I believe it is a common problem on most layouts to have trains long enough to justify the use of the motive power, and many people are attracted to powerful engines. I've been attracted to the Reading I-10 for that reason, but have always wondered how it would look on a small layout.
I've obtained a Reading I-5 2-8-0 and B-8 0-6-0, and am surprised that the 2-8-0 actually looks smaller than the 0-6-0. I realize that the I-5 is a turn of the century engine and can't be compared to the more modern I-10.
In a 1913 photo of a reading train, there are 2 engines (likely I-5s) followed by just 7 hoppers and two box cars, followed again by 2 engines some cars, and yet another steam plume. I assume that somewhere along the route there must have been a grade that justified the use of so many engines.
Based on the photo, it looks likes 4 or 5 cars per engine of that era or size may not be too unrealistic.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Greg,It may not be that simple..You see that train could have been longer when it left the yard and had several enroute setouts or it could have been a power move with the weight of the locomotives spread out because of the rail size and bridge weight limits.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
It could be a larger engine was needed up the line somewhere and was "earning" its way along. Many reasons why a larger engine is pulling a small train.
gregcI've obtained a Reading I-5 2-8-0 and B-8 0-6-0, and am surprised that the 2-8-0 actually looks smaller than the 0-6-0. I realize that the I-5 is a turn of the century engine and can't be compared to the more modern I-10.
An I-7 (a larger 2-8-0) was rated for 860 tons on the 1.2% grade out of Birdsboro. I-4's and B-7's ran on locals over the W&N branch, three stretches of 1% + grade and hauled an average of 760 tons per train (an average of 11 loads and 5 empties).
I'm sure that on the 2%-3% grades on the mine branches and laterals in the hard coal country that ratings of 400 tons or less per engine might be common.
So on steep grades yes it might be a very low rating. But when you get them on the Main Line with its less than .5% descending grades, they could haul 1200+ tons. With the 25 ton cars they were designed for that means they could haul 40+ cars on level ground.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
A train is "long" when it extends beyond one's immediate vision at a given moment. Depending on the scale, the scene, and one's perspective, a model train can seem long when it is only 40, 30, 20, 15 or so cars depending on circumstances.
Anyway, train length for any given motive power is highly variable depending on the physical and immediate traffic circumstances.
Mark
Hi Greg,
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the famous model railroader John Allen approached the problem of realistic train lengths by weighting his locomotives to pull approximately what their prototypes could on a four percent grade, which is quite a limitation. For example, he rated Gorre & Daphetid engines 26 and 28, both medium-size Consolidations, to handle 10 cars each. Engine 40, a heavy Mikado of Santa Fe prototype, was rated to pull 14 cars. The ruling grade therefore restricted John's trains to prototypical lengths for the kinds of engines he was using. "Fast" freights were also limited to the number of cars that could be handled by one engine, 13 or 14 cars at most. Slow freights, which the G-D Line allowed to be double-headed, could stretch to a maximum of 27 cars. (Trains longer than that were in danger of "stringlining," or being pulled off the inside of the curve, on the 26-inch radius and four-percent grade of the Sims Loop above Squawbottom.)
So long,
Andy
Andy Sperandeo MODEL RAILROADER Magazine
Sperandeo Hi Greg, Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the famous model railroader John Allen approached the problem of realistic train lengths by weighting his locomotives to pull approximately what their prototypes could on a four percent grade, which is quite a limitation. For example, he rated Gorre & Daphetid engines 26 and 28, both medium-size Consolidations, to handle 10 cars each. Engine 40, a heavy Mikado of Santa Fe prototype, was rated to pull 14 cars. ...
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the famous model railroader John Allen approached the problem of realistic train lengths by weighting his locomotives to pull approximately what their prototypes could on a four percent grade, which is quite a limitation. For example, he rated Gorre & Daphetid engines 26 and 28, both medium-size Consolidations, to handle 10 cars each. Engine 40, a heavy Mikado of Santa Fe prototype, was rated to pull 14 cars. ...
On the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad, its not-small Consolidations could handle 8 to 10 loads on the 2 percent grades from Denver to Tolland, the same number its 2-6-6-0 Mallets could handle on the 4 percent grades over Rollins Pass. (Pages139 and 150 of The Giant's Ladder by Harold A. Boner.)
gregc Based on the photo, it looks likes 4 or 5 cars per engine of that era or size may not be too unrealistic.
Only on failry steep grades, as others have noted. Even in a time of relatively inexpensive labor, if each engine could only typically pull 4 or 5 cars, railroading wouldn't have been cost effective as a means of transportation.
Sometimes things depicted in old photos can be misleading. The photo may have been made precisely because the situation was unusual, even a one-of-a-kind event. Film and processing were expensive and weren't used on typical everyday occurrences.
