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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
I can only judge MR's editor by the quality of the magazine and the
he writes at the beginning. Judging from the few words, Terry
means well and wants a clue quite badly, but the clue jar is on a high
and he can't find a stool to climb up and raid it. On the other hand,
itself has been quite good, and getting better, these last few years
still has its ups and downs). There have even been articles about
I should also remind myself and the rest of us that Mr. Thompson isn't
only person who should remember to look at his idea-glass now and
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
his little editor-manifestos...and he strayed this way pretty
He had very a "engineery" view on these subjects, which is most
Not A Good Thing.
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.
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.
firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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
- An illuminating insight into the mess that is Wikipedia, from
On 3/7/07 7:39 PM, in article
" email@example.com" 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?
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.