Surprisingly enough, I have an 8310 2-4-0 from 1973 or so which will pull 10-11 cars around O27 curves with very little trouble... :)
My best so far is the new Lionel Southern Berkshire.
Followed by my 681 S-2 Turbine.
My strongest Diesel is my K-Line Chessie MP-15
So many scales, so many trains, so little time.....
My strongest puller is my Lionel GG1 from around '96, the green, solid stripe, TMCC one. It's got 2 pullmors, magnetraction, and weighs a ton.
The downside to this engine is that it is a watt hog.
My strongest single motor puller is my 2046 postwar Hudson. This is probably my most run engine on my layout (well maybe Thomas sees more run time?). It smokes well, the whistle works OK, and pulls good.
J White
It's probably a tie between my Williams Hudson, my MTH Berkshire, my Lionel Wabash Hudson equipped with magna-traction, and my Lionel Illinois Central 2-6-2 prairie. None of them, enstead of the Wabash Hudson, and MTH, uses much power when pulling all my cars.
Give me steam locomotives or give me DEATH!
Berkshire Junction, bringing fourth the cry of the Iron Horse since 1900.
There is no particular advantage in locating the weight over the trucks. For a locomotive with two powered trucks, the weight can be distributed throughout the locomotive, as long as the center of mass winds up approximately in the middle between the trucks. For a locomotive with only one powered truck, the best arrangement is to get the center of mass as close to that truck as possible. Weight between the trucks helps to do this and helps more the closer it is to the powered truck; but weight between the powered truck and the end of the body is even more effective. Even so, the center of mass will surely still be between trucks, just offset toward the powered end.
The drawbar force causes some redistribution of the weight toward the rear truck; but this is not a big deal. In any case, for a locomotive which may be run with either end forward, it is impossible to know which way to offset the center of mass to compensate for the drawbar force.
Bob Nelson
Thanks Chief and Dennis for your observations. While I don't have anything in my corral to compete with the big guys, I am always interested in improving what I have.
In another thread I noted that the post war single engined FA ALCos I have can pull a 12 car consist (6 streamliners #242X and 6 lighter freights), provided clean track and wheels, lubricated cars, a gentle throttle take up, no inclines, and can negotiate O27 curves, albeit with some slowdown from the drag. And the slowdown coincides with a drop in engine whine, so I suspect the wheels are not slipping, or are not slipping badly.
The subject of strategically added weight over the drive trucks is interesting, but as I mentioned earlier, I am worried about additional heat from the motor as a result of the additional weight of the consist and weights placed over the drive truck.
Early PW ALCo shells deformed on the roof over the motor (1950-1952) and a dime sized button extrusion was added to the roof of the 2031s in 1953 which eliminated the warpage, albeit Lionel probably assumed a moderate sized consist. The ALCo shells have no vents like the postwar F3s. Maybe some sort of heat shield on the inside roof of the ALCo shell is in order.
Be glad for having those long straightaways and larger turn radii to even be able to attempt a test of pulling power; and having the zillion extra cars doesn't hurt!
Jack
IF IT WON'T COME LOOSE BY TAPPING ON IT, DON'T TRY TO FORCE IT. USE A BIGGER HAMMER.
One thing to remember, many of the consists of the postwar sets show only 3-5 cars. It seemed they didn't pull that many regardless of the engine used. I have heard some great things about the F3 sets with Magnetraction, but never personally saw it. I know in the demonstration set "dissapearing train" layout, they used empty gondolas when they had a longer train. I really was suprised by the difference in pulling power of some of the new engines verses the Postwar ones as seen on OGR's video. They even had a relatively cheap K-line engine outpull most others.
dennis
TCA#09-63805
God bless TCA 05-58541 Benefactor Member of the NRA, Member of the American Legion, Retired Boss Hog of Roseyville , KC&D Qualified
Thanks, Dennis. None of my engines, all 50s postwar, have a lot of motive power relative to the beasts we are discussing here. None have dual motors. My 2046 Hudson can't compare to any of the duals like the F3s, and their gearing was lower to boot, I believe, to emphasize pulling functionality.
I always wondered why Lionel built the early FA ALCos with so much left over (13-14V, 6-8 passenger car consist, and flying) but no weight to put the power down, even with fully functioning magetraction, clean wheels, and clean track.
Maybe we can expand this thread to include strongest single motor motive power versus duals, multiple duals, and lashups.
