Broadway Limited AC6000 Review

I enjoyed your review of the Broadway Limited AC6000. I recently purchased two of the units (without sound) and was disappointed to find that the units do not have constant lighting. I run my locomotives at what I consider to be realistic freight speeds and the headlights and ditch lights are barely visible. I contacted customer support at Broadway Limited and asked why constant lighting was not included on an otherwise excellent model, and their response indicated that they did not understand what constant lighting was. It seems that constant lighting is a fairly inexpensive feature to include on a model such as the AC6000 and I would certainly be willing to pay a few bucks extra in order to realistically operate a great locomotive. I suggested to Broadway Limited that they include constant lighting on future models.

Kent Holbrook
Centerville, UT

After we exchanged e-mails, Kent, it turns out that you use Crest’s Train Engineer radio control product. I have used this out on my garden railroad for years because it is a very good solution. However, it uses Pulse Width Control, and that sometimes disagrees with circuitry in some locomotives. My version has a “PWC-Linear” switch, and moving to Linear mode often corrects those problems. The AC6000 does have a constant lighting circuit which I noticed but didn’t comment on because I quickly installed a decoder and moved on to DCC operation. — Ed.

Intermountain N-scale F3 Decoder Woes

In your December issue of MRN, on page 36, you mention that Digitrax has a decoder for the Intermountain F3s, namely the DN163I1A. This is not correct. That decoder fits the Intermountain FTs. The pins, or tabs, on this decoder are too long to physically fit in the F3s. I have been in touch with Intermountain and Digitrax for several months now about this problem and Digitrax told me in October that they are waiting on parts from Intermountain. It seems to me that there has been a lack of communication between these two manufacturers, causing a delay of products getting to market for us in DCC, to properly run new engines that are produced without consideration of the decoder to fit the new engine. I would think that it would be advantageous for any new engines and decoders to be produced somewhat simultaneously. Anyhow, with your experience and expertise in the business, maybe you can find out when Digitrax will be producing the correct decoder for the F3s.

Tom Trenkmann
Fullerton, CA

Hi Tom, as seems to be happening more and more, we resolved this issue behind the scenes before going to press, but I’m including the letter and our results for our readers who might have had similar questions. Companies that produce aftermarket products have to rely on getting timely shipments of product samples from the original company. As it turns out, I sent an e-mail to a friend at Digitrax and they responded to you saying that by the time we read this in print they should be shipping a decoder model specifically for the Intermountain F3. — Ed.

Response to BLI J-class Issues

I saw the review of the BLI N&W “J” and a follow-up letter to that review in the October Issue by S.D. Campbell of Pulaski, Va. I was quite amused by that letter and did appreciate your response to it. I am a member of the N&W Historical Society and have multiple resources available as such. One source is a book offered by the Society on the “J.” Mr. Campbell was correct on two points. The class lights are oversized, but that is apparent in the review photos, and the whistle doesn’t sound quite right.

One comment by a hobby shop owner/modeler said that he felt the only model produced so far with the correct sounding whistle was the Premium Lionel “J” offered a year or so ago. He felt the whistle used on the BLI “J” was taken from a recording made late in the excursion career of the “J” when it did sound “different.” Now as to the third point brought up by Mr. Campbell, that being the “bulge” on each side above the fourth driver on the Bachmann model. Every comment made on the N&WHS boards made positive comments about how BLI had gotten that right. In other words, the Bachmann model is wrong. There is no bulge on either side of the “J.” Every picture I have seen shows no bulge, seeing it up close on excursions showed no bulge, and fellow modelers say the BLI is correct. Again, I liked your response to Mr. Campbell’s letter. Keep up the good work.

Alan Cox
Richmond, VA

Thanks Alan. Out here on the West Coast, I can verify stuff about SP’s famous GS-4 that an East Coast writer would have a hard time confirming. In order to get reviews out in a timely manner (our last name is News!) I often have only a couple of weeks to work on it. I go as far as I can in that time. One reason we put in so many large, colorful photos is so that the reader can see and evaluate the model, too. It is nice that the Premium Lionel product used the correct whistle, but readers should be warned not to expect any particular engine or whistle sound from any manufacturer to be exactly accurate. Hollywood special effects people will tell you that the hardest job in that town is the “harvesting” of accurate sound samples. — Ed.

