I would like to add some helpful information to a pair of letters, one from your July issue and one from your August issue.
Dick Schweiss in July (Detailing a Bowser Kit), asked about detailing a Bowser T-1 kit, where piping and such is supposed to be placed. First, Mr. Schweiss should know there in no piping on the outside, everything is under the “streamlined” shrouding. There were handrails applied above the walkways. The very best source for photos and information on Pennsy’s T-1 4-4-4-4s is in Alvin Staufer’s book Pennsy Power. There is a superb view looking along the top of a T-1 sitting on the East Altoona Turntable. If Mr. Schweiss is also wondering what colors to paint his T-1, Morning Sun’s Pennsylvania Standard Railroad of the World Vol. 1 has one on its cover and several color photos inside.
In response to D. S. Bond’s letter in your August issue (A new Alaska Railroad Fan), and to other modelers out there considering modeling the Alaska R.R., the steam era and early diesel era were also very colorful and interesting. After the Panama Canal was completed, the locomotives used to help construct the canal were shipped north to Alaska along with flat cars and side dump hopper cars. Problem was, the Panama Canal locomotives were 5 foot gauge as were the freight cars. Everything was converted to 4 foot 8-1/2 inch gauge. These locomotives were divided into two classes. Sixteen 2-6-0 Mogul’s with 54 inch drivers numbered in the 200 series used in freight service, and seven 2-6-0s with 63 inch drivers numbered in the 600 series, used in passenger service.
President Harding drove #618 in 1923 while visiting for the inaugural Golden Spike Ceremony celebrating the lines completion, Seward to Fairbanks. The railroad’s 11 Baldwin-built 2-8-0 Consolidations numbered in the 500 Series are almost dead ringers for Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0. They also had six Lima Built 2-8-0s with 50 inch drivers numbered in the 400 series. They had five 2-8-2 Mikados, three built by Baldwin with 54 inch drivers numbers 701, 702, and 703. Two were bought from Northern Pacific, Alco builds, their NP numbers were #1676 and #1692. They had 63 inch drivers and Alaska RR renumbered them 751 and 752. They also had two Baldwin built 4-6-2 Pacifics numbers 901 and 902 and two Baldwin built 4-8-2 Mountain Numbers 801 and 802. The Pacifics had 69 inch drivers and the mountains 63 inch.
They had a variety of gas electric motor cars over the years from J.G. Brill, Edison-Beach, to Kalamazoo. They even had their own version of a “Galloping Goose” from McKeen. In modern times they used an RDC such as Walthers’ new version. The paint schemes on the diesels were not always as they are today, same colors just different schemes on both passenger and freight locomotives. They used to apply a round herald on the nose of their F-Units that declared the ARR was “The McKinley National Park Route.” A very attractive paint scheme. F7s arrived in 1952. The first diesels to arrive were #1000 and #1001, both Alco RS-1s, arriving in 1944. From 1947 to 1951 they gradually added 31 Alco RSD-1s. Beginning in 1946, the railroad had a number of RSD-1s streamlined into A and B units. Yes, I said streamlined, into very unique looking locomotives used in passenger service. They were called RF1A and RF1B after their conversions. Underneath the shrouding they were still RSD-1s. Alaska’s first streamliner “The Aurora” was pulled by #1050 RF1A and #1051 RF1B.
