what would you have myth busters do on your layout

[Budliner]

thats ho track

[train18393]

cmrproducts:

The Jim Beam could be put to better uses, and it may get you in a cleaning mood but be careful when you operate your locomotives, it would be terrible to take that 300 foot drop to the floor!

Paul
Dayton and Mad River

[xdford]

mabey see if a loco can pull the same scale amount of weight as the prototype.
Quoted -

if a gp38 can pull x amount of fully loaded (type of frieght car) , can the model gp38, unmodified, pull the same amount of weight if the scale frieght cars are exactly the right weight?

The tractive effort of a model should be multiplied by 87 to the power of 3. 2ozs of tractive effort of a model equates to about 82000 lbs of tractive effort. However, the rolling resistance of model freight cars is a lot higher proportionately to their prototypes. a 100 ton freight car would have a resistance on flat ground between 300-500 lbs resistance depending on bearings etc, that is a force of a bit more than 500 lbs should get it moving. This translates to .012 oz rolling resistance when divided by 87 cubed. In theory on flat level ground and straight track, the 2 ozs translates to 166 freight cars. The 2 ozs of force exerted by the locomotive is using MR's review of a GP 20 all them years ago. Most models would have a resistance many times higher than their prototypes... so in short ... no!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cwclark

I'd like for them to prove that if you lick the rails with your tongue when the power is on, you will get shocked!....chuck

been their dont that, and was unconsis 4 a half hour, then turned the power down and did it a gain and was still standing

[cmrproducts]

Paul

Well at least some one read my list of cleaning items.

It still amazes me that after all of this talk about track cleaning that there are modelers that are skeptical about using the metal polish.

Just try the stuff and if it does not wok then DON’T use it.

I, on the other hand, will keep on using it on my layout (wait a minute I have not HAD to use it since I first put it on in July of 2003).

BOB H – Clarion, PA

[trainboyH16-44]

Great show, but completely useless for my layout, so I'm going to have to say that I'd make thm make me some benchwork. Nice solid stuff, they've got enough skill!

[Anonymous]

ok here is my opinion

test the Myth that MTH offers a better DCC system then is currently offered. prove that UP will not get rich from there licenseing practices. And last but not least that Bergie is not a evil Walthers spy!!!

[Budliner]

prove the modelers with forums are better than without



happy bud year

[wireflight]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rails5

Jesse, we were both off. I was doing my math hastily on the back of an envelope. I used 55,000 pounds for the hopper load instead of 110,000 pounds. Ten loaded two-bay hoppers weighed 1,507,000 pounds (10 * (110,000-pound load + 40,700-pound light weight)). A WM H-9 weighed 310,000 pounds. Result = it could pull 4.86 times its own weight up the Black Fork grade, not the 3.09 I originally stated. So on a weight basis it is out-pulling my model by 23%, although on a number-of-cars basis, my model outpulls the prototype by 80%.

[doh] -- LOL -- I thought 40,700 sounded ridiculously light for a std-gauge consolidation -- more like the weight of the water & fuel? And I should have instantly recognized that the capacity and the gross weights are different -- it bugs me more than a little that I made such a goof, and I apologize to all for my error! I reckon I put my fingers in motion (typing) before I put my brain in gear!

When you're researching a particular thing -- in this case, the H-9 -- how do you weed out the good information from the fluff? For instance, MTH says

QUOTE:

The Western Maryland Railroad developed a class of very heavy Consolidations for moving coal drags across the West Virginia and Maryland mountains. Power, not speed, was the primary requirement for this new class of engines. At 309,000 pounds, the H-9 developed 71,500 pounds of tractive effort, more than sufficient to pull a 100 load train of 7,800 tons. The Western Maryland ultimately obtained 50 of these coal-hauling powerhouses.

I'm not anyone to quibble anymore over less than 1/3 of 1 percent regarding the actual weight of a prototype that probably had that much variation in its weight over its service life. On the other hand, though, the difference between a 10-car train and a 100-car train is so profound that it can't reasonably be ignored. Of course, there is always the possibility that the MTH spec is based on straight and level track, and the spec you're using may come from actual RR practice that took into account grades, curvature, etc.

I find that the more I learn of "modelers" -- whether they're seriously striving to depict a particular moment (or era) in history, or whether they're just creating a miniature fantasy world -- the more I am intrigued by the diversity of personal tastes and the quality of the efforts that hobbyists put into perfecting their craft.