Help Stop Graffiti

The sentiments expressed by Mr. Reck in his December letter regarding vandalism are shared by the great majority of rail enthusiasts. Graffiti, as one columnist recently put it, is “scam art.” If these vandals were recreating images of the Mona Lisa or The Last Supper we might have a debate. But they aren’t. The public equates this “scam art” with crime and decay to such a degree that it has been proven to lower property values!

Last month, the following was circulated on the internet as an effort to lessen this vandalism. Many of us tire of being helpless spectators as our railroads are defaced. I hope you will consider passing this along in the pages of MRN.

Call to Action! Thousands of railcars including both new and historic fallen flags have been vandalized with graffiti over the past decade. Help stop this crime. Report any suspicious trespassing/vandalizing to the railroad or local police. NS 800-453-2530, CSX 800-232-0144, UP 888-877-7267, BNSF 800-832-5452, CN 800-465-9239, CP 800-716-9132, KCS 877-527-9464

Jim Norton
Madison, AL

I agree, Jim, so here it is. Meanwhile, my question is the paint. All of that paint! These “taggers” must use hundreds of thousands of rattle cans of paint each year. I can’t imagine that they buy all those cans. So where do they get it? If they didn’t have paint, they’d be back doing their work with charcoal and chalk. — Ed.

N-scale Track Woes

I’ve only subscribed to your magazine (which is a great one) long enough to see you review two N-scale locos but in both of the reviews you said the engines don’t run on Code 55 track — they “chatter” through curves as the “flanges hit the simulated spikes and tie plates.”

Excuse me, but what brand of Code 55 track are you using? All my locos, including the old ones with big flanges, have no noise problems at all on Micro Engineering track. I suspect you are using N track from Manufacturer “A,” which has clearance problems between wheel flanges and molded spike heads, a problem the company refuses to even admit, much less correct.

For the sake of N scalers who may be put off from buying an excellent loco because of this “chatter” problem it would perhaps be more fair to test the engines on several brands of Code 55 track (or to avoid damaging corporate egos you could lay your own Code 55 test track).

Al Skinner
Bellingham, WA

Talk about issues, Al! We used to do all of our reviews on Kato Code 80 track but folks complained locos that worked fine on the Code 80 were having problems on Code 55. Accordingly, our two principle N-scale reviewers, David Otte and Phil Scandura, equipped themselves to conduct reviews in the Code 55 subdivision. They used arguably the most popular product, Atlas Code 55 track, since that was hanging on the dealer’s peg rack. Phil posted to me the following about his review locomotives to date:

“Of the 20 locos tested (diesel and steam), 4 worked okay on Atlas while the other 16 all had “chatter” problems on the curves (but okay on straights). In contrast, all of the rolling stock had problems (both on curves and straights) that could only be solved by changing to Micro-Trains low-profile wheels. (Note that Atlas also sells low-profile wheels.)

“Atlas openly admits (on their web site FAQs) that low-profile wheels are recommended for rolling stock when used on Code 55 (although, they say nothing about locos). All locos that I have tested which use low-profile wheels work great with Atlas.

“In the world of N-scale Code 80 track, everyone’s equipment runs on everyone’s track (complete interoperability) – and quite reliably using somewhat oversized flanges. As the industry started moving to smaller Code sizes, however, everyone recognized that flanges had to get smaller — some manufacturers chose to follow suit, while others did not.”

At the bottom of it, the guys have agreed to state the manufacturer of the track on which they report their results — Ed.

Post Office Trucks?

To “Grade Crossing” editor Bill Cawthon:

Do you know of any HO US Postal Service vehicles? I’m modeling a suburban Post Office and would like several home delivery vehicles — either the Jeep-type or the newer box type. I’ve not found any in the Walther’s catalog. Are any available?

Ken Poznaniak
Via E-mail

Hi Ken. As common as they are in the real world, I am not aware of a ready-to-run 1:87 scale replica of a modern USPS carrier route vehicle (CRV). The closest currently available USPS light vehicle is probably the Trident Express Mail van (Walthers 729-90286).

The majority of current USPS CRVs are either the newer Ford/Utilimaster FFV (flexible fuel vehicle), which is built on an Explorer chassis, or the 1986-1995 Grumman Olson/GM LLV (long-life vehicle), which was based on the S-10 pickup chassis and was replaced by the Ford beginning in December 1999.

