Operating to a Higher Standard

I read with interest (Volume 12, Issue 4, April 2006) David Otte’s Review DCC column on MTH’s Digital Command System [DCS]. One word troubled me. In describing the MTH sound system, “proprietary” was used. In the past decades, several analog “proprietary” systems were marketed. I came within a spike’s width of investing in GE’s ASTRAC in the 1960s. The life span of this effort was very short. Thereafter one would see ads in hobby magazines for ASTRAC components until even that stopped for a lack of GE support of their product. Had I purchased, I would have lost all of my invested dollars. Bankruptcies and business closures ended other ventures providing “command” type control systems.

During the 1990s the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) responded by coordinating the development of certain basic “standards” to assure interchangeability among DCC systems on a basic operational level. Although the extra “bells and whistle features” are not covered, I can now still operate trains with a no longer available system using contemporary replacement elements. My sizeable investment is protected if I buy standard conforming products.

I read the rest of the article and did not see the “C” word used in reference to the power side of DCS. Neither did I see any mention of conformance or nonconformance to the NMRA interchangeability standards. I assume it does not interchange with Lionel’s, but what about future competing systems? This is a major factor in purchase decisions of the savvy modeler.

Roger H. Ferris, EdD.
Seattle, WA

As it stands right now, I did two recent pieces in “Thinking of DCC” that go back to your letter, Roger. The first was January’s “DCC: Ready or not, here it comes!” in which I advocated a standard of locomotive building that would always include at least DCC readiness. This sets a standard and benefits more than DCC. Without this, every nonstandard locomotive becomes — in effect — proprietary.

In April’s “DCC is not the only form of Command Control,” I not only pointed out that DCC is the only command control system that is NOT proprietary, I also warned that aspects of DCC ARE proprietary, especially DCC systems and their components. If the standards for building decoders are wide open, cab buses are completely proprietary, and you’d better have a license before you make components to work on someone else’s system.

At this point in time, with four or five major DCC system makers, the catastrophic failure of one of them won’t bring DCC down, but neither will it win any converts. Berndt Lenz showed the world how it should be done, by designing the standard, giving it away to a responsible organization to maintain it, and then making a very handy profit on it. I can only hope for some point in time where there will be a common cab standard for DCC as well — Ed.

N-scale Offerings

In the May 2006 issues “Fresh From The RPO Car,” Neil Humphries Ph.D. sent a letter in response to the Trademarks column from a previous issue. Dr. Humphries brings up a point in regards to getting the younger crowd into model railroading.

I’d like to preface my thoughts with my short background in model railroading. I started my first layout around August of 2005 and am modeling N scale. The reason I mention that is simply that N scale isn’t nearly at the level of other scales in regards to released products. The reason I mentioned how long I’ve been in the hobby is because I have next to no knowledge in other scales… maybe in time.

How this relates to getting younger people involved in model railroading is because I feel with the lack of products that are released that are modern in N scale, I am adamant that this factor is relevant in why younger people may not pursue the hobby.

I am not old or young, I am in my late 30s, but I am modeling my freelance layout to be modern. It really irks me that the newest car I can find is a 1996 Taurus, the fact that if I want a gas station it’ll be a Mayberry RFD station and not one of the “super stations” that have been common for the last decade. Of course I can go on and on, but I am sure you all get the point.

Of course there are exceptions, but how many teenagers do you think want to model a gas station from 1950? People like to model what they know. I have a very vague recollection of a small Mayberry RFD type gas station, but I sure don’t want one on my layout.

I have contacted a few manufacturers asking if they had any plans to model modern/current vehicles and/or structures, the responses I had received weren’t surprising unfortunately. These responses of “not at this time due to market needs and wants” are very short sighted. I understand that manufacturers need to make products that will sell. Modern items may not be a bread and butter item for them immediately, but it will become that way. I also know that modern items will sell as soon as they are released.

To me, a manufacturer’s primary goal is to make money, which of course I comprehend. If they want to ensure they can keep making money, they need to look down the road and produce items which will keep them in business as well as attract new people into the hobby. Manufacturers have a very large part in the growth or demise of our hobby.

With what is available now from a large majority of manufacturers and the lack of modern products, they are surely putting nails into their own coffin.

Howard Kornhauser
Cleveland, OH

Well, Howard, working backward up your letter, I think you’ll find that the best-selling era in model railroading is the “Transition Era” from 1930 to 1960 when steam gave way to diesel. Thus, a fifties gas station is right in the middle of that. Now, the modern era is also very important, but take a look at a modern gas station. The main building may well be just a convenience store sitting in one corner of a large patch of concrete. This cement is punctuated by “islands” with typically two or three gas pumps. Modern gas pumps are not the fanciful devices of yesteryear; they are just metal boxes with a hose and nozzle. In short, it would be pretty easy to scratch build such an operation.

