I’ve been a model railroader for many years and although my main interest has been On3, I have to admit to also having an interest in all the other scales and gauges... almost anything that runs on rails. So I have some experience in everything from N scale to live steam.
The features of your magazine that I like are:
• Detailed, informative, and comprehensive product reviews.
• Early and continuing coverage of DCC/Sound.
• Good quality printing and photos.
• You like all scales and gauges of trains.
But the one area that drives me crazy is your reviews of O-scale locomotives and rolling stock. Why do you only review 3-rail O scale? All the other scales you cover run on 2 rails; they are equipped with scale couplers and close to scale wheel flanges. O-scale 3-rail is the big exception.
Over the years, the hobby has always moved in the direction of improved fidelity to the prototype. With more and more O-scale 2-rail products entering the marketplace I would expect many new modelers entering the O-scale market to pick 2-rail, especially if they are coming from the smaller scales where 2-rail is the norm. Long term, I expect more growth in 2-rail than 3-rail.
So, how about giving equal coverage to O-scale 2-rail? You are a model railroad publication, not a toy-train magazine. The 2-rail hobbyists would benefit from your coverage.
Steve Barmash
Rockville, MD
Dave also says he will take on any two-rail products sent to him, but given the preponderance of three-rail modelers, he will tend to request the three-rail version. Also, our review headers generally include the price of the two-rail version. — Ed.
To “S-Curves” Roy Hoffman:
I enjoy reading your column. I am also an owner of a newly established model train store. I agree that the Internet has hurt the retail industry, but to just give up and buy on the internet I do not agree with. It is the hobby shops that help customers when they have a problem or question. It is also the hobby shops that allow our customers to get their supplies in a timely manner. I hope that the idea of not visiting a hobby shop and buying solely from the Internet is not the trend for the future. If so, I guess I should just close my doors and go home. Please consider the consequences of your article when it comes to the “mom and pop” stores. We also support and encourage this hobby.
Gary Stanley, Owner
The Whistle Stop Train Shop
Troy, OH
The point you make about the help and attention you get from a dealer is a good one. Someone that you can communicate with face to face can make a big difference, especially to a new model railroader. A computer cannot compete with that. When I go, I like to examine certain things first hand. I carry an S-scale ruler with me and constantly seek scenery items or structures in other scales that may be suitable to S.
I might ask if you’re an “S Friendly Hobby Shop”? If not and you decide to try stocking S, we stand ready to promote your shop to our fellow S scalers and yes, we’ll put you on our web sites. We list S-Friendly hobby shops on www.s-scaletrains.com/sfriendly. Meanwhile, there’s always hope. I just found a hobby shop close to my home in PA that stocks lots of S. With all the new S products that MRN gets to report, I feel that our future is still tied to the hobby shop and I will continue to endeavor to get us into more of them. Until then, the internet (and UPS) will have to suffice. — Roy
You hit the nail on the head with your MTH hopper review. It is a sharp car as I bought the CNW version. As much as MTH is very well done, there is one area that MTH needs to address if they really want to reach the large-scale market and that is providing undecorated cars. It really doesn’t matter with Bachmann, Aristo, or USA Trains pieces, as you can lift the lettering. MTH uses a paint method that is nearly impossible to remove. A friend of mine worked for MTH and the paint was decided upon so it would be near indestructible. Having just repainted 7 MTH cars, I can attest to the paint being the hardest in the industry to remove with LGB being 2nd. I had to wet sand all the lettering off, but the polycarbonate bodies are tough, so wet sanding with a medium block will remove the lettering without harming the details.
Even though I model the Union RR (Pittsburgh’s U.S. Steel switching railroad), I have no plans to remove the lettering from my CNW hopper, even though it doesn’t fit in the era I am modeling (1976).
I have suggested to Mike Wolf that providing the locomotives in an unlettered state will allow far more sales, especially for those folks who want the engine lettered for their private railroad. I understand that they will bring one engine out next year unlettered, probably as a test.
Jeffrey Damerst
Shawmut Car Shops
To reviewer John Sipple:
I wish to respectfully dissent from your almost exclusively glowing review of Broadway Limited’s HO rendition of the Norfolk & Western class J steam locomotive in the August, 2005 issue of Model Railroad News. Partly based on your review, I just purchased #612 (BLI stock #77). I have 3 significant “issues” with this model:
1. The whistle sound is pathetic, anemic (even at full volume), and not even close to the actual whistle of the real thing. BLI and Quantum inexcusably dropped the ball on this feature.
