Model Railroading in the 50s and 60s.


I have no problem with DCC at all. I have operated on a number of large layouts that had DCC. The type of operations on these large layouts would be impossible without DCC. I just don't have any interest in it for myself as it is not necessary for me. I just don't care for the amount of articles and the amount of space dedicated to it in the magazine.

I too am interested in the modeling, that's one reason I enjoy the layout featured each month in the magazine. I have MR magazines going back into the 60's and have learned a lot from the articles in them and incorporated many of the items featured in the magazine into my layout. I prefer Model Railroad Craftsman myself and was glad to see it come back into publication. Yes, they also have articles on DCC, but have a lot more "How To" articles.
 
Chet, maybe you don't know you are doing this; but, every chance you get, you mention that you don't care for DCC. O.K., I get that!

This thread really has nothing to do with DCC, DC or any of that; yet, more and more people are chiming in with the fact that they don't want/like DCC! I have to ask, Who Cares?
 
NP2626 said:
I guess I don't really understand where your coming from Iron Horseman? I would think that the better system simply won out. Was this not the case?
Click to expand...
The technically "best" systems seldom wins for many reasons. There are other factors besides the technical aspects. In this case was the company's willingness to making their system's specifications into a public domain instrument which is basically giving up their patents. Another consideration is the companies manufacturing capacity. Is it capable of building enough units and sell at wholesale prices allowing rebranding until such time as others can truly design their own units to the new standard. Finally is the capacity for support during the early years of the standards acceptance. I am certain there are others too, but I lost track of the standardization/selection process when I got a new work assignment that demanded traveling and consumed all my time.

But, all I am really saying is that Dynatrol was a fine system. The only reason people who choose it would not have been satisfied, was that it did not become the standard and therefore became extinct.
 
NP2626 said:
The February 1982 issue starts one of the best beginners help layouts that I know of and it is written by a favorite author of mine, Mr. John Olson. He stats his "Jerome and South Western: A Railroad with Personality".
Click to expand...
This set of articles really encouraged one of my model railroad newbie friends. He was worried about all sorts of things and "doing it right" and then one of the J&S cover shots showed an Atlas switch machine. He said if "one of those" can be on the cover of MR then they are OK on my layout too. After that he adopted a much more practical approach to his layout.
 
What I am saying is that I don't want to change my own personal layout from DC to DCC, I don't need it. I am the only operator. I don't run multiple trains and don't need sound. I have a good friend who I have mentioned a number of times who has a huge home layout and is a member of a club with a huge layout and have operated on both of these layouts numerous times. Operations on these layouts would not be possible without DCC. My friend is what I would call a DCC guru. If there's a problem, he's got the answer. He has even converted my brass Z-5 Yellowstone to DCC so I can operate it on thier layouts when I visit. He has also been to out home and has seen my layout and even he does admit that I would not gain anything by converting to DCC.

There would be the expense of buying the DCC unit and boosters. I have all of the locomotives that I need, and some of the ones I have custom painted for my layout would need major modification to make room for a decoder let alone a speaker.

For an operation like Ken has, the D & J layout, DCC is just about a necessity in order to run multiple trains on such a large layout. The same is true with my friends layout, which is probably even larger than Ken's. Up to 20 trains running at the same time. Through trains and local freight trains trying to switch out industries along the main line having to keep the main line clear for the through trains is usually controlled by at least one, if not two dispatchers during op sessions. What a hoot is is to operate on such a layout. I love it.

It's just that DCC is not a necessity on my layout. I personally do enjoy operating on large layouts but have no interest in reading article after article on DCC and electronics in MR. It is of no use to me. Quite a few pages in MR each month are dedicated to DCC and other electronics which don't interest me at all.

Lets get back to the magazine itself. It does have great photography of layouts which I do enjoy very much. For quite a few years when I was in th Navy MR was probably my only contact with the hobby at times when we were deployed and I looked forward to its arrival every month.

Times have changed.
 
