About AMB’s New Tugboat

Regarding subject letter in the July issue from Mr. Herb Kern of Mobile (which was mistitled because AMB produces barges but unfortunately not a tugboat — at least not yet), Mr. Kern’s reminiscences of the NYC tugboat No.16 needs to be updated. While her hull and superstructure were on display for many years (I never saw her in person but saw photos), regrettably, NYC No. 16, stuffed and mounted as she was at the roundabout at Buzzard’s Bay, MA, was unceremoniously cut up “in situ” late last summer. There are different sides to the story, but news reports indicate that a preservation group was on the verge of finalizing complicated steps to move her to a new site when the property’s new owners reneged on an oral understanding and demolished her a week before an agreed-upon deadline. (I have ceased doing business with a certain drugstore chain involved in this transaction!) Some of her pieces have been preserved at Rondout (Kingston), New York. More of the story has been reported elsewhere (e.g. Sea History magazine and Steamboat Bill, Spring 2007 issue — journal of the Steamship Historical Society of America — with a nice color photo of NYC No.16 on the cover).

The fact is that nobody has ever produced a prototypical scale railroad steam tug kit in HO. The Lionel tug (actually about S scale) is very similar to NYC No. 16, and I have encouraged several of the manufacturers of marine models to do a proper HO kit because she is relatively small (scale size rail-marine craft tend to intimidate modelers) as railroad steam tugs go and is very well known. Keep your fingers crossed.

Meanwhile, while the new postal rate structure is an absolute disaster for many of us, at least it has a beneficial impact on the move to “normal” magazine size for your publication. Many of your readers — myself included — and hobby shop dealers will welcome this, I’m sure.

John Teichmoeller, Coordinator
Rail-Marine Information Group
Ellicott City, MD

Thanks, John, always like to get the real skinny on everything in our magazine. And before anyone writes to correct it, the roundabout you mentioned would be called a “rotary” in Massachusetts. As to the changes resulting from the USPS, we’ll be looking for the good with the bad. — John

Electrical Terminology Problems

To writer John Sipple,

I know you know better, so I hope there’s some anonymous “they” that these can be blamed on.

In the August issue, page 52, the article on BTN testing, the section entitled “Measuring Electrical Power:” the first paragraph reads as follows:

“Ohm’s Law states that Electromotive Force (Volts) equal Inductance (Amperage) times Resistance or V=AR. For us, there are two measurements of electrical power: Volts and Amps.”

Strictly speaking, Ohm’s law states that the current flow between two points in a circuit is directly proportional to the voltage potential between the two points and inversely proportional to the resistance between them. However, I’ll grant you that we most often see it stated as “V=IR.” I have no problem with calling the voltage potential “Electromotive Force”; it isn’t the term I’d have used but it’s ok, certainly.

In any case, current flow, measured in amps (I also have no issue with “Amperage”), is most certainly not “Inductance!” You know what “inductance” is, I’m quite sure, and it isn’t current flow.

Neither Volts nor Amps are measurements of electrical “power.” We all owe it to those not as technically trained to use the proper terminology. Electrical power is measured in watts, the product of volts times amps in a simple DC circuit like you’re discussing. (We’ll leave “horsepower” for a different discussion.)

I hope you don’t consider this “nit picking.” I’m a bear on proper use of terminology, both for the reason I stated above and perhaps even more fundamentally because there’s really no reason not to use the proper terms.

You do usually get “its” and “it’s” correct, unlike some who shall remain nameless....

David R. Phelps
Moneta, VA

No “theys,” Dave, just me. I’m so old I was taught that Ohm’s law was E=IR, and that old stuff confused my new stuff. As a writer, I have to remind myself to keep it simple, and I broke that rule. I should have kept it to simply Volts, Amps, and Ohms. In By The Numbers, we really only look at Volts for determining how many it takes to get a locomotive going and how many we give at a top speed and at mid-range. Amps are used to help us understand how much a locomotive draws under a specific set of circumstances, such as at full slip. This is exactly the same as the continuous amps of a DCC decoder and the loco should draw less than the decoder’s continuous rating.

