He’s Got Issues
I am a longtime subscriber and reader of MRN, since the days of its inception. In my opinion, MRN is great in terms of the in-depth information it brings to those of us in the hobby.
However, as of late I am beginning to see some “chinks in the armor” such as:
1. Enough already about the Union Pacific trademark issue! I, for one, am tired of reading about something over which none of us have any control. UP is going to do what they want to do. They are the 400 pound gorilla. Save the space for more important items. I believe this matter has run its course and truly has had minimal effect on the industry and us as ultimate users. Just look at the large number of manufacturers who are marketing locos and other rolling stock with the UP logo. They have moved on.
2. Does MRN really need a story about a subway in Israel? Come on! Of what import is this kind of story to those of us who are interested in model railroading and what will be new in the market place. I am confident the space devoted to this topic could have been used for more important news.
3. Is it not time for MRN to be reformatted into a magazine size? The pages of the current tabloid size are a pain in the “you know where” when it comes to filing an article for future reference. Please consider this as a viable alternative.
Despite all of the above — keep up the good work. MRN is a joy to read because it brings me up-to-date with what is going on in the market place and especially with respect to DCC — something the other magazines (all of which I subscribe to) do not do.
Harold M. Tepper, P.E.
West Orange, NJ
Well, Harold, I normally prefer to handle just one issue per letter, but let’s take all three in the order you present them. First, we haven’t run a story about the UP Trademark issue for a while, but that could change at almost any moment. It is news, and I am a working journalist. Most of the traffic in this topic has been within the RPO section, though it also draws the occasion editorial comment when warranted. So long as people wish to write letters — especially judges and UP officials — I’ll run some of them.
When we found our long-standing and very popular writer, Danny Rittman, would be spending some time in Israel, it gave us a chance to look at railroading there. Model railroading has always been based on prototype practices, and subways have drawn a great deal of recent interest in the hobby, including the release of a four-car set from Life-Like/Walthers. Not only do we cover more DCC than any other general model railroad magazine, we are also the most international.
No, it is not time for us to reformat to page size. Why should we voluntarily restrict the size of our photos which, at last count, have always been one of the BIG reasons folks buy our publication? Locomotive photos running in a full-page spread are a whopping 22 inches wide! We have folks who subscribe just for these shots. Our 72-page editions would turn into at least 144 pages if we converted, making for more page flipping, space wasting, and an increase in production costs that would have to be passed on. This would also cost us most of another month of lead time, another advantage we currently enjoy. I don’t plan to ever support a change to any smaller format.
I appreciate the problem of archiving tab-sized magazines, but refuse to accept blame for the problem. There are many worthy tab mags, and the companies that produce archiving folders should jump in. The water’s fine. — Ed.
Turnouts for DCC
Upon reading your Feb. 2006 DCC Part I column, it would have been helpful to have learned which manufacturers are currently making DCC functioning turnouts. I’m not asking for an endorsement, merely acknowledgment of as-is compatibility.
A general question: Which out-of-the-box DCC/DC responsive, sound equipped locomotives are ready-to-run with which ready-to-run DCC system?
My own personal question: Are Shinohara turnouts powered with Tortoise switch machines and using suitably gauged wire for power routing okay for DCC?
Wilhelm Findeisen
Big Rock, IL
Hi Wilhelm. Having recently discussed the issue of turnouts with representatives of major DCC systems, the conclusion is that a turnout will work as well in DCC as in DC. There really is no such thing, in their opinion, as a DCC turnout. If a turnout shorts on a DC system, it will also short on a DCC system. If the power link under the frog burns out, as it does on some turnouts that get over-amped, there will be a dead spot under either kind of power. The fact remains: power goes from one rail to the other through the locomotive. Shinohara turnouts should be just fine, and the Tortoise has its own special decoder offering, the Hare, which we reviewed and is available from Tony’s Train Exchange, www.tonystrains.com.
By definition, DCC is a standards-based technology, and all of the major makers of DCC systems subscribe to the standards. Thus, they all will operate the type of loco you describe just fine, under DCC. To run them under DC, you will need a good quality DC power pack that produces fairly clean analog DC power. This process is designed to be dead-bang simple, and it generally is. Enjoy! — Ed.
Thank You to TAMR
To TAMR’s Steven Goehring:
I really enjoyed your article in the May MRN. I didn’t know there was a teenager extant that could compose as professional a treatise as this article — kudos to you! And the cherry on top is you’re in N Scale. Better ‘n better.
On the subject of storage of our hobby’s necessities, consider yourself blessed that you have a place for a layout and storage. My layout has been dormant for many years for lack of a space to set it up; my storage is a 10 x 20 foot storage unit. I prefer to keep rolling stock and locomotives (all diesel) in their original boxes, to which I have affixed a label telling me date purchased, where purchased (I’ve traveled a lot), and price. I then execute a 3x5 inch card with this same information. If available, I tape a picture of the item on the card (front or back) gleaned from literature or ads. Any special notes about the item (color variation, duplicate, 6-pak, etc.) are added to the card. I then file the card alphabetically by manufacturer under the car type. Currently I have eight drawers of 3x5 cards. (I have an incomplete computer listing [computer was sold in an absence] that I need to redo — this is a 3-way sort by manufacturer, car type, and specific boxcar-type sort.) I store the actual car in an apple box or orange box. Very sturdy, double wall, ventilated, and easily acquired. Each box is numbered (this is on 3x5 card, also); currently I’m filling box #52.
