Bachmann Smoke Units

I was just reading your fine magazine for September 2007. On pages 47 to 52 you reviewed the Bachmann new Northerns with DCC. The review was fine, but you do not mention in “How they’re different” the fact that the new units do not have smoke like the old units! Your review does not explain why the smoke units were left out!

You seem to downplay smoke in HO engines which is of huge interest to a large number of operators. Many modelers are scooping up the old units with smoke and MTH has has become a huge success with their K-4 (with sync smoke).

As a fan of your magazine, I would like to know if you have any future plans to address this problem of smoke in new HO units.

Thank you,

Bob de Vries
Floral Park, NY

Thanks for your interest, Bob. Actually, only a limited number of the past Bachmann production had smoke units. I’ve had a number of them from various periods that have not had smoke. In the short time between receiving your letter and submitting this column, I haven’t been able to determine the period in which smokers were offered or the circumstances.

In general, smokers are more common in larger scales, in part because the amperage overhead of a smoke unit becomes smaller against the overall draw of the loco. It isn’t at all unusual for a smoke unit to draw a quarter to a third of an amp which is not much in a G- or O-scale loco but could be a deal-breaker in an HO model. This kind of overhead is hard to factor into DCC operations.

Also, anything that gets hot enough to vaporize oil or wax can also burn fingers or melt plastic. While some people do, indeed, prefer the smoke effect on an HO layout, many others have wives and housemates who can’t abide the practice, given that HO is almost exclusively an indoor operation. Add that to liability concerns by model railroad manufacturers and you have a strong basis for declining interest in smoke generators in HO scale.

I can’t say this is the reason Bachmann left the smoke units out of their models, however. While the MTH K-4s were indeed popular, I also cannot logically conclude that the presence of smoke units is more than a token part of that popularity given the list of other features the model possesses. Precision Craft Models and others have offered the potential of adding smoke unit upgrades to some of their models. Comments from modelers who’ve tried them have been mixed. All things taken ’round, I don’t expect a great resurgence of smoke in HO models in the near future. — John

Some Corrections for Bachmann “Golden States” Northerns

Congratulations on the new size and layout of MRN. I like it!

A quick note regarding the review of Bachmann’s new Northerns and the SP 4446. I believe you inadvertently used figures for driver specifications that are actually the specifications for a GS-2 that had smaller 73-inch driver diameters.

There were 30 GS-4s built and they had 73-inch diameter wheel center castings and the tire application created an 80-inch driver. They were spaced 7-feet 0-inches except for between the No. 1 and No. 2 drivers that had a space of 7-feet 6-inches to allow for the lateral driving box on the No. 1 driver.

GS-5 No. 4459 was equipped with SKF Industries non-adjustable Spherical Roller Bearings. The other GS-5, No. 4448 had Timken tapered roller bearings. These were the only new locomotives purchased by the SP with roller bearings. (The SP leased 10 Northerns from its subsidiary St. Louis Southwestern Railway, the “Cotton Belt,” in 1952 and one more in 1956. These were classified GS-7 and GS-8 and they all had roller bearings.)

Neither GS-5 was ever painted black with skirts. In fact, they were among the last 12 GSs to remain in Daylight colors, and they all immediately lost their skirting and were painted black when Coast Line steam passenger operations for the “Coast Daylight” and “Starlight” ended on January 7, 1955. Unfortunately, the Bachmann model has trailer and tender trucks with friction bearing journal box covers that are totally incorrect. A number does not make a correct GS-5!

I realize manufactures’ desire to have a “different look” to market a given product and use the same castings, etc. It is too bad they do not take just a little time to check the prototype. On a positive note, the 4431 wore black with skirting for a time during WW II. A little decal work, including “Southern Pacific Lines” on the tender and the correct number could make a correct and nice looking GS-4.

I must tell you that your MRN magazine is at the top of my list for publications I look forward to each month. Thank you for your efforts for the hobby.

Bob Church
Wilton, CA

Thanks, Bob. I actually used your book, SP Daylight Locomotives (Dr. Robert Church, Signature Press), but then used the wrong page, just as you suspected! Your suggestion for renumbering and lettering for 4431 just might foster quite a flurry of that sort of activity. I deeply appreciate you taking the time to set the record straight and share your expertise with us. Southern Pacific was a large and complex railroad, and it takes a great deal of time and study to get it right when making models. We are fortunate that you and several other researchers and authors have published so many authoritative books to help us. — John

Empire Builder Comments

The new look of Model Railroad News is wonderful. The smaller size makes the magazine easier to handle.