At mile 51 north of Seward was an area called the Loop District. It had five loop bridges — wooden trestles, one of which crossed over itself to gain elevation!! This area also had a tunnel and snowshed. These arrangements remained in use until 1951 when the track was realigned, avoiding the loop that crossed itself and the four other horseshoe-like bridges. This railroad was extremely busy during WWII. A pre-1950 Alaska RR is just begging to be modeled with small steam, wooden trestles galore, tunnels, snowsheds, fancy hotels at Curry, and Denali Park, steel truss bridges, a tall steel arch bridge (Windy Gulch), a tall deck girder at Riley Creek, coal mines, gravel quarry, oil refinery and tank farms, fish canneries, raw timber, not to mention the names of some stations: Moose Pass, Tunnel, Rainbow, Fish Lake, Telkeetna, Hurricane, Eska, Chichaloon, Suntrana, Happy, and Fairbanks. My goodness, Alaska RR has everything a modeler could want, fitting the above mentioned into the Alaskan scenery of ocean, rivers, creeks, gorges, forests, and mountains would be most pleasurable! The Anchorage Museum has a book, a soft cover, called Rails across the Tundra by Stan Cohen for $9.95 with 144 pages of lots of good info and photos. Three other books I know of, which are hard to find, are: The Alaska RR in Pictures 1914-1964 by Bernadine L. Prince, two volumes, The Alaska RR by Edwin M. Fitch, and Railroad in the Clouds: The Alaska RR in the Age of Steam, 1914-1945 by William H. Wilson. Hopefully modelers out there searching for a prototype will consider the Alaska RR.
Dale Wadsworth
McAlester, OK
ARR is indeed a fascinating railroad which now has SD70MACs, but the pre-1950 era will certainly attract those who want the quaintness of narrow gauge in standard gauge. Thank you so much for the list of books for both of our letter writers.—Ed.
As an avid, yet novice, model railroader, I thrive on the exchange of information in Model Railroad News. I recently had an experience, not of a down-to-business technical nature that is normally published in your “Letters...” section, but certainly one that could possibly save an unsuspecting reader from embarrassment similar to mine. Enjoy my true story and share it with your readers if a chuckle would be in keeping with your intent.
At 79 years of age I found the world’s greatest hobby. Enthralled, I barreled into model railroading the only way I know how, full steam ahead. After 8 months of layout construction, the start of scenery, building kits, and endless hours of bleary, burning eyes, I am hooked. My calendar, social life, budget decisions, and judgment are dependent upon this new love which controls my being.
Even in the midst of a recent family vacation in California, my new addiction consumed my thoughts. Unable to bear the withdrawal pains any longer, I made an unscheduled stop at a quaint little hobby shop in Kelseyville, emerging the proud possessor of an IHC Santa Fe track-cleaning caboose. I had to have it! Little did I know how this simple purchase could get me into so much trouble!
A few days later, good-byes having been said, I stepped into a Burbank Airport terminal, my pride and joy safely stashed in my carry-on bag for the routine trip home. Suddenly every possible noise making device in the security line created cacophonous confusion, as two policemen stationed themselves at my side. Plain clothes security personnel emerged from under the floor tile and the search was on. After being wanded several times, I began removing my shoes and socks. Where could they go from there? Did my white hair and trembling body count for nothing? Then those checking my carry-on found the tiny culprit that had humbled me and forever changed my image of “routine” air travel. It was my precious caboose. Encased in plastic, two metal canisters had brought everything to a screeching halt. I explained my innocence in detail to those in charge, all the while thinking, “You’re going to the slammer, Rockwell!”
After the 15 minute search and interrogation, smiles replaced scowls. I replaced my shoes and socks with as much dignity as I could muster, located my widely scattered belongings, including my caboose, which was miraculously returned to me, and tried to enjoy some of the developing levity that human nature can’t seem to suppress. In leaving the area, one of the policemen, smiled and said, “This is the first time this security line has been shut down because of a toy train.”
“Please,” I replied with model railroader indignation, “this is a miniature replica!” My harmless caboose is now at home on my ever-expanding layout, ready to perform its intended duty. It had better work!
Bland “Rocky” Rockwell
Sun City, AZ
Dare I suggest that there’s always Amtrak? I’m sure people winging to and from the Chicago Hobby Show have had similar problems.—Ed.
This note is in conjunction with the article (Lionel’s new Fairbanks-Morse H16-44) that appears on page 16 of the August 2002 issue of the magazine. In column four (4) about 2/3rds of the way down there is a listing of the various companies that operated Fairbanks - Morse locomotives. There are two mistakes in the listing:
#1 — The Reading Company operated several in their commuter services into and out of Reading Terminal in downtown Philadelphia, Pa. They were painted a dark brown with yellow hand rails and cut levers, and were numbered in the 800 series.