As to “its” and “it’s,” the rule of apostrophes is that they are used for contractions and possessives, with contractions taking precedence. For “it” the contraction for “it is” takes precedence and so “it’s” is always “it is” and “its” is the possessive. It’s just that simple. — John

Riding Up Big Box Pass

To reviewer John Sipple:

I very much enjoyed your review of Scarlet And Gray Memories and will order a copy. In the review, you refer to Cajon Pass as ‘El Cajon Pass” and this is incorrect. Cajon Pass is one of the “Holy of Holies” for SP and SF fans while El Cajon is a small city just outside San Diego, CA. where I lived for 40 years prior to moving here to Prescott, AZ.

Jim Hanna
Prescott, AZ

Mi culpa, Jim. I know better and I just did it! I got a couple of letters besides this one. “Cajon” means a big box in Spanish, which is apparently where I stuck my foot. — John

Comparing DCC Systems

To Thinking of DCC’s Phil Scandura:

One item that I felt was missing in your July article on comparing DCC systems is the throttle form factor. Throttle design, features, and layouts are quite different among manufacturers, and you may find that one style or design better fits your needs than another, which makes trying out various systems, either at shops or at active layouts, more critical in the selection process. I would try any throttle (both basic and advanced from any manufacturer) with a through train, a way freight, and in yard switching. You should also see how you change the address setting from one loco to the next for each. These tests will often guide your system selection since one manufacturer’s throttle type is likely to fit better with your operating preferences and train handling.

For myself, one key criteria is easy and comfortable one-hand operation of speed and direction when switching, either in a yard or with a way freight. I also want a positive indication of the cab selected and running (often on an LCD screen) and the speed selected (pot setting or screen). Final requirement is direct selection of functions via a button push, especially if you are operating sound-equipped engines.

Once you have confirmed your optimal throttle choice (or choices), you then can make sure that the system has all the other features you will need to fit your layout and the number of your operating positions and locomotives/trains. Next is the fun of purchasing all the components you need and installing/wiring the chosen system.

Roger Thomas
West Windsor, NJ

Thanks very much Roger; I couldn’t have said it better! — Phil

Empire Builder Coupler Woes

To reviewer John Sipple:

Generally, I think you guys are doing a great job with MRN, and I especially like your photography.

I just purchased a set of Walthers Great Northern cars, and am pleased with them in most respects. However, I take issue with one statement in the review: “wheels and couplers are top notch...”

The wheels are okay, but the couplers are inferior grade plastic made by Bachmann or McHenry. This is my third Walthers passenger set, and I found the same things in each case:

1. About half the cars would not couple to each other on a perfectly straight track. The culprits here are the plastic centering springs, which are not accurate enough for the purpose. These springs also take a set if cars are left on a curve.

2. The heights of the coupler heads vary from car to car, mostly somewhat low. But my GN dome car couplers were so much higher than the others that it could not hang on to them with even the smallest change in track grade.

Also, in general:

3. Plastic couplers are easily damaged by collisions, which can crumple the heads into the jaws.

4. Their “brake hose” wires are not well anchored, and once twisted, will remain loose.

Problems 1, 3, and 4 are easily solved by changing couplers to Kadee number 5s or other metal Kadee type. Problem 2 is a quality control issue. The method of passing lighting current through the trucks would make it difficult to do any shimming or filing at the bolster, and the draft box spacing to the car body would also be difficult to change. I had to put underset-head couplers on the dome car.

Couplers have always been weak points on passenger cars because the distance from bolster to head is about double that on freight cars. This makes some method of swinging the draft box necessary for small radius curves, and makes vertical alignment more critical to prevent decoupling at grade changes or bumps. Truck-mount does not work well. Bachmann Spectrum’s lever system is too sloppy to be reliable. The Rivarossi-Walthers swing mounts are better, and work pretty well IF the couplers are changed to Kadees.

Why must we continue to be saddled with poor quality plastic couplers on expensive and otherwise well-executed cars? Sure, we can change them, but why should we have to? Some manufacturers use the excuse that Kadees are too expensive, and passing on the cost would cripple sales. I disagree. Kadees cost me about $1 per car, and I’m sure they would pay less. I think the reason this practice persists is that we are not doing enough to make ourselves heard. Judging by the forum threads, many of us want a change.

