25 cars is impressive, 'though you didn't say if it's an 031 loop. Also curious if the GP30s are dual motor.
Can't currently run more than one train. I'll just keep making it longer, and swapping out engines 'till I settle on an expansion plan. Also going to try for a '...most tinplate cars train on 031'.
runtime
Tommy0218 wrote:Oh, let's see.........I normally pull anywhere from 175 - 200
I don't get it. What does that mean?
MOPACnut wrote:depends on what type of train i'm running. If it's a steam era train as many as 40 cars. a latter day freight maybe 30. Intermodals at 20-30 ( depending on how many articulateds the're are). or 15 86' high cubes plus 4 auto carriers. Right now i have a 22 car OGEX coal train on my layout (got room for a few more cars on it if i can find them).
Oh wait. I just realized this is the Classic toy trains forum. I was talking HO scale
runtime wrote: Tommy0218 wrote:Oh, let's see.........I normally pull anywhere from 175 - 200I don't get it. What does that mean?runtime
You don't get it ????? The question was What is the most cars you pull? I have an average of around 180 cars on my layout. What part are you not getting ?
Tommy0218 wrote: runtime wrote: Tommy0218 wrote:Oh, let's see.........I normally pull anywhere from 175 - 200I don't get it. What does that mean?runtimeYou don't get it ????? The question was What is the most cars you pull? I have an average of around 180 cars on my layout. What part are you not getting ?
I don't pull any. I let my locos do that!(In this forum, please reat that in the singular, loco, as I have only one O-guage train.)
HEdward wrote: Tommy0218 wrote: runtime wrote: Tommy0218 wrote:Oh, let's see.........I normally pull anywhere from 175 - 200I don't get it. What does that mean?runtimeYou don't get it ????? The question was What is the most cars you pull? I have an average of around 180 cars on my layout. What part are you not getting ?I don't pull any. I let my locos do that!(In this forum, please reat that in the singular, loco, as I have only one O-guage train.)
Ok, well then let me rephrase - I leave the work to the motive power (3 engines) to be precise.
Tommy0218 wrote: HEdward wrote: Tommy0218 wrote: runtime wrote: Tommy0218 wrote:Oh, let's see.........I normally pull anywhere from 175 - 200I don't get it. What does that mean?runtimeYou don't get it ????? The question was What is the most cars you pull? I have an average of around 180 cars on my layout. What part are you not getting ?I don't pull any. I let my locos do that!(In this forum, please reat that in the singular, loco, as I have only one O-guage train.)Ok, well then let me rephrase - I leave the work to the motive power (3 engines) to be precise.
HEdward wrote: Tommy0218 wrote: HEdward wrote: Tommy0218 wrote: runtime wrote: Tommy0218 wrote:Oh, let's see.........I normally pull anywhere from 175 - 200I don't get it. What does that mean?runtimeYou don't get it ????? The question was What is the most cars you pull? I have an average of around 180 cars on my layout. What part are you not getting ?I don't pull any. I let my locos do that!(In this forum, please reat that in the singular, loco, as I have only one O-guage train.)Ok, well then let me rephrase - I leave the work to the motive power (3 engines) to be precise.I think the OP was asking, although not precisely, how many cars in one train. I've never seen more than 110 behind five big engines in 1:1 scale. (going back to my first post, four is my max and my minimum as enforced by my twin sons)
I once ran 3 triplex engines - all in 1.20.3 (Standard gauge) that actually did pull 180 cars, all empty of course. Keep in mind that the pull was on a level grade only. I don't personally own this many cars, I have around 60 in my collection and the rest were on loan from other individuals. Considering the triplex was and probably still is the most powerful engine in the world with a full tender - the prototype was designed to pull a coal drag nearly 5 miles long.
So with this in mind, the engines I ran are just as powerful in the scale world of 1.20.3, however the original question from the OP was "How long are you trains in a layout" and "What is the most cars you pull"? - so I interpreted this as plural meaning more than one train. As far as one single engine, I have run up to but no more than 65 on a single engine in 1.20.3 standard gauge.
A triplex, with a full tender, had about 850000 pounds on its drivers, which indeed gave it a very high tractive effort, about half again as much as a Big Boy. However, power is tractive effort multiplied by speed; and it was severely limited by its boiler to a speed of only 5 or 10 miles per hour, making it not very powerful at all.
Bob Nelson
lionelsoni wrote: A triplex, with a full tender, had about 850000 pounds on its drivers, which indeed gave it a very high tractive effort, about half again as much as a Big Boy. However, power is tractive effort multiplied by speed; and it was severely limited by its boiler to a speed of only 5 or 10 miles per hour, making it not very powerful at all.
You may want to re-check your math as tractive effort in a big boy was about 135,375 vs tractive effort in a Triplex was around 160,000. The Big Boy was probably the largest in history however, not in terms of power.
We attemped articulated and other engines similiar to a big boy and I am sorry to inform you that they didn't even come close to the the success we had with the Triplex.
I think our math agrees, more or less. As I said, the triplex had "about half again as much [tractive effort] as a Big Boy." Actually 160000 is only 18 percent more than 135375. But tractive effort is only one component of power; the other is speed. And the Big Boy was a much faster locomotive and more powerful than the triplex because of that. Big Boy 4016 was measured at 6290 drawbar horsepower in 1943 at 41.1 miles per hour on a .57 percent grade.