#2 — The Baltimore and Ohio never had the large size F-M’s, as far as I can recall. The F-Ms that we had were numbered 305, 306, 307, and 308, which were utilized in general yard switching, helper service up the hill to 58th Street, and to 29th and Poplar Streets, also known as Park Junction, with the Reading Company in transfer service.
A long time ago, I wrote a note to Dave Morgan, the editor of Trains Magazine asking if he could find out the whereabouts of 305 - 8. He wrote back saying two of the locomotives were scrapped and the other two were sold to a firm that re-manufactured locomotives in north New Jersey.
John X. Fearon
Philadelphia, PA
Research is never an exact science. As we went to press, I was unable to determine the source of the Reading’s units. Perhaps they were not original purchasers but got theirs second-hand from another road (B&O?) I’ll keep digging and if readers know, they are encouraged to toss in their two cents’ worth. —Ed.
I’ve happily watched the steady improvement in your publication for several years now.
Your review of K-Line’s new PRR B6 switcher in O scale has again reminded me of a widespread problem in the model railroad industry in our present era where it is presumed that authenticity and attention to detail is paramount. I’m referring to the sound systems supplied in virtually all makes of O scale (and larger) locomotives. If you are a Pennsylvania Railroad fan of the steam area, in most cases you are completely out of luck. The K-Line B6, the same manufacturer’s new Class A5 0-4-0, Lionel’s new K4 Pacific, etcetera all have wholly incorrect whistle and bell effects which PRR steam classes did not exhibit. I am by no means singling out these manufacturers which otherwise turn out products of considerable merit. The lack of sound authenticity with PRR steam models is virtually universal.
I’m an old timer as you can surmise when I tell you that I saw or rode behind most passenger and some freight steam locomotives of the PRR. I had many occasions to listen to as well as observe them. As all PRR fans know, the Pennsy used a melodious and distinctive chime whistle on its passenger power, and on its switching locomotives and most of its freight power a shrill, “hooter” type whistle which many likened to the wail of a banshee. Deep toned whistles were not to be found. Additionally, Pennsy steam locomotive bells did not swing to and fro in their cradles as did the bells on most steam era motive power. Rather, they were tolled, with steamers exhibiting a fast paced staccato sound, the strokes of the bell (actuated by a bell ringing device) being distinctively and closely-spaced together. PRR whistles and bells, like much else about the company which once called itself the “Standard Railroad of the World,” were not like the others.
Another Pennsy feature of yesteryear chronically throws all manufacturers which I can think of into a confused tizzy. It is evident that almost no one, with the exceptions of members of the excellent Pennsylvania Railroad Technical and Historical Society who possess the facts and have published them, has a grasp of how and when the famous pilot beam marker lamps (which appeared on some of the earlier classes of electric locomotives ranging from the L5s to the electric shifter Class B) were used. Your reviewers call these lamps “class lights,” but PRR classification lights were always located near the top of the smokebox on steam power and high up on the hood of electric power, above the headlamp.
The purpose of the lamps in question was to serve as rear end markers if the locomotive was running in reverse at night, or stopped on the main line or in a siding, affording hind end protection. As a rule they were never lit, but remained dark when the engine was moving forward and/or hauling a train, freight or passenger. The application of these lamps began after World War One and following World War II, they were gradually removed from all classes of power. Originally, they displayed just two aspects, yellow to the side and red to the front. Due to changes in motive power policy in the nineteen thirties, the side indications with yellow lenses were abolished and the lamp housings, which were on special pedestals the same as the class lights at the boiler top, had blanks inserted where the yellow lenses formerly were. The red lenses to the front remained until the end. They never displayed green aspects at any time in history, despite the apparent fact that Lionel’s new K4 has made their pilot beam markers all green!
