Question About SD35 Locomotives
I have six SD35 locomotives by Atlas Co. They are very good, but I didn’t like the weak headlights, the yellow LED on the PC Board. So I purchased a #447009 PC board with a golden white LED for $10.00, also you can use DCC with it. Now my SD35s are early models. I think now the Atlas models have the golden white LEDs in them because the headlights and number boards are nice and bright.
Can anybody tell me how much horsepower a real SD35 and GP35 has in them?
Ermin Jackson
Saint Marys, MD
I can answer that question, Mr. Jackson. The SD35 was an incremental improvement over the SD28, but was a better seller. In about a year and a half, from June 1964 to January 1966, the SD35 model sold a respectable 360 units plus 35 more passenger version SDP35s. Using EMD’s new turbocharger technology, the model’s 567D3A prime movers produced 2,500 horsepower, the same as their four-axled brethren, the GP35. SD35s are very popular with small layout guys because this locomotive is more compact than the more common SD38 and SD40, which were a bit more than five feet longer. — Ed.
Where’s Zig Zag, Oregon?
Zigzag, Oregon? Try DeLorme’s Oregon Atlas & Gazeteer, page 62, B-1. There it is! On the western slope of Mt. Hood, right on Highway 26 near the intersection of SR 18.
Sorry I missed chatting with you in Philadelphia. I walked through the Train Show area three times but didn’t see your booth, although I did see people carrying MRN’s. The NMRA’s failure to get the train show layout to us in advance never does help either. Of the nine shows I have attended, I thought this one was the poorest of the lot. For me, the temperature and humidity outside didn’t help my attitude either.
C.F. “Chuck” Colville
Moses Lake, WA
Thanks Chuck. I didn’t make it to Philadelphia because I was chasing trains in British Columbia. When you catch ‘em, just don’t bite the wheels! So how’s the trainchasing out around Moses Lake? — Ed.
Questions and Comments
I can’t say enough about Model Railroad News and your knowledge of every aspect of the hobby, including photography. Your product reviews are incredibly informative, providing insight into both railroading in general and model railroading in particular. It is both these topics that I wish to direct some questions and comments to.
First, I own the very B&O Proto 1000 F3s you reviewed in a recent issue. I utilized a different solution to the unrealistic spacing of the A- and B-units. Instead of repositioning the coupler boxes, I settled on the “FT” fix. A company called State Tool & Die sells sets of universal drawbars in different lengths. While they’re not prototypical, they are easy to install, and you could say they would fall under Allen McClelland’s “keep ’em moving” approach to good enough realism. They work just as well as other entry F units like Athearn’s Ready To Roll line.
Second, Do you think the major manufacturers (Broadway Limited, Precision Craft, and Life Like) will ever settle on an engine-tender hook up? It seems each new release employs a different method of attaching the tender to the locomotive. Tender swapping options are all but nonexistent. No PT tender behind a J1 or exchanging a short tender for a coast to coast on a K4 or vice versa on an M1. I was quite surprised to see a traditional drawbar and tender pin on the Precision Craft Y6b. Any insight on what’s going on?
Finally, your review of the Y6b clearly demonstrates your knowledge of this formidable locomotive. It’s easy to understand why you would be a fan. Since many steam locomotive aficionados consider Norfolk and Western’s Roanoke shops the pinnacle of locomotive manufacturing, it’s no surprise the A, J, and Y were held in such regard. Where the major builders and most principle railroads abandoned the compound Mallet for the simple articulated, N&W continued to refine it, culminating in the great Y6. One hundred thousand pounds less than a Big Boy or Allegheny, it could out pull both more economically. If the Y6 was all of this, why was the Norfolk & Western considering a Y7, a 2-8-8-2 simple articulated?
John Bruno
Williston Park, NY
Good question, John. I’ve heard rumors of a Y7 before but have never seen any real confirmation of such plans. I can only say that they also hit a home run with their A-class which was a simple articulated, so perhaps they were thinking of combining the A and the Y.
Tender drawbars are always an interesting issue. Each manufacturer considers design, tooling, price point, and functionality when deciding what to use. To swap tenders, in the old days, one had only to find a drawbar that acted as an adapter. Today, it isn’t just the drawbar, it is also all of the electrical connections. So the answer is, since there is no standard to which everyone subscribes, differences in drawbars and plugs keep tender-swapping sessions from ending with shorted-out decoders and light boards. — Ed.
Fixing In-synch Y6b Drivers
To reviewer John Sipple
I enjoyed your review of Precision Craft Model’s N&W’s Y6b in the July 2006 issue. You mentioned in your review that “both engines had their rods in the same position on each side. I feel this makes the operation much less interesting. I’m sure that during assembly, these could be worked so that they were not in synch and would give the most visual feast to the eye.”
This would drive me crazy, and I would want to make the correction. However, I wouldn’t want to destroy a seven hundred dollar model trying to make the modification. Is this a correction that a novice modeler could make without effecting the operation of the model? Would you make the correction? And, can we expect Precision Craft to make the modification in future releases?
