Hello,

I sent this query to the Bachmann parts dept a few weeks ago.  They're not doing anything about it, so I thought I'd try here.

I have 2 American Standard 4-4-0 HO locos and tenders (#119 and Jupiter).  I'd like to convert them to DCC and am just getting started compiling a parts list.

On the Bachmann parts website they list two tenders for the DCC versions:

COMPLETE TENDER (HO SCALE 4-4-0 DCC-SV) $76.70
C.P. #60 (JUPITER)
Model: 00D01-52702

COMPLETE TENDER (HO SCALE 4-4-0 DCC-SV) $76.70
UNION PACIFIC #119
Model: 00D01-52701

The standard trains have the motor in the tender, not the loco. The motor is connected to the loco with a plastic drive shaft.  The loco only has gearing to drive the wheels.  I have a few questions about this design related to the tenders Bachmann is selling and DCC conversion of these trains:

1. Do the tenders listed above contain all of the parts needed for DCC conversion?  i.e., motor, decoder, and drive shaft?

2. Could they just be connected to the standard locos with the existing drive shafts to complete the DCC conversion?

3. In the DCC-ready models, the motor and decoder are in the loco, not the tender.  To convert the standards, do I have to do more than just add the tenders listed above?  In other words, would I have to completely gut the locos, and add the motor and DCC decoder?

4. If the standard locos have to be completely rebuilt with motors and DCC decoders, what do the DCC tenders really do?  Are they just empty tenders without the motors and drive shafts, so that the DCC-equipped locos just pull them as attached cars?

Thanks for your help and time,

Hello Everyone,

I'm toying with the idea of converting an old HO layout to DCC.  Two of the steam locos are old 4-4-0 Union Pacific #119 and Central Pacific #60 (Jupiter).  The Bachmann SKU for the Jupiter is 51124.  I don't have the SKU for the #119.

I was wondering if there's even a DCC decoder available that could be installed in these locos.  I did a search here on Bachmann and didn't find anything I recognized.  

Please bear with me on this one.  I haven't looked into DCC for these locos since ~2005 so I'm essentially very new at this.  

If more info about my layout and locos needs to be posted, please let me know.

Thanks for your time,

Hey Everyone,

I'm considering adding on to an existing table that's basically two ping-pong tables (5' X 9' each) joined at the corners of an "L" by a 5' X 5' sheet of 1/2" plywood.

I have a lot of large sheets of 1/8" masonite here, about 3' X 4' each. 

At the moment I have no extra plywood, but I do have a lot of framing lumber: 2' X 4' for the frame, 4' X 4' for legs (overkill, but they look really nice).

Given all that, I was wondering about enlarging the table with sections that have masonite only as the top - i.e., no plywood underneath.  With the framing lumber I can certainly make it sturdy enough.  I could also double-layer the 1/8" sheets if necessary to minimize sagging between the joists. 

What I don't know about is how masonite works as the only tabletop material over the long haul, and how it works for train tables in particular.

I will certainly seal it somehow - I have a lot of stuff for doing that as well, from poly to solid wood stain (the latter might only work on the unfinished side of the masonite though).  The layout is in a basement with a tabletop dehumidifier that works OK but isn't perfect on really humid days.

What will it support?  Not much in terms of weight, unless I happen to fall onto the table while working on it.  The landscaping will be done with layers of solid "Pink Panther" or similar foam.  The trains and track (HO gauge) will probably be the heaviest items on it.

What do you think?  I is masonite-only worth using just to save some bucks on plywood, or should I just spring for the ply in order to save myself later problems with the masonite?

Thanks for your time,
Alan Mintaka

Hi Everyone,
I'm working on a large train table that currently has 3" railings made from 5/4" boards attached on their edges to the table.  I attached the railings by driving wood screws through the bottom of the table and into the edges of the railing boards.   The corners of the railings were attached using wood screws.

I've decided I need higher railings for the layout I'm planning to make.  I don't have the bucks to buy a whole new set of wider 5/4" boards, so I bought some narrower (cheaper) 5/4" boards to add to the tops of the existing railings.

In other words, I want to stack 5/4" boards on their edges.  I figured I could use splicing cleats of some kind. 

I have some of those flat steel splicing plates used in construction.  I can use those to attach the stacked boards to each other from the insides of the railings.  It's pretty thin stuff, a lot more unobtrusive than wooden cleats would be.  I'll be using pan head wood screws to attach the plates. 

But now I'm wondering: is this really the best way to attach boards stacked on their edges to each other?  Would it actually be better to drive wood screws all the way through the edges of the top board into the side of the bottom board?  5/4" board is thicker than 3/4" lumber, but not by much.  As usual the dimensions are all really smaller than nominal because the lumber has been planed - so 5/4" board is slightly less than 1/2" thicker than 3/4" board.

Or is there some other, better way to attach boards stacked on their edges?