Of course, on the model we may do anything we like, but I personally believe that modeling the typical is more convincing than modeling the exceptions and extremes.
And typical would be more than 4-5 cars per engine in that era unless you are also modeling steep grades.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama Only on failry steep grades, as others have noted. ...
Only on failry steep grades, as others have noted. ...
SP's mid-sized Moguls were seen individually pulling 80 or more cars at very low speed on the flats of California's Central Valley.
"SP's mid-sized Moguls were seen individually pulling 80 or more cars at very low speed on the flats of California's Central Valley."
I have seen the same thing of pictures in the Imperial Valley. Hard to believe the Moguls were pulling that many cars but it was a flat grade.
cuyamaSometimes things depicted in old photos can be misleading. The photo may have been made precisely because the situation was unusual, even a one-of-a-kind event. Film and processing were expensive and weren't used on typical everyday occurrences.
That's coming up Locust Summit from Gordon, that's a 2.6% grade. Later on the 2-8-0's will be replaced with 2-8-8-0's, 2-10-2's and finally 4-8-4's.
There are at least 8 40-50 ton loads of coal in the train. Lets say the front half of the train weighs between 500 & 600 tons and the rear is the same, so you have 5 engines for 1200 tons or about 250 tons per engine. They are rated for 800 tons on a 1% grade, halve that for a 2% grade = 400 tons and half again for the .6% so that would bring it down to about 300 tons. So we are pretty much in the ballpark.
P.S. No this is not an unusual event this is every train going west out of Gordon for the next 50 years.
I did a little research using the Wiswesser book on Reading locomotives and found out that at least the lead engine in the photo, 829, is an I-2. I also looked up the tractive power for various engines.
Years ago I had read that it takes 7 lbs of force per ton to overcome the friction to pull a freight car on flat ground. This is equivalent to a ~.25% grade. Using a little geometry, I created the table below showing the maximum number of 50 ton cars that could be pulled by combining the flat ground friction and geometric loading for various grades and engines. These are best case numbers, and I would think that in actual practice the number of cars is less.
tractive 0% 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5% 30000 85 24 14 7 6 I-2 35000 100 28 16 9 7 I-4 41500 118 33 19 10 8 I-5 54000 154 44 25 14 11 I-8sb 64000 182 52 30 16 13 I-9 71000 202 58 33 18 15 I-10 96600 276 79 46 25 20 K1sd 116000 331 94 55 30 24 N1sd 68000 194 55 32 17 14 T1
Since I had no idea of how many cars an engine could pull when I wrote my original post, I believe the table bears out my point that short trains behind small engines may not be too unrealistic on layouts with grades such as these. And less realistic behind bigger engines such as a 2-8-8-0 N1 and 2-10-2 K1.
But while there is a steady increase in tractive power with newer and larger engines, I don't understand why the most modern engine, the 4-8-4 T1, actually had less tractive power than the I-10s they were built from. So I'm guessing there's some other aspect of performance that gave it an advantage, perhaps speed.
gregc Since I had no idea of how many cars an engine could pull when I wrote my original post, I believe the table bears out my point that short trains behind small engines may not be too unrealistic on layouts with grades such as these. And less realistic behind bigger engines such as a 2-8-8-0 N1 and 2-10-2 K1.
Just to put it in perspective, the I-2 wasn't a "small" engine when it was originally built. 8-)
The I-10 rarely spent much time over 25 mph and was limited to 50 mph. The T-1 was designed for fast freight and was rated at 65 mph. You will also not that the K-1 had less TE than the N-1 it was built from. Once again, power was traded for speed.
dehusman But while there is a steady increase in tractive power with newer and larger engines, I don't understand why the most modern engine, the 4-8-4 T1, actually had less tractive power than the I-10s they were built from. So I'm guessing there's some other aspect of performance that gave it an advantage, perhaps speed. The I-10 rarely spent much time over 25 mph and was limited to 50 mph. The T-1 was designed for fast freight and was rated at 65 mph. You will also not that the K-1 had less TE than the N-1 it was built from. Once again, power was traded for speed.
To expand on this some, the T-1 gave up just a little power for a lot of speed. This is generally true of all the more modern, super power designs. Many of the most modern steam locos made more power simply by virtue of ever increasing size, but it was the better balance of power and speed that actually made the superior - and the improved boiler designs that let make more steam than they could use at any speed they could pull a train at.
Many earlier steam locos were very powerfull, but lacked speed or steaming ability to maintain higher speeds.
Considering the operational practices of the time, pulling more cars was not needed, pulling the same number of cars (or even a few less) at a faster speed was needed. Super power steam, like the T-1, NKP 2-8-4, N&W J, GS 4, N&W Class A, UP Big Boy, etc, delivered the needed speed at the power level required.
Sheldon