I’ve enjoyed your past reviews and would enjoy your evaluation of my concerns with regards to this model.
Peter Cresci
Lutherville, MD
We are in luck, Peter. I contacted Precision Craft Models and spoke with one of their technicians. He gave me a step-by-step description on how to desynchronize the front and rear engines. 1. Atop the rear sand dome, carefully pick off the cap. Then undo the screw beneath it. 2. As you lift off the top half of the boiler, carefully guide the handrails out of the cab. 3. Remove the three screws that hold down the power board, but don’t disconnect the wires. Just set it to one side. You now have both gear towers exposed. 4. Choose which engine you wish to alter, pick off the worm gear cap of that tower. 5. Lift the worm gear gently while you turn the wheels on that engine to where you would like them to be. 6. Set the worm gear back on and reverse the disassembly process. Jamie, the PCM technician, took a brand new one off the shelf and performed the process in about five minutes while we were on the phone. — John
Somebody’s Watching!
To reviewer John Sipple:
I thought you did a good job generally explaining steam, so that most model railroaders that were not around in the steam era could appreciate how steam worked. However, the comment that zinc chromate, as used on aircraft aluminum, was the finish used in the cab, was more than my 71 years, mostly as a model railroader, could let go without comment. The inside of a locomotive cab was usually lined with wood, and finished with plain old green enamel. I enjoy your magazine very much, but as an old steam lover, I’ll be watching you.
Ed Spanknoble
via the Internet
That’s why we sell subscriptions, Ed. — John
Y6 Classification Lights Gaff
To reviewer John Sipple:
I was just reading your review of this new die-cast steam locomotive, and I agree with you...it’s a fantastic engine! I know, I bought one! However, I have a question for you about the classification lamps. You have stated that the classification lamps were illuminated. At first, I also thought that they were illuminated, but after a close inspection, and unpowering and powering up the engine, making sure that the headlight is on, it appears that they are simply reflective marker jewels. Are you sure that your model’s class lights are illuminated, or could it be that yours has the reflective jewels, also? Still it’s a very nice touch.
Neal Seidenberg
Hallandale Beach, FL
Hey Neal, I got fooled! (According to my wife, it isn’t that hard to do.) They are not powered, but these have to be some of the best lighting jewels I’ve ever seen. I suspect they are prismatic, meaning they gather light from one face and reflect it out the other. — John
To reviewer John Sipple:
I do have to make some comments on the great review of the beautiful new PCM N&W Y-6b. First, the tender class is 22I (eye) and not 221. Second, the markings on the back of the reviewed tender are wrong for #2200. The tenders were numbered 220XXX stating they were 22,000 gallon water capacity tenders. The last three numbers show the number of that particular tender. So, 220175 would have been the 175th class 22I tender. This tender was built for and applied to #2195. The correct number for the #2200 would have been 220180. Third, the 35 tons should read 30 tons as the coal capacity of the tenders. It isn’t the weight of the tender. When the N&W added the coal boards at the tops of the tenders to increase coal capacity they did not change the capacity markings on the back of the tenders.
Even with those minor discrepancies I think the PCM Y-6b is one of the finest steamers ever made. I’m glad they used diecast rather than plastic so the engine not only looks great but will actually pull a believable length train.
Roger Huber
Pasadena, TX
I read in the Letter/RPO Car section Mr. Swenson’s “More on Graffiti” comments with some concern.
First, graffiti to another’s property is a crime, period. It doesn’t make any difference if it’s a train car, wall, or building. That is vandalism and damage to private property. That is a crime.
“Taggers” are usually gang members, wannabe gang members, or work for gangs. They are also vandals which makes them criminals. Clear?
Second, Suing spray paint manufacturers is not the answer. It isn’t their fault the taggers steal these products to commit their crimes. Now they are also thieves —another crime. Just as gun manufacturers aren’t responsible when criminals use weapons produced by them to commit crimes (criminals obtain these weapons by stealing them or getting them illegally BTW), spray paint manufacturers are not responsible either. Who do you propose to sue next? Bullet manufacturers? Companies that produce metal and plastic parts for these weapons? Spray can manufacturers for making spray cans? Steel mills for producing steel? Where does it end? This sort of thinking is ridiculous and part of what is wrong with today’s society.
Say you do sue spray paint manufacturers. You have now created a gap in your own modeling ability. Why? Because through selfishness you have prevented others in this hobby from obtaining the supplies they need to model with. Along with a number of other uses for spray paint. I don’t know about you, but I like to be able to go down and pick up a can of boxcar red or Dullcote as I need it. Not everybody can use an airbrush. I can and have for years. But I still like that option of purchasing a spray can of paint.
