I agree with all (IMHO of course) who think that there can be too much automation or animatronics as Disney called it . I like sound out of my mostly Broadway Limited locomotives which are mainly 1940's steam and coal fired. I run my HO layout with just the basic sounds near all the time. I like hearing the chuff and bell and whistle. I have the operating water tank, the "talking" cattle car, the decoder built-in station sounds and Rolling Thunder which transmits bass loco sounds to an under layout woofer speaker among other "toys". I don't normally use these items as they don't appreciably increase my model railroading experience on a day to day basis.
BUT; when my 2+ year old grandson comes to visit, I use them all. He loves every one of them and I love using them for him. So I don't really care about Smoking Whistle or Coal Depleting Load or coupler clank and brake squeal normally, all of these "toys" collectively bring me great pleasure on occasion. Just saying.
Robert
The Tularosa Basin RR operating in the High Desert of Southern New Mexico
The Tularosa Basin: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Tularosa-Basin-NM-USGS-map_opaque.gif
Sir Madog Call me old fashioned, but I see depleting coal loads in tenders as an unnecessary marketing gimmick, directed at increasing the manufacturer´s margin and nothing else! It does not add any "play value" unless you want to spend the majority of your ops time mainating your roster of steam engines.
Call me old fashioned, but I see depleting coal loads in tenders as an unnecessary marketing gimmick, directed at increasing the manufacturer´s margin and nothing else! It does not add any "play value" unless you want to spend the majority of your ops time mainating your roster of steam engines.
Well, there was at least one modeler who was a frustrated hostler. Remember the layout featured in MR some years back that had a visible engine terminal with a big roundhouse, and staging was another turntable with a lot of radial tracks? (The one that sparked off the flame war about professionally-built model railroads.) I'd say that the owner spent all of his ops time moving and servicing locomotives.
As for oil firing - the JNR burned oil, but it was all #2 diesel, in locomotives (with hydraulic drives) and DMU. Steam burned coal right up to the end of regular service (in 1975) and the handful of currently-operable steamers still do. Since my short line is owned by the coal company it serves...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
andrechapelon The moving coal pile, like reversing valve motion and a model fireman shoveling coal, might be nice for a single hyperdetailed model running on a model railroad the size of a tea tray. For a situation where thirty or so steamers are in regular operation that's just another fussy mechanical gadget that would probably become unused, unmaintained and unserviceable in very rapid order. The easiest way around this conundrum is to model a railroad or part of a railroad where oil was the primary steam locomotive fuel. SP, UP, WP, ATSF, CP and CN in Western Canada, FEC, GN. It eliminates the "need" for Rube Goldberg gadgetry. The other alternative is to go into ride around sized live steam that uses real coal for fuel. http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/192021284933?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_noapp=true OTOH, all this is likely to do is to cause people to restart complaints about the expense of the hobby. Then again, when the cost of a single locomotive approximates the cost of a Mercedes C class........ Andre
The moving coal pile, like reversing valve motion and a model fireman shoveling coal, might be nice for a single hyperdetailed model running on a model railroad the size of a tea tray. For a situation where thirty or so steamers are in regular operation that's just another fussy mechanical gadget that would probably become unused, unmaintained and unserviceable in very rapid order.
The easiest way around this conundrum is to model a railroad or part of a railroad where oil was the primary steam locomotive fuel. SP, UP, WP, ATSF, CP and CN in Western Canada, FEC, GN. It eliminates the "need" for Rube Goldberg gadgetry.
The other alternative is to go into ride around sized live steam that uses real coal for fuel. http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/192021284933?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_noapp=true
OTOH, all this is likely to do is to cause people to restart complaints about the expense of the hobby. Then again, when the cost of a single locomotive approximates the cost of a Mercedes C class........
Andre
Even in the coal powered east, some roads used oil........
Some used oil for passenger service in cities with smoke ordinances that restricted coal fired steam loco use in downtown areas. Much easier to control smoke with oil fired locos.....
Here on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL most of out passenger steam power is oil fired, same was true on the WESTERN MARYLAND.
Cost? All these "value added" features are suposed to be the "free" result of modern manufacturing - never mind that the recently posted video of the Rapidio factory making and shipping the $325 RDC models does not look much different from the 1950's pictures of the ATHEARN plant.......
But once again, we cannot not let facts get in the way of our feelings.........
Glad I have most of the trains I want, since I don't even want to pay for DCC and sound let alone smoke, "steamy" whistles, or depleating coal loads.......
