Notice to Readers:
We welcome your letters and love to publish them, but we really need you to give us a real name (as opposed to an advice-to-the-lovelorn name such as “Miffed in Michigan”) plus your city and state. Thanks!
We welcome your letters and love to publish them, but we really need you to give us a real name (as opposed to an advice-to-the-lovelorn name such as “Miffed in Michigan”) plus your city and state. Thanks!
I see no mention of the BL2 which is housed in Coles Land Transportation Museum in Bangor, Maine [see reviews published in September 2001 and January 2002]. Also, I worked on the Bangor & Aroostook railroad for 42 plus years. I was there when the first BL arrived and was still there after they were all gone; most of the time I was responsible for making up unit consists and don’t recall any restrictions such as those mentioned. I do seem to recall that we couldn’t use more than 2 BLs together but could use 2 pairs together separated by an F3 or GP. As I recall the problem was in the design of the couplers or drawbar shank. Problems arose when pushing a heavy train backwards, and even more dangerous when pushing a heavy train backward on a curve, that is when they would either jump the track or roll the outside rail over.
Clyde
Oakfield Railroad Museum
When I did the research for the original review on the Life-Like BL2 in January 2002, I didn’t find any references to the Coles Land Transportation Museum, though I’m delighted to find that another BL2 has been saved.
“Buffeting” is a term used in motive power engineering to describe the forces applied to a locomotive through its couplers, as a result of pushing and pulling. While the “covered wagon” design, used in General Motors’ F-series, was popular and had its advantages, it had one large problem. There was a partial frame under the main components and the rest of the load-bearing structure was provided by the side members. Buffeting cracked many of these side members in the F-series, hastening their demise. When Santa Fe rebuilt many of its fleet into CF7s, the starting point for this new design was a true frame.
The BL2, due to its unusual cowl body design, was even less strong than the F-series. Various railroads had their own experiences, but several ended up issuing policies designed to limit buffeting forces, though it appears that the BAR was not one of them. By restricting a BL2 to lead locomotive position, buffeting was reduced to a minimum. Western Maryland was one such railroad, and they took it a step farther by removing the MU connections from the front, making a BL2 impossible to place in the middle of an MUed consist. Theoretically, someone could have put a BL2 as the last loco in the set, nose to the rear, but that would have earned them a pink slip. One unfortunate outcome of restricting them to the lead unit was complaints from engineers who found the BL2 cabs uncomfortable and poorly heated.
The problem of going on the ground and spreading rails is not something I’ve heard about before (not that I’m a clearinghouse on BL2 information) and I find it surprising, though not very. The BL2 was plagued with odd problems due to its strange design. The GP7, on the other hand, corrected virtually every one of them, in large part because it began with a good, stout frame. In theory, the BL2 should have behaved very much like an F3 or F7 in any given situation. That it didn’t may be yet more evidence of its structural deficiencies. However, as models, they are darned cute! — Ed.
Dear Russ,
Great work on your new column on DCC. It’s good to see this very important subject being given the editorial space that it deserves. Keep up the good work!
I have been a model railroader on and off for over 50 years, and I’ve modeled in hi-rail O gauge, HO, G, and now mostly N scale. As such, I’ve read the recent spate of letters to the editor dealing with the decision of whether or not to go DCC — with great interest and some amusement. I too went through many of the same agonies about a year ago, and then I finally decided to take the plunge. I thought that you might find some of my experiences over the last year of interest.
First, I too had a pretty extensive collection of both steam and diesel locos, and the thought of the time and expense of converting them all to DCC was daunting. And like everyone else, I also agonized over what brand of DCC to buy if I did make the jump.
What I have learned over the past year is the following:
1. The brand of DCC that you select is not as important as the local support that is available for it. You are going to need a fair amount of hand-holding in the beginning and having access to a good dealer who can advise you is critical. I ended up going with Digitrax because of its technical sophistication and its support of N scale. It was a good decision, but even though I have two engineering degrees, I still had to ask a lot of questions. Unfortunately, while their hardware works like a charm, Digitrax’s manuals and throttles are not very user-friendly. My primary dealer, Tim Smith at Southern Digital Northeast, is always only a phone call away to bail me out of my ignorance.