Chet, I absolutely understand, you have chose to not go DCC, a logical and intelligent option for you. Even if I really thought DCC was a better option, I would respect your choice of not getting into DCC! I also think that anyone who knows who you are, knows your not a DCC guy!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iron Horseman said:
The technically "best" systems seldom wins for many reasons. There are other factors besides the technical aspects. In this case was the company's willingness to making their system's specifications into a public domain instrument which is basically giving up their patents. Another consideration is the companies manufacturing capacity. Is it capable of building enough units and sell at wholesale prices allowing rebranding until such time as others can truly design their own units to the new standard. Finally is the capacity for support during the early years of the standards acceptance. I am certain there are others too, but I lost track of the standardization/selection process when I got a new work assignment that demanded traveling and consumed all my time.

But, all I am really saying is that Dynatrol was a fine system. The only reason people who choose it would not have been satisfied, was that it did not become the standard and therefore became extinct.
Click to expand...

I guess you could blame the NMRA for thinking that DCC Systems should be able to communicate with each other.
 
Mark -- Chet hit the nail on the head with his post. I am a simple minded person, period. I am DUMB when it comes to electronics and I don't want to be bombarded with something that I don't want or need.

Give me a house to wire 110 and 220 and I can do it, however anything else and I might as well hit myself over the head with a hammer.
I have friends who work in electronics and no matter how many times they try and tell me how to do something .. by the time I get home .. I just cannot remember a thing they said. AND, If someone can explain to me how a billion cell phones can all be talking at the same time and the signals NOT become jumbled .. I would appreciate it!
OFF THE SOAPBOX .. CARRY ON!
 
Personally I love my Lionel Legacy system and it allows me to run Legacy Command control, TMCC and conventional trains. On the other hand I had to spend hundreds of dollars to do what a couple of $49 transformers could do, minus a few bells and whistles.

I have an NCE system, I have Bachmann's EZ command system, both are great in their own respect. I have dual control DC transformers and simple single control transformers.

I find the technology fascinating and very enjoyable, but not everybody does.

DC, DCC, Conventional Control, TMCC, Legacy... who cares? If you are having fun with your trains you are doing it right!
 
Chet, Sirfoldalot and anyone else not interested in DCC: John Olson has the second installment of his Jerome and South Western layout build in the April 1982 Model Railroader. You know what, this layout was powered with DC and it did a fantastic job of it! There where other great articles in the April issue. Mr. Brian Holtz showed off his Denver and Rio Grande Western Panoramic Division and Andy Sperandeo shows photos of and discusses Steam Engine Servicing Facilities.

Oh! The idea I had about cataloging all the drawings of locomotives and rolling stock which have appeared in Model Railroader since it's beginnings, has been thought about and I've decided not to do it. It's too much work!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the June 1981 issue I see that Allen Keller has joined the Kalmbach team and will start creating videos for the company. Bringing up John Olson has caused me to think about what ever happened to him? I had heard that he started working for Disney, does anyone know if this is true; or, have any more information on him? Is he even involved in the hobby anymore? If you Google Malcom Furlow, you can see that he has been active in his artistic endeavors, John Olson does have a video on the net shot in 2012 and he does reference Model Railroading; so, I'm guessing at least in 2012 he was still active in the hobby.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The October 1982 issue of Model Railroader has two nice articles on Steam locomotives: Andy Sperandeo presents and article entitled Steam Locomotives; What, Why and When where he outlines the various wheel arrangements, sort of the What Why and When they came into being. The Gordy Odegard discusses hwo Steam Locomotives worked, The Boiler, Valve gear, Boiler Fittings, Air System and Tender. There are photo of the left and right side of a Mikado 2-8-2 with labels of the various parts. Gordy also has an article discussing building a a mikado in brass. There is also a drawing by J. Harold Geissel of B&O Light Mike. Sort of a dedicated to Steam Engines issue, very interesting!

There was an ad for Joining the NMRA, it cost $15.00 per year back in 1982. Now it costs $72.00 for $15.00 worth of membership.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It appears that MRC was selling both metal cased and plastic cased power packs and I'm wondering why? Anyone have an opinion on this?
 
