To “Thinking of DCC” John Sipple:
A few days ago, I was giving the March 2005 issue of Model Railroad News a serious reading (in my recliner with a little single malt at hand to create the perfect “work” setting). I had been reading for about 15 minutes when, Eureka! a small solution to a medium problem seemed to be forming in my mind and it involved John Sipple. As a retired professional railroader, I have a special place in my heart for business cars (eight on my railway, with another on the way). Which leads me to the question, I have eight beautiful cars, mostly lighted. I use Lenz DCC, which I love, it puts a little more than 15 volts on the rail. I have no idea how well the car interior and exterior lights will handle this kind of voltage. Will they be “fried-on-the-spot?” If so, how and where do I put resistance in the circuit to protect ditch lights, marker lights, etc.?
I tried contacting the manufacturers, but they didn’t seem to know or care very much. John Sipple, can you help? I’m pretty sure I’m not the only modeler with this problem. I don’t want to foul up the cars – I just want to run an inspection trip. There are some important shippers out there that we would like to show around, but not in the dark!
Lowell L.Turner,
Omaha, NE
Ordinarily, we would think of adding a resistor, but even that gets pretty complicated at times. Some cars have constant voltage lighting circuits. These circuits could be fried by DCC or they might manage it (the former is more likely than the latter.) Under DCC, these boards are redundant but they also contain resistance for the bulbs. Without knowing the rating of the bulbs, we would have no idea of what resistance to apply. Send us the scale, make, and models involved, and we’ll put it before the readers to see what solutions appear. — John
I’ve been a steam locomotive nut since I was 3 years old. Got my first cab ride in a Mikado when I was 5 years old, and I’m now 74.
I got into HO-scale steam about 3 years ago, love DCC because of sound. I would not stay in the hobby if it weren’t for sound. I much enjoy Doppler. I lived within a quarter mile of the NP till I was 20. I remember sitting at grade crossings and listening to an approaching train and hearing the thunder and the scream of the whistle till it just about rattled your teeth. Then the instant the loco passed, the sound would drop off till you hardly noticed it. I don’t believe I’ll purchase another sound decoder without a Doppler.
One change I would like to see made in DCC sound would be to have a separate button just for grade crossings. It’s impossible to blow the correct sounding signal because you can’t cause the last note to trail off. A recording of an actual grade crossing signal by a real engineer would be very realistic. Also, it is the signal most of us use the most. It would also be nice to have the separate button.
I suspect there are others out there who would also like this feature. I would want to retain the button for individual toots of course, but there are functions I could give up to set this feature.
Jim Anderson
Sprague, WA
In response to Frank Tepedino’s letter:
Yes Mr. Tepedino, you also can have clean wheels and track with little interaction from you!
Back in 1986 I was asked to open up my layout to an NMRA regional meet here in Boston. The evening the fellows came down to inspect my layout I decided to try a new cleaning solvent called “Rail Zip.” It seemed to do a great job and while running some test trains an odd thing happened: all the trains came to a halt. The residue from the Rail Zip was still working and deposited the goop from the rolling stock, plastic wheels, onto the track. Frantically, I did a lot of cleaning and was able to restore operations, but I learned a valuable lesson.
Before the train season, in the fall back then, I would laboriously take off all the wheelsets and soak them in a cleaning solution. Then I would, with my magnifocal and screwdriver, scrape off the remaining residue. The goop still returned. I designed and built several track cleaning cars until I got it right. My cars pick up the goop rather than spread it around. Back then, once around the tenth of a mile mainline was enough to change out the medium. I use a “Viva” towel which leaves a minimum of lint on the layout. I have been able to keep all my locomotives and rolling stock clean in the final analysis.
I went from Rail Zip to Aero car track solution; I used to buy it by the quart, and then to Wahl oil. Now I’m using “Goo Gone”.
