All the way up -- pusher ops

[mlehman]

Bayfield Transfer Railway

I've run on several layouts where "pusher crew" is a job.  It's a lot of fun.

 

 

Michael,

You're right, it's a lot of fun, so I decided to make a video tonight to help convey what I decribed in writing above

Tefft Helper Action from Mike Lehman on Vimeo.

In case the embed code doesn't work it's magic, here's a direct link:

https://vimeo.com/188094788

[Bayfield Transfer Railway]

I've run on several layouts where "pusher crew" is a job.  It's a lot of fun.

 

[mlehman]

I've done some limited testing of pushers consisted with the road loco(s) on DCC. It seems to work OK where the locos are well-matched (preferably indentical), there's mostly straight track, and the curves are broad enough to cause only limited increases in the power required. That group of requirements tends to be the exception where helper districts are needed, though.

Another tip for DCC users is to use a controller with a knob. Trying to use buttons on one controller and a knob on the other is a recipe for confusion and derailments. Even if both are buttons UP and DOWN, this just isn't smooth enough in many cases. Good ol' potentiometers are your frined here.

Then there's hand-eye coordination. Trying to control front road power and rear helpers at once is a challenge. The easiest solution is to share the fun, as it always draws an ethusiastic response when I've invited others to join in.

The key to helper operations IMO is keeping a close eye on where the slack is in the train. Best in most cases is to keep that about 2/3 of the way back in the train. The prototype usually likes it there. In the case of lines that use swing or mid-train helpers, too, that usually where the 3rd group of power goes.

[Rastafarr]

doctorwayne

 

 

mlehman

....Yes, DCC makes this easier, but there are ways beyond simply consisting the helper to the road engine to make it easier. When I'm by myself, it makes it easier to use identical controls for both engines, for instance.

 

 

Yeah, with a lone operator, I can see that consisting is probably the best way to do things:  after all, with DC control, I have to run all of the locomotives with the same throttle.  When the trailing tonnage calls for a helper and/or pusher, even with DC control, there's seldom an issue with locos which might otherwise be mismatched with regards to speed.  Widely varying starting voltages, though, can cause problems, especially when a pusher is involved.
I have thought about cutting that grade into blocks (it's about 45' long) and using reed switches or optical detectors to cascade block control to a second throttle, but it's not worth the effort, as I'd very rarely have a second operator.  The other problem is that it would complicate the wiring beyond my very basic capabilities.

Wayne

 

Whereas i've been using dcc for years and have consisted exactly once. The locos -- an a/b/a set of MTH PAs -- fritzed and have been stuck in said consist ever since (even my LHS has pronounced them 'well and truly defunct'). Didn't exactly leave a warm and fuzzy feeling. Being a dedicated steamie anyway, i deemed consisting to be unnecessary for me. One loco = one crew = one throttle. 

A minimum of two operators is the vision here. With barely 40' of mainline run from staging to staging, there's just too much for one operator to do and too little time. Having an engine on autopilot will just result in a loud and expensive crunch at the end.

Stu

[doctorwayne]

mlehman

....Yes, DCC makes this easier, but there are ways beyond simply consisting the helper to the road engine to make it easier. When I'm by myself, it makes it easier to use identical controls for both engines, for instance.

Yeah, with a lone operator, I can see that consisting is probably the best way to do things:  after all, with DC control, I have to run all of the locomotives with the same throttle.  When the trailing tonnage calls for a helper and/or pusher, even with DC control, there's seldom an issue with locos which might otherwise be mismatched with regards to speed.  Widely varying starting voltages, though, can cause problems, especially when a pusher is involved.
I have thought about cutting that grade into blocks (it's about 45' long) and using reed switches or optical detectors to cascade block control to a second throttle, but it's not worth the effort, as I'd very rarely have a second operator.  The other problem is that it would complicate the wiring beyond my very basic capabilities.

Wayne

[mlehman]

doctorwayne

Many trains may require doubleheading, but when pushers are used, they'll be cut-off when the train stops at the top of the grade to take on water, then return downhill as a light engine move.

I've got this option, except the two points are in different rooms, each station with it's own turntable for the convenience of steam. The actual ruling grade is in the first room, so along with a diesel, this allows some simplification to allow cutting off on the fly.

Yes, DCC makes this easier, but there are ways beyond simply consisting the helper to the road engine to make it easier. When I'm by myself, it makes it easier to use identical controls for both engines, for instance.

[doctorwayne]

Rastafarr

...The general idea is to have something impassable (w/o pushers) to a medium-to-long train. Two operators will have to cooperate to get a train through.....

That's one aspect of DCC which I often felt was overlooked and one of the few things DCC offers which I wouldn't mind having.  From what I've read, most choose to "consist" all of the locomotives and run it like the ol' train around the Christmas tree.  A locomotive with a separately-controlled pusher (or even a locomotive with a separately-controlled helper, and a pusher controlled by a third engineer, would really depend on the operators' skills rather than the normally-used aspects of DCC technology.  Sounds like a lotta fun.

