I have what is probably termed a "medium" sized layout (24x24') with 2-2.4% grades and 36" radius curves. Mainly steam, a few diesel. Since it's a mountain layout, I usually run my freights at about 30-35mph, somewhat like SP did over "The Hill" (Donner Pass) in the 1950's. Passenger trains are usually 40-45mph.
Now occasionally I convert my Sierra Nevada into the Austrian "Hohe Tauern" Alps, bring out my OBB electrics and my RailJet and let 'em rip. Being smaller and less "bulky" than American trains, I can pump the freights up to about 50-55, and the RailJet up to about 65 and still be within reasonably accurate speeds.
Both are fun to run.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Scale speed is very important to me in fact I use momentum and speed steps for my switching layout.
I suspect very few could switch cars on my layout due to the momentum and slow speed.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I'm in the process of modeling a pair of lines where the maximum speed ranges from 30MPH to 10 MPH, with stretches of 5mph restriction. While I'm not a stickler for the exact, my locomotives have to be good slow speed engines.
Larry:
I LOVE switching with momentum! It requires the operator to think ahead and use a deft hand & good judgment, just like real railroading does.
richhotrainHmmm, somehow I feel like I am being condemned on a thread that I did not start.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Catt I guess I would have to say it is very important to me.Watching my N and Z scale trains cruizing past me in a blur just does not seem realistic to me. It amazes me the number of modelers in my age group (70 +) that think 20 to 40 smph is to slow. I have got to the point I just reply "It ain't Lionel folks".Funny that remark offends some people.
I guess I would have to say it is very important to me.Watching my N and Z scale trains cruizing past me in a blur just does not seem realistic to me. It amazes me the number of modelers in my age group (70 +) that think 20 to 40 smph is to slow.
I have got to the point I just reply "It ain't Lionel folks".Funny that remark offends some people.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrainHave you ever witnessed an F3AA passenger train "racing" down a 45 foot straightaway mainline at a scale speed of 20 MPH? Does that appear prototypical?
Ever see these post along the right of way that read 45/35? or 50/40? The first number was for passenger trains the second for freight.
Even today passenger trains is restricted to current track speeds just like yesteryear. The average intermodal speed is around 30 mph.
The idea of running trains fast is a hold over from running our first train sets at Mach 5 around a simple loop of track.
BRAKIE The idea of running trains fast is a hold over from running our first train sets at Mach 5 around a simple loop of track.
Rich,
I don't think anybody is trying to dismiss you or minimize your problem. There are two different threads here. This one discusses the pros and cons of fast vs. slow running. Your earlier thread discussed a specific problem you were havng with one of your engines. Frankly, I don't have an answer to the question about your engine, and that's why I left it to others to respond to that thread. If the answers you got didn't solve the problem, my only suggestion is to take up the issue with the manufacturer. In this thread we're not discussing "problem child" locos. We're discussing modelers' individual preferences in operating practices.
Please don't take offense, because no offense is intended.
ACY Rich, I don't think anybody is trying to dismiss you or minimize your problem. There are two different threads here. This one discusses the pros and cons of fast vs. slow running. Your earlier thread discussed a specific problem you were havng with one of your engines. Frankly, I don't have an answer to the question about your engine, and that's why I left it to others to respond to that thread. If the answers you got didn't solve the problem, my only suggestion is to take up the issue with the manufacturer. In this thread we're not discussing "problem child" locos. We're discussing modelers' individual preferences in operating practices. Please don't take offense, because no offense is intended. Tom
richhotrain BRAKIE The idea of running trains fast is a hold over from running our first train sets at Mach 5 around a simple loop of track. I give up......trying to explain to you guys what my issue was when I posted my own thread. Enjoy yourselves talking about your first train sets. Rich
I give up......trying to explain to you guys what my issue was when I posted my own thread. Enjoy yourselves talking about your first train sets.
Rich,You missed my point.. Just because a passenger locomotive is geared for 79 mph is no sign it will ever reach that speed in its life time.
