I began modeling in late 1999 after I had become disabled/retired. Our original layout was to be in HO. Since we had collected, through purchases and gifts, a number of porcelain buildings, my wife and I decided to incorporate them into a permanent layout as opposed to a strictly Christmas one. To that end, she painted the top of the buildings that had snow, so that the snow was the same color as the roof.
After we had the track in place and several of the buildings glued to the layout it became apparent that HO was not going to work. What also became apparent, after a visit to one of our favorite hobby shops, was that On30 would be a perfect fit. So, for an early Christmas present, my wife gave me a On30 train set. I have peopled the layout with almost 200 Mike’s Train House (MTH) figures, 76 of which I have placed in the passenger cars that came with the train set.
Since I began, I have been disappointed to realize that all marketing of On30 seems to be directed at the logging and/or mining layout modeler. Case in point; the On30 review in both the May and June issues of MRN. Everything I have seen seems to presuppose that all On30 modelers model a logging or mining layout. Am I the only one that models passenger, passenger/freight mixed, in On30?
Today there are a gazillion sets of beautiful O gauge rolling stock being manufactured. Is there some reason the manufacturers couldn’t simply offer some with On30 (HO) trucks? Or is there a simple conversion kit available to do the same? I really appreciate MRN and look forward to each issue. I just wish there was something more for the On30 modeler of passenger/freight trains.
Don Courliss
Jonesborough, TN
After reading about the cost of model railroading in the letters section of your May issue, I felt it necessary to add some input. Having just started back into model railroading after a long absence since my youth, to me it is a very enjoyable hobby. There are some things in the two letters from May that I agree with and some I don’t. If inflation costs for the last 20 years are figured in, a layout that cost $3000 dollars 20 years ago would fall into the $5,000-6,000 range today. With inflation, the amount would come out that high even if there wasn’t any improvements to the items purchased as there has been over the last 20 years. A car I purchased new in 1990 at $11,000 dollars, has almost doubled in price over a 13 year period. Yes, technology has improved it, but it still has the same features and it still just gets me from point “A” to point “B.” Everything costs more then it did 20 years ago. When you get right down to it, everything could cost less, but it doesn’t. The price of video games could easily be cut in half and all the companies involved would still make more money than what they know what to do with. What it boils down to is that whether it’s jet skis, video games, or any other hobby, it’s what you’re willing to spend the money on. We all know that it is our disposal income that is used for these items. None of them are a necessity in life. I cannot agree that the reason kids aren’t in model railroading is because it is too high priced for what you get. I have seen my grandkids lay out $50 for a video game that was used a couple of times and now sits on a shelf collecting dust. That isn’t cost effective either. Thanks for letting me put in my two cents worth.
50 Plus and enjoying model railroading again.
Dennis A. Schmock
Chula Vista, CA
With regard to what Ben Deutschman and Mike Burghardt have to say about the cost of getting a young person started in model railroading, in my opinion, is out in right field. I made a very brief survey and found that I can get into model railroading for under $200.00. That includes: equipment, track, power pack, and the plywood to put the track on. When I first got into model railroading, I didn’t start out with the top of the line equipment and electronics. I started with a piece of plywood; a locomotive, not the best, not the worst, a few cars; a circle of track; and an inexpensive power pack. The rest was made up by using my imagination. As time went by, pieces were added. It is a sad state of affairs if the children of today don’t have the ability or time to put together an Athearn kit. How simple can you get. Have the parents of today ruined the up and coming generation? The parent shouldn’t be putting the kit together, that belongs to the child with guidance from the parent. Be that as it may, a person can get into model railroading at a reasonable price and get a lot of bang for the buck. And the parent, with a little imagination, can find a group/club that will accept the child and give guidance, to both the child and the parent. In closing, imagination must be instilled in the younger people. And, the more expensive equipment can come at a later date when it is determined that the child is really interested and wants to pursue model railroading as a hobby.
Charles M. Spangler, MMR
Spring Branch, TX
I wanted to weigh in on the two excellent letters in the May 2003 issue. I have been in model railroading for more than 50 years. I have had S, N, HO, and O over the years. Currently I do not have a layout, but I am involved with a group assisting in building private layouts in garages. Now back to the issue of cost; when my son was growing up he had a model railroad, but when the RC craze hit he decided that the 1/12 and 1/10 scale cars where a much better bang for his buck. All it took was a parking lot or a playground and a group could have a ball. I believe that something needs to be done to encourage younger people to revisit the model railroad hobby and the high prices scare most away. I have very young grandsons and their dads don’t seem to want grandpa to push railroading (I still do at every chance). There are better things and hobbies for them today, they say, why should a lonely freight car that does nothing but be pulled or pushed by an engine need to cost an arm and a leg? Video games are completely transportable. Just thought that I would add to the discussion.
