When MRN Got it’s Start

Out of curiosity, when did Model Railroad News start to publish (somehow I have missed this publication). I just signed up.

Sandor Feldman, MD
Madison, MI

Keep the Proto Section of Reviews

I am a new reader of your mag. I am still in the model planning stage since I will not have room for a layout until our remodel of our retirement home is completed. In the November issue a comment was made that too much space was devoted to the prototype of the reviewed item. Please continue to give as much prototype information as possible. Some of us are interested in as much info as possible. I currently drive an 18-wheeler but I have always wanted to drive a train.

Nick Marks
Dublin, CA

A Couple of Questions

I have a couple questions I hope you can answer. I have an Athearn “Blue Box” kit GP60 locomotive. I bought some Smokey Valley Blomberg M Sideframes with the roller bearings. Is there any way I can kitbash or scratchbuild the sideframes where I can get the roller bearing to actually rotate like the prototype?

My second question is, sometimes I see covered hoppers and other cars that come through my town, some of the roller bearing axles are painted blue. What does this mean and what color blue is it? I want to paint some of my model trucks this way and need to know what color blue it is.

Thanks for your time and great and awesome job on the magazine.…

Ros Hull
Vandalia, MO

Well, Ros, I think the prognosis on the rotating loco bearings is pretty poor, given that the side frames also serve as bearings and electrical pickup transfer points. To then expect the bearing caps to be affixed to the end of the axles is asking just too much, from what I can see.

The blue paint on the bearing cap is a manufacturer identification, from what I’ve been told, though I haven’t been able to confirm that. The best way to match the paint would be to shoot a photo of one of the caps, if you can, and then take the photo to your hobby store and try to find a matching blue paint. Good luck. —John

Question About the New Bachmann Dynamis DCC System

To Thinking of DCC’s John Sipple:

I was wondering if you can do some digging and find out about the wireless E-Z command Dynamis on your back cover of the November issue of Model Railroad News. I just got my issue today, and I am thinking of going into DCC. I called Bachmann and couldn’t get any sales reps, I called about four places that are supposed to be selling it when it comes out, including Walthers. It says fall of 2007 delivery.

Bill Klopp
New Richmond, WI

Hi, Bill. I called my contact at Bachmann, and the Dynamis is not “on shore” yet (as of Thanksgiving week), but they are expecting it pretty soon. They’ve promised to get us a copy for review as soon as they come in, just as we’ll be getting the new garden scale 1:20.3 K-27 Mikado with Sound and DCC/DC operation pretty quick. All of this is dependent upon how things flow through all the ports and such. Keep your fingers crossed. —John

Are There Dealers for the Roundhouse Boxcab?

In regards to the article in Model Railroad News, I have tried to purchase a Roundhouse Boxcab at local model shops, to no avail. Could you recommend a dealer where I could buy one?

Thank you for your time and any advice,

Frank Fortuna
Daytona Beach, FL

Hi, Frank. Roundhouse, of course, was sold off to Athearn and so the Boxcab has been out of production for probably ten years. If there are any new ones in stores, they are leftovers from the old runs. I’m publishing your letter on the off chance that someone knows of one or has one they’d be willing to sell you.

I’ve talked with Michael Stephens, President of Athearn, about the Boxcab, and he admits that it is a sentimental favorite of the folks around the factory, but they still are going through the usual feasibility studies to see if it is a realistic candidate for production. I wouldn’t hold my breath at this point — the chances of it being cranked out are slim.

John Maughan talks of a method of converting an SW7 to provide the works to drive a Boxcab. He’s an endlessly clever fellow, and this solution makes for the smoothest running Boxcab of them all! John is working on a how-to article for us in the near future, so stay tuned for that. —John

DCC Conversion Questions
To Thinking of DCC’s John Sipple

I’m modeling the GN from Skykomish east across the Cascades in the early 50s, when it was electrified. Most of my models are brass, because that’s the only way I can find the motive power that was used then, but some of the diesels already come set up with DCC and sound. The steam engine conversions are pretty straight-forward.

Some of the electric models have two motors. Everything I’ve read talks about single-motor conversions. Nothing discusses dual-motor conversions. If I have two open-frame motors that pull the max or near the max for a decoder, I’m thinking I need two decoders. How should I handle this? The locomotive is big enough to house them, but do I assign both the same address? This isn’t going to be a problem? If it is, do I assign the second number and permanently consist the two together? What about the headlights — attach one to each decoder? This is an area that nobody’s addressed, as far as I can tell, and I have two storage tubs that seem be full of models that will need to be dealt with (add three MILW electrics to the mix).