Mark:

I have several guesses as to why MRC changed from metal to plastic housings on their power packs. This was likely a transition period for MRC.

1. - The plastic was more inexpensive to manufacture than the metal.

2. - The plastic housing were more durable than metal.

3. - The plastic housing didn't conduct electricity.

Greg
 
Greg, They manufactured both plastic and metal cases together for a few years. That's why I wonder about it. Toot, I would doubt they had so much aluminum inventory to last them that long. I think the possibility exists that their customers dictated this.
 
I'm looking over the April of 1983 issue and see that MDC Roundhouse is announcing it's release of their famous Shay model. It was introduced in both HO and HOn3 versions and also in two and three truck models. This model was maybe MDC Roundhouse's most famous model. Other than Bowser and Mantua, nobody else was even offering any steam locomotive kits, let alone Shay models!

In this issue, I see that Mantua was offering a new coupler, which looked more like a real coupler than the Horn Hook; or, Baker coupler. It is advertised as the "Easy-Op" Coupler and was 5 years in the making. Having been heavily involved in R/C Airplanes at this time, I don't know if this coupler ever made any headway into the model railroading market. It was dead and gone by the time I started in Model Railroading in 1988.

Kalmbach Video is offering a 49 minute Video entitled Weathering Railroad Models with Malcom Furlow. I would love to see this video! However, at that time, the video cost $69.95, precluding me from it's purchase even with today's dollars!

The last two issues of MR have articles dealing with building Wireless Throttles. The articles are tied together. It appears that walk around layouts where getting more and more popular. This throttle would have been used with the CTC-16 and was written by the "Electronics Guru" of the time, Keith Gutierrez.

This issue has one of the weirdest layouts I have ever seen. Down in New Mexico, south of Albuquerque a ways, is what is called the VLA (Very Large Array) This is a system of 27 Radio telescopes operated by the NRAO the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. There is a railroad that goes to every one of the 27 radio telescopes that hauled the telescopes to their locations in the array. The array is arranged in a large wye.

Lorell Joiner an O-scale modeler has an article on adding computer to the operations of his very large layout.

All in all I found the April of 1983 to be a very interesting issue!
 
Interesting that you mention Keith Gutierrez. He spent a lot of time at train shows here in the Dallas/Ft Worth area promoting his CTC-16 system in the mid 80's/early 90's. I got to meet him many times. He was based in the Dallas suburb of Richardson and a lot of local modelers used his system. He offered a discount to locals. I believe that CVP Products was/is the name of his company. I still see him at shows but he's not as highly visible as he used to be.

Willie
 
Keith was fairly well known, if you paid attention to electronics stuff in MR. At one time, he may have had a column in the magazine.
 
I have been watching this thread mostly because I was a working in my fathers Hobby Shop about this time and I recognize much of what you are reading and discussing.
Actually I worked in the shop from about 1960 until it's closing in 1998 .
I was building a model RR in the early eighty's, until life got in the way (wife & kids) then the layout sat idle until the past few years.
I plugged it in and it came to life, It still runs using a very old DC scratch built system that I probably got a schematic out of the model MRR and built using parts like MRC rheostat's and a selenium rectifier. Most of my motors are pitman so I think it's a match for what I have.
I did enjoy the electronic section of MRR as the projects were easy enough even I could build them and get them to work, I remember one that I built would detect if reverse loop polarity was correct to enter or if it was a short, doesn't sound like a big deal until you realize it was not draining track current by using lite bulbs, it used LED's and something called a quad comparator that would turn on a red or green LED depending on weather the polarity was correct to enter the loop.
I also enjoyed all the building plans and engine drawings that were in those old MRR's, just your mentioning some of this brings back so many memories of working with my dad, heck the whole family worked there, how many can say they worked most of there adult life with family. (and lived to tell about it ) lol
Although I didn't get rich working there, I got something money cant buy .
I'm a lucky man.
Thank you for posting !
T.C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top