Other manufacturers have gone to another extreme. A couple of years ago the Third Rail folks in California imported an otherwise attractive PRR E6 Atlantic. Of course, as usual, the sound effects were the wrong ones but putting that aside, these folks opted (why, no one knows) to put all red classification lamps atop the boiler ... red to the front and red to the side! Real life PRR officials likely would have become apoplectic over that one. On this model, the pilot beam markers are depicted but are dummies without lamps or lenses. Red “class” lamps, of course, are fine on old tinplate locomotives such as Lionel’s 249E of the thirties or the MTH Standard gauge 392E replica, but we are talking of alleged scale models here.
Improper sound effects are not, of course, limited to PRR prototypes. The recent Third Rail model of the NYC “Mercury” locomotives of the mid thirties (I saw this train after it went into service in 1936 and many times thereafter) is a bit darker than was the light gunmetal finish of the prototypes, but that’s a minor quibble. The night effect with the illuminated drivers are superb. But if you wanted to imagine yourself trackside in rural Ohio once more, the distinctive deep “steamboat” whistles of the two Big Four Class K6 Pacifics streamlined for this train are not there. Instead we have a whistle sound which would be adequate for other NYC locomotives, even the Hudson, but not the original “Mercury” motive power.
I’m sure my comments will provoke some kind of reaction from some, but my experience to date with several manufacturers is not encouraging. It seems that as long as a locomotive has a system which includes exhaust, whistle, bell, etc. that it is felt that the job has been done properly never mind the distinctive characteristics of special motive power of a certain road. And it is not that deep toned whistle effects aren’t made. If you never heard the real thing I suppose a generic sounding whistle or a ding-dong bell style are okay, but it is sad to me that construction fidelity is limited only to the cosmetic side of the locomotive. To its credit, Lionel is equipping a couple of its top of the line steamers with authentic recordings of their recently, or currently, operated prototypes, but the general line of engines is still relying only on generic sounds. Generally, I have found that today’s manufacturers have young staff who know not how the originals sounded and the reaction I got from one major manufacturer is typical. The staff member who answered my suggestion told me that the company president was too busy to read my letter, but that it would be given to the “Research Department.” We may safely assume that meant the well known circular file beneath someone’s desk.
Incidentally, if done on an after market conversion basis, there ARE good PRR steam sounds out there. Only one problem: converting a stable of Pennsy prototypes so they sound as well as they look is an expensive proposition, even if you do all the work yourself, which I cannot. Why not get the sound effects, and lighting effects, as well correct in the first place?
Robert T. Hess
Gore, VA
The last question’s answer, based on lengthy discussions with model makers, is that it would cost just about as much in the first place as an aftermarket upgrade. A company can either record the actual sounds themselves, meaning they have to hire people to do that, or they pay for usage rights on someone else’s recordings, about a break-even one way or the other. In my interview with Athearn’s George Riley, he stated that he could make a nearly perfect model of a locomotive which sells for over a thousand. To build one for less means leaving something out. By using a single generic sound set, the price of the loco drops considerably. Not exactly matching the paint saves a few more dollars. When the dust settles, you’ve got a pretty nice — if not prototypically perfect — model for $199. If you want perfect, you can always buy brass and put in the perfect sound system, but expect to pay a four-figure list price. The cheaper product sells out quickly and folks who never saw or heard the real thing are happy. Model railroading is all about choices and compromises; the fewer compromises, the higher the cost. You have had the fortune to see and hear the real thing and the misfortune to not find it on the model market. You aren’t alone there.—Ed.
Last year sometime, someone (maybe one of the manufacturers) indicated they were considering coming out with a model of the ACF 19,000 gal. welded tank car. This car was used by the MKT, UP, SP, KCS, MP/TP, and many others. I can’t find any more information about the project.
Do you remember seeing anything about the tank car project? As a modeler of the MKT, KCS and UP, in HO, I’m extremely interested in seeing the car brought out. Any help you can give would be appreciated.
