Old Newbie Questions

[jeffers_mz]

Ereimer

I see now that the Shay conversion info came from you, and apologize for mixing things up. I'll probably run the Shay as is for a while, and eventually decide whether to keep it that way, convert it, or try one of the other options. None of them look like something I'd want to attempt without a better set of tools for detail work.

Thanks for the reply and again, sorry for the mix-up.

[jeffers_mz]

Lynn,

Inches of rise divided by inches of run, all times 100 gives you the grade as a percentage. I get 5.3% for a 3 inch rise in a 56 inch run.

I'm using 3inches of clearance on the layout under construction, which translates to a prototype locomotive of 21.75 feet high. If I need something taller than that, I'm going to be in real trouble, because it isn't going to make it under overhead tracks.

I like some of your benchwork suggestions, the box of pushpins is especially inventive. Mind if I borrow some of them?



SpaceMouse,

I tested it in place on the actual roadbed, curve and benchwork. I'm using a Kreg jig to assemble the benchwork, so if it didn't work, it would have been easy to unscrew the pylons and replace them. I think it will perform even better when the intermediate pylons are in place. Right now the loco's weight generates a tiny bit of sag between pylons, speeds up after climbing past a pylon, into the sag, and slows down climbing up the sag approaching the next pylon. Frictions make it a net losing proposition, and once the benchwork is complete, there will be full support under the whole grade, so the speed will remain constant during the climb.



Fred,

Good information, especially on the Shay conversion. I'll probably run it as a 3 truck for a good while before trying to change it. From your account, it sounds like converting would take the same effort as powering a Keystone or building an MDC.

If there's a way to get enough weight into the OT steamers, I'll give it a shot. I've neem thinking about using a later Baldwin and alternating period between 1980 and say 1910, which opens up some options.

I had looked into converting the newer Baldwins into older Baldwins, changing the cab, stack, pilot, domes, etc, but I think the boilers are larger. In any event, the only old style 2-8-0 Consolidateds I've seen are in brass. The stacks are pretty big, and I could get a lot of lead in there if it wasn't cast solid to begin with, and may get a little better balance shaving some weight from the cab area.
It's an experiment, and to some extent a gamble, but I know my son will get to have fun with his diesels at least, and who knows, it may fly.

I've been looking at Climax engines, as far as I can tell this road never had one and probably never had the chance to rent one, but I just like them. I may have to sneak one in under cover of darkness and run it when nobody else is around.

Thanks again for the information,

Jeff

[ereimer]

i have a bachmann 3 truck shay and i think it would be a major rebuilding job to make it a 2 truck , one well worthy of a paid article in MR (so if you do it , take plenty of pictures!) . 1st problem is the 3rd truck holds up the water tank , which hides the circuit board , so you'd need to find someplace to put the electronics . 2nd challenge is that the 2nd truck extends past the end of the frame and the coal/oil bin . i suppose it wouldn't be too hard to use part of the ex-water tank to extend the fuel bin , and therefore have somewhere to put a modified version of the electronics , but i'm sure there'd be no room for a dcc decoder (although i don't think you mentioned if you were building dc or dcc)
unfortunatly i don't have any way of testing how it works on a 5% grade .

there is also the keystone 2 truck http://www.internettrains.com/395-105.html .
i think the roundhouse/mdc 2 truck is available as a rtr although i couldn't find a link for it . you can probably still find the kit version but it apparently takes a lot of work and some extra parts to get it running well

[wickman]

Well as you can see in my post | I had 11 cars plus weight in the cars pulling up what I beleive if my math is correct is about 5% grade ( upto 3" @ 56 " of track ) These are just bachman gp-35's they had no problem at all pulling the cars up although it wouldn't happen with only one loco.
Lynn[:)]

[fwright]

As far as pulling up grades:

1880s rod steam engines in HO will probably not do well on 5% grades unless equipped with traction tires. The boilers in scale are too small to hold any substantial weight. The models tend to be very cab heavy, especially with the motor there. The pilot trucks further subtract from pulling power because the usual springing arrangement transfers a fair amount of weight tothe pilot truck and exacerbates the cab heavy problem. Tender drive (typical in early 4-4-0s) adds a very heavy tender.