I used to wonder why anyone would want to have a diesel on his or her layout: to me, they were about as interesting as a boxcar with the doors closed. However, after having several businesses of my own, I can understand why railroads abandoned the (imho) pretty steamers in favor of economical diesels.

What I can't (perhaps "yet") understand is why pseudohybridization -- in this case, converting a steam loco (and where applicable, the appropriate tender) to diesel-electric operation. With care, I'm confident that the conversion could be done in such a way as to effectively disguise the nature of the motive power, while reaping almost all the benefits of D-E.

In essence, what I'm describing is more complicated than simply putting the body of a steamer on a D-E chassis: the trucks of the tender would have to be modified so that they appeared unmodified from the outside, but fitted traction motors so that the axles were powered. Leading and/or trailing trucks might similarly be modified.

In most cases, the prime mover would fit in the tender, and the loco could carry the fuel. Heck, you might even be able to relocate the radiator(s) ... and perhaps liquid-cooled dynamic brakes ... to the "boiler." I'm confident you could even include M/U cabling in such a way that it wouldn't be noticed as a departure from the original except on VERY close inspection by relatively knowledgeable people.

Purists, of couse would HATE all that, because they "know" this: diesels are subtle, but everything about steam is visceral -- from the "monkey motion" of the gear outside the drivers, to the puffs of steam and smoke, to the sounds of the whistle and bell and exhausts. But even "restored" steamers often fit the "wrong" whistle, with the associated "wrong" sound.

Modern technology has produced some remarkably quiet diesels that don't smoke. And there's always the possibility of true hybridization ("Green Goat," et al) technology, which allows for a comparatively tiny engine, radiator, intercooler and exhaust without sacrificing tractive utility -- and producing sound frequencies that are even more easily dampened.

There are a variety of ways to produce the additional effects: you can produce some with speakers, or you can actually boil a small amount of water to produce the giant clouds crowds will pay to see. The smokestack, of course, ideally ran clean -- but who doesn't think of a column of white, black or mixed smoke billowing from that chimney? Enter the modern smoke generator, and voila! Instant "steam" engine.

And there's one thing I'd change a bit if I were doing all that: I'd enclose the cab, making the modification in such a way that it would appear plausible to a casual observer that the cab was either always so configured, or that the railroad had tastefully modified the original.

And here's the kicker: besides providing all the romance of the original (and all the "benefits" of visceral sights and sounds) -- and all the revenue associated with that -- the "fake" also attracts technology buffs, who bring with them their colleagues and financial contributions.

Don't get me wrong: there are/were steamers that I've always thought were ugly, but I realize they had their place. And I'm not saying that I think all diesels are hideous: I gradually came to like the looks of everything from Baldwin's Centipede and DR-4-4-15 (The "babyface" may have provided better visibility, but I think the "sharknose" looked "cooler") and FA-2 to EMD's E- and F- series locos to the BL2, though it took me a while to get used to the BL2.

Sometime in the 1970s, I got to ride in the cab of an IC locomotive used (that day) as a switcher. I don't recall whether it was an SW1, SW7, SW9, NW2, TR2, S2, but I do recall that the engineer had to almost shout in order for me to be able to hear him over the throbbing of the engine. When he blew the horn, I thought my head would implode form the sound pressure -- it was HORRIBLY painful.

And yet, I can't seem to shake the love of trains. Go figure.

[chutton01]

Bump, because the current mythbuster episode on right now (18 Feb 2006) is finally making use of the railroad tracks at the former naval base they often film on - mounted an airplane engine on a small railroad work car, and pushing this engine-on-work car with a forklift will use that to assess an airplane slicing damage myth.
OK, not the most railroad intensive myth, but still...

[Budliner]

lol

[Anonymous]

i would have them leave before my layout gets blown up!

[Budliner]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chutton01

Bump, because the current mythbuster episode on right now (18 Feb 2006) is finally making use of the railroad tracks at the former naval base they often film on - mounted an airplane engine on a small railroad work car, and pushing this engine-on-work car with a forklift will use that to assess an airplane slicing damage myth.
OK, not the most railroad intensive myth, but still...

I seen that slice like a curly fry

good one!!

[Anonymous]

don't know if I'd want them anywhere near my layout. Every show they do something either gets blown up or catches fire and while that may make for great tv I really don't want to have to look for a new home after the basment is blown to smithereens not to mention buy new equipment.

