Write us a letter at: letters
Questions about wheel replacement I would like to replace the plastic wheels and old metal wheels on some of my cars with new metal ones but I cannot tell what is the right size, 33 inch or 36 inch. I don’t know if intermixing different sizes would misalign the knuckle couplings or not. Can you help? Robert Lagoe Wilmington, NC
Good question, Robert. You could measure the existing plastic wheels with calipers, but most folks don’t have them handy. As a general rule, freight cars built before the 1970s tended to run on 33-inch wheels. Most passenger cars from the heavyweights of the twenties forward tended to run on 36-inch wheels. It is more common for modern freight cars to run on 36-inch wheels, so you can plan accordingly. In HO scale, 33-inch wheels work out to be about 0.38 inches in diameter. The larger 36- inch wheels would be around 0.41 inches in diameter and would raise the car half of the difference, about 0.015 inch. I doubt that fifteen thousandths of an inch will materially alter the behavior of properly installed couplers. As a guide, if your freight cars have roofwalks on the boxcars and full height ladders, go 33. If the roofs are free of roofwalks and the handbrakes are mounted low with short ladders, go 36. —John
Likes our Canadian price I recently discovered your magazine at my local hobby shop, Maritime Hobbies and Crafts in Halifax, Nova Scotia; what a great find. I am enjoying the articles and information contained in the pages. The article on the Triplex steamer was great in that it also contained a history of the locomotive. The article on the Bar Mill’s Tylick Tool Company was great; the information and hints that you pass on from your experience will make it much easier for me when I build my version. The one thing that I particularity appreciate about your magazine is the price, very clearly marked on the cover, and that it is the same in both Canada and the US. For too long we have had to pay a higher price for many magazines here in Canada and some publishers have gone to the effort of either printing a “Canada only” cover or putting a sticker over the US price. Now that our currency is virtually at par it has been very frustrating to see the cost of published materials cost more here. So thanks again; I really enjoyed the latest edition, I’ll look forward to future issues. James McMillin Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Hi, James, welcome to MRN! So long as the two dollars are so close in value and crossborder shipping remains as it is, we’ll be keeping a same price in both the US and Canada. Prototype histories are part of most of our reviews since that helps our reviewers to make sense out of where a model is relative to a historical timeline. Stay with us; we always have interesting and fun stuff in every issue. —John
Figures in many races redux FYI Joe Bux – Preiser makes seated passengers, HO Scale Part No. 10 14009. It has black and brown people as well as white. The black and brown men could be used as engineers, brakemen, or conductors. The women are all in dresses. That would be a rule violation. But your people are out there if you know where to look. Now for the subject of crewmembers on real trains. Let’s not forget the Indians, Italians, Cajuns, Chinese, Germans, and on and on and on. We have all worked together on the railroad for years and years. In most cases, generations not as a race, but as crewmembers working together, and we had a lot of fun getting here. The model railroad industry, like many others, is starting to catch up to the baby boomers’ wants. We all are waiting for something we want without bringing race into it. So join the club of mankind and God bless. Harold Dough Lee’s Summit, MO
Thanks for the update, Harold. —John
What happened to kits? Why are most of the manufacturers dropping kits in favor of ready-to-runs? I realize that there are a lot of model railroaders that are still working but certainly not enough to warrant dropping the kits? I’ve personally been trying to find kits of both freight and passenger cars for either the Hartford or the NY, NH & Hartford. I’ve spent roughly $20 calling around the country with no success. Any suggestions? Also, why don’t manufacturers include Kadee couplers and trucks with their kits? They certainly can’t cost that much extra when they buy in bulk. I personally don’t think one would complain if they knew how reliable they both are, and very prototypical. Some of the companies that include horn-hooks should be hanged! There is absolutely no place for them, not even on Thomas the Tank Engine! R. Andy Anderson Phoenix, OR