Pat Coughlin
Ovilla, TX
I dropped in on Walthers’ web site, www.walthers.com, and ran a search. There are lots of 6,000 to 10,000 gallons and from there it jumps to over 30,000 gallons. Looks like there’s a hole in the market, so I’m going to ask the readers to contact us or you directly if they know of such a product either on the market or due to come out soon. I’m sure you’re not the only one who’s interested.—Ed.
I read your editorial about antiquities in your August issue with interest. You will be interested to know that KTM produced a working HO gauge model of the Trevithick locomotive several years ago. It came in a presentation case with a history of the prototype.
I do not remember seeing an ad for one in a U.S. magazine but did see an ad in a Japanese magazine and asked a friend to send one to me. I actually built a small layout for my locomotive but the motor burned out, and I scrapped the layout. The locomotive is now in many pieces waiting for me to remotor it. There is a photo of my model on page 5 of the January/February 2000 Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette.
Bob Brown
Editor and Publisher
Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette
Thanks for dropping by. I don’t have that particular issue at hand, but I’ll just bet it’s cool! I can’t help but wish that tooling would pass to someone who would put it on the market again. —Ed.
I’m new to model railroading. I have a collection of 1:24 scale cars. I’d like to incorporate a model railroad. What scale or gauge would be closest to 1:24? Perhaps, for us newcomers, you might graphically show the difference between all these confusing scales: N, HO, S, Large, O, Z, et al - maybe line drawings of tracks in relation to each other? This would be a big help to us just starting out!
Chuck Read
via the internet
From time to time, MRN takes a shot at explaining the scales, and we’re about to do it again. To answer your specific question, the closest train scale to 1:24 is 1:24! Several manufacturers produce equipment in H-scale, the letter for 1:24 proposed by the NMRA. You can also try G scale, 1:22.5 and A scale, 1:29. In a Larger View column, I set forth the notion that proximity is as important as scale. If you set two items right next to each other, their scale differences are immediately apparent. Spread them out, and the differences tend to melt. Many buildings and figures in Large Scale are in 1:24, so many modelers end up having that size stuff on their layouts, regardless of the scale of the trains. I have 1:24 buildings and vehicles around the Pine Belt which mostly runs 1:29 A-scale but sees other scales as well.—Ed.
Dr. Rittman:
Just a comment on your latest [Aug] Train-Tech column. The bigger reason the Matterhorn in Disneyland is so famous is that it was the first one to allow multiple train dispatching on a single track. That was a revolutionary move that let more riders enjoy the thrills with shorter lines. I know, I know, it is a small thing, but being a railroad and Disney fan I had to mention it. By the way, keep up the great work!
Andy Inserra
TAMR
Thanks for another thrill ride through the roller coasters!—Ed.
Can the ship model displayed on page 28 (September 2002 issue) REALLY be 1:15 scale? My Aristo heavyweight passenger cars are almost as long as that. I believe it should read 1:115 (Darn! I was looking for just such a ship to put in my pond!)
Dave Smith
Long Island GRS
After speaking with an unnamed source at Märklin, we agreed that this ship is actually more like N-scale, though we are going to look further into the issue. So you could use it in your pond if you have some N-scale docking facilities. Because this is a model of a toy built around World War I or earlier, it may be foreshortened, meaning that its length can’t be counted on for a scale determination. Stay tuned.—Ed.
Just got the September issue and read your opening piece about DCC and your decision to include a monthly article about DCC. I think this is a good move. There are many benefits to DCC.
If you’re looking for good resources on DCC, there is no better resource than Loy’s Toys, (www.loystoys.com; e-mail: loystoys@alltel.net) I bought a system from Loy at the National Train Show a few years ago and I find that his friendly service and especially the information he has assembled to be several steps above the competition. I would highly recommend checking out the information Loy has for any beginner (or expert!) in DCC.
Thanks for a great magazine! I especially enjoy your reviews; nobody does them as thoroughly as MRN. Thanks again.
