Write us a letter at: letters@modelrailroadnews.com

Let the Games Begin I thought that you might be interested in this article about Union Pacific’s trademark infringement suit against Lionel. www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=46&u_sid=1112474 Brian Rockwell Classic Construction Models Beaverton, OR

Thanks Brian. This link takes us to the Omaha World-Herald and an article by staff writer Stacie Hamel titled “U.P. sues model train manufacturers over logos.” This story apparently ran in the Business section of their June 3, 2004 edition and claims that the lucky winners are Lionel and Athearn. — Ed.

Pet Phobia Exorcised Your review of the BLI Pennsy M-I triggered one of my pet phobias. I hate modelrailroadese. This is a language peculiar to model railroaders when referring to the real thing. I had to purge my vocabulary of modelrailroadese-isms when I went to work for the SP in 1964. Some examples are centipede instead of pedestal bed tender and lash-up. In working for three different railroads I don’t think I ever heard the thing that pulls the train referred to as anything other than engine, units, or power consist. The item that set me off is probably the most frequently used modelrailroadese-ism, calling class lights markers. Oddly, it happens that Pennsy pre-WWII steam engines were some of the few that had markers on the front end, but they weren’t mounted on the smokebox front but were on the pilot beam. They displayed red to the front and yellow to the sides (on the Pennsy, N&W, and Santa Fe, everybody else showed green to the sides). The lights on the smokebox front were class lights and showed either white or green from all openings. They were changed by turning a small lever which either dropped a green lens over all the openings or lifted it up to display white at all the openings. Green signified a regularly scheduled train with a section following and white an extra train. On diesels, the class lights could also be markers since the lever had three positions, clear (white), green, and red. In the case of diesels, the fixture would be a class light unless it was showing red to the rear on an engine running light or working as a pusher on the rear of a train when it would be magically transformed into a marker. This probably sounds like excessive nit-picking but words do mean things. I could go on about the difference between two trains meeting and passing, but this is enough venting for now. Jim Rice Harrison, ID

Thanks for sharing, Jim. Feel better now? — Ed.

Questions about F40PH I recently purchased a good-looking HO scale model of EMD F40PH decorated in Amtrak Phase 4 paint scheme. I do not have access to the internet and have been unable to locate any publications that will tell me about the prototype of this model. Any information you could give me would be greatly appreciated. Things like horsepower rating, production years, are they still being used, etc. What does F40PH stand for? Thank you. Raven Kyuka San Antonio, TX

Hi Raven. As I generally do when I start research on a diesel locomotive, I turn to Kalmbach’s trio of diesel references: Diesel Locomotives, The First 50 Years; The Contemporary Diesel Spotter’s Guide; and their new Field Guide to Modern Diesel Locomotives. The “F” is General Motors’ indication that this is a full cowl body. The “40” indicates it is on the chassis of a 3,000 hp GP40-2, the “P” says it is set up for passenger service, and the “H” says it is ready to provide Head-end power to the passenger cars behind. Built from 1976 to 1988, this first version saw 325 copies made. Several follow-on versions were created adding another 149 of the Dash-2 and other variants by 1992. Every day sees another one pulled from service, so it’s hard to pin down how many are still on line, but perhaps half or less are. — Ed.

Walthers HO ATSF 4-4-2 Sleepers Clarified To Reviewer John Sipple: I really appreciate your reviews of the new Walthers HO passenger cars, especially of the new Super Chief equipment. Your review of the 4-4-2 sleeper in the May issue, however, may have added to the confusion Walthers has created with its advertising campaign for these models. The title of your article, and your finished sample model, hinted that these models represent Santa Fe’s Regal -Series 4-4-2 sleepers. This is not true. The Walthers model, good as it may be, appears to represent the older, 1938-built 4-4-2s following plan 4069A (shown on page 14 in the book, The Official Pullman-Standard Library, Vol. 1, Santa Fe). These older cars carried southwestern-themed names such as Hotevilla, Hualpai, Jadito, Mohave. A side-by-side comparison between one of these older 4-4-2s and the newer Regal would show a few obvious differences: • Trucks — the Regal used the modern outside swing-hanger type. • Windows — the Regal did not have those tiny-paired upper bunk windows for the four compartments. • Upper Letterboard — on the Regal this was mounted above the upper fluting strip, not centered within the upper fluting. Walthers’ advertising for the Super Chief cars has been confusing because it shows drawings of the Regal-series cars, reprinted from a Model Railroader Magazine article of eleven years ago. I was excited when I saw these ads because I’ve wanted models of the Regal-series 4-4-2s ever since I worked as a volunteer several years ago on a restoration crew restoring four of these cars purchased by Memphis Transportation Museum from Amtrak’s surplus car auction. David M. Johnston Memphis, TN

Thanks for the clarification, David. We’ve had several letters on the same topic and with a similar point. The end of the box actually states: “P-S 4-4-2 Sleeper. Indian Name Series.” Every car of every type in the series contains a decal set for all of the cars, so you could put on Indian names or Regal names or whatever you want to do. This car is definitely an anachronism within the series. We applied a Regal name to ours. The trucks are the same throughout the series, so we’ve got a couple of things right and a couple wrong and, no matter what you do, that’s about how you’ll end up. — John