Comments/Opinions:
1. All wheelsets were changed out to Kadees, more than 200 freight cars and 60 passenger cars, 100 percent perfect.
2. I’ll run trains and track cleaners/solution at the same time occasionally.
3. When I operate, I run a track cleaner first, with a dry rag to pick up the dust, cat hair, etc. I can run two Athearn SD70s with a cleaning car at twelve volts, so time is not an issue here.
4. I use Viva towels which I cut into strips with a paper cutter.
5. Operating on my layout today all my wheels become polished.
6. I would still use Wahl oil, but I’m making the layout larger to accommodate my full-length passenger trains and this necessitates more and steeper grades. Wahl oil seems to inhibit oxidation as well as allowing the trains to run more smoothly.
7. My track cleaning cars weigh in at around twenty ounces.
8. I operate with sound in my locomotives, so it’s necessary to have clean track.
9. Rubber erasers are used only to clean up spills, glue, paint, etc.
Iver Jacobsen
Halifax MA
Great publication. Bruce Blanford mentioned using a reamer to clean out the truck journals when installing metal wheels. I model in HO and would like to purchase a reamer. Can you or your staff direct me to a store that sells them? I live in the Boise, Idaho area.
Jerry McDermott
Boise, ID
Can you explain to me why this trackage was invented, and what are the pluses and minuses of using it?
I think it is much more scale-like than the standard code 80.
I would like to use it, but hear of problems with rolling stock on it. (I try to get low profile trucks on all my stuff).
Also, how is this track laid? I see no holes in the ties for nails, and don’t particularly like gluing it down (maybe later changes in routing).
I am fairly new at this, so don’t know a heck of a lot.
Floyd Fitzgerald
Oracle, AZ
Model railroads turn unprototypically tight curves and so the cars need taller flanges on the wheels. Heavy rail allows the use of tall flanges and gives more reliable operation. Unfortunately, the tall flanges can tick on the ties and cause derailing problems on Code 55 or smaller track.
The guys from our TAMR column have been discussing their modular N-scale show layout, and they mention that they glue down their track. Atlas has many books on track laying and several books on N-scale layouts. Check them out at your hobby store. — Ed.
To “Grade Crossing’s” Bill Cawthon:
I believe you were much too forgiving in your review of Athearn’s new line of 1/50th Scale Vehicles, a new line of vehicles that does not relate to any known Model Railroad scale. Is your magazine not entitled Model Railroad News, not the Collectors of Truck and Construction Equipment Model News? And you say that these are closer to 1/48th than 1/43rd? Is this how you would review vehicles for HO or N scale? Would you praise a locomotive that was this far out of scale in HO? What was Athearn’s reasoning for using 1/50th instead of 1/48th scale, if in fact they were made for O scale. But how could they be? O Scale is 1/48th.
Peter W. Kruimer
Harrington Park, NJ
I am sympathetic to your point. One of my own pet peeves is seeing an HO layout populated with mass-market die-cast toys scaled to fit the package.
Unfortunately, few manufacturers make true 1:48-scale vehicles. In general, looking for O-scale vehicles at most online retailers, including Walthers, will produce a mix of 1:43 and 1:50 models. For one thing, those cars and trucks are also sold into the larger die-cast collectible market where 1:43 and 1:50 are among the major established scales. For another, Lionel fans have used 1:43 Dinky and Corgi cars on their layouts for years and, even if it’s wrong, that size model has become accepted as “O” scale, too.
By the way, 1:50 is closer to 1:48 than is 1:43: just do the math. One could even think of 1:50 as “selective compression.”
In regards to my review: when a model claims it is a certain scale, I expect it to be that scale. I will definitely comment when there is a significant variation. The Athearn models said they were 1:50 and scaled out well by that benchmark. In addition, they were well detailed and reasonably priced, giving the O-scale fan a very good value.
