Let me tell ya, you’ve cost me a bunch of money! First there was the cover with the BLI Class A review and the Galloping Goose, then the next month, the BLI E7! I had to go out and buy them all! Your enthusiasm was infectious! Thanks!
What next? Scares the heck out of me. Just one thing... didn’t ya have lots of fun running that E7? I do!
One more — the $18 bucks I spent on the MRN subscription last June is some of the best money I’ve ever spent! Thanks for a terrific, informative magazine!.
John Albee
Hudson, IL
Yeah, I have a load of fun running the E7s, in part because they’re favorites of the grandkids and everyone who visits. Our hobby is very fortunate to have such a rainbow of fine, new offerings, and it’s our pleasure to report them. Glad you enjoy what we do! — Ed
Major thanks for your December 2003 train set reviews, in particular the S Gauge page. I’m 72 and into my second childhood. Seriously, I wanted a nice set to run around the Christmas tree for me and my grandchildren to enjoy. I read your review of the S-Helper’s six car kit, and it’s running around the tree as I write this. I am more than pleased with your review and am going to tell the folks at S-Helper as well. Thanks again.
Bob Osborn
Portland, OR
My wife and I are brand new to model railroading and have an awful lot to learn. I just retired as an airline pilot, so I have to run something. Based on everything we have read and Broadway’s reputation, we started to purchase their new DCC equipped 2-8-2 Mikado. I’m hesitating buying it now because there was a notice in their manual that states, (paraphrasing from memory) “the articulated throttle will not work on digital due to a lawsuit.” Does that mean the throttles on this and other Broadway trains will not work on DCC? We were also thinking of the HO EMD E7 from Broadway that you reviewed so well in November. Would this loco have the same throttle deactivation? I’m not sure what all this means, however. If the throttle doesn’t work on DCC then why have DCC. Again, my lack of knowledge could very well mean that my (our) thinking that the throttles don’t work is all wet. The dealer wasn’t sure. Many thanks for your time,
Ray Randall
St. Louis, MO
Thanks for asking this important question, since any number of other readers have also wondered something similar. First we need to understand the technology and then we can appreciate the issue. BLI’s decoder is made by QS Industries and uses a speed control system based on a scientific principle called “Back EMF.” When a DC-permanent magnet motor runs, it actually generates a small amount of electricity of the opposite polarity with every revolution. Computer manufacturers and industrial designers have used the concept to determine and regulate the speed of electric motors in lots of applications. Many decoders from almost every manufacturer contain Back EMF circuitry of some sort, though they may give it a proprietary name. In a decoder, it can be used to keep your train running the same speed, up hill or down.
As I understand it, Mike’s Train House is suing both Broadway Limited and Quantum for using this technology in their decoders, making other decoder makers pretty nervous. Until the issue is settled in court or wherever, BLI and Quantum have chosen to deactivate this speed control feature. However, everything else on a locomotive is fully functional and a joy to operate. They work just fine without Back EMF functioning; I have several here and rarely activate the speed control. It’s nice to have, but you may not even miss it. Go ahead, buy the BLI, and enjoy it! — Ed.
I read your article “How many DCC locos is enough for one modeler?” Why can’t we mount a DCC decoder in a “Head End” car and wire, say, 5 of our steam switchers to plug into the head end car? We can use plugs similar to Bachmann’s Spectrum units. Now we can use this car and any one of five different switchers to run off of this decoder. Why not?
H.M.S. Smiley
HMSSMiley@aol.com
To “Train Tech’s” Danny Rittman:
Per your letters to the editor, I hope I can shed a little light on the subject, though it will be under a heavy cloud. All transmitters are made to transmit at a set frequency and as such have a certain wavelength that is resonate at that frequency. Having been a “Ham radio operator” for the past 43 years, this is a subject I have cut many a wire over time. As an example, if you are transmitting on a 20 meter freq then you must have an antenna that matches either mechanically or electrically to 20 meters. Mechanically the antenna would be 40 meters long as you have to have a radiator and a reflector each 20 meters long unless you mount it vertically then it must be 20 meters tall and use the earth as the reflector. You can also use 1/2 wave or 1/4 wave antennas, but you loose some power in the standing wave ratio but not enough to cause any circuit problems. Electrically you can wind a “trap” that compresses the length, but then you get into coil diameter, spacing and amount of wire to convert the compression into the electrical length that you need to splice into the radiator to reduce its length to manageable proportions.
So, the length of all the steel beams electrically is your real problem. The frequency of the NCE unit is at least in the megahertz range if not higher taking the mechanical antenna length to the 2 to 4 inches range for optimum performance. Bear in mind that a mismatched antenna will destroy the transmitter due to reflected power that cannot be transmitted to the airwaves and will literally burn out your output transistor PDQ. As far as receiving goes, that setup is great as a receiving antenna can be any old piece of wire you care to throw on the floor, over a beam, or tack to the wall. As you might gather, I think Bill has a great idea that won’t work as desired. You could look into several small duplex receiver/transmitters that will relay to a master attached to the base station and be located any place you want them, but they may become cost prohibitive due to the original case of steel beams which could interfere with these small units also. See if you can find an old line Ham (not the newer novice class) that can explain how repeaters work and then determine if you want to go there. Good Luck.
Bob Canody W8GTA
via internet
Thank you for your input. We consulted experts in the RF field and received similar responses. The antenna’s physical size and electrical characteristics were our main concern. If the antenna does not match the electronic design the output stage of the transmitter is at risk. I have some experience with aircraft RF systems from the time that I was in the Air Force and know the importance of the antenna/electronics match. I believe that the best route is to consult with the RF system designer.