R17 Subway Cars Correction To reviewer John Sipple: I have purchased several of these R17 Subway Sets. I just need to clarify one error. The Silver/Blue units are the second of the series being produced by Life-Like. The first set were the first run of the Red/Silver scheme. The next set will be the full red color due in July 2004. They are a smooth quiet-running example of the well-used cars of the NYCTA. I am a true Transit Nut (Boston’s MBTA & NYCTA being my top two) and have been waiting for a very long time for affordable sets like this to come along. There are other manufacturers that produce New York equipment for HO Scale, but they are not readily available or affordable for my budget. Life-Like has done a faithful reproduction of the as-delivered features of these cars. There are some very minor discrepancies but, overall they are very nicely done. Also not noted in the review are the drawbars included to make these units close-coupled for a more realistic look. I’d also like to thank John Sipple for his excellent review. It was an added bonus that he included a side note on adding DCC to these cars. I haven’t yet graduated to the DCC controls but these tips are helpful when I do get there. I can’t find rapid transit cars for any other city, especially my hometown system, the “T” MBTA. At least I can run a subway now with my fleet of Mehano LRV’s, and commuter rail layout I am planning. I can finally get started designing that commuter center I’ve been imagining for so long. The small amount of extra detailing these cars needed will make them as close to the real thing as you can get. Now if someone could only get interested in producing the Boston subway cars (any timeframe would be nice) I would be very happy. Until then I will just make these a fitting substitute. David Delano Somerville, MA

Thanks for the update, David. I used to live up near Gloucester and every day for a year drove down to Revere and caught the “T” down to Commonwealth Avenue. Of course that was around 1971. Based on that experience, I would think that many people would like to model those trains. Good luck with your layout. — John

Cow-A-Bunga... Redude I enjoyed that novel paint scheme photo and the reference to the Port of Tillamook’s web site (Page 12, May 2004 MRN). It might be interesting to see (if they are available) photos of that loco’s other alter egos. Also, some what/where/how they are using their Budd car (as mentioned on the web site) in terms of rail tourism. Here in Mobile, Alabama there are lots of tracks and lots of interesting things to see. The “Alabama State Docks” (similar to a port authority) is a state agency and hypothetically could conduct a similar program — if they could be thus kicked into gear. Thanks, again, for a great railroading medium! Herb Kern Mobile, AL

Dear Sirs, Regarding the article on page 12 of the May issue of MRN, I don’t know how prototype modelers can be taken seriously when even the real railroads cannot follow the prototype correctly. It is obvious when comparing the Port of Tillamook’s “GP9 with the photo of “The real thing” in the article that they were not paying close attention to the details. First off, the paint job on their GP9 only vaguely resembles the original, not to mention the detail differences. The horns are in the wrong location and it should be obvious to any one that the headlights are oriented differently. The ones on the real thing a quite obviously side by side while the GP9’s are one above the other. It should also be noted that the GP9 appears to be running long end forward while any one can see the real thing is designed for short end forward operation. Also there are grabs on both ends on the GP9 while they are only situated at the rear underneath on “The real thing.” The text states that the GP9 is a 1956 model. Having been raised in Holstein country I can tell you with no uncertainty that “The real thing” is a much newer model than 1956. Therefore they should have used something totally different to replicate the original. I don’t understand how anyone could overlook such critical differences. The most important mistake these people have made however, is the fact that the real thing has only four tractive units while the GP9 has eight. Passing this GP9 off as a copy of “The real thing” is just udder bull. Thank you for hearing me out. Yours truly, Clare Gilbert Sylvan Scale Models PS. If I’m not mistaken “The real thing” is actually part of a cow and calf unit. PPS. I think we’ve milked this for all we can get out of it.

More Super Chief Questions To Reviewer John Sipple: I’ve been reading MRN since it was about six folios of newsprint to its present size, which just barely fits into my mailbox. That’s not a complaint! The Letters column in your May issue raises two questions in my feeble mind. Did the Super Chief’s normal consist contain one or two Dome Lounges? Did the breakup of the Pullman Co. occur during World War II or shortly there after? Thanks and keep up the good work. I’ll buy a bigger mailbox! Walt Kimbro Pembroke Pines, FL

We like bigger, Walt. Actually, the normal consist for the Super Chief usually had a single Dome-Lounge car located just ahead of the dining car so that the kitchen could also directly serve the lounge car’s banquet room. Meanwhile, Pullman Car and Manufacturing Corporation and the Standard Steel Car Company merged in 1930 to form the Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company which continued to build passenger cars until the late sixties. On June 30, 1947, by federal court order the Pullman Co. (the sleeping car operation division) was sold to 59 railroads. After that, there was no longer any legal connection between Pullman-Standard and the Pullman Company. To see a complete timeline of the Pullman empire, visit: www.eliillinois.org/30108_87/timeline.html — John

We welcome all comments and letters from our readers! 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