I annoy my neighbors enough as it is. I don't need to add exploding houses to their case against me. [:o)]

[tomikawaTT]

Wireflight.
Didn't try to quote your entire entry, but here's something to chew on:
1. The two prototype examples of trying to mesh steam and electric traction were rather less than successful. In railroading, the KISS principle rules!
2. There was one quasi-successful marriage of an old steamer with a diesel prime mover. The steamer was geared (either a shay or a climax, I fail to recall) and the end result was as ugly as a corrugated iron chicken house.

As for the mythbusters, I'd like to see them prove that anything on any model railroad is accurate to prototype!

[Anonymous]

Not a god *** thing! I watch that show, I know what they do, or almost always attempt to do.

[NeO6874]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomikawaTT
2. There was one quasi-successful marriage of an old steamer with a diesel prime mover. The steamer was geared (either a shay or a climax, I fail to recall) and the end result was as ugly as a corrugated iron chicken house.

kind of a random thought along these lines... i was in disney world a few years back, and went on thier backlot (i guess..) railroad tour. I know it isn't prototypical in the true sense, but they still took us to the enginehouse and showed us around. The locos there have fake coal loads (read:plastic) in the tender, which houses the water and diesel fuel tanks. Also, they do have one or two "fake" steamers ( i think they're 0-6-0T's), that have the body of a steamer and all associated running gear, but beneath the boiler shell(outer insualtion/housing) is nothing more than a small diesel engine (the diesel fuel is contained in the "water tank" and beneath the "coal" on the sides of the loco.)

this goes to show that it isnt all that difficult (or ugly) to make a diesel look like a steamer... although i don't think a lot of rail companies have the necessary recources to do this kind of thing (i guess the fact that the disney corp has been in the business of disguising things since like forever, it helps them out - the benefits of "movie magic" huh?)

[Budliner]

love to see them test how much power can be put into the locomotive till it explodes


K

[Tracklayer]

I don't know about having them do anything on my layout, but I would like to see them attempt to duplicate an incident where a death row inmate back in the 1920s or 30s supposedly took a deck of playing cards that were made of highly flamable celluloid, tore them into little pieces and stuffed them in the lock of his cell, then used a cigarette as a fuse to set it off blowing the lock open and escaping never to be seen or heard from again...

Tracklayer

[james saunders]

the best myth busters episode is when they blew up the cement truck [}:)] but i dont think theres anything i would want them to do.

OZJIM

[Budliner]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tracklayer

I don't know about having them do anything on my layout, but I would like to see them attempt to duplicate an incident where a death row inmate back in the 1920s or 30s supposedly took a deck of playing cards that were made of highly flamable celluloid, tore them into little pieces and stuffed them in the lock of his cell, then used a cigarette as a fuse to set it off blowing the lock open and escaping never to be seen or heard from again...

Tracklayer

lock thats off topic

foul

K

[Anonymous]

i want myth busters to come over and prove they cant get a 40,000dollar layout in my basement .and of course they can leave it there when there done .(no blowing it up)

[Budliner]

QUOTE: Originally posted by shawnbobbitt

i want myth busters to come over and prove they cant get a 40,000dollar layout in my basement .and of course they can leave it there when there done .(no blowing it up)

I bet they know this thread is on here
is all publicity and I think I should get 20 % for starting it


K

[Budliner]

there on ch 39

testing if a train can pull you in with a vortex

 

 

 

K

[PA&ERR]

Nothing!! They like to blow things up too much!

You say that like its a "bad" thing!

-George

[reklein]

Last night I watched them experiment to see if peeing on the third rail would kill you.It didn't at first but they kept it up til it did.

[thatboy37]

I'd like for them to prove that if you lick the rails with your tongue when the power is on, you will get shocked!....chuck

i'm not an ho modeler but i just happened to be looking at this forum and saw this one statement. i was wondering the same thing. i'm glad someone asked this or mentioned it. but that would be a good one to find out

[PA&ERR]

Dath's dno mydth!

-George

[thatboy37]

do you have any pictures of your layout. i noticed that you have a fairly nice size layout at 31x12. if so could you please share a few. as i would like to see what you have accomplished. maybe i can get a few ideas from you for my 34x16 o scale layout that i have

LIVE LIFE AS IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE LIFE TO LIVE ! UNTIL NEXT TIME PEACE !!! REGGIE [e-mail]

• Reply