The shell is electrically isolated from the motors and trucks with a Bakelite bolster. So, can I run a wire from the pantograph to the decoder and join it to the right rail wire (most DCC books suggest that the right rail wire and catenary are supposed to be common) inside the shell? Any ideas about how to run wiring for lights through the shell into the headlight, which isn’t wired now? The later boxcabs with the dropped headlight aren’t a problem; it’s the ones with the headlight on top of the cab and limited access to the end that are.

Charles Leo
Anchorage, AK

Here goes, Charles. First, you need to go through each locomotive and conduct a stall test to find out just exactly what you need to have for a decoder. This would require you to power the locomotive and stall both motors at the same time while measuring the amperage draw. Until you do that, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You can reasonably assume that any motor will be drawing about half of the total, but until you know what that is, you can’t be sure of anything.

Now understand that there are decoders that can handle a lot of amps. Your stall amp current will need to be less than the total peak current of a single decoder or else you’ll need to go to a dual decoder solution. Still, many modern decoders have a 2 amp peak current rating, for example. If your locomotive exceeds 2 amps but not 4 amps, you could split the motor load and put in two decoders, one for each motor.

To do that, you’d retain the common power pickup wiring but would isolate each motor so that you could power it from its own decoder. Both decoders would have the same address and would be programmed the same. A basic, 2-function decoder should be sufficient. One decoder could supply its white and blue for the headlamp and the other could supply its yellow and blue for the tail lamp.

If you’re using pantograph pickup, continue with the right rail plans that have been suggested to you. If this has been working for you with DC, it should be fine under DCC. For headlamps, I’d prefer dayglo yellow-white LEDs with about a 1K ohm resistor in series to draw much less current than incandescent and give a nice, consistent light. Put the resistor down by the decoder, but I’d suggest feeding the LED into the light housing and then thread the wires down through as small a hole as close as possible to the lamp as you can get it. When it is in place, paint the exposed leads to match the surface paint. Just make sure the leads don’t short as they pass through the brass body.

Just take it one loco at a time, Charles. Take the easiest conversion, nail it down, and move on. As you do, you’ll gain valuable experience and confidence. Good luck! —John

One note and one comment on the article and locomotive.

The Norfolk Southern models will actually be ES40DCs, since NS purchases GE locomotives with the engine electronics set to produce 4,000 hp for better fuel consumption and longer reliability. I have two on order, hopefully “Real Soon Now.”

I already have two BNSF ES44DCs, one also the 7659. An early model release, I had considerable trouble programming their Digitrax dual decoders on my Zephyr, and finally had to use the club’s NCE PowerCab to program the 4-digit addresses. I was finally able to enter all the other CVs satisfactorily after many resets.

I know that both Digitrax and Tower 55 have been working to improve decoder response, so my next pair should be much easier. And I believe I did read that the newer releases will have extra detail on the trucks, e.g., air lines to the brake cylinders.

Roger Thomas
West Windsor, NJ

No Question Too Dumb?

Thank goodness for your magazine. You answer questions the other guys consider too dumb, even from a novice. I live an hour from the nearest hobby shop; yet one mile from a town at the center of an early rail line, Columbia, Chapin Newberry. You guys and Walthers make things better.

The picture in your October issue of the “Best Friend of Charleston” by Lionel is wonderful to see. That was the first freight and passenger train in the U.S. To see it modeled is worthy.

I look forward to each issue.

Ray Seay
Chapin, SC

Maybe less is more…

I received your magazine today. Looks great; keep up the good work. Excellent review on the Bachmann On30 Forney.

Regarding your invitation to comment on your Thinking of DCC column in the November 2007, issue, I do have several comments.

First, I do not support the NMRA precisely because of their failure to take a stronger leadership role in the hobby.

Second, I have put off building “my next layout” for several years, hoping that the DCC mess would settle out and leave me with a choice which makes sense to me. I have used Digitrax, MRC, and Easy DCC on friends layouts. All still have confusing or uncomfortable aspects to their design, and none produce as smooth an operation as analog DC, in my opinion. So, I have yet to buy.