The one exception to the rod rule rule will likely be your switchers, especially the tank switchers. Heavy die cast boiler models (think Mantua, Varney, Bowser, etc) with no tender to drag will equal or better disel performance on the grades without traction tires. All of these will likely drag 2-3 cars up 5% without a sweat - Chuck Y did it on the Gum Stump and Showshoe with 7% grades with 2 cars, a tiny caboose, and a Ken Kidder Porter 0-4-0T. I don't know how the new plastic 0-6-0T (either P2K or Spectrum made it) would do.

Model geared engines generally have very low geared drives similar to diesels. I know my MDC Climax will easily pull 5-6 cars up a 4% grade, and I have seen displays with 3 cars on 8% around less than a 15 in radius curve. The Keystone Shay is reportedly able to do the same. I would bet the MDC Shay, when tuned to run properly, will do well too. Again, I don't know how heavy the Bachman is, but is a model of a large Shay, larger than both the Roundhouse/MDC and the Keystone. So you should be able to get enough weight in it to make it pull a load up the grades. My only concern about the Bachman is that it drives using the the Shay line shafts instead of a separate center shaft. I'm not sure how rugged the line shafts would be under heavy load, but I have heard of some impressively long trains pulled by it - which is a good sign.

In most cases, motors are unlikely to burn out (assumes the model runs freely without binding or similar). A motor will not burn out if the current with the driving wheels slipping is less than the maximum current of the motor - true in almost all cases. If equipped with traction tires, it is possible to draw too much current when the engine is stalled due to load. Although plastic gears fail much too frequently for my taste, I don't believe that the plastic gear failures are actually caused by steep grades or loads. They mostly seem to happen due to manufacturing defects - gears splitting or slipping on axles, gears out of round causing binding, etc. So don't worry about damaging your engine trying it on the grades. If it has traction tires, use an ammeter with a DC supply to monitor it on the 1st few attempts.

yours in mountain modeling
Fred Wright

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffers_mz

I got two of the locomotives to pull 6 cars up the 4.3% grade by cleaning about 30 years worth of oxidation from the wheels and old track, and now three of the four will do the job.

Does your test grade have the curves your proposed layout it does?

[selector]

Well, you didn't say it was a Canadian loco. That changes everything!! [(-D]

[wickman]

I did a bit of experimenting my self with grades Well here's a little something we're toying with just to get a bit of elevation he he he :D
I threw on 11 of my heaviest cars just to test out my theory some cars loaded with wood screws even . Had a bit of a time with just the one loco but had no problem at all with the help of second loco added on LOL :D
Does someone know what the standard clearance is for bridge over passes that is if I'm asking the right question ...I'd like to know how many inches is needed for the lower track head room
[:)]

















3" at 52 inches from the start of the incline hmm what would that work out to ;D






Had to move the original turnout closer to the mountain and add in a new turnout for the incline

[jeffers_mz]

I got two of the locomotives to pull 6 cars up the 4.3% grade by cleaning about 30 years worth of oxidation from the wheels and old track, and now three of the four will do the job.

The F-Type is going to take some careful tweaking. I'm going to have to mount some sort of anchor atop the motor housing and attach a spring there, then probably a lot of trial and error to the weight of the loco and the spring tension just right to keep the driving wheels in contact with the track. Lots of room to work in there though, so that's a plus.

Still looking for an eyeball estimate from someone who owns or has owned the Bachman three truck Shay as to what all would be involved in removing the tender and the third truck to get as close to the prototype two truck Shay as possible. In a perfect world, the coupling and drive shaft would just pop loose, allowing it to become a two truck easily and non-destructively.

For the record, Selector, the term the forum censors didn't seem to like in my earlier post was the first four letters of the word arcenal, an array or collection of weapons, only spelled correctly with an "s" instead of a "c".

No intent to cuss or break the rules, just one of those computer things.

:-)

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Eriediamond

Selector, I fail to see your reasonong here. By lowering the lower track by one inch then reducing the pass over by one inch still leaves you with the original clearance. Since the train still has to climb to the same height, albeit starting at a lower elevation, the distance it has to travel to the upper level hasn't changed, hence the same 5% grade still exists. The only way to reduce a grade is to have a longer distance to travel from the lower to the upper level. Respectfuly Ken

I can see your confusion, Ken, mainly because I misread our friend's initial post. I thought he was describing a cross-over, so the clearance could be maintained by lowering the upper track and also digging in the lower by the same distance, but the upper track would not have to climb so high from its starting elevation. As it is, I now see that it is one loop that must make it up and down from two half-way points (nodes), so my suggestion is moot.