The issue of automobile availability has been covered extensively by our Bill Cawthon, and issues of trademark infringement and collectibility raise their heads. General Motors won’t allow much below S-scale for fear that some kid will choke on it and sue them. Model railroading relies on the collectible market for vehicles, and the collectible market in N scale is rather small.

Finally, if you take a look at the Walthers’ N and Z scale reference book, you’ll find a very interesting assortment of gas stations. Even in recently built structures, there are few standards. In Southern California, they could construct one with Mission Architecture while rural Pennsylvania might have one with Amish influences. N-scale has the second largest model base in model railroading, behind HO, but the bottom line is still modeling. Go take pictures of the station you want to model and do it! — Ed.

Bureau of Missing HO Vehicles & Persons

It was a delightful shock when I reached page 53 of the April 2006 issue of MRN which arrived in the mail today. In the column, At the Grade Crossing, I saw these three fantastic vintage autos and hoped that they just might be 1/87 scale. After searching through seven paragraphs of copy, my hopes were fulfilled.

Finally, someone is starting to produce HO-scale vintage vehicles from the 1920s through 1940. There are all sorts of beautiful ready-to-run steam, transition era diesel locos, and rail equipment now available, but where are the model motor vehicles and people that existed at that time?

Vintage HO Vehicles: Yes, there are craftsman kits out there, and I’ve built a lot of them. I don’t have the time or will to construct them anymore. Now, I want ready-to-run cars, trucks, and busses from 1915 to 1940. I want built-up models of all the kits that Jordan Highway Miniatures, Micron Art, Pirate Models, SS Ltd. (now Jaks Industries), etc. make, ready for me to purchase. I am not necessarily looking for exotic vehicles; just day-to-day cars, trucks, and buses that operated during the time period I mentioned. Woodland Scenics has some vehicles and so does IHC. Busch makes a nice 1931 Ford panel truck. The new Ricko vehicles in the MRN review raise the standard for HO RTR vintage vehicles and show that such models can be manufactured at reasonable price today. 

Vintage HO People: Again, where are all of the HO men who wore caps, Bowler, straw, Homburg, and Fedora hats? They wore dark suits and white shirts with ties wherever they went, even to ball games. Where are the HO ladies with longer dresses and hats? Yes, there are a few of these vintage figures out there but no real variety. We have contemporary HO wedding, funeral, religious, obese, ethnic, clothes free, sports, and many other types of figures. Now let’s have some 1920s – 40s folks waiting to board a trolley, bus, or train, or just walking down the street with a paper under the arm. Where is that newsboy with the cap and knickers?

Woodland Scenics seems to be headed in the vintage direction (i.e. police chasing bank robbers and a few other period items). In my opinion, there is a good potential for product expansion in these areas. Hey, they say we train guys are getting older. That’s true, but I remember the things mentioned above, and I want to buy, not build them.

Joe Bux
Bayside, NY

Dear Joe, Thanks for writing. You’re not alone in your reaction to Ricko’s Classic Collection models. The Horch 851 Pullman was named “Model of the Year” by two large European collector clubs, beating not only every other HO vehicle model, but every vehicle model in any scale.

Given the popularity of steam, it’s a bit surprising there aren’t more ready-to-use vehicle models and figures from the years between the first and second world wars. Perhaps one reason is a decent model of most cars or trucks from the period you mention is going to involve a fair amount of hand assembly of some fragile parts. Manufacturers may look at this and decide the selling price would have to be too high to make the model successful.

This is not so much true of vehicles from the mid-thirties and early forties. In many cases, these could be composed of the same number of pieces and involve the same amount of assembly as a model of a modern car. Plus, many of these vehicles were still in use though World War II and for some years thereafter. Perhaps some of the manufacturers who have been focusing on the postwar Transition Era will give these prototypes a second look.

My latest Preiser catalog is a few years out of date, so I don’t know if they are still in production, but I found several sets including figures that would be suitable for various times from 1915-1940. Even a fellow with a straw boater. Didn’t see any with bowlers, but plenty of Homburgs and fedoras. You might take a trip down to your local hobby shop and ask to look through the latest catalog. Don’t forget there were lots of styles in that period, some of which have come back now and again, so do some checking at real photos from the period and see what matches you can find. Happy Hunting! — Bill Cawthon

Of Flanges and Flangeways Revisited

Dear Mr. Sipple:

While reading your article “Of Flanges and Flangeways” in the April 2006 copy of Model Railroad News, a few items caught my attention that I thought I should comment on. First, your reference to the Transportation Technology Center as jointly owned by FRA and AAR, I can tell you that the Transportation Technology Center is 100% owned by the federal government, with FRA given the responsibility for its care. A subsidiary of the AAR, who chose to call themselves Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI), operates the center under contract with the FRA.

Regarding the FAST track, as you say, they could have made it longer, and in fact, years ago it was longer — about 4.8 miles, but it was shortened for the reason you state — to put about twice the traffic over the experiments in the same time period.