One thing that reduced the triplex's power was that half the steam, that exhausted to the air from the low-pressure cylinders on the tender, was not available to the firebox, to increase draft. Another difficulty was that that great tractive effort could be reached only by having the tender fully loaded. As the tender emptied, the tractive effort dropped to something more like the Big Boy's.
lionelsoni wrote: I think our math agrees, more or less. As I said, the triplex had "about half again as much [tractive effort] as a Big Boy." Actually 160000 is only 18 percent more than 135375. But tractive effort is only one component of power; the other is speed. And the Big Boy was a much faster locomotive and more powerful than the triplex because of that. Big Boy 4016 was measured at 6290 drawbar horsepower in 1943 at 41.1 miles per hour on a .57 percent grade.One thing that reduced the triplex's power was that half the steam, that exhausted to the air from the low-pressure cylinders on the tender, was not available to the firebox, to increase draft. Another difficulty was that that great tractive effort could be reached only by having the tender fully loaded. As the tender emptied, the tractive effort dropped to something more like the Big Boy's.
Bob,
I will agree to the fact that YES the big boy could without a doubt generate higher speeds than that of the Triplex however, when you compare engine per engine - the Triplex still could outpull the bigboy hands down at 5 - 10 mph. I was not referencing speed here as you mentioned but rather pulling force. This is the reason why Baldwin only built a total of 3.
I also prefer the design of the Triplex over the Big Boy and I can only testify to the run we did about 2 years ago. The 1.20.3 Triplex actually pulled 10 more cars than the Big Boy in the same scale - running about 15-20 scale miles per hour. But then again the models we were running had less problems than the prototypes. On the other hand, had the prototype not had so many flaws, I think it would have generated more speed overall the the Big Boy.
Happy RR
Tommy0218 wrote: On the other hand, had the prototype not had so many flaws, I think it would have generated more speed overall the the Big Boy.
Translation: if the Triples were a Big boy, it could generate the Big Boy's power.
The flaws in the design of the engine were not trivial but integral to it: it was a product of Drag Era thinking taken to extremes. Low dirvers, small grate, inefficient heating, and over-complicated plumbing. As an engineering testbed, the Triplex was useful, but it's life as a working locomotive was doomed before the first rivet was driven.
As for the models, you cannot scale down physics: the performance of the models do not in any useful way reflect the performance of the prototypes.
palallin wrote: Tommy0218 wrote: On the other hand, had the prototype not had so many flaws, I think it would have generated more speed overall the the Big Boy. Translation: if the Triples were a Big boy, it could generate the Big Boy's power.The flaws in the design of the engine were not trivial but integral to it: it was a product of Drag Era thinking taken to extremes. Low dirvers, small grate, inefficient heating, and over-complicated plumbing. As an engineering testbed, the Triplex was useful, but it's life as a working locomotive was doomed before the first rivet was driven. As for the models, you cannot scale down physics: the performance of the models do not in any useful way reflect the performance of the prototypes.
Actually your translation is distorted. I am not saying the Triplex was a successfull locomotive by any means, I simply stated that when comparing engines in the articulated family, this had more PULLING FORCE than a big boy and I was NOT REFERENCING SPEED as I have previously stated. Personally, I would have went with a 2-8-8-2 vs the Triplex any day of the week.
But back to the original question from the OP concerning "The most cars you pull", our triplex outperformed under the same weight than the big boy. The engines we ran were live steam, coal fired & based on actual blueprints from the prototypes including overall design and specs. Every coal car in the consist was of the same height, weight and design.
Wow, I just caught up to the response to my question ("I don't get it").
Since I was thinking 'O' guage or standard guage electric trains, 175-200 car long trains seemed like an attempt at a joke.
I still find it incredible that anyone has a layout, much less a standard guage layout large enough to actually pull that many cars!
I estimate that an 'O' guage train of 180 cars would be about 170-180 feet long . Standard guage would increase that by what- 50 to 75 percent?
I'd love to see it.
runtime wrote: Wow, I just caught up to the response to my question ("I don't get it"). Since I was thinking 'O' guage or standard guage electric trains, 175-200 car long trains seemed like an attempt at a joke.I still find it incredible that anyone has a layout, much less a standard guage layout large enough to actually pull that many cars!I estimate that an 'O' guage train of 180 cars would be about 170-180 feet long . Standard guage would increase that by what- 50 to 75 percent?I'd love to see it.runtime
We did this run about 2 years ago. The engines were on loan as well as about 120 of the cars. The track was from a club based in the Tennessee area - but remember, this was 1.20.3 scale better known as "G" gauge or what NMRA has determined as "Fn3".
But yes, standard gauge would mean a much larger engine as well as the track itself. The engines had to be custom made as we were unable to find any manufacturer who could build a standard gauge loco. 99.9% of engines in this scale are designed to run on 45 mm track only. The engines and cars we ran, operated on 72 or 73 mm width.
I am working on building my own Triplex or maybe even a 2-8-8-2 in this scale.
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