Sorry for the confusion. It was of my making.

We all agree here that curved gradients are very demanding on locomotives of any configuration, and the more curved and steep they are, the less productivity they have in terms of moving payloads. A Shay or Climax, or similar locomotive would be able to handle grades in the 9% range prototypically pulling hefty loads, but not in HO.

[jeffers_mz]

Hi Don,

I've played around with the idea of switchbacks, since the mine I want to model, the Yankee Girl, used one to bring their spurs in off the main line, but it hogs the space available there. I wanted the Corkscrew Turntable in there too, but again, just not enough room where it's supposed to go.

A switchback will get me up the hill, but would play havoc with the symmetry of the Muleshoe curve, and reduce it to a single track instead of two. While two don't match reality, they contribute a great deal to the functionality of the layout, and this is a time when I want some simple operating options around to make sure my son gets to enjoy full speed mainline runs for extended periods, which 11 year olds probably need to get the most fun out of the hobby.

There's good news though. I have 4 locomotives, 3 of them 35 years old, and not run or serviced for at least 30 years. The fourth one is brand new. I set up a rise of 3.25 inches in the best case 74 inch run available, which works out to a 4.3% grade.

A 35 year old ALM F-type wouldn't pull it at all. It also wheel spins on flat track, with or without cars behind it. The driving truck has play between it and the motor, and the motor really needs a light spring to reduce rock and keep the drive wheels in contact with the rails properly.

A 30 year old Mantua GP-40 won't pull it either, but I have hopes there. It acts like it makes poor contact with the track or has an intermittant short. It will climb fine when nudged a little bit, until it shorts out again. It does the same thing coming back down the grade.

A 35 year old ALM diesel switcher struggles a bit up the grade, loaded or unloaded. The addition of a 3 ounce lead weight over the drive wheels really makes a big difference. With that in place, it will slow to about half speed on the grade, and requires judicious use of the throttle (to avoid wheelspin) to pull it with 5 freight cars and a caboose attached.

The new locomotive, a Lifelike GP-40 will accelerate up the grade, from a standing start in the middle, pulling 5 freight cars and a caboose. it'll probably pull 20 under the same conditions, but I don't have that many with working couplers at the moment.

I think I'm going to stay with this grade. Half my loco stock will pull more cars than I need up the hill, and the ones that will not don't work properly on the flats either. I think a little cleaning and in the case of the F-type, a little tweaking will get them all to do the job. If I get in a jam, I'll just do what Otto Mears did in the same situation, put in a call for a helper engine and take a break till it gets there.

I realize that the diesels won't look exactly right with 1890 era wooden trestles, and similar vintage mine buildings built from new green lumber instead of being rotted out and collapsing like they actually are right now. Even swapping in a new "Silverton" won't make up for those shortcomings.

On the plus side, the diesel fan in the family has no real concept of the word "prototype". In his perfect world, Daddy would provide olive drab diesels and freight cars, along with actually operational ordinance for their artillery pieces to fire.

While the live ammunition bit probably isn't going to happen, he still won't complain if a few things aren't exactly proper period for his purposes. If he starts to raise objections somewhere down the line, I'll direct him towards the workshop and allow him to model whatever replacement modules he wants to.

:-)

I really appreciate all the help and suggestions people here have given. I hope I can return the favor someday.

Thanks.

[Don Gibson]

PROBLEM'S:

1. I think small engine's suitable for 15" - 18" radii curves will have problem's with the steep grade's you envision.
2. the bigger, more powerfull engines that can 'hack' steep grade's, will have problem's with tight curves.
You have TWO LIMITATION'S to start with - THREE with the 4X8.
4. Diesel's will look out of place on 1800's railroading.
5. The BALDWIN Brass engine should pull better than the Shay, because it's heavier.

The Denver & Salt Lake (and other mountain RR's) used switchback's to gain altitude, and pulled one or two car's up at a time with a single engine. So could you. It might be fun.

The local branch of the D&RGW out of Salida CO. was using diesel's and switchback's, when I last drove it.

[jeffers_mz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ARTHILL

I think trying is a good idea. I wanted a three level track with crossing bridges and I got it. I wanted lots of mountain and tunnels. At the time it was what I wanted and I'm glad I built it. When I stared my new layout this spring, one of the purposes was to use the few things I saved from the 70s including two brass engines. I still have a layout more suited to scenery than complex running. We will never have an opperating session at my house but the grand kids like to come over and build things. Go for and post us some pics. You can always use it for the end of an around the room shelf layout in the future.