On increasing gross car weights to 315,000 pounds, perhaps the biggest concern is what would happen to the bridges, especially the older and larger steel bridges that would be enormously expensive to replace.

Also, you noted seeing turnouts with moveable point frogs in Germany. Actually, you could see some of those on the segment of Union Pacific you mentioned.

And finally, on the large size railroads copying basement railroad practice, I think the two best examples of that are the use of plastic ties and remote control. While plastic ties were once thought un-prototypical, within about the next 3-4 years, Union Pacific is scheduled to have about 1 million of them in their track. And of course you know quite a few yard engines are now run remotely with control boxes that operators walk around with — only just a little bit bigger than the ones you probably use.

Don Plotkin
Rockville, MD

Thanks, Don. We always appreciate the perspective from inside FRA. I wonder what it’s like to be a train crew on a train that runs around that short track all day long? Perhaps this is one of the best uses of remote control. Now the business with the plastic ties and remote control has me wondering if UP will have to pay licensing fees to Atlas and MRC? Of course they could always use DCC; it is an open standard. — Ed.

More on Graffiti

If Mercedes automobiles or jumbo jets were habitually painted with graffiti, can you imagine anyone tolerating the practice? Yet because railroad freight cars are the target of such outrageous acts, it seems only a very few of us are seriously angered by it. Let me offer one possible solution for consideration by MRN readers.

Bring legal action against the manufacturers of spray-can paint. Simple as that. If cigarette manufacturers and gun makers and a host of other industries can be taken to task via the courts, then why not those companies that make and market the spray paint that adorns the flanks of even brand-new, expensive railcars?

The railroads themselves are not likely to initiate such a suit, because the spray paint people are likely to be their paying customers (either in the shipping of the finished product or of the inbound components). But who is to say that the rest of us cannot initiate the action? Our standing? How about from the perspective of stockholders, which is to say, owners? I already own rail stocks, but for less than $100 any MRN reader can likewise own a piece of Union Pacific or Norfolk Southern or BNSF or any other publicly traded rail carrier. Certainly the case can be made that these acts of vandalism, in addition to being illegal, deprive us of much of our entitled profit on investment, due to high paint shop costs. How about it, a class-action lawsuit.

The purpose of the legal action would be to force the makers and sellers of canned spray paint to demand identification from anyone buying the product, and perhaps a signature on a form which would, by law, have to be filed and maintained by the retailer. Too bad it has to come to this, but a successful challenge in the courts to the laissez faire sales practices now in place should serve to chill purchases by those whose purpose in purchasing the paint is visual mayhem.

Among the readers of MRN, and certainly in the model railroad and/or rail fan fraternity, there are lawyers who may be interested in taking on this case. If contributions from the rest of us are the engine which will drive the matter forward, let the call for support issue forth before another brand new CSX hopper car is used as an art canvass by some can-wielding idiot.

Thomas J. Swenson
Oelwein, IA

Thanks, Thomas. Letters that have previously appeared here answered the question about where the taggers got all their paint. Apparently they steal it. Rail cars left in railyards are subject to an astonishing variety of vandalism, from graffiti to sabotage to theft of cargo and much more. Taggers don’t just concentrate on trains, either. Railroads need to better secure their yards, a very expensive process they have been trying to avoid. Some of the record profits they have enjoyed lately should be used to buy miles of chain link fence, hire more rail police, and focus on the troublemakers instead of the railfans. Better inventory control of spray paint and other substances would vastly improve the situation, too. — Ed.

New to Model Railroading

My sons and I desperately want to start this hobby, but it is so hard to figure out what type of train would be best for us. We want the HO scale, but we would like a full starter kit that would have plenty of track to start with. We would like a train that makes sounds as well as has many fun features, lights, etc. Is there a starter set you would recommend that wouldn’t break our bank? Looking forward to your comments.

Schell Hammel
Dallas, TX

Great question, Schell! Of course, a lot of this depends upon what figure would break your bank. The Walthers’ catalog contains a train set section that will allow you to browse some of the train set offerings. Athearn and some others are not in this book, so plan to conduct an Internet search, as well. Bottom line: I know of no train set offered right now with DCC and a sound-equipped locomotive. Given your level of interest (plenty of track and sound), I’d say you should consider building your own set.

Find out how much real estate you can devote to this project and then purchase a couple of layout books. At the same time, investigate sound locomotives, how they are powered and controlled, and what sort of trains they would lead. This will let you define the era of railroading and the roadnames that interest you and your sons. There are various methods of laying track, ranging from sectional to flex track, and a good book would show you how each is done. Books are an interesting way to get started, and by all means study on our ongoing series with Stephen Priest. As you and your sons build your own layout, everyone learns about laying track, soldering and wiring, and operating trains. Instead of having to lay out all the cash up front, you can buy your way in. Visit a nearby club and talk to guys who are already in the hobby. There’s a lot of help out there. Good luck! — Ed.