2. The locomotive inexplicably lacks the characteristic bulge in the walkway and skirting over the fourth driver on both sides. Even Bachmann’s HO Spectrum rendition of the J got this right.
3. The marker lights are grossly oversized, toyish, inaccurate (especially the tacky, square mounting base), and unlit, as well as without jewels. No J ever wore such garish markers. Another inexcusable faux pas by BLI.
I do not wish to come across as an ingrate or nit-picker. The above deficiencies are inexcusable in a model which retails for $380.00, especially given the number of prior renditions of the J and the current availability of the real thing (#611) for reference. On the positive side, I agree that the model does pull very well without traction tires and runs smoothly (at least so far), and the paint job is the best of any mass-produced J thus far.
The J is my fourth BLI model, and one that I greatly anticipated, but one with which I am extremely disappointed. I sincerely hope that the J is not representative of ‘things to come’ from BLI.
S. D. Campbell
Pulaski, VA
Sound is another issue entirely. We have repeatedly disclaimed the sound issue since most of us have never heard an actual J-Class or any of the other steam locomotives currently being modeled. Many of the recordings available are seriously flawed such that they cannot serve as a sample. Other recordings are copyrighted such that a decoder maker can not gain access for a reasonable fee. Finally, the actual whistle on a J-class is physically larger than the entire locomotive model, so of course the model’s sound will be anemic and pathetic by comparison.
Every model has its strengths and weaknesses. As it happens, I stand by my treatment of BLI; they made a nice model that operates very well. It is not MRN’s intent to tell our readers what they should or shouldn’t buy. Our mission statement is to, through lots of photos and text, give our readers enough information about a given product that they can be better equipped to make an informed purchasing decision. If the reader still has doubts, we encourage them to support their local hobby shop and ask if their dealer will allow them a test drive so they can see and hear it in person before buying. — John
I have two questions for you or any of your readers.
1. Did anyone make an HO model of the B&O Royal Blue Steam engine other than a brass model?
2. Did someone buy the molds to Selley metal casting of steam engine parts and are these parts still available to be bought?
I have been collecting HO-gauge model railroad items for over 50 years, have built several layouts, and am still trying to finish one now. I am one of those people that love trains.
David M. Reed
Danville, KY
Let me stick a couple of comments into the mail slot of your RPO Car, relating to Vol. 11 Issue 9.
1. In your comments about meters in the review of the Kato Power Pack for Unitrack, you wrote “The amperage is inversely proportional to the sag” when referring to the fact that a locomotive caused the no-load track voltage to drop from 14.2 volts to 12.3 volts when the unit was on the track. Beyond confusing voltage, current, and what is meant by sag, the statement only addresses part of the cause of voltage drop under load. Let me suggest a more accurate way to describe the problem. The amount of voltage “sag” under loaded conditions is proportional both to the current in the circuit and the internal resistance of the power pack. Older HO locomotives naturally draw more current than N-scale and newer HO units and therefore produce more of a track voltage drop (sag). The voltage-regulating ability of any power supply is better if the supply’s internal resistance is lower, but this quantity is not a constant for supplies with electronic voltage regulation. However, it and wiring resistance are responsible for decreases in track voltage under load, from whatever locomotive or train.
2. In your comments about The Alternative in LED Illumination in Thinking of DCC, you omitted the voltage drop across the forward-biased LED in your calculation of the value of the limiting resistor. While this quantity is small, it should not be ignored, since doing so will lead to an incorrect value of the limiting resistor R. The voltage drop across the illuminated diode will depend on type, and slightly on current, since the LED is a non-ohmic device. For example, the LED in your example might introduce a voltage drop of 2.0 volts when carrying 0.020 amps. Thus, the voltage across the resistor is 15.5 - 2.0 = 13.5 volts, which leads to a resistor value of 13.5/.020 or 675 and not 775 ohms.
I suspect that I’m not the only one of your readers to suggest these clarifications, and I trust that you will take these comments in good spirit, from one teacher to another. Keep up the great work on MRN, which is filling an important place in modeling publications.
Dennis C. Henry, Owner and General Manager
Brass Car Sides
I can’t believe the long write ups in two places of LED lighting instead of Lamps. I know why they are pushing them (cheaper overall and less “fuss” for lighting especially with any fixed power available plus a higher margin of profit or shall we say return on each item sold — but we shouldn’t go there). A few points on that subject:
1. LEDs are a point source of light, while they offer up to 60 degree’s of light spread, most white LEDs are only 22 to 33 degrees. Good for headlights if that’s what you like but not very practical for car lighting.