Thanks for your time,

Hi Everyone,
I'm just getting into gluing and painting some of the structures I've been working on and have run into a dead end.  I won't go into my experiences with the so-called cyano "super glues" because that would take a book, and one of these topics at a time is more than enough.  Suffice it to say that the super glues are now in the trash and good riddance to them.

Spray paint problems: I'm working with foam core at the moment.  I found out the hard way that enamels do a number on this stuff, so after asking around I got some Tamiya spray acrylics and started practicing with that.

I started with flat gray primer.  I noticed some problems trying to get an even coat as this spray didn't spread around the same way the enamels did.  I practiced on test pieces for some time then applied the spray to the foam.  I was very careful but still could not get an even coat.  Since it was primer, I figured it wasn't so important.

It set up quickly but I waited a day to apply a top coat.  I selected "Gun Metal Gray" spray acrylic, Tamiya again, and began practicing. 

It was disaster.  No matter how hard I tried and how carefully I applied the paint, the result was grotesque rippling on primed foam.  Unprimed foam behaved the same way.  What could I be doing wrong here?  No matter what I do, it seems impossible to get an even coat of this stuff.  Even the areas where I applied a very light coat began to ripple as soon as I stopped spraying. 

Temperature wise I think I'm OK.  It's in the mid 60's F in the basement.  Following up on some other advice, I tried warming the paint can in mildly warm tap water.  I still got the ripples.

All the practice pieces are ruined.  The paint is rippled everywhere.  I figured the only thing I would dare do at this point is to forget the gun metal gray paint and put another coat of the gray primer on the finish piece.  There was no rippling on the piece from the first coat of primer, but sure enough the coat turned out to be uneven.  It was easy to see that much with the paint dried.

I practiced with the primer again on a few more throwaway pieces of foam until I was certain I had the hang of getting the primer on in an even coat.  Then I carefully painted the finish piece the same way.

I just went downstairs to check on the work.  Once again, the primer coat is uneven on all the pieces, practice and finish.

I'm at a loss.  I can't understand what I could be doing wrong here with these paints.  I know this stuff takes practice.  On the other hand all I'm trying to do is get a uniform coat of some kind of paint on foam core.  Enamel destroys the material and these acrylics either coat unevenly no matter how they're applied, or develop gross rippling patterns.

I should add that those "ripples" are in the paint, not the material.  Also, they don't seem to be lines of really think gobs of paint with thin paint in between.  There's no sign of running, drops, etc.  Viewed up close and/or touched with a finger, the coat is thin.  It seems like only the color that's rippling like that.

Does anyone have any ideas on this?  Sorry to make this so long.  I didn't know how else to report these problems without going into some detail about how I applied this paint.

Hope everyone's holidays are going well,
Big Al Mintaka

Hi Everyone,
I've been looking into LED lighting for my HO layout.  I make use of a lot of structures made from the old Kenner's Girder and Panel building sets; cool lighting is essential because of the plastic material used in the panels.

I'm not too knowledgeable when it comes to LED circuit design, so I decided to get some sets of LED Christmas lights and take them apart to see how they worked.  I started with sets of 20 LED lights ("C3") powered by 3 1.5V AA batteries.   The manufacturer rates the LED bulbs as 4.5V 90mW. 

The 3 AA batteries are connected in series, so the total voltage is 4.5V.  A 4.7 Ohm resistor is wired to the + terminal of the batteries (resistor color code = yellow violet gold gold).  The 20 LEDs are connected in parallel to the other side of the resistor and the - terminal of the batteries.

My confusion has to do with how I might expand this circuit to include more bulbs, and how I might replace the batteries with a DC power supply. 

I ran the numbers through some of the online LED current limiting resistor calculators, e.g. the "series parallel array wizard" at http://led.linear1.org/led.wiz. 

I started by assuming that the forward current for each LED was 20mA.  This seemed like a typical value in the various places I looked online. 

Then I experimented with different values for the LED forward voltage until the current limiting resistor for my circuit corresponded to the 4.7 Ohm resistor I found in the Christmas set.  The forward voltage required to make this happen was 4.42V.

Isn't that a little on the high side for LEDs?  The values I've found online are closer to 3.0V on average for the different colors.  I tried this with a few other calculators and kept coming up with the same value for forward voltage.

So the first question is, am I doing this the right way?  For a circuit of 20 LEDs connected in parallel to a 4.5V supply with a current limiting resistor of 4.7 Ohms and LED forward current of 20mA, does a forward voltage of 4.42V make sense?

Secondly, if I replaced the batteries with some kind of DC power supply, could I use something like one of those "wall wart" DC transformers rated for 4.5V 20mA?  Would I still need the current limiting 4.7 Ohm resistor if the transformer is rated for 20mA? 

Finally, how many LEDs could I really add in parallel to this circuit?  Using the above mentioned array calculator, I added another 20 LEDs, then 40, then 80, and the solution was always the same: 4.5V supply, 4.7 Ohm current limiting resistor, LED forward current 20mA and forward voltage 4.42V.   There must be a practical limit to the number if LEDs I could add before something has to change, but what is it?

