New Editor for MR

I believe that the system which appeared in 1978 was the Hornby Zero One system which was the first system to use digital techniques for loco control. The Hornby system never really caught on to any great extent was very little used, but Lenz progressed the Hornby idea and modified and improved it to become his DCC system.
Reply to
Jim Guthrie
Loading thread data ...
That is correct - well, I'd have to check the magazine advert dates, but 77-79 sounds right.
The limitations of 16 locos etc and the half-wave AC loco current limited it.
I'd disagree in the sense that the Lenz system was patented about the same time that Hornby Zero-1 appeared on the market. Bernard Lenz must have been well advanced with his prototype when he became aware of Zero-1.
Regards, Greg.P.
Reply to
Greg Procter
Well, I know several people on this ng like to portray me as a knowall who knows nothing, but:
Maerklin announced their Digital system in general terms during 1983 and went all out in their Nuernberg Fair new releases leaflet for February 1984 to the extent of illustrations and catalogue numbers. Anything that reaches their new release leaflet can normally be expected on the shop shelves before the following Christmas at the latest. Arnold also featured their DC(C) variation, but as I don't have their leaflet or catalogue archived I can't guarentee 1984 or 1985. AFAIK the actual production reached the shop shelves during 1988, which may well justify Lenz's comment that 1988 was the start - however, that's 10 years after his patent and first showing of his system.
I first played with the system that year and obtained the DC version soon after.
Also to be considered as a possibility is the date that the NMRA decided to take Lenz's (open) system as their standard.
Motorola released the relevant ICs which form the basis in approximately 1974. They were intended for such uses as remote garage door openers. I have the data sheets archived but those archives are stacked in numerous cartons in my garage.
Regards, Greg.P.
Reply to
Greg Procter
Actually he was not...he came over from another Kalmbach publication...It was Scale Auto...during his time there he managed to drop their circulation to the lowest level.
He's a self-appointed know-it-all who doesn't listen to anyone's opinions. In addition, he was known for his rude replies to letters and suggestions on how to improve the magazine. I could never figure out if he was doing the bidding of management or just plain out of touch with the whole concept of scale modeling or railroading.
Moving him up the chain only worsens a bad situation.
Reply to
He's listed as the Senior Editor in the April 2007 MR issue's masthead and on the coulmn I wrote to.
Besides that, which is very convincing evidence that he still works there, why would he be replying to mail sent to the editor of a column? Furthermore, how would he know it was even sent for he didn't work there?
Wolf wrote:
Reply to
Granted, but it's unclear what "senior editor" means. We don't know, and he ain't tellin'. :-) But I agree with you that Hediger is still employed by Kalmbach.
"Editors" these days can work anywhere. All the title means is that he gets paid for doing certain things. See Koester, for example - he doesn't "work there", he has a contract to write a column for them.
Not that the above is relevant to my point, which is that e-mail is often carried over into retirement. From the employer's p.o.v, it's a cheap perk for its retirees. For the retiree, it's a secure, relatively spam-free server. My bro-in-law still has his University e-mail account, for example. For that matter, my nephew still has a University e-mail account from his grad school days when he was a grad assistant to a prof. He now lives on the other side of the world. IOW, you can't draw firm conclusions from a person's e-mail address.
Reply to
I can only judge MR's editor by the quality of the magazine and the few words he writes at the beginning. Judging from the few words, Terry Thompson means well and wants a clue quite badly, but the clue jar is on a high shelf and he can't find a stool to climb up and raid it. On the other hand, the mag itself has been quite good, and getting better, these last few years (though it still has its ups and downs). There have even been articles about building things, wow.
I should also remind myself and the rest of us that Mr. Thompson isn't the only person who should remember to look at his idea-glass now and again while writing to make sure the injectors haven't failed. Even Linn H. Westcott, as much as he knew about model railroad engineering, tended to go way off the rails when he strayed into politics or economics during his little editor-manifestos...and he strayed this way pretty frequently. He had very a "engineery" view on these subjects, which is most definitely Not A Good Thing.
Cordially yours: Gerard P.
Reply to
I'm brand new to DCC, and the following is an excerpt from a missive that I sent out to a list that I belong to:
One of the reasons that I chose NCE's system was due to the interaction between the cab and the user. I think I did right. Once I got both locos programmed, I decided to see how hard it would be to make up, operate ,and break a consist. With both locos on my 2 1/2' of track, I started exploring the cab. Without opening the manual, but following on-screen prompts, I built, operated (sorta), and broke the consist. I'm happy with my decision.
IMHO, the old guard with the massive layouts and the even more massive wiring bundles will be the last to go the DCC route. They normally have a very large, non DCC friendly roster, and aren't interested in moving forward in the hobby. It's pretty much the same situation that most of us old farts faced when the pc went mainstream: sink or swim.
Reply to
You are correct. I mistakenly thought I recalled the 2005 MR article on Hediger's layout mentioning that this was essentially his swan song. On re-reading the article, I found this not to be true.
Reply to
CNJ999 spake thus:
Ditto for Bob Hundman of the eponymous publishing house. Bob is an exceptional modeler and researcher, a fair to middling editor, and a piss-poor writer. I know, because I had the job of copy-editing his ramblings (which he apparently read into a tape recorder) into something publishable.
Reply to
David Nebenzahl
MR has been decling in size, content, and value for a decade. Who really thinks yet another editor will change any of that?
I read it at the club for free, but rarely get anything out of it any more.
- An illuminating insight into the mess that is Wikipedia, from Wikipedia Review
formatting link
Reply to
If that's the criteria for DCC, then if my wife ever has a model railroad she will need a locomotive which flashes "12:00" over and over and over and over on its numberboards...
Reply to
Mark Mathu
On 3/7/07 7:39 PM, in article, "" wrote:
I've been an MR subscriber for well over a quarter of a century and am going to let my sub expire when it does in June. That's unless the new editor pulls a rabbit out of his ass and gets the magazine back to where it was years ago. Have meaningful articles on modeling specific rolling stock, histories of different freight car designs (sorry - RMC's got that nailed with it's Essential Freight Car series); drop the bleeping project layouts, that the last few years at least have been nothing more than showcases for what they can do with RTR trains and buildings. Consistently have Jim Six doing articles (although I hear he's po'd at Kalmbach for too heavily editing historical data his articles). Maybe even entice Malcolm Furlow to come out of retirement and do a true project layout, eh?
Reply to
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:21:03 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Jack instead replied:
I'm afraid that would require John Edward's help. -- Ray
Reply to
Ray Haddad
Don't expect that sort of change in content to come anytime soon, Jack. First off, the current editorial staff simply isn't up to it. Unlike the situation years ago, except for Popp, there's little evidence of any real modeling talent from the newer guys on the staff. More importantly though, over the past decade the magazine's focus has increasely become the entry-level, RTR crowd. MR seems to feel that this is their niche and obviously have no intent to change direction...even though they're readership is down by one-third or 80,000 over the past dozen years.
Look for the hobby to clearly divide itself into two decidely separate interest groups in the not too distant future: the basic RTR'ers and the traditional multi-talented modelers. MR, with its readership consistantly loosing ground by 5k-7k readers per year will continue to champion the former, while RMC, with a smaller but now stabilized circulation, will cater to the latter. One might even see the ranking of these two publications swap about 2015.
Reply to

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.