Bill, here is some more input from one of our readers. Please let us know how things are working for you. — Danny Rittman
To “Traintech’s” Danny Rittman:
I was reading the letter from Bill Boyd in Northbrook, IL and have some information that may help. We had some of the same concerns he has when we went wireless.
The club I belong to here in Tucson, Southern Arizona Society Model Engineers, is in an all metal building. The layout room, approximately 24 feet x 30 feet, is finished with sheetrock and a drop ceiling. All the studs are metal and the drop ceiling has metal support around the ceiling tiles. Before we switched to DCC a few years ago we used CVP’s RailCommand with wireless. We set the receiver on a shelf in a corner approximately three and a half feet above the layout. It operated flawlessly from the day we put it in.
One of the club members uses the wireless NCE system on his home layout. He has steel posts supporting steel I-beams for the roof. He has his wireless receiver mounted upside down on one of the beams. The times that I have operated on his layout we have experienced no trouble.
We have talked to the folks at CVP and NCE over time and they told us it should not be a problem operating in the metal building as long as we were inside with the receiver. We now use Digitrax with infrared at the club.
I hope our experience with wireless in a metal building will help Bill.
Jim Homan
Tucson AZ
I don’t know how practical it would be for modelers but maybe the answer to the railroad companies charging for the use of their logos would be to omit them from the model rolling stock. Individual modelers could develop their own rail lines logos. Possibly a letter to the railroad companies pointing out the free advertising that they would be missing from the modelers would get to them. The model companies would have to put out kits and rolling stock with just the logos left off. I would be happy to design my own logo for my railroad and cease my free advertising for them.
Also, what a story this would make for the newspapers of towns that have model railroad clubs: The big corporate bully and the little guy, the hobbyist. I wonder if the model airplane companies are going to follow suit. Interesting can of worms, isn’t it.
Milo Sallady
Stockton, CA
Tom Buckinham’s letter in your January issue is clearly typical of modeler’s confusion. It deserves a much more complex response. Any owner of an active logo has the legal right to protect their image and their unique identity in the marketplace. This is the premise that UP projects, but the ramifications are great. Little press is being given similar efforts by BNSF that are not as comprehensive in scope, nor has the Chessie matter come up.
Once upon a time, Lionel was paid by railroads to advertise them by decorating modern diesels NYC or Santa Fe. The UP could claim a greater share of your model dollar as profit than the folks who brought you the model. The whole issue is not new, but the callous UP approach is. Would it be possible for a book or magazine publisher to print a photo with any UP prototype car or engine (in a wreck or not)? Not if the UP’s sharp lawyers decided not. Would the small businesses in our industry be able to manage the additional paperwork and authentication required to send frequent reports to each prototype railroad with their payments? Think how much fun you are anticipating with just your upcoming tax reports. Would the manufacturer who invested in the production tooling for a UP (ART, WP, SP, C&NW, D&RGW, etc. or predecessor road) model have property rights in his own investment? The UP doesn’t think so. They expect to claim title to such tooling when activity ceases according to their terms.
Would the model manufacturer be given the latitude to design his own product, to advertise it, or to make it historically accurate? My own experience in this business for some 35 years suggests this is an as-yet-unaddressed concern. When obtaining licensing for a unique design chemical tank car, the prototype chemical company placed such restrictions on my advertising terminology and disclaimers that it became nearly impossible to design an attractive ad. If two or three different roadnames were to appear in the same ad with similar restrictions you’d be lost in the fine print.
A major cola company was engaged in “image modernization” when I requested licensing to include their historic “fountain drink” sign on a historic corner drug store kit some years ago. Extended negotiations with their legal department ensued. They wanted a “modern image.” The final licensing agreement required the utmost of historical accuracy — to the point I can identify unlicensed models at a glance today. Times change, now the firm is emphasizing the historic nature of their brand.
So, learning my lesson, when I did a gas station I used the logo of a firm — Indian Gasoline — no longer in commerce. But the UP logic would prevent such a solution if Indian had been absorbed by a Marathon or a Standard Oil. (Were they? Do I have to do that research too?) They (UP) are claiming “protection” of absorbed brands (WP, SP, D&RGW, etc.) whose image they quickly painted out upon absorption. Will someone in Omaha decide those brands are not to be kept in front of the public during their expensive brand awareness program? They could.
Tooling is progressing here on an extensive line of historic and prototypically accurate Red Ball caboose kits for many railroads. I know the model builder would prefer them painted and lettered. We have the machinery to do that. But then, what if the UP took over that line, or may take it over, or decides cabooses project an old fashioned image? Or what if UP logic is contagious and each road has their own little legal quirks? Do I make kits or fight court cases? Time and resources do not permit both for most of your manufacturers.
Someone on the N&W modeling group suggested every model be undecorated and we all learn to decal. He should know those Walthers parcel vans with decals don’t have the correct name of the parcel company you all know. Most of us in this business are in it because we enjoy it and like to bring enjoyment to others. We don’t drive our BMW, Caddy, or Mercedes to the train shows because they are on our own layouts.
Merle Rice
Model Railroad Warehouse
For whatever UP would like to claim, almost every step of the way they’ll have to battle it out in court. The greater the claims, the bigger and longer will be the battles. This all sounds like a good idea to UP brass until it starts to interfere with railroading. At that point, UP president Dick Davidson will have to put his foot down and that will probably be the end of it. Right up until that moment, foot-dragging and legal resistance within our industry will be common. Meanwhile, a rash of TV and newspaper stories are already getting back to stockholders and shippers. If they start to develop concerns surrounding this issue, that’s when the trademark issue starts to interfere with the railroading. — Ed.
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