Well, SpaceMouse's 3.7% max grade requires 83 linear inches to give me 3.1 inches of rise, minus a quarter inch of track and a quarter inch of luan, leaving me with 0.1 inches of vertical clearance for my tallest loco.

That's tight, but so was the prototype, as evidenced by the Muleshoe Curve and the Corkscrew Turntable.

I'm going to set up a test track that way, and run the four locos I have up it. If they can pull three cars and a caboose up the grade, I'll go with it. If not, Construction Engineer Gibbs will be looking for a new job and a new survey and track plan may be ecessary.

[jeffers_mz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Hi and welcome. I have an 1880's layout and I have tested many engines on my grades which are 3.1% and 3.7%. I have various engines that I have tested. All can get 4-5 cars up the 3.% grade. However, you go up the 3.7% grade and the number of cars you can pull diminishes significantly. Most can get 3 cars or so with a couple getting less than 2 up. I have not tested my Shay, but my Heisler did not fair well.

Avoid the 5%. I made a rule for future layouts. Nothing more than 2%.

Thanks, SpaceMouse, that's the kind of experimentation I was looking for. You've probably saved me a great deal of unproductive effort. Back to the drawing board.

:-)

[ARTHILL]

I think trying is a good idea. I wanted a three level track with crossing bridges and I got it. I wanted lots of mountain and tunnels. At the time it was what I wanted and I'm glad I built it. When I stared my new layout this spring, one of the purposes was to use the few things I saved from the 70s including two brass engines. I still have a layout more suited to scenery than complex running. We will never have an opperating session at my house but the grand kids like to come over and build things. Go for and post us some pics. You can always use it for the end of an around the room shelf layout in the future.

[jeffers_mz]

Well, the previous post was supposed to go under Eriediamond's as a reply to him and Selector, but it didn't. Forgive a forum newcomer, I'll figure this out eventually.

:-)

This one if for Modelmaker51, Curmudgeon, and Arthill.

Modelmaker51, I appreciate the heads up on wheel slippage and motor burnout. Didn't think of that.

Curmudgeon, if I use On30, I lose all the HO stock and locos I have from my old layout, my son's new set, and the new stock gets taller, making the grade and clearance problems worse. If I use HO equipment and a 3'0" scale gauge like the prototype, I lose all the track I have now, have to re-truck every loco and car, and probably have to lay all my own rail. For now, I'm going to stick with standard HO gauge. If my son stays bug bit, we'll have a new and larger layout in the future. Then we can see about true narrow gauge rails, and a different configuration.

The dead spot in this 4 x 8 trap is centered in the back area. I can get to both ends and the front edge, so it's not a huge area. There are a couple of turnouts there, but little else. For the major construction jobs, I can slide it out and access the rear edge. For retrieval of stalled equipment, I have a nice spring loaded 2 foot pushbutton cable with a grappler claw on the ends. I think it will fly until we move on to a larger setup.

Arthill, all of the mainline run minimum radius at 18 inches. The Shay was actually purchased for the Rio Grande Southern line and may never have actually seen service on the Silverton line, even though www.narrowgauge.org says it eventually owned by the Silverton RR. IIRC, the owner loved the pulling power, hated the speed limitations, and eventually swapped it back to the RGS for a loaner. It won't run often, but will probably be parked visibly somewhere, while the Baldwins do most of the mainline work.

Only the switch engines and shorty rolling stock have to access the 15" radius curves. The mainline locos will back the trains into the yards, not penetrating far enough to encounter any of the sharper curves.

I know there's going to be operating issues. I can live with slow grade climbs, increased wear on motors (not more than about 50% generally), and short consists. I'm not willing to live with a grade that kills locos in one session or even a month, one way operation for more than half the locomotives, or 5 locomotives needed to pull one freight car.

This may be a case of just try it and see what happens, but it makes sense to ask here first before building myself into any corners.

As an added note to Selector, I realized that a dip in the lower level at crossing points might accomplish lowering the grade, but in this case it will be hard to manage. The upper and lower loop are essentially stacked vertically, with large parts of both being "crossing points". Good thinking, out of the box, just the way I like it, but unfortunately it won't work this time. Good trick for the future****nal though.