2. LEDs do not offer proper lighting. Even the “golden” type LEDs, while better than the “white” type of LEDs, are still not the correct color rendition for the yellow tint that lamps yield.
3. Lamps do yield the proper color rendition for older engine headlights and car lighting.
4. Lamps offer an enormous viewing angle not obtainable from LEDs.
The only way to get a wide viewing angle for car illumination is to reflect the LED, and you would have to use more than one, off of something to fill the area inside the car. While window diffusers are used for lamps, more than that would be required for LEDs. Plus, the color rendition would not be correct.
One fact that all ignore or don’t really know is that “white” LEDs are doped blue LEDs as far to the center of the light spectrum (which is the white area) but since they don’t have any Red color, it is impossible for them to obtain the center “white” region. The “golden” LEDs are cased in a yellow diffuser, creating a closer “white” color rendition. Which if that’s what you like, then so be it. But to ponder that lamps are inadequate is a big misconception.
Most modelers don’t know how to calculate anything out, even when you tell them like was done in the article. I know from being in this business for over 30 years. Some actually believe you only need to impress the rated voltage across an LED and it will light accordingly, not realizing that they are prematurely or instantly burning them out. We’ve had customers who we impressed upon the need for limiting resistors, but they still put a battery voltage across them and when they burned them out wanted their money back! Anyway, that’s off the subject.
Those who wish to stay with lamps that look more appropriate to the prototype, especially in car lighting, need not calculate and place all of the resistors necessary for car lighting (plus that doesn’t get the job done that well). We make a regulated lighting strip and adjustable regulated power module. Both can take any type of track power and provide a regulated output for just this purpose. They are easy to install and work without any “dropping resistors” for LEDs or light bulbs. We have many customers operating these on DCC since they like how nicely they operate and regulate the lighting. Plus you can easily adjust the lighting for different types of cars.
You knew I was going to plug one of our products, but we also offer the LEDs as well. I just had to put my two cents in on the statement of LEDs replacing lamps as being the only way to go as being totally wrong. It’s the preference as to what someone wants something to look like and LEDs do not yield the prototypical look. Plus, even though you can try to reduce the intensity of a white LED by changing its current level, that doesn’t really work. You would have to either place fewer LEDs in a passenger car/caboose or build a pulse width modulated power source to reduce or control the intensity in each car. Requiring far more than a dropping resistor and bridge rectifier.
The other item that needs to be stressed is that LEDs are operated by current control, not voltage. The voltage specified across the LED is that which is generated from the flow of current. Lamps on the other hand are primarily voltage devices. The amount of current that flows in them is created by the voltage placed across them and is not the main specification on them. This is why most get very confused when connecting LEDs, they try to use them like lamps and they are the opposite. Current instead of voltage is the main driving specification that needs to be controlled or calculated from to protect them. Let me try to put it another way, when using lamps, the voltage applied is the critical factor. When using LEDs, the current flowing in them is the critical factor.
Dallas Gutacker
DALLEE Electronics, Inc.
Leola, PA
About the Steamscenes Calendars Review
I very much appreciated your online review of these calendars, especially the portion regarding UP’s litigation against the company. Frankly, I’m not a fan of the UP licensing program, and this just reinforces my opinion regarding it. I believe I’ll buy both calendars!
By the way, I’ve e-mailed various departments of UP several times about my views on the licensing program and have never received a reply.
Howard Munson
mjmham@verizon.net
I too am appalled at the arrogance of UP in attacking the model railroad hobby and now publication of personal photographs in calendars. I wrote to the chairman of Union Pacific Corp. to express my concerns over their misguided policy, but received a BS response from their PR (propaganda) Dept. I have been a Steamscenes customer for several years, and just received my 2006 calendar.
I suggest all who wish to fight UP should purchase one share of Union Pacific Corp. stock and attend the next stockholders meeting in the spring. As a stockholder, you have a right to speak at the meeting. A big turnout of angry stockholders may get their attention. A second suggestion, if we have an attorney (who is a stockholder) willing to draft a proposal for submission at the annual meeting for a vote by the shareholders. This proposal would direct UP management to cease and desist from threats and litigation aimed at making modelers pay tribute to UP unless there are specific cases where the UP, or its predecessors, name or logo is demeaned or otherwise presented in a damaging way. I will gladly cosponsor such a proposal.