Hi, Andy. Manufacturers have gone to R-T-R instead of kits for several reasons. First and foremost is that there are not as many people building kits any more. Many newcomers to the hobby see it as a “kinetic hobby,” one where they run trains, not build them. They understand they have to build the layout, but even there they prefer sectional track. Second, there is an ongoing problem with kits having all the right parts and all of those parts being usable. Most kits are packaged where they are made, overseas, and the importer-seller has a hard time inventorying each box, so that is left for the kitbuilder. Just one kit with missing or distorted parts is enough to cause a new kitbuilder to give up the process. When kits are built-up, that problem entirely disappears. There are still kits being marketed with no trucks or couplers at all, and the purchaser supplies his own. Many times, you will get a new car – assembled or kit – with wheelsets or trucks you don’t like or the wrong kind of couplers. I take the attitude that I have my own set of standards for my layout, and all new cars will be brought up to that standard. If that means I purchase Kadee trucks and/or couplers for that car, then I consider that part of the acceptance routine. Until a car is up to that standard, it remains a “project” and, while the maker may consider it ready to run, it’s not ready to go on my layout. —John
Not giving up Large Scale coverage! I’m a long time subscriber with a couple of remarks on the April issue. First, some background. I have in the past built a couple of HO-scale layouts, but for the past 15 years or so I have been working on an indoor large-scale layout. I will admit that I do mix large scales a bit if it looks right and all my scratchbuilding is in the “middle-of-the-road” 1:24 scale, so I guess I’m in F scale. 1. On the letters you have received on which scales to cover, or not cover, in MRN, I hope you don’t give up on the large scales, but even if you do, I will still read your magazine as I [enjoy] all the others. No matter what the “scale” of an article is I can usually find something interesting. 2. The photo on page 54 blew my mind! It just says “Special Photoshop effects by Todd Gillette.” WOW, what smoke. How about talking him into writing an article on his techniques. I would be very interested as I’m sure would be many others. Bob Santos Harrisburg, PA
Actually, Bob, 1:24 is “H” scale. 1:22.5 is “G” scale, and 1:20.3 is “F” scale. All of them use the same #1 gauge track (1.77 inches), and 1:29 “A” scale and 1:32 “#1” scale also share this track. However, careful placement of 1:24 buildings will work on layouts featuring 1:20.3 rolling stock. Rest assured that as long as we have wonderful, new products in the garden scales, we’ll cover them. As to the idea of an article on Photoshop effects, that would be a bit out of our line, but we’ll toss it around at our next editorial meeting. —John
Comments on “SP Salt Lake Division” book review I wish to add to your review of Jon Signor’s SP Salt Lake Division “Treatise.” As a collector of many railroad books, I find Signor’s treatment of the Salt Lake Division of the SP to be very compelling. I have always purchased Jon’s books including the revisions of some of the earlier division studies. If someone asked me to rate my top 10 railroad books, the Salt Lake Division would be number 1 on the list. As a Santa Fe and SP fan, I believe this is one of the “must have” books on anyone’s list for the thoroughness that is exhibited in this book. Jon’s telling of the story filled in many gaps that have been left out by other authors who have attempted to cover this story. To any railfan, I recommend this book. John Dulaney Salem, Oregon
I appreciate your addition to my review, John. The book is a gigantic accomplishment and a joy to own. When I have free time, I often find myself stealing back to it. What I have learned from it has actually changed my thinking about that part of the world. I agreed completely with your comments. —John