Tim Stuck
Burnsville, MN
As you can see by the following letters this month, Russ has touched on a very popular subject among model railroaders, as we predicted. Russ is in touch with Loy, and you are right about his web site resource. There is a lot of information to be gleaned there, more than can be read in a single sitting. Between Russ and Loy, I’m hoping to have the information I need to make my own DCC decision soon.—Ed.
Just finished reading the latest issue of Model Railroad News, your column on the subject of DCC was excellent! Welcome Aboard!
I need to find out which DCC units could be used in my steam engines. Since retiring, I don’t have the resources for a “trial and error process.” I have some Franklin Mint locomotives, and my two local hobby shops, although they try, have no knowledge of Franklin Mint’s drive train, and or which systems to recommend. The main problem and of most concern is, I don’t want to practice on expensive locos that run pretty well on DC. Since my only layout was 4 foot by 8 foot, the only power pack I own is a MRC Sound & Power.
I’m sure at this point it’s not adequate to power what I’d need to do with DCC, along with power for constant lighting of accessories, etc. I’ve called the Franklin Mint with questions regarding their source of drive train, but to this date, I’ve received no response. Mantua Co, although very courteous, was not able to recommend any DCC installations. I noticed in your column you seem to favor SoundTraxx; what happened to the other guys? Are they more expensive, or as good? Anything would be of help that would apply to my problems.
The Franklin Mint models I have are: NYC 20th Century Ltd. 4-6-4, Crescent City Ltd 4-6-2, and The Royal Blue (B&O) 4-6-2. I have from Mantua: Weyhauser Articulated (no tender), So. Pacific decopod, and So. Pacific “yard goats.” I also have an Athearn Genesis 2000 series Light Mikado 2-8-2.
I’ve been told a couple of times by my local hobby shop, that they think Mantua Co. made the drive train (electric motors for the Franklin Mint).
I have not, at this point, been able to substantiate their thinking and have had no response from the Franklin Mint. I am very much afraid of my lack of knowledge into and connecting of DCC systems. Again as you described, I have only the basic knowledge of electric power as such. As with you, I would like to get away from “blocks” and be able to run multiple trains on the same tracks, without the electrical nightmares of the past! Any help that you may render would be greatly appreciated, including power supplies required, their use and how to get started in DCC.
Andy Anderson
Medford, OR
The questions you raise certainly reflect the issues other modelers have. Since you are located in my home town of Medford, OR, I chatted with you on the phone. I’m sending an e-mail of this letter to Russ for his comment or inclusion as part of future columns. Just what is involved in converting a Franklin Mint, Mantua, or Athearn Genesis locomotive to DCC? If suppliers or DCC technical people wish to contact you directly, Andy, they are encouraged to do so. Keep an eye on Russ’ column because he intends to get into conversions of these kinds of locomotives. Readers who know the innards of Franklin Mint locomotives can share that knowledge right here, with a thanks in advance from all who have wondered about it.—Ed.
I look forward to reading about DCC in your column. Model Railroad News has a particular approach that I cannot describe but like very much: a different style from the industry-standard magazines. I like the scrupulously equal attention given to all scales of modeling and the clear focus on information of immediate, practical use.
It seems to me that the culmination of DCC will be radio-controlled equipment (more than locomotives) powered by either battery (large scales) or constant track voltage (small scales). When I can run N-scale with a radio throttle communicating with a radio-receiving decoder I will be seriously interested in DCC. This is very close at hand, or may be working now. I’d like to hear more about this. I continue to experience significant glitches in DCC operations at friends’ railroads: losing contact and therefore control of engines due to track dirt or a break in continuity, a single, local fault causing an entire power block to shut down, and the cumbersome logistics of getting a decoder and the system to talk.
DCC needs a lot of work on the user interface. No IT system designer would accept the kind of obscure procedures we tolerate in DCC — humans must be able to learn the interface in five or ten minutes. DCC is very promising and should be wonderful in its maturity. I look forward to your commentary, guidance, and observations.
