Thanks for another great issue. You seem to have a knack for writing about things I am thinking about. Boy is that really helpful. Case in point: the article on the Digitrax DT400 throttle. I read the article a couple of times the day I got Model Railroad News and many more times since then. Well, I have the Zephyr set so why not get the DT400 to go with it, especially since it will let me be more mobile around my layout. I checked on line and found a sale price at Tony’s Train Xchange in Vermont. Ordered and they shipped it right out; in fact it arrived today, after being shipped from there two days ago. Not bad! So I am set for this month’s budget. I should be ready to go as work on my layout progresses. I do appreciate your timely articles. They just seem to happen when I need them.
My layout is coming along nicely. All the track has now been laid. In fact, kind of had my own “Golden Spike” last night when I finished up. Now on to the scenery!
I am more sold on DCC with each article I read about it. I have several drop in decoders to install as soon as I get my work bench cleaned off a little. My programming track is wired and ready to go, so I believe I could use it now. By most standards my layout is not all that grand but I have had a lot of fun building it. This is my third layout and I do think it is an improvement over the others. I was not too happy with the Cab Control on the other layouts; it just didn’t seem to have much appeal to me throwing all of the toggle switches just to run my trains around. I think this new layout with DCC will be a definite improvement. And I can really thank my son for designing a nice layout that fits into my room nicely. It appears kind of crowded in there but it is really not bad. I must now get busy installing my Hump Yard controls for the far back switches. That’s the next major thing to get done.
Anyway, thanks again for putting together a neat issue each month. Keep reading my mind and putting together those great articles. You have really helped me a lot. And with retirement coming up soon, I am going to have a ball working on my layout!
Jerry Linn
Thedford, NE
Enjoyed the article on the Digitrax DT400 Controller. Another great feature of this controller is the easy installation and storage of the battery. I just switched from another DCC system to a Digitrax DCC system. One reason for the switch was the 4 AAA batteries (in the old controller) required for wireless operation were a nuisance to deal with. Once they were installed you had to screw the cover on to keep them in place. I used rechargeable batteries and was in the habit of removing them after every operating session. Sometimes I’d lose the little screw and had to keep the cover closed with a rubber band. The Digitrax DT400R uses one 9V battery that installs very easily. The cover then slides on and snaps into place. After an operating session, you just remove the battery, turn it upside down and install it back inside the controller. This easy operation of this controller has made running trains a joy.
Terry Ketcham
Asheville, NC
The Walthers passenger cars are superb. All that needs to be added is people. As an S.P. model railroader, several of these cars, which are correct to S.P., have made it to my layout. The new Santa Fe cars for the Super Chief will make a great train.
The consist was as follows: Baggage, RPO, 10-6 Pullman, 10-6 Pullman, 4-4-2 Pullman, Dome Lounge, Diner, Dorm Lounge, 4-4-2 Pullman, 4-4-2 Pullman, 10-6 Pullman, and Observation Lounge. All vestibules faced the front of the train. The kitchen in the diner was also to the front of the train and the Dome operated with the long end forward to allow the kitchen of the diner to serve the “Turquoise Room.”
Motive Power was usually F units, however Alco PAs substituted at times. A-B-B-A sets of Fs were the most common. Sometimes A-B-B-B sets were used. The PAs and Fs did not operate together. The small fleet of E units were not used on the Super Chief.
Hope this will help the Santa Fe people use the Walthers cars to model a super train with super models.
Cliff W. West
Rainier, OR
Keep MRN coming, it is an asset to the hobby. As a passenger car enthusiast, I think your fact checker ought to spend some time with the editor on the L.W. car reviewers. For example: March issue, actually April, received today the Pullman vs. Budd controversy was 1930s regarding the Budd manufacturing of sleepers for CB&Q and Santa Fe. During W.W.II, the US government ordered the Pullman company to split up. No 1948-49 Pine Series was delivered.
J. Decker
New Paltz, NY
In regards to your April 2004 issue (letters, Lionel’s Challenger Review): I for one very much like for my locos to come with a crew in the cab. Also, a note on your review of the Bachmann 2-6-6-2 — some of the newer Bachmann releases have metal boilers; you neglected to say if the 2-6-6-2 was metal or plastic.
The April issue was great; love all those steam loco reviews.
Jim Anderson
Sprague, WA
I have read your opinion of the purchase of Athearn Trains by Horizon Distributors (Editorial, March 2004.) Are we now in a society where we don’t have a right where we buy our trains? Does this distributor have the knowledge of making a quality product, without most of us having to take out a loan for a hobby?
Is Horizon going to continue to deal with network distributors or are they going to do like the rest of today’s businesses — become a “Big Boy” and not care about its product? You talked about Walthers, but it seems like Walthers cares about its customers and consumers. Their catalog is the Holy Bible of our hobby. I sure don’t want to see two businesses get in a bully fight over its products.
Hopefully, it won’t get to this and in the end this purchase can become a spectrum of wealth for both consumers and model railroading as a whole.
Christopher D. Carter
Clemonton, NJ
I read your letters and always find out something interesting. I read with interest the Rich Caldwell, NJ letter about New Haven’s FL9s and where he might obtain an HO model.