Third, the key market for the future of the hobby is age 25 and under. Take a look at the digital gadgetry that sells to that age group. The biggest sellers are those which are designed to common standards. I doubt that model railroading is behind the curve because of having less qualified computer engineers. Maybe, it has more to do with marketing.

Finally, “less is more” for me in this aspect of the hobby. Give me a reliable on/off, forward/reverse, horn/whistle, bell, lights, momentum, a synchronized-chuff steam sound with volume control, and a responsive speed control knob or lever in the palm of my hand, and I’m good to go. If that will cost me a ton more money to convert to DCC, then I’ll just get another MRC power pack and be happy.

Dave Allen
Buffalo, NY

After reading your recent columns on the DCC standardization issues, I felt compelled to write with my thoughts on the matter. I’ve been involved with software development for model railroads for the last six years, as well as the manufacturing of electronic products. I think we are approaching the problem from the wrong end. Let me explain:

Rather than trying to standardize decoders, an effort which has proved futile, and which, in any event, will not change the thousands of existing decoders already installed, we should create an “abstraction” of the decoder that can be used to translate well-understood terminology to the arcane world of CVs. For example, we may not all know or care what CV 13, or 47 or 51 is, but we all know what a headlight is, or a bell, whistle, or a coupler sound, and so on. 

I would suggest that the NMRA standardize the nomenclature for each item of interest, whether it be lighting effects, sounds, or other operational items (e.g. automated couplers). The NMRA can do this best because they know all about railroading. Leave the electronic design of decoders to the various companies to do as they wish.

Here’s what ties it together: Each company must provide a file that defines their decoder’s functions (from the NMRA standard list) and correlates them to the CVs, in a standardized manner. This file would be loaded into the command station, which then translates user-understandable “commands” (e.g. blow whistle) to the appropriate CV settings and DCC packets, using the manufacturer-supplied “translation.” The simplest way to do this would be to add a USB port to the command station, allowing the user to utilize his PC to download the manufacturer’s database of decoder configuration information.

Obviously, this requires major changes to the command station and how it works, but it would provide a flexible long-term solution without limiting innovation, and without making obsolete all the existing decoders that are already installed. With the complexity level (and price) of some of the new command stations that are coming on the market, perhaps the simplest solution of all would be to forget the command station altogether, and just replace it with a sophisticated PC application and a simple black box interface that lets the PC send packets directly to a booster. Nothing is more flexible than an empty PC waiting for the right software to be loaded.

Charles L. Davis
Georgetown, TX

It is with continuing interest that I follow the discussion(s) on DCC standards, or more to the point, the lack thereof! If one would change your column’s November 2007’s date to November 1990, and substitute the letters “PC” for each occurrence of the letters “DCC,” we would be describing the chaos of the computer industry at that time. Market share was the name of the game then for computers, as it is now for the DCC arena. The NMRA could not “regulate” the computer industry then, nor can it do so with DCC production today. We tend to equate “standards” with “regulation” and that is just not the case. Do you recall “prohibition”?

Today’s DCC problems are a result of proprietary designs, just as were those early PC issues. Interpretation of standards produces employment for attorneys. My suggestion is to stay with a specific DCC component manufacture’s products. (I personally stay with DIGITRAX components for the specific reason that they provide a wealth of detailed technical information about their components. And, if the truth be told, I probably will be using only about 33 percent of the “features” actually provided.) I could actually add rutabagas to my banana split, but do I really want to do that?

I guess my point is that the market will determine the “standards” for DCC. Now, just when is someone going to provide standards for switch motors? Does anyone have any of the GB Electronics switch machines for sale?

Jesse A. Fairley
Tallahassee, FL

I enjoyed your articles about the compatibility problems with DCC and the inability of the manufacturers and NMRA to reach an agreement on a universal set of standards.

If all these “experts” (all of whom have a stake in the future success of digital model train control) can’t reach an agreement on DCC standards, the model railroad press should shift the conversation to a discussion about what could be coming in the future: elimination of powered track and powering trains with on-board rechargeable batteries, and some form of wireless RC throttle system.

Battery powered trains might at first seem like a step backward, but consider the advances in rechargeable battery technology nowaday (cell phones, power tools, etc.). Elimination of the rail-to-wheel power distribution could solve lots of problems. (Yes, it would create problems too, but these probably wouldn’t be as difficult as some of the problems you’ve described in this discussion.)

David M. Johnston
Memphis, TN