Hal Greenlee
Cocoa, FL

Hi, Hal. If you read our closing thoughts on in the car sidebar in this issue’s Empire Builder Project, you’ll find we come up critical of the couplers there. The questions you ask bring us back to the one question about why should you have to change out their couplers for better quality one? The answer is simple. In the process, the careful model railroader will employ the Kadee coupler height gauge and the other tools and offerings to make the couplers match properly. I have seen very high quality cars come with horn-hooks or no couplers at all, and yet no one complained. Consider the plastic knuckle couplers to be placeholders, if you will, and then put on your choice and install them to your standards. — John

Mercedes SUV Review

To writer Bill Cawthon:

The Mercedes SUV review re-emphasized a challenge for contemporary modelers in that no one appears to make models of current Japanese and Korean sedans. The streets of the US are filled with Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, Suzukis, Hyundais, Lexi, Accuras, etc., but the model railroad streets and lots are empty of these vehicles. German cars abound and there is a smattering of some US makes, but even here selections are limited to a few Chevies and Fords. Is this because most model car manufacturers are German? A licensing problem? Perceived lack of a market? Must be some reason that this class of auto is missing from the modeling scene.

Contemporary modelers have some other gaps, too. Recently, HO intermodal offerings have been sparse, though Intermountain promises some Maxi 4 cars by the end of the year (already available in N scale). No kits for large modern houses or those office buildings that proliferate in the office parks. And if someone would offer tapered poles to build contemporary street and traffic lights, I’d buy a batch.

More broadly, I am surprised that no manufacturer makes accurately scaled dummy signals, traffic lights, or crossing signals/gates. We either have toylike models or lighted signals, gates, or lights. I have a complete dummy signal system on my Penn Western, built from many pieces over the years with many heads and masts no longer available. Maybe some day.

Roger Thomas
West Windsor, NJ

Hi, Roger, thanks for writing. We always appreciate reading our readers’ comments, especially when they open a dialog on a topic that impacts a number of model railroaders.

First, I would argue there is far more than a “smattering” of American vehicles. By the end of 2007, there will have been more than a hundred new ready-to-run American cars and light trucks introduced since 2001. They cover model years from 1931 to 2007. This doesn’t include the white metal, resin, and plastic kits on the market. There are certainly still plenty of holes to be filled, especially in the period from roughly 1959 to 1989, and a few of the models are already out of production, but it has been getting a lot easier to fill streets and parking lots with vehicles from Chrysler, Ford, and GM.

Second, I sometimes think a lot of modelers don’t realize just how popular German cars are in the U.S. In 2006, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen-Audi each outsold Buick, Cadillac, Lincoln, Mercury, and Saturn. In terms of passenger cars, the combined German brands captured nearly 10 percent of the market, outselling cars from Chrysler Group, Nissan North American, and Hyundai-Kia. In addition, one of the points I made in my review was that all three of the Mercedes models I covered are based on prototypes built in the United States.

You’re correct: there needs to be more Japanese vehicles to accurately model the modern scene. Unfortunately, the Japanese automakers don’t seem to agree. They are very reluctant to license models in 1/87 scale and, from what I can tell, they are even more reluctant to license if you’re not a Japanese manufacturer. One model company of which I am aware approached Toyota, Honda, and Mazda and was turned down by each one. Nissan is willing to license, and in fact has commissioned promotional models of some of its European cars in HO scale, but that brings up the second problem: a large number of the most popular Japanese cars sold in the U.S. are unique to the North American market. In fact, many of them, including the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord, are built in North America. This makes models of these cars difficult to sell in other markets. Since the European market for HO vehicles is much larger than the American market, that’s a problem for a modelmaker looking at a large investment.

Suzuki commissioned promotional models in 1/87 scale. Rietze offers very nice models of the Grand Vitara, SX4, and Swift. The Swift isn’t sold in America, but the other two are. The problem is finding someone who sells Rietze in America.

The Korean manufacturers are more willing to license but the modelmakers with whom I have spoken are unsure how well a model of a Hyundai or Kia would sell.

As far as intermodal offerings go, we may not have all the rolling stock we would like, but there are plenty of containers and chassis. Athearn’s recent 48-foot and 53-foot models are very nice. On the other hand, I am still waiting for someone to make a good ready-to-run model of a contemporary yard tractor.

Like you, I would also like to see more modern structures and details. Busch does offer a modern office building in HO, but more are definitely needed. I have taken to scratchbuilding my own structures in some cases. My daughter gets some architectural publications, which are great sources for ideas. — Bill