Larry Kurkowski
Jacksonville, FL
To John Sipple:
MRN seems to tell it like it is, perhaps more so than some of the other hobby publications. So, what’s your take on the couplers on the larger scale locos and cars? Case in point: The Bachmann 1:20.3 locos seem to be finely detailed, etc., except that they have those hideous, low, oversized couplers. These look more like snowplows or cowcatchers than they do couplers. The couplers look like they would scale out to be six feet wide by six feet high by six feet deep, and be about eight inches above the ties! Why would anyone want these outrageous looking things on an otherwise fine looking engine or car? The couplers are almost bigger than the model! I model in HO scale, which, over the years, has gone through its own metamorphosis in coupler design and appearance. HO, though, is at least progressing towards scale appearance and operation. Even N scale has more prototypical appearing couplers than what shows up on the Bachmann 1:20.3 scale offerings. I realize that Kadee (and other manufacturers.) make replacement couplers for these models, but why should one have to replace the couplers, right off the bat? Why don’t the loco and car manufacturers fit the units with realistic couplers to begin with? (I replace the couplers on all my HO equipment with Kadees, right off the bat; however, it’s not because the original couplers are bigger than the end of the loco or car itself, and that they are almost dragging on the ties....) So, what’s the reasoning on all this? If HO can have “scale” couplers at “scale” heights, why can’t larger sizes do the same? Is there a point in all this that I’m missing? Thanks.
B.C. Marston
Tunnelton, WV
Low couplers were put there to work with mechanical uncoupling ramps which are not very common any more. The oversize couplers and overheight cars were an adaptation as a result of relatively poor track work, and better track has obviated the need for both. Tight curves (4 foot diameter, r=2') led to truck-mounted couplers which produce coupler problems of their own. Each company has invested considerable money in their own coupler design and is more-or-less bound to continue whatever standard they have. USA Trains has drawn very high marks from me in recent years because many of their new products are designed to be bolt-on adaptable to Kadee body-mounted couplers.
I have covered this issue in our pages at some depth in the past (See Larger View Converting to Large Scale Couplers: March, April, and May 2002; Couplers That Work: March, April, and May 2003) and will take it on again, as needed. If reliable operation plus scale height and appearance are important to you, then mentally add the cost of converting to Kadees into your purchase price. Remember that there are still HO cars being delivered with X2F hornhooks, N scale cars with Rapidos, and many of the clone magnetic couplers need to be swapped out for more reliability. In model railroading, coupler management is very much the responsibility of the modeler. Many people use what comes from the factory without feeling any need for upgrades. Regardless of what reason prompts your conversion to Kadees in any given scale, just be thankful you have that option.
— John
To John Sipple:
I read, with much interest, your column in the June edition of MRN. Like many, I have made the transition to DCC. I sat on the fence for about two years, and what pushed me off was the basic $20.00 decoder. The early decoders were about $50.00 per unit, and I had a medium-sized roster at the time. The issue of cost is most often brought up, but it has to be put in perspective. Yes, it is possible to invest a substantial sum in equipment and decoders. I probably have spent between $2-3,000.00 on my system and decoders, but not all at once. That money includes the system itself, four extra throttles, a radio throttle system, stationary decoders, around-the-layout plug-ins, and many, many decoders, all acquired over about 6 years. Not everyone will need everything I’ve bought. You can get a basic starter system for close to the same dollars as one of the new steam locomotive models. Are you a brass buyer? DCC would cost substantially less than one of the new brass locomotives currently on the market. Do you smoke? How much do you spend on cigarettes per year? What do you spend a month eating out? Let’s not fixate on the dollars, the price just isn’t as high as you may think. There are simple systems out there that will get you started and not cost much more than a top-of-the-line power pack and one locomotive. Some systems have more features than others, some are easier to use than others. I won’t attempt to review or recommend anything, that has been done very well elsewhere. The point is that there is a system that is affordable and understandable for anyone willing to take the plunge.
I think the cost issue is brought up because many of us don’t want to admit that we’re just a little bit afraid of the technology. For those of us who practice our hobby alone, this can be a problem. I would recommend looking up a local club that uses DCC, or getting in touch with the local division of the NMRA. In either of these places you will find people who are experienced with DCC, who will share their experiences, and in most cases will be willing to offer help to the beginner. You don’t need to be an electronics whiz, but you should be able to handle a soldering iron. If you can solder track feeds without melting ties, you can do the soldering necessary to install a decoder. Many new locomotives will accept plug and play decoders that replace the factory installed light boards. There are solder free installations; (I prefer to solder for long term reliability, but you don’t have to). Instruction manuals have gotten much easier to understand. You no longer have to be a techno-geek to understand programming instructions. Programming the decoders has gotten much simpler. This has been the biggest stumbling block for most of us. In my club, everyone can run the trains, but not everyone can program decoders. Anyone can learn. All you have to do is put aside your fear, and experiment a little. Some of the newer decoders even have a “restore factory settings” feature, so if you goof it up completely, you can go back to square one. If you aren’t the club type, there’s always your dealer. Pick one you trust, and don’t be afraid to ask for his help. A reputable shop will support you, and assist you through any transitional “growing pains.”