First, in regards to your answers you mentioned that the FL9 was equipped with an AAR type B front truck. This is incorrect though it is a B type truck. They were equipped with an EMD designed Flexicoil front truck. These differ from the AAR truck as the motion and springing are above the truck as opposed to the AAR’s swing motion bar below the truck. The reason for this is because the first two FL9 units 2000-2001, which were considered demonstrators since they had not been accepted by the New Haven until testing was completed, had EMD’s standard Blomberg B used on their other production models. This truck would not allow for a front mounted 3rd rail pick up shoe. The rear only mounted pick up shoe caused both demonstrator units to catch fire because of the amperage encountered when they shorted. The DC third rail was 650 volts. While 700 amps might be normal for a GP-9 climbing a hill, the FL9 would encounter 10 times that in third rail territory when it shorted. The 2,000 Amp fuse could not act quickly enough to prevent catastrophic damage. The Flexicoil truck replaced the Blomberg and would allow for the 3rd rail shoes and beams to be added. This spread the power pick up and fusing out so not all the power went through one fuse.
The rear trucks were EMD’s standard A-1-A type C truck like those used on the E units.
For Rich, there are brass models available. You can occasionally find them for sale at consignment brass stores or on e-Bay. There is an alternative: Branford Hobbies 609 Boston Post Rd. Branford, CT 203-488-9865 has a cast resin model on an Athearn drive. If you wait long enough either BLI or Atlas may produce one. Other than those listed, no plastic one exists.
There have been several kit bashes of an FL9 from Athearn F7s and Atlas FP9s. One article was published in our historical society’s quarterly publication “Shoreliner” a long time ago, like in the 1978-80s period. I think it was done by Bob Rzasa of Custom Finishes. What he basically did was convert the FP9. He added the 4.5 feet to frame and body, put an E-type truck under the rear, got some Flexicoil sideframes and put them on the front truck, detailed and painted it. Came out real nice.
With today’s better more detailed castings and injected moldings, a very accurate version, and there were four separate versions just on the New Haven, could be kitbashed.
I just read in MR where Overland Models is going to produce the NH FL9 in brass in the four versions. This is a special run for a hobby shop in CT called “The Caboose.” The Branford Hobbies version is the cheaper way to go though. You might let Rich know about the Overland run too.
I e-mailed Broadway-Limited just yesterday suggesting they make the FL9 in plastic with both the EMD and GG1 sound systems in it. Talk about a hot seller! What a model that would be! NH, Penn Central, Metro North, Conrail, CDOT (CT Dept of Trans) and Amtrak all used the FL9s. They have been rebuilt 3 or 4 times and just keep going.
If Rich needs information about the New Haven RR, there is always the New Haven Historical and Technical Association of which I am a member. The web site is: www.nhrhta.org. Our discussion group/forum is open to all questions about the New Haven railroad.
Bill Shanaman
Sugar City, CO
In response to the question from Rich Caldwell concerning the NH FL9s, NH class EDER-5 and EDER-5A: they have been produced in brass by OMI, and they are planning another release. Check their web site. Branford Hobbies in Branford, CT (203-488-9865) has produced a nice, pre-painted FL9. Check with them for current availability.
The FL9s did not have any AAR type trucks at all. The two demonstrators, 2000/2001 had a modified Blomberg front truck with attachments for 3rd rail pick-up apparatus, while the rear, 3 axle truck was a Flexicoil. They have a B-A1A wheel arrangement. The Blomberg didn’t work out and when the FL9s went into production, they all had a 2-axle Flexicoil truck in the front. The FL9s were delivered in two batches, 2000-2029 (NH class EDER-5) were delivered in 1957, the second order, 2030-2059 (NH class EDER-5a) were delivered in 1960 for a cost of $17 million.
It is interesting to note that a study commissioned by the NYNH&H in 1956 recommended that the railroad spend the $17 million on upgrading the catenary and power generation system, rather than on diesels that would operate under little used, energized wire. The report stated that “so long as the wires are up, its cheaper to use them.” The NH ignored the report.
Rick Abramson, Chairman
NHRR Historical & Technical Assoc. Technical Committee
Rich Caldwell’s quest for NH info has an error or two in it, as does the Editor’s reply. The rear truck on the EMD FL9 is a modified EMD three-axle Flexicoil truck with the center traction motor removed, making it an A-1-A, and certainly not 6-axle. The truck from an E-unit would not work, from an appearance point of view. The Flexicoil truck is modified such that it may pick up current off underrunning or overrunning third rail. (Reference: Second Diesel Spotters Guide, page EMD-101) The front truck is also an EMD Flexicoil, with two-axles, both powered. This version of the B-Flexicoil, however, has a wheel base of 108 inches rather than 96 inches for the switcher version. It is believed that the 109 inch version is used only under the FL9. (Reference: Second Diesel Spotters Guide, page 13.)
Should Rich want, he could kit bash an FL9 starting with an Atlas/Roco FP7 body shell.
Jerry T. Moyers
Huntsville, AL
Got the latest issue and was reading through my review and noticed I messed up. For the tar paper roofing, it should be cut in strips 36 scale inches wide, and 27 scale feet long — that figures out to cutting the strips in half. Most roofing comes in rolls 36 inches by 30 feet, but the sheet of paper supplied isn’t quite wide enough for that. Great magazine — keep up the good work.
Rich Cobb
Clyde, NY
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