I wouldn’t hold out much hope for HO-scale models of either. These are specialized trucks built to USPS specifications rather than variations of an existing standard truck and this limits their ability to be reissued as something else, something that is very important to modelmakers.

It would be possible to make a reasonable copy of the Jeep DJ-5A Dispatcher by using the Roco #713 M38A1 Jeep and some Evergreen Styrene. The postal service bought Dispatchers up to 1983 and many were in use until well into the 1990s.

The U.S. Postal Service also bought Jeep Cherokees up until 2001. There’s not a model of the Cherokee, but you could substitute the Grand Cherokee (Walthers 326-6187). You can also use the Busch Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth minivan and S-10 Blazer. The USPS bought thousands of Chrysler minivans to replace Grumman LLVs so the Grumman vans could be reassigned to rural routes.

There are a couple of sources for the striping and you can make USPS decals on your home computer. As the USPS licenses commercial use of its markings, I am not sure there are any ready-made USPS decal sets available.

Here’s a list of some of the vehicles that have been operated by the USPS in the past 15 years. Not all of these would have been painted white as many of them were leased and some of them would have been used for special delivery service as they were too big to be an effective carrier route vehicle.

AM General Jeep DJ-5A Dispatcher (make from Roco M38A1 model)

Chevrolet S10 Blazer SUV (Busch)

Chevrolet Tracker SUV Chrysler Town and Country minivan (Busch)

Dodge Caravan minivan (Busch)

Ford Explorer SUV (William Bros. made a kit for the Explorer)

Ford Freestar minivan

Ford Windstar minivan

GMC S15 Jimmy SUV

Honda CR-V

Jeep Cherokee SUV

Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV (Promotex/Herpa)

Jeep Liberty SUV

Jeep Wrangler SUV

Kia Sportage

Mercury Monterey minivan

Mercury Mountaineer SUV

Plymouth Voyager minivan (Busch)

Subaru Forester

Suzuki Vitara & XL-7

In truth, you could easily get away with using just a couple of the alternatives I have recommended as a real USPS substation would have very few carrier route vehicles in the parking lot during most of the day. One or two vehicles and a row of empty parking spaces should work just fine.

Be sure to pick up one or two of the Athearn USPS trucks that are still available. Back them up to your loading dock.

Sorry I couldn’t be of more help. I have discussed the need for postal delivery trucks with several manufacturers, so perhaps a ready-to-run model will appear someday. — Bill

Letters Regarding Union Pacific

Harassing Letter from UP

Yesterday we received a harassing letter from UP signed by Brenda Mainwaring. I am sending a copy of this letter for your review. Mrs. Mainwaring doesn’t understand simple English text. As you can see on our web site www.globaloutlet.com/products.html we have never stated that we intend to manufacture products bearing UP trademarks.

We intend to make C&NW 5000A Passenger Babyface, however:

1. This model has not been made yet and even we don’t know when it will be made (it depends on number of reservations).

2. We did not say a word if we are going to put a logo on it (as you know we can make this model without C&NW logo).

3. We haven’t decided if this particular locomotive will be painted.

We merely stated an intent to manufacture the model of C&NW 5000A in the future. It is strange that someone who has reading comprehension problems has a position of Director of Corporate Relations in a giant transportation company.

We decided we are not going to answer her letter within 10 days or ever in such a situation. If UP continues to send harassing letters to us we will file a lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad.

Darius Lachowicz
Global Outlet Corp
www.globaloutlet.com

Well Darius, you naughty boy! Actually, an awful lot of companies have gotten letters just like this despite the fact that they haven’t come to market with anything applicable. Apparently, this is how some people at UP’s home office make friends.

For our interested readers, the Babyface is actually a Baldwin DR-6-4-20 (or -10). This was an A-1-A trucked passenger cab locomotive, some of which had two engines for 2,000HP and only one of which had 1,000HP. The lone single-engined unit went to C&NW where it had a baggage compartment and door where the aft engine would have been and was delivered in 1948. Central of New Jersey, Nacional de Mexico, Gulf Mobile & Ohio, and Pennsylvania were the other buyers of this Baldwin product. This locomotive line later evolved into the famous “Sharknose” type. — Ed.