2. Don’t be intimidated by the technology, because you can happily use DCC without knowing much of anything about it. Just learn how to program the address of the loco and how to operate your throttle, and you are off and running.
3. When you start, buy at least two new locos with decoders already installed (or ones with simple conversion kits). That way you can get the feel of DCC without having to jump into potentially difficult conversions right away, and you really wanted those new E8s anyway.
4. Buy a DCC system that allows you to run non-DCC equipped locos. That way you can still run your old equipment without having to do conversions. What I am finding is that I now don’t buy anything new unless I can see a relatively easy way to install a DCC decoder, and that I run my older equipment less and less as I acquire new. I have also found that I rarely run more than 3 locos at a time, so the limitation of being able to run only one non-DCC loco at a time is not a serious limitation. I originally had planned to convert all of my older equipment to DCC, but now I think that I probably never will, instead converting only a few of my most favorite units.
5. DCC operation is liberating in a way that I never thought possible. I have come to realize that my layout designs had evolved over the years with cab control as a major design constraint. For example, I avoided reversing loops in my track plans. Now I am designing my “dream layout,” and it will be completely different from anything that I ever built before because of DCC.
One of my other hobbies is audio, and I see some real parallels between what is happening now with DCC and the move from analog to digital audio some years ago. I have an extensive record collection and wondered how well it would coexist with CDs. What happened was that CDs took over to the extent that I hardly ever play a record any more. The same thing is happening with DCC. It’s the best thing that has happened to model railroading in my lifetime.
John Heitmann
Thanks for taking time to drop me a line with your thoughts and for stopping by the new column. Hearing from readers about their experience and questions regarding DCC has been very interesting.
One of the reasons I am introducing readers to several friends and their DCC systems is to point out that we each have our own idea about how we want to run our trains and how well a certain control system suits our needs. Each of my friends owns a different brand and each chose their system for different reasons. Quite frankly, I see the various claims about features to be a moot point with few exceptions. What one brand has today, another will leap frog over tomorrow. As you read through the interviews with these model railroaders over the next few issues, take note of why they made a decision on a particular brand. You may be surprised to find some things you didn’t think of.
I promised to keep the discussion of systems as interesting as possible and non-combative. Don’t laugh; some clubs have lost members over DCC system decisions.
My experience is that every major brand will do more than the average model railroader will implement on a layout. Thus my suggestion for developing a script of how you plan to operate. If you add all the sound effects and lighting controls to mimic the prototype and then try to imitate them with your DCC throttle, you may find one just suits you better. Then again, you may find all that prototypical stuff a pain in the butt and opt for a simpler approach.
Thanks again for writing. — Russ
To John Sipple:
Please refer to your review in the November 2002 issue of Model Railroad News of the USA Train woodchip hopper. As a retired railroad marketing officer and paper mill traffic manager, I can tell you that very few woodchip hoppers were used to move sawdust or woodchip from sawmills to particleboard plants. The vast majority moved woodchips from specifically built chipping facilities to paper mills, although the paper mills also received chips from sawmills! There were thousands of cars like the USA Trains model on the railroads in the South, yet USA Trains offers not a single Southeastern road name.
Gregg Mahlkov
When I researched the article, I found that much of the chip product in Southwestern Oregon, where I live, goes into composite lumber products. Since then, I’ve read SP Freight Cars, Vol. 1 and other books which validate what you are saying about paper pulp. You are also correct about the use of woodchip hoppers. I spent a couple of hours perusing the Official Railway Equipment Register for April 1976 and confirmed your assertion regarding Southern freight cars. Really, the issue doesn’t run along the Mason-Dixon line so much as the Gondola-Hopper line. SP, for example, was strong on gondolas. As a result, SP went with with woodchip gons, as did BN. N&W and Southern Rwy are a good examples of “hopper roads” and they had woodchip hoppers. SOO line used XP boxcars for woodchips circa 1976. Essentially, the coal roads were more likely to run woodchip hoppers. Illinois Central ran the hopper version. Conrail, which consumed nearly 100 pages, had a couple of woodchip hoppers from Pennsy. Rock Island, on the other hand, used gondolas, as did Bangor & Aroostook. The Frisco had hoppers, as did Missouri Pacific. Maine Central not only had hoppers, it also had LPS steel racks for wood chips. Beyond that, I have yet to see a road which had both hoppers and gons for wood chip service. Of course, this was just a snapshop of a month in 1976.