As far as your locomotive.. My P2K Geeps are not the fastest runners I have but,at their speed they look good. Even on your 45' of track I would run my passenger train no faster then 50 smph since it looks better to the eye when you stoop to watch it glide through the country side and if you happen to have crossbucks, trees or telephone poles on the front of the layout watch how fast the engine and cars whiz by one of those items at 50 smph..It can be dizzying.
A too fast engine can be a problem child and one I never found a easy solution for.. I usually sell or trade those engines off since they don't meet my running standards-of course I'm not suggesting you do that.
Listen everybody, Y'all lay off Rich already.
This thread is pointless, and has nothing to do with Rich's issues with the Intermountain F3 speeds.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
I read the OP as giving credit to Rich for providing him with insight and thought-provoking discussion. I don't think this thread is about Rich in any way.
OP says that he "had never considered top end speed". I don't think that was a shot at Rich or anybody. And that wasn't even the point of Rich's thread about F3 differences, IMO.
OP also mentioned pulling power as one of the factors by which to judge the adequacy of a locomotive...but nobody seems to be responding to that part very much. I would assume desired train length and grades would influence that opinion.
- Douglas
I think these are two differfent questions. "My loco is slow" is very different from "what is an optimal, realistic speed to you?"
Certainly, the latter question was inspired by the former, but only in the sense that sometimes discussion on a certain issue inspires other questions to come up in the course of many discussions. I think Bear's separating it from your thread was intended specifically to separate the two thoughts, as he could've done as many do and simply made it in the middle of your discussion, where it definitely would've been a distraction from it. Given how often that happens with threads, you should appreciate that Bear didn't do that.
The issue with your loco is obviously a mechnical or electrical one and yeah, I think trying to put you down because you rightfully desire a loco that will get your trains rolling along at speed is less than helpful about fixing your loco. THAT would be like saying they think the problem is your desires, when it clearly wasn't the case. You had a perfectly good case of "need for speed" unrelated to any toy train effects.
Here we have a discussion that is clearly philosophical. I'm not sure the toy train comments are really all that helpful here either, because Bear isn't asking about that, but about the philosophy our scale operating methods are based on. However, they are relevant, even if shallow and dismissive of serious engagement with the question.
Of course, this is from the perspective of someone who operates a mountain RR. But I understand your frustration of trying to operate a flat land RR where speed is certainly a part of realistic operation. If people don't like it and don't want to think too hard about ideas that differ from their own, that's their loss. Ignore them.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Rich ---
I guess I see your point. But the OP said "Not wishing to dilute Rich's thread..." or something to that effect. He was clearly distancing his speed-related questions from yours because he recognized that they were separate. Any further comments were probably gratuitous.
In any case, I will say again that I'm sure no offense was intended.
DoughlessOP also mentioned pulling power as one of the factors by which to judge the adequacy of a locomotive...but nobody seems to be responding to that part very much. I would assume desired train length and grades would influence that opinion.
That and the weight of the cars and locomotive all comes into play. A light engine won't pull many cars weigh to RP20.1 up a grade or on the flat.
A (say) A P2K GP7 or Atlas GP7 would fair far better pulling those RP20.1 weighted cars then a (let's say) a BB GP7 because of the difference in the weight of the locomotives. There are other things as well that may hinder a locomotives pulling power.
Then we have the drag resistance of the freight cars and that drag amount will depend on the wheels and trucks rollability.
RichHO,
You actually have a layout where a higher top end speed can be utilized. (I'm slightly jealous... Just slightly though. ) No offense was meant by my comment, it's just I don't have a large layout by any standards, so I can't use, realistically, higher top end speed. For me it just doesn't work.
If I had the space (and time and other necessary reasources needed) for a larger layout, where I could utilize a higher top end speed, then I also would like too.
I just know that it will not happen anytime soon, so my priority is in smooth slow speed ops and in trying to realistically model a slower operation, on a slower line, as that is what I have the space to model. Not a downplay on what others can do, nor meant as any slight on those who can realistaically use a higher speed.
