To John Sipple:
I simply must take issue with your rather discouraging comments re: horn-hook couplers (December, page 14).
Having now entered my fifth decade in model railroading (with 30 plus years of HO involvement), I have personally found the horn-hook coupler (a true hobby classic) to be quite reliable, versatile and most satisfactory. It might come as a surprise to note that these “ancient” couplers actually have more interface locking surface than the so-called realistic couplers — which by the way — always seem to require such an inordinate amount of exacting intense effort to be delicately applied to locomotives and rolling stock.
For the record, it should be also noted that there are indeed a wide variety of manufactured horn-hook couplers designed for a variety of situations. Of course, I will admit that any small misalignment problems can be readily corrected by the judicious usage of Kadee #205 washers or by the simple expedient of filing any excess flash within the coupler.
That being said, I must truly commend you and your staff for the production of a very worthy and enjoyable publication.
Alexander F. Pikelis
Lincoln, NE
Post Script: Just because this letter was actually done by typewriter and that I have a fondness for horn-hook couplers does NOT necessarily make me a Luddite.
To John Sipple:
As the debate rages over who has the best coupler, I must say there is none better than Kadee. I’ve tried the Imperial (the various makes) and they are all inferior to Kadee.
I have 500 freight cars, 100 passenger cars and 250 Locomotives and all are equipped with Kadee couplers and trucks as well, where Kadee makes the correct trucks for the cars; others have Kadee wheelsets. Kadees may cost a little more, but there is no substitute for quality.
Keep up the good work, Model Railroad News!
C. West
Portland, OR
To John Sipple:
I have been a reader since at least the beginning of 2001, and I am pleased with the new look, and the general growth of your publication. I also would compliment you on your generally high editorial standards. I find very few typos, and mangled language in MRN.
The only thing I noticed that I disagree with is on page 8, January 2003 issue, you seem to imply that it doesn’t matter whether you use Kadee or some of the cheap imitations. “While I didn’t change over to Kadees, the pockets..., for those who must have them.” If you ever store a car or locomotive where the SLIGHTEST pressure is put on one of the wonderful imitation couplers with the molded plastic springs, you will know the difference immediately! Couplers that won’t close are worse than useless, but I have never had a Kadee fail.
Other than that, I say: Keep up the good work! MRN seems to look better each issue.
Jeremy Brown
Eugene, OR
I enjoyed the note from Keith Brownfield about the Kato business car. Some years ago when they advertised the N-scale version, I scribbled a note on a photocopy of their ad asking the same question Keith did, with the response: “Perhaps in the future. Thank you for your interest!” at least indicating some glimmer of hope. I am happy to see that the promise materialized, and I — a supposed “prototype” modeler — am the proud owner of the B&O lettered (totally fictional) version of this beautiful model.
John Teichmoeller
Ellicott City, MD
I enjoy your publication each month and look forward to receiving it. Keep up the good work.
I just received the January 2003 issue and I usually read your “Letters...” section first. Your “Notice to readers...” is easily readable as the type is the size used in most of your articles.
You, however, switch to a smaller type when publishing letters from your readers. Even though I am not a teenager with 20/20 eyesight, I do wear reading glasses and still find it difficult to read this small type. It is even more difficult when you switch to italic type in your responses and this issue you even used it for some of the letters.
I realize you can get more letters per column inch using this smaller type, but I would prefer this section to be more readable to us older, mature, model railroaders. I would be interested to know if you have received any other letters regarding this matter.
Jerry Corbett
Russellville, AR
First off, many thanks for a fine publication. I look forward to it every month, as your coverage of model railroad products is a delight. I have a real problem, though, with one kind of product.
Having been an in-depth HO modeler of steam era railroading for better than half a century, now, I’ve paid considerable attention to the current breed of plastic RTR steam motive power. Fine as they are, the models all suffer a common flaw: they are absolutely dreadful to get into for maintenance. No model loco in any gauge steam, diesel, or electric, can go indefinitely without an occasional lubrication and/or cleaning. This is an absolute must if the modeler in running his trains in any way.
The so-called instruction sheets have next-to-no info concerning disassembly. The question is, does the purveyor-manufacturer intend for the model to run on its factory-applied lubrication only, and never has to be lubed? I feel that all these models should be accompanied by company policy concerning this IN PRINT. It just doesn’t seem that these models are really intended for any kind of disassembly.
So far, I’ve bought two of these locos: the Bachmann 2-8-0 and Athearn’s 2-8-2. The former I finally got into after a month of experimenting; the Mike I never did get apart. The Mike was done as GTW No. 3717, and all its new detailing for that prototype had to be done on the fully-assembled model — including painting and decaling!