If USA doesn’t offer the roadname you want, shoot them a positive letter or email with some solid research complete with road numbers plus info on paint schemes, and perhaps they will produce them for their next release. If they can sell enough to make it worth their while, I suspect they’ll be interested. — John
To Danny Rittman:
I have a 12-year-old son who wants to become a roller coaster designer. This year for his independent study at school, he wants to build a working roller coaster model. Of course, the school won’t pay for this. Do you know of any affordable roller coaster model kits?
L. Scheer
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. First, I would like to congratulate your son on his professional desire! Designing Roller Coasters is considered to be one of the highest levels in the Computer/Mechanical engineering arena.
The designing of a roller coaster involves advanced knowledge of physics, mechanical engineering and computer science. And, of course, it is also lots of fun! Top engineers are designing roller coasters systems, and I am sure that you are proud that your son may be a member of these design teams one day!
There are few roller coasters models that can be built as a hobby. A German Model company named Faller is offering the “Big Dipper” roller coaster model. The price $149.95. Go to this link to see more details of the model:
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/272-451
Beside Faller, there are a few other corporations that can build a roller coaster for you. The price is very expensive though (a few thousand). Building a roller coaster model is a challenging project and involves lots of time designing and building it.
The next web site is aimed for middle school students that are interested in building roller coaster models. It provides good information.
http://www.angelfire.com/on2/thrillsandchills/=20
There is more information on the next web site. It also includes more scientific details from the aspects of physics and mechanical engineering.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/projects/frig/yepbyrji/coaster= .html
I hope this information helps, and please do not hesitate to email me for any further information that you may need. I am always interested in the knowledge of young talents. After all, this is our next generation, and we have the privilege to educate them for a better future. — Danny Rittman
I enjoyed the article on the Micro-Trains FTs in the November 2002 issue. It is always informative and interesting to read these reviews, even when their focus is on models that are not in my preferred scale.
One interesting aspect of the FT prototypes was the couplings between the A and B units. Sources like the Diesel Spotters’ Guide and Cinthia Priest’s book on Santa Fe locomotives point out that most railroads receiving FTs had their A and B units semi-permanently coupled using a drawbar. Santa Fe was the exception, requiring that their units be delivered with couplers between the A and B units. It appears that Micro-Trains has followed prototype practice in this regard, shipping the Santa Fe units with couplers and the others with drawbars.
Nearly everything about the Micro-Trains FTs is superb. Those who are really fussy will note that the headlight has an unrealistic bluish tint, and the units are not as quiet in operation as other recent locomotive releases. I personally like the FT’s sound, preferring it to something that is whisper quiet. Also, golden-white LEDs with no blue tint are now becoming available to model railroad manufacturers, so hopefully future locomotives will not have this blue tint once the new golden-white LEDs become widely available.
The reviewer stated: “Our Santa Fe units had Micro-Trains Magne-Matic couplers installed as factory standard.... Of particular note is the fact that they are even correct in their coupled length — there is no out of scale gap between the A and B unit as on some other makes of F units.” This didn’t sound right to me or fair to the other manufacturers, so I checked.
A quick look at the Diesel Spotters’ Guide and Cinthia Priest’s book shows clearly that on ATSF and B&O units, the spacing between the A and B units is approximately the same as the spacing between the last two grab irons on the rear end of the unit. This works out to approximately 16 to 20 prototype inches. In a private conversation with Marty Young, his measurements from other sources indicate a prototype spacing of about 16.5 inches. The spacing between the coupled A and B units, ignoring diaphragms and door frames, is as follows on various F units with stock couplers:
Hallmark drawbar-coupled FTs — 0.185 inches (scales up to 30 inches or 2.5 ft. for 1:1) Overland drawbar-coupled FTs — 0.225 inches (about 36 inches or 3 ft.), Kato Rapido-coupled F7s — 0.325 inches (52 inches or 4.4 ft.), Rapido F units with Rapido couplers — 0.375 inches (60 inches or 5 ft.), and Micro-Trains coupler-connected FTs — 0.420 inches (67 inches or 5.5 ft.)