The review of the Walthers’ Empire Builder deserves a couple of comments. The “Pass” series Pullman has been made by Walthers. Kit number 932-9036 sure looks like the 6-5-2 Pullman to me.

The coupler problem is the best reason to junk the Maybe-Mate couplers. As I’ve stated in letters before, there is only one coupler to use, Kadee. The couplers were changed on my Empire Builder cars before ever running them.

Walthers should have produced the “Glacier” series Pullman, Dinette/Dorm, 1100 series RPO and “Mountain” series Observation-Lounge cars. With those four cars a 1951 Empire Builder could have been modeled. Hopefully, Walthers will include the “Creek” Pullman Sky-Top Observation and some Pullmans in their Milwaukee Road Hiawatha cars.

Cliff W. West
Rainier, OR

Thanks for the feedback, Cliff. I didn’t dig into Walthers’ past production when considering what else might be available since I wasn’t sure what was still in stock. Also, while some of it was marked for “Great Northern,” I’m not sure any of it was marked for Empire Builder. As to what they should have produced, I’m not going there! I am certain that we will be reviewing their Hiawatha series. Hopefully, we’ll be publishing the first installment of that by the first of the year! — John

More Empire Builder Reports

I want to comment on the new size of Model Railroad News. Contrary to some beliefs, size is not important. The quality of the contents is what it’s all about. There’s no doubt that Model Railroad News is quality all the way. I’m looking forward to [Art Director] Warren Tryk’s future refinements. I enjoy every issue.

Also, I’d like to agree with Hal Greenlee’s RPO (Sept. 07) about couplers. John, I agree, to some degree with you that “installing to one’s standards” is definitely a part of modeling. I’ve followed the practice for years to reduce operating problems and model the NYC “Great Steel Fleet” for my pleasure. Unreliable couplers are an irritant that do not have to be included with a forty-five dollar passenger car or a three figure locomotive. Modeling the NYC is the passenger business. Walthers offers fine passenger cars, but their couplers “stink.” The most upsetting issues in operating a model railroad is derailments and coupler failure. Derailments can be eliminated with good trackwork and wheel gauging, but buying coupler failure is not pleasing.

Out of frustration, I’ve replaced cheap-made knuckles with the old horn hook couplers between cars and Kadee couplers at head end and tail locations. This allows reliable coupling between cars. Since my passenger trains are staged between runs, uncoupling is not an issue. Close coupling and diaphragms cover the appearance. Coupling to switchers and road engines are Kadee.

The real “experts” would laugh at me and go to the expense of changing the entire fleet to Kadee. I’ll just use the “freebies” that come in the box.

Richard Myers
Friendsville, TN

As we say over and over around here, Richard, it’s your railroad. You get to decide how it’s run. I would gently remind you that Kadee offers bulk packs at considerable discounts plus a variety of tools to use with their couplers in order to get your couplers in line and keep them that way. But at the end of the day, it is always your decision! — John

Wants to Build His Own DCC

I am new at model railroading having just retired; I have been given several coaches and some locos in HO scale, some of which have decoders installed. The system appears to be based around the Zero One and included a series two controller, which appears to be unserviceable.

I have built a PWM controller (Pulse Width Modulation) from sketches given me by an electronic technician, it works very well and includes a buffer, which allows me to change the running lights before the train moves. It took me some time to build a bread board circuit. When I got brave — or is that stupid enough — to power it up it worked, instead of disappearing in a puff of smoke, I understand the industry term is “the smoke stayed in.”

Unfortunately for me, [the technician] has retired and is having a good time in his Winnebago gallivanting around Australia, and I cannot locate him. What I require is a circuit diagram for a DCC controller and the decoders as I would like to build a unit for myself; nothing too fancy, two or three locos — no inertia or points control.

Is a circuit diagram available for same?