Art Giardino
Isle of Palms, SC
At the bottom of it, a corporation isn’t like a democracy. You vote the number of shares you have. If our industry was able to vote twenty thousand shares, we’d be drowned out by the millions of other shares being voted out there. Our hope rests with the courts, which are the mills of justice, grinding slow but exceedingly fine. — Ed.
I believe that the MTH claims and threats of litigation relating to who invented “back EMF” and motor speed control are far more ridiculous and have impacted my part of the hobby far more than the UP licensing issues. I have included a sample of just one of the effects of MTH’s bullying from the Broadway Limited site.
“These functions have been eliminated because of threats of litigation by Mike’s Train House (MTH). QSI believes the claim by Mike’s Train House is unfounded because these control features were developed by QSI and others and were in use long before Mike’s Train House claims to have ‘invented’ them. Broadway Limited Imports, LLC and QSI do not believe that the Quantum Sound™ system infringes any MTH patent. We apologize for any inconvenience and trust that you can look forward to years of uninterrupted enjoyment of your model.”
On the other hand, you have allowed your letters column to become a sounding board for the many who feel that the Union Pacific Railroad is a corporate thug by enforcing their product licensing requirements. But nary a mention of Mike’s attempts to patent ideas long in the public domain, and his threats, real or imagined, that have resulted in the eliminated of features that would enhance our modeling pleasure.
But wait. I see that you accept full page advertising from MTH (that corporate rascal) every month. Dare I suggest that the Union Pacific should advertise their corporate calendar in MRN next year? Would the “Bad UP” letters disappear?
Bill Metzger
Forest Grove, OR
There is real, tangible news breaking around the UP issue almost daily as UP commits each additional atrocity. If UP sues MTH, I’ll cover it, and I’ll be there if MTH sues UP. By the way, Nils Huxtable has filed countersuit against UP, so that is news.
The last I heard of the MTH vs QSI and BLI fracas is that MTH lost the core of their suit, meaning neither QSI or BLI have, to date, violated the MTH patents. However, those patents have yet to be declared null and void, so the soap opera continues. — Ed.
Wow, I noticed more letters in MRN from upset model railroaders about the UP litigation and their bullying tactics. It seems there are more than a few of us upset with UP. My belief is that anything that hurts our model manufacturers and suppliers, hurts our hobby, and thus hurts all of us.
As a recovering former “Corporate Lawyer” I understand how these guys think and what motivates them. I will send a letter on my legal stationary to the NMRA President asking if the NMRA has any interest in taking up the “cause” and in confronting UP.
While one or two of our voices may not have much of an impact, perhaps the NMRA with its wide membership which includes lawyers and more importantly, UP shareholders, may get serious attention.
Francis J. Tepedino, Esq.
San Diego, CA
Let me say first that I have subscribed to MRN for several years now and enjoy it a lot.
Over the last year (or more) there has been a lot said and written about litigation by the Union Pacific (am I required to pay them to use their name in this e-mail?). There seems to be quite a few of us model railroaders who are fed up with their antics. I have been repainting my models so that I don’t see any more UP on my roster. I, along with others, will not buy any more UP rolling stock.
Enough of that. I am not now, nor have ever been a journalist, and I won’t tell you how to write and publish — you guys are the experts at that and do a fine job too. But ... I just got my September issue and note that the four loco reviews all feature the UP herald! For my two cents worth, how about publishing photos of undecorated models for your reviews?
Jim Johnson
Scottsdale, AZ
Meanwhile, most of the manufacturers prefer to have us review a painted and decorated version because they are proud of the work they do and want to share it. We try to get samples of locos from all over the country, but some suppliers just send whatever they have available. We also have a writer or two that actually collects UP, so you’ll still see the occasional UP product into the future. We’ll try not to let four of them get into the same issue again.
So in honor of the moment, and in the spirit of David Letterman, I offer the top ten one-liners for why we ran four UP loco reviews:
10. The “Vampire Pacific” decals are still at the print shop.
9. Look closely; they all say “Onion Specific.”
8. There’s a conspiracy theory going around about this.
7. As compensation, next month we’ll have four reviews featuring Penn Central.
6. Hey, all of them were licensed.
5. Like roaches, they multiplied in the dark under the refrigerator.
4. Yeah, but we only put one on the cover.
3. These were the only samples they had left.
2. At least none of them were calendars.
And the top one-liner?
1. If you stop buying them, they’ll stop making them, and we’ll stop reviewing them! — Ed.
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