Thirdly, I will not be a party to a class action suit that forces me to fill out a form with my personal information on it, to someone I don’t know, who might use it for identity theft or fraud. We’ve already got too many problems with that subject without filling a form out for paint to fuel the fire! That’s plain baloney! Criminals don’t care to fill out forms. You’re not going to catch them with a form. They steal it! This kind of thinking only hinders one’s ability for choice. I don’t know about you, but in this country we live, fight, and defend our right to freedom of choice.
Bill Shanaman
Sugar City, CO
Thank you for including Z scale in your magazine! That is the reason I am subscribing to MRN. You have had several very fine write-ups on Z. It’s a small scale, but we are growing.
Fred Ladd
Severna Park, MD
It was nice to see the Walthers’ milk cars reviewed in MRN. With a little extra detailing, these can be truly accurate models sure to please the rivet counter in all of us! As they come out of the box, they are certainly “layout ready” for most.
For your readers interested in learning how to add milk operations to their layouts, or maybe even wanting to tackle super detailing the latest plastic cars, I invite them to join the Milk Trains list online at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/milktrains
Over the past four years we have gained over 500 members and are always looking for more modelers who are lactose tolerant!
Rob Davis
List Moderator
This UP heavy handedness is precisely why I will no longer buy any new model railroad equipment bearing any evidence of UP.
I grew up in the Pacific Northwest where the UP was a major player in the movement of freight and passengers and watched many a UP train go through our little town. But no more are they a favorite of mine!
Wes Brubacher
Geyserville, CA
On the issue of trademarking and licensing, there appear to be some strategies that can be used to lessen the effects of this changing world.
Decals are cheap. Decals can be licensed, and a separate subsidiary could be founded or spun off any model manufacturer or importer to deal with licensed trademarks, and their product would be decals. Any given manufacturer could set up their License division which would produce these decals legally, and under license while their regular product line would be imported from abroad as required with some products in armor yellow and gray with red striping and no lettering. Or all the non-trademarked lettering including the railroad name and the herald could be printed but with the name itself left off. The end of the box would not have the trademark name, as it is not a licensed item. Once here in the US, and after decaling is done, a stamp or sticker could be placed on the end indicating that it was decorated with licensed decals for that particular roadname. Otherwise, customs could seize the container and retain it if the trademarked name were on the boxes when they are brought into the country.
The manufacturer would have to apply the name and trademark shield using licensed made in USA decals in their warehouse or other facility.
When financial figures are submitted to the licensing railroad, the company books do not have to be involved, as it is only the subsidiary’s records that are required (Those do have to be shown as far as I can tell from the licensing agreement documents I have seen.), but the point is that while it will cost something to have the decals made it will be far less painful to pay several percentage of a $5 for the decal than for a $100 or more locomotive.
Of course there will be the issue of finding a workplace to apply decals, and to have employees doing this work and all of that will cost something, however, that can be done as part of the bookkeeping of the main company as it has nothing to do with producing decals (only with applying them which is not involved in the trademark issue).
One of the sticking points for some manufacturers has been having to show their accounting to the licensing railroad on request, and that may not be necessary. If the subsidiary is set up to handle ONLY the licensed roadname(s) it would appear that model trains could be imported all preprinted with the trademarks but under the subsidiary name, possibly in a different box with the subsidiary company’s logo. In this case again, on request the accounting will have to be shown, but only for the subsidiary that has the licensing agreement and not the whole company. It is hard to say if this would be any easier for manufacturers to swallow, but it might be.
The fact is that if a railroad does not control its trademark in ancillary fields, such as its appearance on model trains — it could lose the ability to do so. As it was explained in this magazine in one of the letters that if the XYZ railroad wanted to open a gift shop and sell a model train painted for their railroad, if they had not taken the precaution of protecting their trademark on model trains, they might be prevented from doing so by someone claiming the trademark when used on models. (If this sounds strange, then I probably have it right.) Heaven knows it shouldn’t be this way, but it appears that may be the way the laws are written.
Vic Roseman
New York, NY
Stewart Johnson of the Carthage Evening Press captured this shot on the Missouri & Northern Arkansas (MNA) in Carthage, MO. Number 9391 is an ex-SP SD45T-2 owned by CEFX, while 4044 may be an ex-UP GP50 from WAMX. There would be no trademark licenses on either of these ladies.
I’ve heard decaling raised and dashed around manufacturing circles. Applying trademarked logos costs so much less at the factory that the process of decaling would consume all of the profits and then some. Ready-to-roll modelers won’t put on their own, so there’s no hope here.
Even the business of pre painting a locomotive in UP colors without letters or logos falls under the general heading of “trade dress” and could be open for a lawsuit. The key would be to model some of the UP locos that have been sold onto the market and have entered patch-paint paradise. Some of them work for years wearing UP or other licensed roads’ colors but with lease company markings applied over the original lettering.
And several manufacturers are declining to catalog licensed products as we speak, so the story rolls on. — Ed
e-mail us at: letters
or send us a letter to:
LETTERS c/o Model Railroad News
P.O. Box 1080 • Merlin, OR 97532-1080
Fax: 541-955-0346