Gordon Kennedy
Seattle, WA
Thanks for your note. Straight Talk will follow MRN’s model of providing practical information you can use for making decisions on spending your hobby dollar. DCC can be a big ticket item, and you deserve all the help you can get. It’s what we’re about.
You make an interesting point that needs to be understood. DCC will not make up for poor infrastructure. So long as we are dependent on track to deliver power and signal packets, clean track will be a basic requirement. The digital signal is quite robust however, and I think you will be amazed at how tolerant it is in comparison to the older analog systems. If the layout is not divided into power blocks, you’re right; a local short will disable the entire layout. I’ll be discussing a friend’s unique approach using a three-wire scheme that may have potential to provide multiple blocks from a single booster.
Your comment on the interface (throttle) is right on, as far as I’m concerned. We’ll be looking at an exercise you can use to evaluate various brands on equal terms personalized to your needs. What I think you’ll find interesting is that my choice may not be yours, but we’ll both be happy. That’s why there’s more than one manufacturer and more than one design.
While DCC is a work in progress, it has many advantages over the previous Command Control model. The NMRA’s Working Group involvement, which includes most of the manufacturers, goes a long way toward assuring that you can run your trains on any layout relatively trouble free, an impossibility with Command Control systems.
DCC isn’t perfect, but I gotta tell ya, it’s the best I’ve seen in my 50 years in the hobby. Thanks for joining me in the News. —Russ
Enjoyed your first article and look forward to more. I need some expert advice sooner than subsequent articles, and hope you will help. I’ve purchased most of the track, etc., to build Atlas layout HO-35 (Berkshire Valley Route) in their Book #14 HO King-size Plan Book. I had originally planned to wire as shown in the plans with conventional block wiring and multiple power packs. Friends tell me to go DCC instead. If I elect to go DCC, the new Digitrax Zephyr system seems like a good choice. That leaves the following questions:
1. Do I still wire separate blocks as shown in the plans?
2. How do I reverse polarity in the section of track which acts as a reverse section?
3. Would I be better off starting over with a new plan? If so, any suggestions?
I really will appreciate any help you can give. I was a Lionel O gauge model railroader as a youngster, but am just getting started in HO as a retiree, and find two-rail wiring a bit mystifying when DCC is added into the equation.
Bob Shaffer
via the internet
Thanks for your letter and time in reading the column. I don’t have the Atlas plan to look at but my guess by your description is that this is a fairly basic plan with a reverse loop.
One question you will want to ask yourself is: how many operators will be simultaneously running this layout? If you run it yourself, then the only one inconvenienced by a shut-down is you. If you share the layout with other operators, or if it’s a display set up with a continuous loop and a switching area, things are a bit different. If the latter applies, I would break the layout into power blocks that encompass each of the operators or operational areas. One block per operator/area is sufficient. If a short occurs in one area, the other will keep on ticking.
Your reverse loop will require a reversing unit. The instructions will show you how to insulate the reversing section. The nice feature of DCC is that the operation in the loop is instant and automatic. You will not even recognize that an event has taken place unless you monitor the indicator light on the reversing unit.
As far as a plan goes, if you thought this one looked good, stick with it. There have been volumes written on layout design. Most center around the idea that you know what you want your layout to do. Most of us don’t until we gain some running time on a variety of track plans.
Nothing says you can’t abandon this plan part way through and modify it or start over. In the mean time you will have gained experience and improved your skills. My advise, lay the track but don’t ballast it in place until you have run trains for a month or so. The tryout time will point out the operational bugs, and the overall satisfaction of the layout. Scenery has never improved operational satisfaction. Once ballasted, track and switches are pretty much a sunken expense. Everything else can be taken up and used again.
Good luck and thanks for writing. —Russ
e-mail us a letter at: letters@modelrailroadnews.com
or Send them to:
LETTERS c/o Model Railroad News
P.O. Box 1080 • Merlin, OR 97532-1080
Fax: 541-955-0346