[SpaceMouse]

Hi and welcome. I have an 1880's layout and I have tested many engines on my grades which are 3.1% and 3.7%. I have various engines that I have tested. All can get 4-5 cars up the 3.% grade. However, you go up the 3.7% grade and the number of cars you can pull diminishes significantly. Most can get 3 cars or so with a couple getting less than 2 up. I have not tested my Shay, but my Heisler did not fair well.

Avoid the 5%. I made a rule for future layouts. Nothing more than 2%.

[jeffers_mz]

Distance and necessary rise (clearance) are the limiting factors here, as in the prototype. Coming out of the lower loop, you enter the branch of a turnout to access the "squeezed" side of the dogbone straightaway. You then pass a pair of turnouts (for the lower yard) before the grade and 180 degree curve starts. The inner track follows an 18" radius, yielding 56 linear inches and change. At 5%, I can pick up 2 and a half vertical inches there.

Coming out of the curve up near the second level there's 18 inches of straightaway there before the first turnout (upper loop return), allowing me another inch of vertical rise at 5% before flattening out for the turnout. That gives me a total of 3.5 inches vertical, ,inus a fuzz for rise lost in the approach and departure transitions, or 1 inch taller than cab height on my tallest current loco. I lose a quarter inch to the luan roadbed, 3/4 of an inch more for the 1x roadbed support, and a very little notching of the roadbed support at crossing points sees me through.

However, an even slightly taller loco puts me in a bind for vertical clearance. It's not a deal breaker, because there are a couple of options.

1. I can float the roadbed over a 3 inch span with no support 1x underneath, buying a full 3/4 inch of clearance. The downside here is a general and a specific one. Specifically, it increases the number of pylons necessary to support the roadbed, and requires additional cross members below the pylons to support them in turn.

2. I can discard a turnout on the lower level, buying 9 more horizontal inches for the grade, allowing roughly half an inch of extra clearance for cross overs. The downside here is that the stationhouse will then occupy a curved section of track and I can't stage both passenger and freight consists in this yard any more.

3. I can run all trains uphill only on the outer radius of the 180 degree curve. With a radius of 21.5 inches there, the linear distance for the grade becomes 67 inches and change, buying an additional rise of approximately three quarters to seven eighths of an inch. The drawback here is a significant flexibility impact.

Generally, all three options have the drawback that if I use them to buy clearance, I can't also use them to decrease grade.

If most of the period engines will pull a 5% grade, with the main issue being a 50% or less reduction in longevity, and/or consists of 5 or fewer cars, then the 5% grade is the easiest and most accurate way to go.

If, on the other hand, nothing out there will pull itself up a 5% grade, much less itself and some rolling stock, then even tandems are out, and I have to start giving away options and clearance, hoping I don't run out before I find a situation that will work. I can check it with the locos I have, but none of them are period, and won't tell me what I need to know. If someone here has tried extreme grades before, I'll be a lot more comfortable proceeding, knowing I'm not doing so on a guesswork basis.

[ARTHILL]

I built a fairly similar layout in the 70's. I ended up with nice scenery, which I liked. The grade was a killer, I could only run one way with most of my stuff. The three truck shay would not do the 15" curve. I have more space now and build larger. You will have opperating problems, but if the look is more important than the running it will be fine. When you decide you need a new engine with sound and all that, it probably will not run.

[Curmudgeon]

Why not narrow gauge track?
0n30 springs readily to mind with half zero track.

Dropping the lower line can reduce upper line grades by dropping it a bit, but not as much as you dropped the lower line, giving you the end result of less grade and more clearance.

Always better to consider other alternatives to the 4X8 trap.
Spread it out along a wall. Allows easier access, more realistic appearance.

TOC

[modelmaker51]

Wheel slippage does not really translate from the prototype and is not recommended with model trains. It can lead to motor burn out and wearing out the nicklesilver plating on the driver wheels.

MRR grades are generally between 2 & 4%. 5% is somewhat excessive. Selector's suggestions are pretty valid here.

Today's offerings of plastic steam power are in general a great improvement over what was available in the 70's and for the most part also run as well or better than the brass that is available for a lot less money. The ads in MR will give you an indication of the brands and models that are available.

For your son's diesel selection I would recomend you stick with Athearn Blue Box or the Ready to Roll series, Atlas, LifeLike's Proto 1000 or Proto 2000 (P2K), or Kato.

