely love the new format and your magazine is quickly becoming my favorite. Keep up the good work and product reviews.

Your review of the Atlas system was something I have been looking for, but one question: I have five Model Power signals on my layout, controlled by toggle switches. Can these be used in the Atlas system? I don’t think this aspect was covered in your review. Your review was very complete, and really gave a “beginner” a good handle on this new system/product. Could you do something on sound only in a DC environment?

Thank you again for the professionalism all throughout the magazine.

Jim Merkel
Fremont, MI

Regarding sound in a DC environment I’ll have to check around with the staff to see what experience they have. I’ve only just started working with locomotive sound using DCC. There are, of course, numerous sound boards on the market for layout sound effects that work on DC; for example, Innovative Train Technology www.ittproducts.com, but I haven’t done much with DC sound for locomotives. — Phil

And Now a Word from the FRA

To Larger View’s John Sipple:

Just received your October issue, and some of the comments on page 93 about railroad ballast got my attention. Regarding the comment about ballast up to 5 inches in size, I don’t know where this might have been referring to, but certainly not in the United States. The nominal maximum size ballast in the U. S. is 2-1/2 inches, and has been so for many years.

U. S. railroads use ballast that meets the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association’s (AREMA) gradations. For main line track, there are 4 gradations. The one which includes the largest size pieces ranges from 2-1/2 inch down to 3/4 inch. The smallest ranges from 1-1/2 inch down to 3/4 inch. Perhaps the most commonly used is designated 4A and ranges from 2 inch down to 3/4 inch. For yards, the gradation most commonly used ranges from 1 inch down to 3/8 inch. This smaller size is mainly to better accommodate all the walking along the track required of switching crews and car inspectors.

When steam still operated, cinders (then a readily available waste product) were used on some secondary lines, but this is very poor ballast material. Blast furnace slag was also common in some areas in past years, and while better than cinders, varied in quality. Since about some time in the 1980s, railroad ballast in the U.S. has been almost exclusively crushed rock meeting the AREMA gradations. The best is a hard rock like granite (which includes the well-known C&NW pink granite ballast, an excellent material). Where hard rock is not readily available, limestone is often used (as on Illinois Central), but it will degrade faster than a rock like granite.

If ballast contained any significant percent of pieces much larger than 2-1/2 inch, it would be difficult to adjust track surface and have the resulting level remain stable for long periods. The gradations the railroads use are picked to obtain the best balance between the often conflicting requirements to provide good stability under load and good drainage.

Don Plotkin
Rockville, MD

To Larger View’s John Sipple:

I model at 1:29 a fictional Southern Pacific Sacramento Valley branch line of the 1950s, in a gently sloping backyard about 50 feet by 100 feet, shared with fruit trees, solar panels, and a chicken coop.

Can you tell me the track material shown in the comparison photos of your October 2007 column? The rails appear to be steel.

I’ve also had problems with ballast wash-away, especially under trees where drops coalesce. I thought of mixing my preferred “gray fines” ballast with some greenish clay that my neighbor excavated and wanted to dispose of, but have not tried it yet.

My bigger problem is the extreme expansion/contraction of my aluminum code 215 rail, which I chose for esthetic reasons (I plan to use on-loco battery power). I’ve painted the rail sides to represent grime. My roadbed is a poured concrete “curb” with paired #3 rebar, to deal with the shrink/swell of our clay soil due to extreme seasonal moisture differences. My track is all hand-spiked to stained redwood ties that I cut from old fence slats. Curves are 8- to 12-foot radius. Where the rails are exposed to direct sun, sun kinks require daily realignment and reballasting. In some spots rails have pulled free from the intermittent ties that are attached to small blocks embedded in the concrete. At this point the only cure appears to be taking up much of the track and replacing the overly tight, nickel-silver rail joiners (typically at 6-foot spacing) with joiners that will easily accommodate longitudinal movement. I’d really like to avoid cutting all my six-foot sections into shorter ones, especially on curves.

Any advice would be appreciated. And no, the chickens do not have access to the right-of-way.

Glen Matteson
San Luis Obispo, CA

I think the clay and the gray fines would work well together; try a small test area or two. Real railroads haven’t solved all these problems yet, so it’s doubtful we will anytime soon! — John

Just a quick note to add my voice to those who have expressed their appreciation of your support of S gauge by publishing the S-Curves column. It’s the first thing I turn to every other month. (On alternate months I first look for new S products and S product reviews.) Keep up the good work!

Irwin Sternberg
Tucson, AZ