So, while it might not be perfect O-scale, it is still my opinion the Athearn Fords would be perfect additions to most O-scale layouts and I will stand by my review. — Bill
To “Train Tech’s” Dr. Danny Rittman:
Your recent two-part article on the limits of mechanical braking systems was one of the most interesting and well-written pieces that I’ve seen in a long time. I especially appreciated your intelligent treatment of the physics involved, something that is usually glossed over in general consumer articles that assume (incorrectly) that the reader is a dummy. This is the type of article from which a person can actually learn something.
As we move forward in this brave new world of DCC control of model trains, the ability to simulate all sorts of physical and natural phenomena becomes possible. In the future, we may have a supervisory control system that would be programmed with a layout map and topology, and would change the DCC throttle characteristics to simulate the different behaviors of a train that was going upgrade or downgrade, for example. The brake dynamics described in your article could be programmed into such a system, so that the model operator would have to observe the same type of speed and braking limits as the prototype, else the train could “run away.”
An understanding of the behavior of real trains is critical for the development such software as I describe above. Might we look forward to more articles along these lines?
Thanks again,
John Heitmann
Big Flats, NY
Regarding your question about future development of real life situation simulators, I know that such systems are currently under development for model railroading. Also DCC technology is already providing a few types of electronic circuits, built-in into DCC decoders, that stabilize the speed and braking of a locomotive going up and down a grade. As technology evolves, we will find more prototype features through hardware and software technology for the model railroading world. Eventually, controlling a model train will emulate the exact real life train control!
I will collect more information about the subject and present an article in one of the next few issues of MRN.
— Danny Rittman
Just read the review on the UT4 and thought you might want to do some more testing with the IR unit. This is not your father’s IR where you have to point to the receiver — that is, if your layout room is conducive to bouncing IR signals around.
IR today, Digitrax or otherwise, does not usually have to be pointed at the device. My Dish IR unit, for example, can point anywhere in the room except directly at the sofa and will work. Likewise with Digitrax IR, again, if the room is conducive....
So, what’s conducive?
I first learned about this from a customer in Texas who had just purchased a radio throttle and receiver. His layout room is a finished two-car garage — concrete floor, dry-walled and painted walls and ceilings, and no windows. This room is ideal for IR.
He plugged his radio receiver in and tried his new radio throttle. Later, he was messing with his old DT100, which has IR. He unplugged it to walk around to a different location. While walking to the other location, he moved the throttle knob and the loco responded. He called to ask what the chances were that it was a radio throttle too. When I told him that it is IR, and that the radio receiver also has an IR receiver, he still couldn’t believe it was working on IR — he had left the radio receiver hanging from its LocoNet cable, facing the floor, just one foot above the floor, and he wasn’t pointing the throttle anywhere close to that direction. But, with a little testing, he concluded that it was controlling the train via IR.
I have many customers with layout rooms about like this guy’s, and they all get 100 percent coverage with one IR receiver without having to aim it at the receiver.
So, what’s not conducive?
Anything that will absorb the IR signal reduces coverage: carpet, acoustical ceilings, windows with curtains, bookshelves filled with books, unfinished walls or ceilings, etc. Likewise, distance makes a difference. Not that a straight line signal won’t go a long ways, but when you take all the bouncing around into consideration, long distances become extremely long distances. High ceilings also add to the distance. And irregularly shaped rooms may also hinder good reception.
The solution to these hindrances is more IR receivers. For example, an L-shaped room where neither leg is larger than a typical 2-car garage can get 100 percent coverage, without aiming, with two IR receivers — providing they don’t have other hindrances such as carpet, curtains, etc. The more hindrances you have in the room, the more receivers that are needed to have 100 percent coverage without aiming. And at $37 each, they’re not so expensive that you can’t afford to add a second or third one.
Obviously, IR is not good outdoors, nor in a train show type environment. But for a good lot of people with IR conducive layout rooms, IR works just as good as radio.
Loy Spurlock
Loy’s Toys
Wesley, AR
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