More about TT scale Regarding your recent [mention of ] TT scale, this scale was introduced to model railroading by automotive engineer Hal Joycen in 1946. He founded the company, H.P. Products (no relation to Hewlett Packard). TT scale is 1:120 scale (although British TT, more commonly known as 3mm scale is 1:101). This places TT scale in size between HO at 1:87.1 and N which is 1:160. In TT scale one inch equals ten feet. H.P. Products made American prototype model railroad kits. Other TT manufacturers in the U.S. also focused on kits. The marketing evangelism of N scale in the late 1960s or early 1970s, combined with the lack of ready-to-run TT products pushed TT out of the American market. Although TT was an American scale, it caught on in the Soviet Union. TT scale is still popular today in Russia and Germany. Most TT scale European products are ready to run, but are nearly all European prototypes. The German firm Tillig may be the largest manufacturer in TT scale today. In the United States, Tillig products are imported by EuroTrain Hobby. (I am not affiliated with them.) The Tillig TT starter set I got from them cost me $70 US plus shipping from New Jersey. It has a little German switcher, three cars (or wagons as the Europeans say), an oval of Tillig’s “Bedding Track,” loads for the cars, piers for a trestle, and an old-style Bachmann 120v power pack. The only drawback is that the instructions are in German; not a problem for an experienced model railroader. Tillig’s Bedding Track is integral roadbed track which uses plastic joiners similar to Kato’sUnijoiners. I use Kato’s Unitrack in both N- and HO-scales and I am very pleased with the quality of Tillig’s track. The Slovenian firm Mehano also makes a number of European prototype locomotives in TT scale. Ironically the name Mehano is frequently laughed at by many American modelers, who only know the low-end locomotives they’ve manufactured for American model railroad suppliers. In my experience, if you pull the carpet fibers out of the trucks of a broken Mehano HO loco you’ll find that its frequently a better runner than many more expensive locos. And few Americans know anything about Mehano’s high-end European market products. Their TT offerings often are available with LokSound DCC decoders. American prototype TT scale is now a cottage industry, and still primarily focusing on kits. Possum Valley Models offers a number of American prototype kits, including conversion kits for Lionel’s “Big Rugged Trains,” which are TT scale whether Lionel knows it or not. I am seeing renewed interest in TT here in the U.S. The letter you published in your March issue is further indication of that. What TT scale needs to make it happen in the U.S. is an inexpensive American prototype starter set. Recent TT forays into the American market have failed because they were European prototype sets, or individual American prototype locos. Most Americans don’t want European prototype trains, and nobody wants a loco that they don’t have track and cars for. TT is easier to handle than N scale and doesn’t require the space needed for an HO layout. It’s perfect for children’s sets, as witnessed by the number of 1:120 push toys and battery-operated trains available here in the United States. Americans interested in TT scale should look into the TT_IMS group on Yahoo! However, this is a kitbashing and scratchbuilding group. But I don’t think anyone there would be unhappy to see a few American prototype readyto- run TT scale trains on the shelves of our LHS. Randall Roberts modeltrains.about.com
Well, as I’ve often said, I’ve never met a model railroad scale I didn’t like, and that would extend to cover TT. I’ll state it right out front that if a manufacturer creates an American-themed TT starter set, MRN would be happy to review it. —John
How does Dave Carr drill holes in Walthers’ cars? How did R. David Carr bring his #80 drill bits to bear? Did he use a drill press, a handheld drill (Dremel?), or maybe a pin vise? Really would like to know, and pictures would be very helpful. John McClurg Oak Creek, WI
Good question, John, so I asked Dave (I couldn’t get him to hold still for pictures, however). Dave uses a pin vise and does every hole by hand. He says that Dremels and other power drills tend to turn too fast and the friction generated melts the plastic around the holes, which is not good. Hope that helps. —John
Can a DC reversing unit work under DCC? I enjoy your column “Thinking of DCC” very much. Is it possible to use an older back and forth reversing unit with a DCC power unit and DCC decoder operated engine? I don’t want to do this if it will damage my DCC unit. George Ferries San Francisco, CA
Interesting question, George. Most non-DCC reversing units work on DC layouts and do so by reversing the polarity of the voltage on the rails. Since DCC supplies a form of AC continuously and the reversing of the motor is done by the decoder inside of the locomotive, the older DC reversing units wouldn’t work at all. Most DCC systems are protected against shorts and shouldn’t be threatened by this, and all that would happen would be the current on the tracks would go to zero and then resume, assuming that the control works of the reversing unit would tolerate DCC power. I’d say don’t do it. DCC makes reversing units for DCC applications that are really slick. Most of the major DCC makers offer reversing units. Talk to your dealer or go visit manufacturer web sites. —John