I have a lot of building kits, a trainstable, and miscellaneous addendums, so the boxes are not all cars and locos. This system works well for me — I avoid duplicate purchases, can quickly locate any item, and have sturdy handle-able boxes. The few Atlas car boxes, like your photo in the column, are too flimsy for me, unless I’ve purchased a full box of one car. The few passenger car sets I have (Kato, UP) stay in their original boxes intact.
Ed Henson
Sitka, AK
Thanks, Ed. — Ed.
A Note About Amtrak
This is in response to your editorial “Taking Apart Amtrak.” You are to be highly commended for an excellent written viewpoint on Amtrak. It is right to the point and historically up to date. Indeed Amtrak ridership has shown significant increase these past few years. For the past 20 years I have been a frequent long distance passenger on Amtrak, making at least six business trips per year. This has given me first hand exposure to ridership increases.
With the rising costs of college tuitions, more students have turned to Amtrak as their mode of transportation. There is no question that there is much to do to improve Amtrak. Those who believe in a National Passenger Rail System need to keep the pressure on their Congress [Members] to wholeheartedly support Amtrak. As a hobby, I am a model railroader in HO and have a large collection of Amtrak Equipment. Finally, I thoroughly enjoy Model Railroad News.
Donald P. Robinson
Rockford, IL
Thank you, Donald. Amtrak is also our future. At some point, we will build Maglevs and other high-speed human transport to augment our already-strained transportation alternatives. It is no longer a matter of “if” but “when.” As these new systems come on-line, who will we turn to with the know-how to provide ticketing and passenger services? Amtrak. It is our past, our present, and our future. — Ed.
What It Takes to be a Model Railroader, Revisited
As subscriber and loyal reader of Model Railroad News, I enjoyed your comments [about] what it takes to be a model railroader. You may be interested in the comments of this, maybe not typical, model railroader.
My father loved trains. As young children my mother would pack a lunch and the family would go to a site along the New Haven railroad between Boston and Providence. He would have a timetable and be ready for the action. I was about 12 years old and my three sisters were all younger. I often wondered how my father appeased my mother to put up with this. Probably took her to a show or dance. I never heard her complain about these outings.
First train, at age of five, ended up in a sand bank, too young for a good train. Next train around age above. Hole put in wall between two rooms upstairs. Next train, at age of 18 hired on as a fireman on Long Island Rail Road. All yard work and everything east of Electric lines, hand fired steam. Drafted in Army in 1942 and ended up in a Railway Operating Battalion in Italy for almost two years. Was a hostler preparing steam for the road and while there our locomotives were converted to oil from coal.
Back home in 1945, firing on Long Island, living with parents, promoted to engineer in 1947, now I can afford model railroading. Started HO in basement. Married in 1950, bought house under GI bill, made sure it had a basement, after two layouts and 18 years moved to new home after checking basement for a layout. Retired to Florida in 1976. No basement. HO in garage. Built three homes here, HO in the garage. In this home 20 years (4th Home) HO in garage being updated. Now, after 55 years of marriage with an understanding wife, I understand how it worked with my parents.
I can still feel motion of steam running after all these years.
Mark Smith (Retired B.L.E.)
Cape Coral, FL
You’ve got what it takes, Mark! — Ed.
Museum of Science & Industry Layout Correction
To reviewer John Sipple:
I expect by now you have received 999 e-mails stating that in fact the original layout at the Chicago Museum of Science & Industry wasn’t HO gauge but was Q gauge (TM presents The Great Train Story DVD, Model Railroad News, May 2006, Page 58).
Minton Cronkhite built the layout in 1941 to 1/4-inch scale but didn’t use the incorrect 5-foot (1-1/4 inch) track gauge common then and now for O gauge, opting instead for the correct 4-foot-8-1/2 inch gauge — about 1-3/16 inches in quarter inch scale. The unavailability of commercial trucks and wheelsets for Q gauge wasn’t an issue since all the locomotives and rolling stock were custom built to “industrial strength” standards in order to withstand the rigorous duty of continuous running day after day.
Love your magazine!
John L. Frank
Chelsea, MI
Thanks for the correction, Frank. Actually, yours was the only one. I don’t think I meant to imply that CMS&I’s original layout was HO, but I managed to somehow offer that notion. In 1941, there were model railroad products being made around the neighborhood of HO, but mostly 1:87 became a big deal after the war. Before the war, most display layouts settled on some iteration of O scale (that being a range from around 1:43 up to about 1:55). The current 1-1/4 inch gauge is actually about 1:45 scale and was the brainchild of Lionel. Cincinnati Gas & Electric still operates an O-scaleish layout each holiday season. It is powered by custom-built locomotives that all draw power from outside and raised third rails. It was the original B&O demonstration layout, originating in the heart of the Great Depression. CSX donated the layout after inheriting it on perpetual loan to CG&E.