I'm missing something here but I'm too stupid to understand what it is.  I just want to find out how to calculate the right component and power supply values if I start adding LEDs to this circuit. 

Thanks for your time reading this convoluted message,
Big Al Mintaka

Hi Everyone,
I've wound up with a ton of 1/8" scrap masonite and was wondering if it could be used to make structures for my HO layout.  When I search the internet for advice on this topic, I find that most model railroaders use masonite for roadbeds or large backdrops, but no one seems to use it for structures.

Is this a bad idea?  Given the fact that I already have this stuff, I don't have worry about cost issues, only whether or not making buildings out of it is worthwhile.  Some of the concerns voiced on the sites I found had to do with humidity and how it can make masonite warp.  But for small HO structures, it doesn't seem as though warping could be much of a problem - the pieces will all be small and everything will be tacked (with brads) or glued tight to interior wood bracing. 

I've experimented with various kinds of spray paint I have around here.  The masonite holds up with Rustoleum and model enamel, no sign of warping that is, and the "shiny" side takes the paint very well.

I've even been able to cobble up a nice looking peaked roof with it.  I start with a rectangular piece of masonite a little longer than the house and a little wider than twice each half of the roof (for overhang).  Then, using my table saw, I cut a narrow groove (one pass with the blade) the length of the roof, underneath where the peak will be.  This takes a little practice because the groove has to be just the right depth.  Too deep saws the roof in half, argh, and too shallow makes the peak fold look ragged.

Anyway, once the groove is cut, the masonite is carefully folded - not in half, just to the angle of the roof's peak.  The seam on the outside doesn't look bad at all provided the groove was not cut too shallow.  Then I place the roof on two wooden protoype peaks and spray paint it in the folded position. 

This makes the paint look uniform across the peak, but it also looks unnatural to have a perfectly straight-edged peak like that.  So, taking a cue from the folks who simulate shingled finishes using overlapping strips of painted tissue paper, I'm experimenting with a single strip of paper tape along the peak, painted over after it's glued in place.  It hasn't set up yet but with any luck it'll look at least something like a row of peak ridge material of some kind. 

Well, obviously I'm still in the experimental stages of using masonite this way.  Has anyone else used it to make structures, and if so, how have they held up over time?

Thanks to all for taking the time to read this,
Big Al Mintaka

"I believe a leaf of grass
is no less than the journey-work of the stars."
--Walt Whitman

Hi Everyone,
I have two of those vintage De Witt Clinton sets.  One of them runs fine, starting up smoothly and running nice and steadily.

The other one is a little slow out of the gate and sometimes jerks a bit until it gets going.  Once it's rolling, it moves a lot slower than the other De Witt. 

The motors in these things are pretty small so I imagine they have their work cut out for them even when running up to speed.  But is it typical for two motors to perform so differently?

The startup is what bothers me most.  A few times I've had to give it a nudge to get it going.  At least it keeps going once it starts.

I haven't tried to do anything maintenance-wise with it yet.  Has anyone else run into this sort of thing before, and are there some rule-of-thumb techniques (i.e. lubing or refitting the wheels or something) that might help in a case like this?

Unfortunately I was slow in getting these things onto a test track so I doubt they're still under the DOA part of the warranty.  If I can I'd like to try working this myself but don't want to touch it until I've heard from the experts.

These little vintage trains are really nice as far as workmanship goes.  I'll have to learn more about these and other vintage engines so I can hunt around for any other sets that might be lurking out there.  I really like these things!

Take care and thanks for reading this,
Big Al Mintaka

Hi Everyone,
I recently bought one of those Bachmann John Bull sets.  It's a great little train as far as workmanship goes and the motor runs reliably on my test track.  What I've noticed though is that it has a significant problem on curved track. 

It's a 2-4-0 with the front two wheels in a fixed frame.  That fixed frame is where the problem lies.  On track that's curved, the front two wheels are easily derailed.

It can't handle 18" radius at all.  I know this is pushing it for HO locomotives, but I haven't had any problems with that radius using 4-4-0 locomotives or other trains in the "Vintage" series such as the Dewitt Clinton or Lafayette.

For 22" to 28" radius, the front wheels will derail if the train is moving faster than a slow crawl.  I don't have tracks of larger radius on hand at the moment, but I doubt I'm going to want to go much higher than 28" with my current layout.

I was wondering if anyone else who happened to have this train was experiencing similar problems and/or if anyone had any suggestions about what I might do to try to fix this. 

If the front wheels could turn even a small amount , this wouldn't be an issue at all.  I'm wondering if I can do some kind of mod to make the thing work.  Unfortunately those little wheels are pretty restricted in that frame.  There's not a lot of room to move things around.

Anyway, thanks to all who take the time to read this and have a good day!

Big Al Mintaka