Comments on DCC The discussion on changing CVs by the first three letters (April 2008) is interesting but in my opinion only scares many long time DC users into staying away from trying DCC. The fourth letter from John in Virginia really hits home with me in that most of us can really enjoy operating with DCC without getting into the technical aspects of it. After reading your reviews of starter sets by Digitrax and MRC a few years back I was encouraged to give it a try, going with the MRC Prodigy system. I’ve since upgraded to a Prodigy Express set and an extra Advance throttle. It’s so easy to operate two or three trains at the same time using only one throttle with several loco addresses stored in the throttle memory and the recall button. I can’t imagine going back to DC system with block control with all its wiring in order to run more than one train at a time! With the low prices of various starter systems and decoders available today it’s hard to understand why a majority of operators are not using DCC (maybe it’s too much technical talk and not the simplicity and enjoyment of going DCC). By the way, why do reviews of DCC systems talk about two- or four- digit addressing when it’s really one-, two-, three-, or four-digit addresses that can be used? Ray Fernandes westrac@gmail.com
Discussing the inner workings of DCC in our pages is relatively unavoidable because that’s where the questions arise and opinions are formed. People only stay beginners for a fairly brief period of time and then they want more complicated answers. Your own question is a case in point. A so-called Two-Digit Address is stored in CV01 and actually covers the numbers 1 to 127, because that is all a half-byte can hold (a byte is a binary number that can express 256 different values from 0 to 255). When we tack two bytes together, we can express values from 0 to 65,535, taking us to addresses as high as 9999. Since this gives us access to 4-digit numbers, this is referred to as Four-Digit Addressing, and these two bytes are at CV17 and CV18. To use them instead of CV01, a bit in CV29 has to be changed as well. Many systems will take care of these details for you. —John
DCC — Best thing since sliced bread? DCC. The best thing since sliced bread. It is a great idea that got hi-jacked. It has been hi-jacked by the industry and the standard setting NMRA. The major problem with the present system is the requirement of CVs. I have read the complaints about using all the options. To me it all boils down to the requirement that the operator be a programmer. Why can’t the control unit be labeled using keyboards with labeled keys, for example: “sound on/off,” “speed matching,” “consist on/off ”? This is why I haven’t got into DCC. At this point, everyone is confused by the on-going discussion about standards; they really don’t exist. There are major companies stating that their products are compatible with the industry standard. Yet, people are having major problems getting different company equipment to talk to each other. At this point in DCC development, my only comment is for the DCC manufactures to go their own way, and for the NMRA to quit trying to impose standards that aren’t working. This way, the buyer would know that they have to stay with a single company, but they would also know that all the parts would work together. What is going on at this time is the same thing as what happened with the computer industry years ago. As everyone with a computer knows, there are really only two operating systems. So, pick one. Lynn Starkey Sandy, OR
Well Lynn, you seem to typify Ray’s argument, above. On the other hand, Ray’s question about two- vs. four-digit addressing seems to be a good example of what you’re saying. You are asking why the business of CV programming hasn’t been made more simple and easier for the end user. I keep asking the same thing. In the world of computing, a goofy and unreliable device is often called a “kludge,” (/klooj /) which fairly well describes the programming process that currently exists. It’s hard to get beyond this when the decoders don’t conform to established standards or the desires of the end users. Often times, a company’s decoders aren’t even consistent within that company! We’re a long way from getting down to just two or three operating systems in DCC. —John
We welcome all comments and letters from our readers! 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
Home • About MRN • Advertise • Contact Us • Moving? • Subscribe • Trial Subscription