Wayne

[Rastafarr]

The grade is 6% on its own not considering the curves, which are a relatively gentle 36". Space considerations mean my train length will top out about 8'; cramped staging precludes anything longer.

The general idea is to have something impassable (w/o pushers) to a medium-to-long train. Two operators will have to cooperate to get a train through. Slippage going up, runaways coming down. Careful careful.

Stu

[doctorwayne]

I won't comment on your electrical problem, as my experience is all with DC.

Rastafarr

...The centerpiece is a punishing 6% curved climb, about 25' in length.....

Is the grade itself 6%, or is that the grade plus an adjustment on account of the curve?
I posted about a somewhat similar situation HERE, where an abnormally long train increases the actual 2.5% grade to an equivalent 7.4% simply by the presence of the multiple curves, in which different parts of the train are moving at the same time. 

My 8-coupled locos, Consolidation and Mikados, can usually handle 10-12 cars each on this grade, and trains of such length are in, at most, only two curves at the same time.  As train length increases, additional locomotives are needed simply for the added load, but when train length increases substantially, the longer train is in more curves at the same time, thereby increasing the effect of the grade. 

The train mentioned in the link was slightly in excess of 70 cars, and required four locomotives to get it up the hill.  I tried several variations of locomotive placement:  two or three on the head end with two or one pushing, but the best arrangement seemed to be one loco on the front, one pushing, and the other two spaced-out within the train so that each locomotive accounted for about 25% of the load.  
Such a train wouldn't normally run on my layout - it's built with 12-16 car trains in mind, although some may be a little longer and many will be shorter.  It did demonstrate that when all of the power is actually needed to move the train (rather than just for show), it's possible to do so in DC, too.
Many trains may require doubleheading, but when pushers are used, they'll be cut-off when the train stops at the top of the grade to take on water, then return downhill as a light engine move.

Wayne

 

[Rastafarr]

A shim, a clean, a solder nearby and things seem to have improved. It was never a consistent problem though. Just one of those infuriating intermittent annoyances that pops up when least sought or expected. Time shall tell.

Stu

[mlehman]

Rastafarr

Made it. Mostly. The train got about 3/4 up when the I1sa shorted on some mystery issue and shut the whole set down. Hooray, i think? At least it didn't come crashing down. But why would a sound and dcc steamer short and stop for no discernable reason? There are no joints or curves, only a minor vertical transition where it died. Time to play electrical sleuth, i guess... Stu

Stu,

It might be a track problem. With my unsprung Blackstone C-19s, a difference of as little as .010" is enough to cause loss of contact. I'm guessing your big Decapod is sprung, so less of an issue, but check your track too, the electrics might be fine, you just need a littlle shim.

Here's the way our Mechnical Dept dealt with the problem of keeping pace after attempts to use Kadees on delayed uncoupling weren't reliable in giving on the fly uncoupling at the end of the shove.

It's a dummy that came off the front of a piece of brass I installed a working front coupler on recently. I filed off most of the "fingers" section that closes to lock the coupler together with its mate. Then I silver soldered it into a bit of square brass tube, drilled for the mounting screw and applied. I may have some more work to do to self-center it, but depends on testing I'm just started.

[BRAKIE]

Rastafarr

But why would a sound and dcc steamer short and stop for no discernable reason? There are no joints or curves, only a minor vertical transition where it died.

Some DCC/Sound engines stop  on a tad of dirt and then restarts.

I would clean that section of track and run the engine light watching for any issues.

[Rastafarr]

See the title for the operational focus on the Miracle Mile. The centerpiece is a punishing 6% curved climb, about 25' in length. Grueling.

Still at the track-and-timber stage of construction. I laid the last of the mainline track just a few days ago and the urge to run trains is, as we all know, often too much to resist. The first train up was a 2-10-0 I1sa pulling eight boxcars. Made it up solo, which i guess is a good thing. The next attempt added seven coal gons behind the boxes. This gave me the result i wanted: the train lost grip and stalled as soon as all the cars hit the grade. 

The eventual goal is to have multiple operators, including one running pusher engines. Not quite there yet. The only operator position is the yard, controlled by a Zephyr. It hardly needs to be said that operating two trains simultaneously on a short point-to-point is a ticklish affair; running a pusher compounds that. The lead engine is basically on autopilot while i run the pusher. Push too hard, the whole thing accordions and comes off. Pull back too hard, the whole thing stringlines and comes off. The benchwork is open; it'd be down to the floor from there.

Made it. Mostly. The train got about 3/4 up when the I1sa shorted on some mystery issue and shut the whole set down. Hooray, i think?

At least it didn't come crashing down. But why would a sound and dcc steamer short and stop for no discernable reason? There are no joints or curves, only a minor vertical transition where it died. 

Time to play electrical sleuth, i guess...

Stu