[Eriediamond]

Selector, I fail to see your reasonong here. By lowering the lower track by one inch then reducing the pass over by one inch still leaves you with the original clearance. Since the train still has to climb to the same height, albeit starting at a lower elevation, the distance it has to travel to the upper level hasn't changed, hence the same 5% grade still exists. The only way to reduce a grade is to have a longer distance to travel from the lower to the upper level. Respectfuly Ken

[selector]

If you can find a way to put the entire thing on a 2" sheet of extruded foam, you could actually dig down much of your lower level so that you will obviate the need for the 5% grade. In other words, if you lowere the pass-under portion by 1" and reduce the pass-over by 1", you will be left with a much easier, and more prototypical, task for you engines.

As for steam engine brands of the type you mention, if I read you correctly, Bachmann Spectrum is one of the best bets. for diesels, Atlas or Athearn. Athearn Genesis are highly regarded, but so are the Atlas. Kato and BLI are also excellent, but more costly if with sound.

[jeffers_mz]

Hi all.

I had an HO layout back in my teens, but have been away from the hobby since the mid 70's and have a lot of catching up to do, now that my son has expressed an interest in railroading and model railroading.

I have the benchwork about half finished for a small (4' x 8') layout with specific results in mind. The mainline is a folded dogbone on two levels, with a mine/yard area inside the loop on the upper level and a town/yard area on the lower level inside the twin 180 degrees curve section that makes up the "fold" between the upper and lower loops, which are super-imposed on the other (right) end of the layout.

Both loops are set up to be reversing, and there's a few other goodies in there that shouldn't affect answers to the questions I have. The period I'm looking for is 1880 thru 1900, and the general objective is to model a locally famous (in southwest Colorado, my favorite backpacking place but about 1400 miles from home) narrow-gauge railroad called the Silverton Railroad, also known as the Rainbow Route.

I'm not going to use narrow gauge track, it's already hard enough to find motive power and rolling stock for standard gauge. With the lower town being built modularly and the upper mine a popular tourist destination, I plan to be able to swap the lower town in and out to accomodate both my infrequently satisfied love for the area and period, along with my son's preference for modern diesel locomotives.

That should outline the objectives well enough to ask the questions I've run into.

1. Can I get away with a 5% grade? The period consists usually ran no more than engine/tender, a couple of shorty boxcars or coal cars or combo/passenger cars and a caboose. I can run as many modern diesels as necessary in tandem to get my son's consists up the grade, with the proviso that the mainline uses minimum 18" and larger radius curves. The upper and lower yards use 15 inch radius curves, and the "snaky pilot overhangs" are both expected and prototype for the area and period. I'll use switchers there for both modern and period operation, so the real question is whether the locos will pull the necessary consists up the sustained 5% grade between levels.

2. The period motive power consisted of 3 locos owned by the railroad, two old style 2-8-0 Baldwins and a 30 ton two truck Shay. The railroad also leased various D&RG and RGS locos, mostly the old style 2-8-0 Baldwins with the odd 2-6-0 and/or 4-4-0 American thrown in from time to time. Not too long after 1900 the newer style Baldwin Consolidateds in 2-8-0 and some apparant 2 or 4-6-0 Mogul looking locos began to appear. I know Bachman makes both a newer Baldwin and a three truck Shay leading to my next questions.

How do these guys pull? Can they pull 4 car consists up a sustained 5% grade? With a helper?

How hard will it be to remove the tender and third truck on the Bachman Shay? Not much I can do about the cylinder arrangement without major overhaul, but at least the result won't be a blatant prototype violation. Will it still pull 4 or 5 car consists up a 5% grade?

I've found a few not too terribly priced old style Baldwins at brass dealers online, any hands-on experience out there concerning these? Will any particular ones pull a 5% grade better than others?

There are more options with Moguls and Americans. Which ones pull the best? Run the best?

How about old style shorty freaight and passenger cars? Preferences? Any with markedly lower rolling resistance than others?

Finally, what brand and model modern medium diesels have good track records for steep grades and smooth operation? GP-40's are probably about as big as I expect to run, maybe an F type and B unit (active or un-powered as need be) and five or six passenger cars. Thoughts? Recommendations?

That should get me started. I don't want to cast a 5% grade in stone with the benchwork without knowing that at least some period and modern locos will pull at least short consists up it. I don't mind a little bit of struggle or some wheel slippage, these were expected and prototype on this line back in the day, but there's a difference between a less than perfect solution and one that just isn't going to fly.

Many thanks in advance for any light you may be able to shed on these questions.