Those desiring more prototypical spacing for their Santa Fe units can purchase drawbars from Micro-Trains. They should remedy this visual flaw that is readily apparent. Coupler spacing on Kato F3 and F7 units can be greatly reduced using Unimate couplers, where the gap drops to 0.180 inches (29 inches in 1:1). This option does not appear to be applicable to the Micro-Trains units. It will be interesting to see how Intermountain solves this problem of having the FT A and B closely coupled while allowing the two units to be quickly separated.
By the way, I just got some Intermountain FTs and measured the same dimension on them with the drawbar installed. It came out to 0.135 inches, which scales up to 21.6 inches on the prototype.
Jim Hinds
Richmond, TX
Rather than dealing with Jeff’s information, I’m going to take a different tack. So long as model railroading in all scales has unprototypically-tight curves, manufacturers will be well-advised to build for a given scale’s minimum curve radius. This will almost always result in unprototypically wide spacing. The use of Rapido couplers in N-scale, horn-hooks in HO, and hook-and-loops in Large Scale will further exacerbate this problem. I personally ran the Micro-Trains FTs coupled together on 9-3/4 inch radius track and found that they worked very well there, meaning they probably would not be proto-close. I did not connect the drawbars on the Intermountains (reviewed in this issue) for speed testing, so I cannot say how they would run on 9-3/4 inch curves. If you are placing models on display or run them on very wide curves, you can take steps to tighten up the spacing, as you’ve noted. If you are using trainset trackage or other tight-radius track, you’re probably better off leaving them as delivered. — Ed.
To Russ Boehm:
I glanced at your article. What would be a good name brand to start with? None of my current engines have DCC. About what price range should I start looking at? Is this something I can do and understand? As you can see I know nothing about DCC. Any help would be appreciated or a point in the right direction. Thank you
Ken Peters
I just spent the weekend demonstrating DCC to several hundred visitors at our club’s annual train show. I met others who are in the same position as you. Many of them are picking up their first copy of Model Railroad News, too. So, let me offer some general thoughts and suggestions. Thanks for asking what is of course the $64K question. May I suggest you contact the Model Railroad News office and request some previous issues so you can get up to speed on what we have covered in the past 3 months; they are $4 each, postpaid. That won’t be a big cash outlay but it will be a good investment for your DCC education and purchase. Here’s why:
I could tell you that I own Brand X and like it very much. Others might tell you that their Brand Y is better because it offers a feature mine doesn’t have. You might find that Brand Y’s feature was not of any use on your layout, and my brand costs more than you can afford. In the end, you need to understand what you want your system to do on your layout, what throttle feels and functions best in your hands, and other factors I might not even be thinking about. We have a mental image of ourselves as the typical model railroader when in fact, this hobby offers real enjoyment for folks you tend not to see. DCC’s simplification of layout wiring and train control will mean a lot to some of these people while some of its more sophisticated features may not be that important. Let me give you some examples.
A member of our club a few years ago was in a wheelchair and had problems with fine motor control in his fingers. Two wires to the track vs. toggle switches and complicated wiring to achieve multiple train operation would have been a dream come true for him. But a DCC system that featured small closely spaced buttons on the throttle would have negated all the benefits. If your eyesight is giving you difficulties, a large backlit LCD might be way more important than the most sophisticated programming capability. Having problems with your hearing? Some of the more subtle sound effects offered might be wasted on even the best hearing aides. So, do you really need a system that gives you control of more than the whistle and bell?
I don’t know if these questions pertain to you or not, because we’ve never met — yet. The interviews you see with Don Yacovetta, Dave Clingman and others are the result of my investigation of various brands before I purchased my personal system. It took me several months. But I now have experience with every major brand sold in the USA and believe me, every system will provide you with unimaginable operating capability in comparison to your power pack. In my opinion, me telling you to buy brand X is not doing you a favor. Spend a few hours developing your requirements. Then, take a look at all the systems and kick the tires for yourself. One of them will speak to you, honest. Thanks for stopping by the column and giving me a chance to address a basic question. And, Happy New Year and welcome to all the new readers. — Russ
e-mail us a letter at: letters@modelrailroadnews.com
or Send them to:
LETTERS c/o Model Railroad News
P.O. Box 1080 • Merlin, OR 97532-1080
Fax: 541-955-0346