What do you get for your troubles? Well for openers, how about locomotive performance? It will increase by an order of magnitude. You will discover how much low speed range your locomotives have. You will really be able to creep into the yard or siding, and slow speed coupling will be so slick that you won’t believe it is possible. If your layout is large enough for operation of multiple trains, then no more rotary switches or other types of individual block controls. The flexibility is great. Do you like special effects? The Gyralight or Mars light? Classification lights? Rotary beacons? They are all in the decoder, all you have to do is install the light bulbs. Multi-unit lash-ups and dissimilar locomotives will no longer be a problem. In short, an entire new aspect of our hobby will be opened to you, and you may even find that you enjoy doing the work. I did.
Look at the way our hobby is evolving. At the last train show I attended, there were about a dozen layouts on display. Only one or two did not use DCC. This isn’t to say that you must convert or risk losing out. If DCC isn’t what you want, or you just can’t face a change in an established layout, then don’t. This is our hobby. It is supposed to be fun. Just don’t tell yourself that you couldn’t manage the equipment, or that it’s all over your head, because it isn’t.
Lastly, shame on you John, for never having tried DCC after it’s been available for this long. Jump in and get wet!
Alan Houtz
Waukesha, WI
To John Sipple:
I just read your column and have one comment that I have never seen addressed in any article I have ever read on DCC in the model railroad press, and that is this: unless you are just beginning in model railroading and have only purchased decoder-equipped or decoder-compatible locos, you are going to have to install decoders in them. And unless you are well versed in electronics and have excellent fine soldering skills, this is not the easy job that the manufacturers and the majority of the model railroading press would have you believe. I bought into that story with poor results.
My story: I purchased a DCC system about 5 years ago (no need to mention the brand, they all operate on the same principle and all of them need decoders in the locos). I was going to install the system in a large model railroad I was planning on building in a house I had just bought. A life threatening illness and subsequent recovery delayed my plans, and I am only now beginning to operate a portion of the railroad. I have about 50 - 60 locos, and only a handful are decoder-equipped. They run perfectly on DCC with excellent slow speed control, and I love the special effects (sound, headlight control, etc.). But the fact is that over 90% of my locos needed decoders installed, so I chose my first project: an Athearn Genesis SD70I. Installing the board was not easy, and I blew the ditch lights at first because nowhere did it say in the instructions that these were only 1.5 volt bulbs. Replacing them was another tough job which included soldering resistors, which was intimidating for someone with no electronics background. Then, for some unknown reason, the ditch lights didn’t work, and soon the entire loco didn’t run. I sent the board to the manufacturer after several fruitless phone calls, and they said that somehow the board had been blown and would have to be replaced. Now this locomotive is sitting in pieces on my workbench, because I don’t know what I did wrong to blow the board, I don’t want to blow the new board and pay for a 3rd board, and I’m just too intimidated to try to install it.
I am in a holding pattern while I try to decide between my options: 1. Get rid of the DCC system and return to cab control. 2. Pay someone else with experience to install my decoders. Of course, this makes me look incompetent and the cost will be substantially more than it already has been. 3. Find the courage to attempt this installation again and pray that it will work this time.
I really think that anyone considering a DCC system needs to ask themselves if they have the electronics and soldering skills needed to accomplish the decoder installations and avoid the kind of frustration I have had. Thank you for your time.
Dave Woomer
Springfield, MO
Meanwhile, Athearn’s Genesis SD70/75 manual doesn’t include a warning, either, since they never anticipated the situation. They mention obliquely that you should test the bulbs with a 1.5v source. Because of the problem involved in adding dropping resistors of an uncertain value, that makes this loco a very poor choice for someone’s first conversion attempt. Mine was my third, and I messed up, too. Currently, my Genesis works fine, but the bulbs don’t light. I’ve got it in a consist where it won’t use its lights anyway.
Frankly, I don’t think paying someone else to straighten out your SD70 makes you look incompetent. I don’t fix my own car, either. I’d say that if you like this loco, ship it to someone and pay to have it sorted out while you learn from the mistake. That lesson includes building a roster sheet of your unconverted locos, listing what sort of conversion each will require. The 8-pin plug installations are, of course, the easiest, so consider doing your favorites with 8-pin sockets next. This will get you a working roster without having to solder anything.
Finally, most of us in the hobby are generally loco-heavy. Realize that you probably won’t convert all of your locos to DCC, but you might convert ten or fifteen. By the way, I checked the manual for the F-units from Athearn Genesis and they, too, have 1.5 volt bulbs and use drop-in boards. My guess is that some clever decoder maker will come up with a special board just for this application, obviating the resistor business. Until then, enjoy your other locos. — John
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
