To “Train Tech’s” Danny Rittman:
I thank you once again for your thoughtful response to my question about wireless DCC when operating within the steel room framing on the K&BH. We talk about the situation constantly. I am eager to share your willingness to contact a colleague at Yale with others on my e-mail list. I think those who know me personally will be particularly interested in that connection given my Nebraska background!
As Art Jones and I have discussed the wireless potential, he came up with the idea: can the base station antenna simply be attached to the steel frame, thus turning the entire frame into the wireless antenna? If that would work, there would certainly be no dead spots anywhere on the layout! I recognize that steel framing is something new, so there probably won’t be any other examples of this as an experiment. At the same time, I would not want to try something that would cause damage to an expensive NCE installation. (This note is also going to Art and to Wally Lloyd, the friend who generously offered to test the layout with his NCE wireless system.)
The layout is rapidly taking shape. You are now aware of the progress from weeks 3 and 4 — and son, Jon, assures me that week 5 will be on the web soon. That is where things really change in a hurry.
Now that I think of it, you may never hear this question again due to the lack of use of steel as a construction method. Oh well....
Bill Boyd
Northbrook, IL
Thanks again for sharing your considerations with me. I was also thinking about the same idea, but wanted to check it with my colleague before I presented it to you. Basically, it should work since you provide a huge antenna. The only concern that I have is about the NCE equipment. I am not familiar with the product’s technical specs and I do not know the power dissipation for the antenna. Every piece of radio equipment needs a certain size of antenna in order to spread the transmitting power. If the antenna size somehow does not match the required specs, then it may damage the RF system.
I am still waiting for my friend to get back to me to discuss the issue. Another option that I thought of is to directly contact (even through e-mail) NCE Corporation. Since they designed the system, they should know the exact power needed for the antenna. They can also advise us about the connection to the steel frame. If you are interested, I can be involved with your dialog with NCE to assist in any possible way.
Your layout is a magnificent and advanced project. I think that such a layout should be covered by a magazine after it is done.
I’ll keep you posted when I’ll get some more information. Please let me know if you get some more information. And.... keep it up! — Danny
To “Thinking of DCC’s” John Sipple:
I’ve been following your column. It’s nice to see someone progress from neophyte to experienced user so quickly. DCC is like eating peanuts for many. The more you learn, the more things you want to try. Just one or two comments for you with regards to stall testing locomotives:
Be careful if they happen to be steamers. Do not press down on the drivers, or hold the running gear or wheels. Take off the boiler and do it at the motor. I have at least one friend who has had a locomotive damaged by improper technique.
It’s also important to look at how we run our locomotives. How often do the motors stall during normal operation? Another important test is to run the locomotive under load until the wheels slip. If the motor stalls before the wheels break loose, then your motor is too small, and you’ll have to replace it. This is rare, and more likely to happen in the smaller scales and certain narrow gauge equipment in HO scale. The motor and decoder have to work well together for good long term reliability, so beware of running decoders too close to the top of the power curve.
Thank You,
Alan Houtz
Waukesha, WI
First, let me say I love MRN! Keep up the great work. Secondly, let me say I in no way condone what UP is doing, but I am confused. In spite of all I have read in the model railroad press about the harm this will do the evidence seems to be to the contrary. In your November issue you had the following evidence:
Page 3, full page ad featuring UP “Legends”
Page 4, full page ad featuring UP
Page 9, review of Kato’s N scale UP EMD F3
Page 9, half page ad from Model Power and their new HO F-7A (in UP colors)
Page 17, review of new Intermountain release including UP 3-Bay hopper
What am I missing? (Probably a lot) Thanks.
Tom Buckingham
Camano Island, WA
For one thing, you didn’t list all of the products which have SP, Cotton Belt, WP, C&NW, D&RGW and other absorbed railroads. Beginning January 1, 2004, UP will start enforcing its claims to all of these trademarks, which it alleges it owns. It may in fact own all, some, or none, to be determined by the court on a state-by-state basis. Thus, the very people in the ads you saw will suddenly be expected to pay money for just using these trademarks. Up to this point, they haven’t had to make those payments. Kato and Athearn are already charging extra for “special paint schemes” and the prices of those products bearing these trademarks are being passed onto consumers at a suggested list price about $5.00 higher each.
The impact of all this is unclear at this point. First, we don’t know how this will shake out in court. Second, depending on the first condition, other railroads may then lay claims. Third, it is uncertain what impact this will have upon buyers. They may simply accept it, or it could throw sales into a decline, especially on the affected roadnames. Fourth, there is some debate about what impact this will have on railroads themselves. The model railroad industry has been a positive force in directing good will toward railroading. Until this recent squabble, railroads have been generally positive and helpful to our hobby, but their change in attitude could have far ranging effects, none of which are likely to be positive.
Not all model railroad companies are choosing to comply. During the first six months of next year, we’ll have a chance to see who will fight and what reception they will have in court. By that time, the impact on buyers will also be measured. We’ll keep an eye on this issue and bring you updates when we have them. — Ed.
Earlier this evening, I emailed you a posting from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers web site of a radio commentary by commentator Jim Hightower (http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=8561). Mr. Hightower and I don’t agree on much, but I think he nailed it about the UP’s “brand identity” program (the term taken from UP’s web site).
Your commentary also states the issues well, but I question whether any effect could be had by the way of the government. Congress (especially my 3 alleged “representatives”) and the STB really don’t give a rip about our hobby.
The issue of “active trademarks” is a touchy one. How does one define active? Just tonight, there was a report on Trainorders.com of freshly painted UP covered hoppers bearing Cotton Belt logos. This program is the very reason that UP is applying old logos to freshly shopped cars, in order to claim that the old trademarks are “currently in use,” even if obscurely.
As you state, if there is one defining characteristic of the railroads’ dealings, it is arrogance, and those fun folks from Omaha who brought you the Credit Mobilier (check your history books) are the masters of it. UP claims to be concerned about protecting their corporate image, yet their botching of the CNW and SP mergers (“We know better, because we’re the ones who bought you”) left their company’s image in shambles, especially with those whose opinion really counts, their customers.
UP has every right to do what they are doing. They also have an equal right to forbid the use of their trademarks, as several major trucking companies have done, but that doesn’t make what they are doing right.
I had hoped that there would be a bigger backlash than there has been. In 1983, the Chessie System’s ham-handed attempt at a licensing program, which went straight to cease-and-desist with no warning, was ridiculed almost out of existence, the straw that broke the camel’s back coming when the story made the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The story was also picked up by other members of the press as a “corporate bully” story. I say “almost” because, if I recall, it was downgraded to a program of written permission, with no money changing hands. Times have changed, though. Twenty years ago, logo licensing was not the financial bonanza for companies that it is today.
When the program first began, UP tried to claim that they owned the trademarks of the Alton and Illinois Terminal. As far as I know, the UP never had any interest in the Alton, the remaining trackage is split between KCS and IC/CN, and the IT is now owned by NS, although several roads which merged into UP owned a part interest in them, but sold out to the N&W in 1981, long before those roads merged into UP. UP must have realized their mistake, as they no longer claim to own those logos.
I have often said that “I love trains, but I hate the railroads.” Incidents like this are the reason why.
Gary A. Smith
Baltimore, MD
— 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