I think when I saw the Chicago layout as a child, perhaps around 1950 or so, it was in HO by then, and that galvanized both my father and I to make the switch from Lionel tinplate to the greater realism of HO. — Ed.
Thanks for your in-depth review of the Kadee #148 “Whisker Coupler.” [I] was especially glad to see you mention that the #148’s shanks are thicker than the #5. I agree with everything you pointed out about the variety of operating knuckle couplers on the market today, and their faults and attributes. I must confess that I have been a fan of the simplicity of the integral whisker spring concept since the first one appeared on the old NMRA X2F style coupler. Also, for about the same amount of time, I have disliked the folded phosphor bronze centering springs of the old Kadee #5, which at best are finicky and prone to having slop in their centering.
When the #148 coupler hit the market, I immediately purchased some to try out, and as usual with most Kadee products, was impressed. However, I was disappointed to discover that the extra thick shank on the #148 caused it to bind in the draft gearbox on my Spectrum On30 freight cars. This is probably more the fault of the car than the #148 coupler, since the coupler works very well in the supplied #5 style box, but when installed in the Spectrum box, tightening the screw enough to keep the box lid from swiveling around caused the coupler to jam tight and not be able to swing from side to side. So, for my On30 anyway, I had to settle for just replacing the old leaf-knuckle spring EZ-Mates with the newer coil spring version EZ-Mates.
I also noticed that since the shape of the EZ-Mate (and AccuMate) knuckles is slightly different from the Kadees, they don’t nudge together with Kadees as well as two couplers from the same manufacturer (either EZ-Mate, Accumate, or Kadee), especially on curves. Since all of my On30 rolling stock at the moment has come from Bachmann and is factory-equipped with the same EZ-Mate couplers, I haven’t had any operational problems due to dissimilar couplers. But I have noticed that even though all of my On30 equipment comes with the same offset shank/knuckle couplers, not all of the knuckles line up at the same height. The tank cars, for example, are noticeably higher. So much so, in fact, that I was able to put a #148 coupler in its supplied #5 box directly onto the molded-in box of the Spectrum tank car simply by using a longer screw in the stock-mounting hole. It’s a little ugly with the draft gearbox so far below the frame, but it works, and didn’t require major surgery! I suspect this may be caused in part by the metal straps which hold the tank onto the car being slightly tight, which causes the ends of the car to pitch up, raising the couplers.
I also model in other scales, including HO where I have had compatibility problems due to mixing couplers from different manufacturers. While I haven’t actually tried the #148 in HO yet, I suspect the shallow-box/coupler-bind problem will probably be similar in HO cars that come from Bachmann (and possibly others) with OEM EZ-Mate couplers. Did you experience this problem in any of your testing of the #148, and if so, was there a quick-and-easy fix?
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL
In their large ad in the latest issue, Athearn has “taken the lid off” the cost of Union Pacific licensing by setting up higher differential prices - between 5 percent and 7 percent - for UP-related products vs. the others, which is truly exorbitant! It would seem that other manufacturers are spreading the UP charge across all their range, producing prices which are generally uniform (but may reasonably vary for costly paint jobs). I am a lifelong (60 years plus) Southern Pacific and Western Pacific fan and modeler, but you can be sure that I will buy no more Athearn products whatsoever as long as this unreasonable discrimination continues.
And unless Athearn is grossly overcharging to cover the license fee, how can UP claim that the fee is not burdensome? At more than 5 percent, it is obviously directed more at revenue than trademark protection.
By the way, Union Pacific is being quite hypocritical about their acquired predecessor companies. They want a fee for use of SP schemes, but according to all I’ve been reading in the last few years they have discouraged the SP #4449 from running on their lines. Either they treasure the SP and other acquired schemes, or they don’t. Right now they seem to be wanting it both ways.
Phooey on both UP and Athearn!
Jim Martin
Fresno, CA
Among those that choose to pass the expense on, not only do they have to pass on the fee, they also have to pass on a markup of the fee. Then they not only have to pass on the administrative costs, they also have to pass on a markup of the administrative costs. Any manufacturing company is not in the business to make products; it is in the business to make money. If they don’t make enough, they won’t last long. What I like about the USA Trains approach is that the issue of relative cost increase is not on the table when you buy from them. Either the product is worth what you pay or it isn’t. Just as each company makes its own approach, so must each model railroader. So if UP drops its licensing program does that mean you’ll have Chopped Phooey? — Ed.
e-mail us at: letters
or send us a letter to:
LETTERS c/o Model Railroad News
P.O. Box 1080 • Merlin, OR 97532-1080
Fax: 541-955-0346