Jack, I don't believe they are adding too much weight. While it would add to the force to overcome for the locomotive to move, it also can act as a heat sinc in some cases. Still, we are only talking about several ounces, not all that much. Some have done experiments with how much weight will yield the desired results without the issues that would happen if too much weight were added. Just some trial and error. I have used magnets on some engines to add weight that can also be removed if needed.
I notice in the discussions the suggestion of adding weight, preferably over the drive wheels, particularly useful for single motor units that are weight challenged to start with. No one has mentioned anything about the resulting higher operating temperatures or motor failures. Non issue?
choochin3 wrote:I have a postwar Lionel 2029 loco that can pull anything I put behind it!I easily pull 35 cars on 072 curves. Carl T.
I have a postwar Lionel 2029 loco that can pull anything I put behind it!
I easily pull 35 cars on 072 curves.
Carl T.
Oh the power of just one little traction tire...
Rob
It's probably my Lionel F7 ABBA set with 3 powered units having a total of 6 motors. Behind that, probably my MTH centipedes with 2 motors in each unit.
Joel
Ive tested a bunch of my engines (post war F3s, FMs and GG1s) now ive run them against my newer offerings. I dont have enough rolling stock to challenge the larger ones so i got to thinking...what is the worst rolling piece of equipment I could think of. Then it came to me...early post war F3 B-units, these things are anchors.
believe it or not, the little docksider pulled eight of them around 0-54 curves and straights.
I put every one I could lay my hands on behind my JLC big boy and 22 of them was no problem, but this was done on 0-72 curves and straights.
Currently my Legacy SD40-2 in the beautiful CSX YN3 "Dark Future" paint scheme. Soon to be my MTH CSX SD70ACe, also in YN3. You gotta love the dark blue and gold!
Isnt black and white kinda old fashion?
One locomotive I have always found suprisingly powerful is the 4-4-2 Starter Set engines. Compared to their "Scout" postwar brothers, they have very powerful moters. Mine has been capable of pulling 15 traditional cars on 027 curves!
"Lionel trains are the standard of the world" - Jousha Lionel Cowen
I would guess probably my K-line Club Trainmaster(with TMCC).
I have yet to throw anything at it yet which it couldn't pull without complaint, including 20 heavy postwar cars which two postwar engines could hardly even budge.
As I haven't done drawbar tests, though, this is all anectdotal.
Celebrating 18 years on the CTT Forum.
Buckeye Riveter......... OTTS Charter Member, a Roseyville Raider and a member of the CTT Forum since 2004..
Jelloway Creek, OH - ELV 1,100 - Home of the Baltimore, Ohio & Wabash RR
TCA 09-64284
brwebster wrote: I don't think this topic should go without mention of Lionel's Docksider. It seems it's weight to power ratio is way above average, especially for an entry level loco. Bruce Webster
Bruce Webster
Bruce, I agree, the Docksider is a strong locomotive for it's size and price range. I would be interested in putting TMCC in a few that I have and seeing if I could do a MU with them.
Dennis
The best in my fleet is an MTH PS1 scale GG1. The weight of it alone problably makes it such a good hauler. Supposedly my 2 Atlas F2/3's could handle tons but I've only tested them with a mix of 12 passenger and head end cars on the flat. ( no grades on my layout )
I don't think this topic should go without mention of Lionel's Docksider. It seems it's weight to power ratio is way above average, especially for an entry level loco.
I have a K-line PA f3 set ABBA all powered that will pull anything. Probably the best single puller is my new Legacy Big BOY.
laz57
Doug Murphy 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...' Henry V.
My MTH 2-8-0 does a great job for an entry level steamer. I contribute some of that to the speed control, and weight, as Lionroar88 stated. The speed control allows you to roll on power a little more evenly, keeping the tires from spinning on the rail. My MTH F3 is also a very good puller, and it has two motors. They can pull 17+ cars up 3% curved inclines all day long, at speeds under 10 SMPH. On a small layout like mine, that's great.
Wes
I have two GP-30s from Lionel, one is TMCC with Odessey the other is Legacy. Both are excellent pullers and with them double headed you get triple your fun! Running under Legacy they perform even better.I also have a MTH 491 Streamlined Hudson that isn't a bad puller for a conventional engine. Also a MTH B&O RS-1 with PS2.0 that can pull quite a bit, and my K-Line Allegheny is no slough either.I've found that dual motor engines that have some heft to them are the best pullers as it takes some weight to really make the traction tires bite. Without the weight and traction tires wheel slippage is really bad.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month