Robert Fenwick
Down Under in Australia

Hello, Mr. Fenwick, what you’ve asked is rather astounding, so stay with me while I break it down. The concept of DCC uses a very complex waveform imbedded in an AC signal that is sent through the tracks and is picked up by the decoder in the locomotive. The sending unit is a Command Station, and it is basically a specialized industrial computer. The decoder in the locomotive is also a small industrial computer, so the track becomes a computer network.

When Bernt Lenz developed the idea and made it available in 1990, he offered it as an open technology, but to actually build devices to use that technology requires special robots that are capable of picking tiny parts and doing surface mount electronics assembly. I don’t believe it is possible to build command stations and decoders from circuits or individual plans by hand. In any event, while the technology is open, the actual plans are closely kept corporate secrets.

Besides, building your own DCC devices is roughly analogous to building your own automobile. Why do that? Simply go down and buy one and save thousands of dollars and more hours of work than you have left in your life. I want to play with trains, not spend the rest of my days with my head bent over my workbench trying to create something I can purchase for $150. Go easy on yourself, sir. — John

Suggestion for Name Change

I would like to congratulate you on one of the best monthly model railroad magazines I’ve read in a very long time.

I’m a lifelong (now in my fifties) model railroader. Model Railroader was my magazine of choice, with Railroad Model Craftsman never really making it. But I got tired of Model Railroader. A lot of the same old, same old. And their tone — somehow always condescending — put me off.

Your magazine is a breath of fresh air.

I’m glad it’s scaled down — the new size is much more reader friendly. And your product reviews are top notch, but don’t forget drawbar pull.

Though I no longer purchase or subscribe to Model Railroader, I still log on to their web site, but only for the new products and product reviews. In this I may not be alone ... and, with that said, I wonder if it would be to your magazine’s benefit to be titled, Model Railroad News and Product Reviews. Because your reviews, along with The Prototype part, are simply the best.

Jerry Carroll
New York City, NY

Thanks so much for the kind words, Jerry. Each of the magazines in our hobby has its own “beat” and covers it well. Model Railroader is the place to go to see layouts, Railroad Model Craftsman has great articles on how-to projects, and I think Model Railroad News does the best job on news and reviews because that is our focus. After twelve years operating under our banner, it may be a bit late to add more words to our name, and really our reviews are news, so it all fits together just nicely.

Meanwhile, our “By-The-Numbers” always has a locomotive pull testing report which gives the weight of the locomotive (not including the tender unless it is powered), the pull of the locomotive on the drawbar, and the percentage efficiency which is calculated by dividing the drawbar pull by the weight of the locomotive. We actually enjoy the research that goes into the Prototype section and sharing with you what we learn about the origin of a particular piece of railroad history. Stay with us because I think our best is yet to come! — John

Atlas N U23 Review Comments

Well it looks [like] it has finally paid off! Your new magazine is a step above the rest of your competition! Well done! Though the transitional one was a bit strange looking from the outside! Now more pages and it seems more reviews too!

On that note, the U23Bs (Sept. 07)  released from Good Ole Atlas describes this locomotive down to the wire. Though some of the missed issues on this locomotive are some of the painted hand railings; from observing some of my friends’ versions it seems they have too thick of paint, making them larger than scale. On my three Mo-Pac versions, they seem to be within scale. The air horn to both of us was the biggest dismay; compared to my other Atlas locos these look fake where the older B23-7’s and even the older GP38’s air horns are to scale and appear normal. Besides that, Atlas triumphed on adding a third roadnumber to the line up! Though the third one isn’t offered in DCC. But that was an easy change out too! What I would like to see next from Atlas is a retool of the Trainman series O-scale GP15s to N scale! (With the Missouri Pacific and possible the NPBL in mind for future production.)

Clayton Tanner
Norfolk, VA

Hi Clayton. Handrailings on locomotives tend to be 3/4 inch in diameter, and in N, that scales to less than five thousandths of an inch! Most N-scale handrails are not to-scale and won’t be unless we can train spiders to spin them. The engineering plastic used to make most of them doesn’t hold paint very well, so most of them aren’t painted, either, being molded to color, instead. The photos certainly reveal the out-of-scale thickness that is so common in N-scale handrails, so that issue was most certainly covered.

I’d hate to see lost in all of this that Atlas produces very smooth-running and reliable model locomotives that are excellently decorated. We like Atlas products and would like to see and review an N-scale GP15 if they should ever bring it to market. — John