Sheldon
hon30critter A mechanical coal load going up and down speaks 'giraffe' to me too. Without the sloped coal bunker floor becoming exposed I couldn't buy the story. I'm sure some people would love it. I do like doctorwayne's approach to showing things 'in progression' in successive photos, but that is being done for purposes of the photographs, not operations. One place where an empty tender might be reasonable is when the tender is due for service. In that case it would likely be totally empty. Having an empty tender waiting to be brought into the roundhouse might provide some visual entertainment and some small switching functions too. It could also provide an opportunity to model a coal auger if appropriate for the tender. Dave
A mechanical coal load going up and down speaks 'giraffe' to me too. Without the sloped coal bunker floor becoming exposed I couldn't buy the story. I'm sure some people would love it.
I do like doctorwayne's approach to showing things 'in progression' in successive photos, but that is being done for purposes of the photographs, not operations.
One place where an empty tender might be reasonable is when the tender is due for service. In that case it would likely be totally empty. Having an empty tender waiting to be brought into the roundhouse might provide some visual entertainment and some small switching functions too. It could also provide an opportunity to model a coal auger if appropriate for the tender.
Dave
I have empty spare tenders in my locomotive shop area..........just like most prototypes would have had......
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Looking at the layout through prototype eyes, my locomotives are at the end of a long uphill climb when they first come into view. They run about one scale kilometer, cut off (engine change to juice jacks,) turn, replenish water. Steamers with small bunkers can top up, but their bigger brethren depart depleted - steam usage will be minimum on the long downgrade back to their terminal at Takami.
So, my tank locomotives and the C56 class 2-6-0 have fully loaded bunkers. The 9600s and their brethren with four-axle tenders have bunkers about half full. All the time they are in view they probably wouldn't consume much more than a half-dozen full scoops.
When I purchase my trains, I usually run them as-delivered and don't change anything on them other than couplers and tune up the tracks a little bit. I may run a general freight train with coal hoppers showing 3 different kinds of coal loads to give the train some variety and texture.
Imagination fills this requirement, it's too "tinplate" for my tastes, and beside, my railroad burns oil.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
I think a major flaw in this whole idea of a "moving" coal load is that tenders have hopper bottoms, not flat bottoms. As coal is consumed, more and more of the slanted hopper bottom sheet is exposed. IOW, the "moving" coal load should not merely move up and down, but also towards the front of the tender. A tender with an "near empty" coal load would not look very realistic if it's a big square hole. Even a slanted load would not look too good, IMHO.
Secondly, coal consumption rates are something like 50 to 170+ lbs of coal per sq. ft. of grate per hour (depending on use), according to online sources. A Pacific may have 50-60 sq. ft. of grate, which would mean anything from ~1 ton of coal per hour to ~5 tons per hour. With a tender of 10 to 16 tons of coal capacity, it would take 2 hours (big Pacific w/ small tender working hard) to 10 hours (small Pacific w/big tender working light) to empty a tender. A good mid-point is probably 6 hours.
So if you want to be accurate in real time, you'd have a tender that would be near empty after 6 hours of use. If you use fast time, then divide by that. Say you use a 6 to 1 fast clock, then you're still taking roughly an hour of real time to empty an average tender in average use for an average Pacific.
Is this something really worth pursuing? For something that moves as fast as an hour hand on a clock?
For a heckuva lot less work, one could simply make multiple loads of coal (as suggested) and replace them at various intervals. Hide a washer under them and use a magnet to pull it out as needed. Or heck, just make ones that are stackable. Put 3 or 4 loads in, one on top of the other, then simply pull out the top one every 20-30 minutes.
From a "how-to" approach, I think (my interpertation of) Sheldon's idea of a fixed, coal covered floor, hinged at the rear and lowered at the front by a controlled or programed motor, would be a practical solution. I think its a neat innovation, but not one I'd expect to add to my roster any time soon.
A year ago, I would have said..."why bother". But as I look at the advances of DCC control, I think this could be a worthy feature.
I'll pass on the talking water tank, especially since my sound decoders have the water fill effect.
My point - I welcome the thinkers and innovators with open arms, and while I'll pick and choose which to use, hey... bring 'em on!!!
Jim
I didn't mention sound. This would be silent. It would go down so slowly that you could not see it going down.
Just imagine, a locomotive pulling out of the yard with a full tender, while another enters with an almost empty tender.
I'm a'workin on the railroad.
Like others, I am more than content with my imagination on this, but of course I am one who is content with my imagination on the issues of sound, smoke, station announcements, etc.
A few more detailed thoughts.....I am building a fairly large layout, but even at that, it only represents eight miles of mainline trackage. Exactly how noticeable would coal consumption be in just eight miles?