What this hobby needs, now, is a recognition of this problem And that’s where nice publications like yours can really help. Will you please urge your manufacturer-advertisers to address this problem, first of all. Then, in your own reviews of these models, will you PLEASE INCLUDE COVERAGE OF DISASSEMBLY plus that of the model’s mechanism.
In the meantime, I plan to purchase no more of these models until something is done. And the ongoing brass and kit lokies continue to be a joy to work with.
Ron Kuykendall
Tucson, AZ
Note: Sure would like to see something of this published in “Letters” section, I’d like to hear what others might have in comments.
To Russ Boehm:
I was wondering if you could steer me in the right direction. I have two Proto 2K GP18 HO diesels that don’t run at the same speed. I’d like to run them together in a consist. I use an NCE DCC system and need to know how to get started in changing speed steps of one loco to match another. Does one of the popular DCC books on the market cover this topic?
Terry Ketcham
via e-mail
John Kabat, a member of the NMRA DCC Working Group, has a freeware program called “Racetrack” on his web site http://sljkrr.home.mindspring.com/rtk.html. You’ll need to tie a PC into your command station but that’s easy with your ProCab system. I’ve seen this demonstrated, and it works fairly well.
Your second option is the grunt method using your throttle and some time. Not the most elegant method, but it works well. For starters, select decoders that provide Start, Mid, and Max speed Control Variables (CV) as features. As an example, an NCE D13SR decoder has CV 2 as Starting Voltage, CV 5 as Max speed, and CV 6 as Mid speed. The default value for all three is “0.”
The process is simple but tedious; consist and run the locomotives uncoupled and identify the slowest and fastest units. The objective now is to reduce the Mid & Max speed of the faster unit to the slower and raise the Start voltage of the slowest to match the faster unit.
Start by increasing the value of the Start voltage for the slower locomotive one step at a time. After each change, retest the locomotives side by side until their starting speed matches.
Second, run both locos at Speed Step 14 (Mid) and compare speeds. Take a guess at a reasonable reduction for the faster unit to match the slower one and reprogram the Mid CV. Test and readjust the Mid speed CV of the faster loco until it slows down to match the slower unit. Fun, huh!
Last, run both locos at speed step 28, full throttle and follow the same routine used to match the Mid speed using the Max CV.
For the true masochist, build individual 28 step speed tables for the two locomotives by repeating this procedure and altering CVs 68-94 of both units until they match.
Further details will be found in the D13SR manual, and I would presume most others. Results may vary depending on the decoder, locomotive, and the amount of mismatch you are trying to overcome. I’ll send you a more complete description by e-mail. — Russ
To Russ Boehm:
I enjoyed and identified with John Heitmann’s comments in the January 2003 “Letters” section. I’m a 65 year old, with a 25 by 15 foot HO layout, with about 35 diesels and 30 steam engines. I have some interest in DCC and read what I can find on it.
BUT... BUT... a lot of what I read and hear freezes my brain screen.
Look at your “Straight Talk” column on page 36. WOW: “user interface”; “200 macros”; “10 stationary decoders”; “computer interface built into the system”; “speed curves with Easy Ramp program”; “CVs 67-94”; “Paradox”; “line power routed through a power conditioner”.
Although I have 13 years of college, including an Engineering degree, behind me, all this stuff blows me away. Maybe my “kids” (actually they are grown men), are correct when they say: “Dad you’re a dinosaur.”
Frank Tepedino
San Diego, CA
The column you are referring to is an interview with a friend, Dave Clingman, and discusses what he has done with his layout. It’s really quite advanced and uses DCC to achieve interesting operations and reliable routing to hidden storage. He and I started out just like you, somewhat in the dark about the subject and uninformed about the jargon. I hope to shed light on the subject by way of my column, but I also want to keep a balance between basic information and showing you what the end result is.
My suggestion would be to follow the same tried and true process we used in college. When you run across something you don’t know, look it up.
A good source of supplementary DCC information is Loy’s Toys web site at http://www.loystoys.com/ . If you don’t have access to the internet, try Digital Command Control by Stan Ames as a hard copy source. You will find useful information in both. As you’ll recall from those college days, as you learn, you develop more questions. That’s where I hope you’ll see “Straight Talk” as a valuable addition to your educational material. This is the place where you can read a different approach to the subject, send an e-mail question and get an answer. Stick with it, it only gets better. — Russ
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