But my other issue with all these sorts of features is scale viewing/listening distance. In my opinion (I qualifiy my statement because so many seem to instantly become offended otherwise), at 1/87th of real life, HO scale is a "broad view" modeling scale. Even at a viewing distance of 3 actual feet, you are 261 scale feet from the object in question. How loud is the noise?, how sharp is the detail?, how obvious would the changing coal level be at that distance?
If I was modeling in 1/48, or some even larger scale, than all these "intimate" details (like sound) would seem to apply more and be more important.
But HO is like a view from a distance, and that is how I like to model with it. I'm building a large layout, with multiple trains running at once, lots of action, a "panorama" of railroad action - not a nitty gritty up close, engineer in the cab experiance - maybe that is why I don't need DCC either.......
I'm with Ed and Wayne. I'd much prefer to just use my imagination in regards to the coal load. And, given a choice, I'd rather have three removeable coal loads for each of my tenders: full, 1/2, and nearly empty. That way I could exchange them according to where they were on the layout and when.
Even with sound - the only functions I'm interested in (and utilize on a regular basis) are whistle, chuff, horn, and bell. Coulper clash I seldomly use and the rest I could care less about. I'm not interested in extraneous station sounds because they wouldn't be appropriate for my era or layout location.
Thankfully - for me - the more important DCC functions are in the F0-F8 range.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
CentralGulf "Smoking Whistle" CG
"Smoking Whistle"
CG
Goes with the "Steaming Gun".
Wayne
doctorwayneAn interesting idea to simulate operational limitations of the prototype, but a little too "Lionel Giraffe Car" for my tastes. I'm quite content using my imagination to overlook such anomalies.
I quite agree with Wayne. The "talking" water tower with the automated spout also fits into this category.
Seems like BLI is one step ahead of you on the idea:
I would be happy if they concentrated their engineering efforts toward better drive-line components.
Regards, Ed
An interesting idea to simulate operational limitations of the prototype, but a little too "Lionel Giraffe Car" for my tastes. I'm quite content using my imagination to overlook such anomalies.However, when I do an illustrated thread showing operations (on another forum), I do like to simulate the passage of time and motion. F'rinstance, because I use live loads in all my tenders, the use or replenishment of coal can be simulated....
...or the line of vehicles waiting at a crossing while a train passes will grow as subsequent cars roll past...
G Paine Thinking of granular coal, it would have to be stored in the tender water box as it was "consumed". That might limit the space for other things like decoders. Just my .
Thinking of granular coal, it would have to be stored in the tender water box as it was "consumed". That might limit the space for other things like decoders. Just my .
I was thinking of a flat plastic coal load that is common in hoppers. It would not be granular. It would simply move up and down as required. It could be slightly cocked forward to simulate being taken from the front first.
intersting idea ,one thing would be if loco was hand fired or stoker as the coal load would diminish at a different way . as a side note the type of coal used is of different size for stoker and hand fire.but as all my steamers are oil fired wont be working on this idea.
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch
Maine_Central_guy A lionel big boy from 2014 had this feature, which I thought was pretty cool.Why can't they do this in HO?
A lionel big boy from 2014 had this feature, which I thought was pretty cool.Why can't they do this in HO?
While the super-detailed steam locomotive drives through th equally impressive layout, there is an unending supply of coal in the tender. I recently got an idea: why couldn't there be a way to make the coal load in the tender go down as the locomotive travels across the layout.
I do not know if there is anything like this alread, but recently I got an idea about how to make the coal in the tender go down while the locomotive is running. Power from the track would go to a motor in the tender. The motor would have to be capable of traveling at very slow speeds like 1" in 20 minutes.
In DCC operation, two different functions could be used to make the coal load move up and down. One could make the coal go down slowly, and it could be programmed to move at various speeds. The other function would be used for bringing the coal load back up to the top of the tender. It would probably travel up at a rate of 1" in 10 seconds, or whatever looks good. This would be activated while the locomotive is underneath the coaling tower.
DC operations would be slightly more difficult, but it could still done.
A worm drive would make it very slow, but might lack the ability to bring the load up quickly. A trigger at the base of the tender would shut off the motor when the coal load reaches the bottom of the tender. This would not make the locomotive stop driving, but would be a separate function.
I welcome any ideas, tips, and discussion. You are welcome to manufacture this personally or commercially with any modifications. I would appreciate if this would remain somewhat public domain, so that various manufacturers and individuals can make their own versions and modifications.
Thanks, and I appreciate your input. Any ideas about this?