Sorry if it appears if I contributed to any negativity. Not my intent.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
Only slightly more important than the scale weight of my locomotives. Man, do you realize the bite they get for the shipping charges for core material from a neutron star to weight a Life-Like 0-4-0 ?
Rich, as I previously tried to explain it was never my intent to cause you offence but as I have, I hope you will accept my unreserved apology.
Yours humbly, the Bear.
Motley .....and has nothing to do with Rich's issues with the Intermountain F3 speeds.
My first issue of MR (Dec 1971) had a review of an N scale engine that had a top scale speed of something like 230 mph! I always felt it was easy to build a cheap engine that ran fast, but took more quality (and money) to make one that would run slowly when you wanted it to. I tend to run about 'half speed' (some might say 'half fast'?): Passenger trains around 35-40 mph, freights around 15-20, ore trains even slower.
Remember, even a 30"R HO curve is so sharp a real train would be restricted to 20 mph.
Well, I guess I'll be one of the few here that complains about the slowness of today's locos.
I'm a member of a large club:All mainline switches are #8's or #10's, all mainline radius curves are 40" or bigger. The layout will eventually fill up a 6300 sq. ft. room, but we're half full at the moment. Currently, the layout is about 60' long and 30' wide, with the mainline being some 700' long from end to end. IOW, we're a big club.
One problem we've been having is with old locos being converted to DCC. On our old DC layout, we'd run up to 18vdc. With DCC, it's 14v to the rail, and about 12v to the motor. This has led to re-motorings and the selling off of old stock that won't make the speed curve.
In addition to that, we've had new locos not running fast enough. A recent passenger loco model has been unable to crack 70mph. In fact, some of them won't even do 60mph. This means we can't use our new long distance passenger engines on our long distance passenger trains because they just can't make the time. They'll be regulated to commuter and freight service, which is sad when they cost $350 ea. (w/ sound).
They aren't the only ones. The P1K RDC's were so bad at top speed that NWSL actually has a re-gearing kit to get them going at passenger speeds. Kato F40PH's were also too slow (110mph on Amtrak).Is it asking too much to have locos go their prototypical top speed with DCC? If I buy a high speed train set like the NH's "Comet" that had a top speed of 109mph, then my HO model of it should go at least 109mph.
Paul A. Cutler III
Paul3They aren't the only ones. The P1K RDC's were so bad at top speed that NWSL actually has a re-gearing kit to get them going at passenger speeds.
I remember being disappointed when the RDCs came out. I had asked here if the later Walthers "plated" version had been given faster gearing but no one could answer and I was not willing to buy one to find out.
Maybe the future Rapido models will have passenger gearing.
Thanks for the idea about the NWSL gearing! I wasn't aware of the regear kit.
Ed
wjstix My first issue of MR (Dec 1971) had a review of an N scale engine that had a top scale speed of something like 230 mph! I always felt it was easy to build a cheap engine that ran fast, but took more quality (and money) to make one that would run slowly when you wanted it to. I tend to run about 'half speed' (some might say 'half fast'?): Passenger trains around 35-40 mph, freights around 15-20, ore trains even slower. Remember, even a 30"R HO curve is so sharp a real train would be restricted to 20 mph.
Let's consider wjstix contention about a quality built locomotive. It would run slowly when you wanted it to. Now, consider my Intermountain F3A. It does run slowly when I want it to and, in fact, quite prototypically.
But, consider this. Shoudn't a quality built locomotive be designed to run as fast as its prototype is designed to run? I am not saying that Intermountain is not a quality built locomotive. It is a quality built locomotive. But, it is flawed in the sense that it cannot achieve maximum prototype speeds.
Now, wjstix example of the locomotive that ran at 230 MPH is an example of a poorly designed locomotive. But, that is not what we are supposedly talking about here. We are supposedly talking about locomotives that run too slow for prototypical purposes.
As far as the 30" radius curve goes in wjstix example, the vast majority of layouts probably have curves less than 30" radius and, therefore, are unable to run their trains prototypically in any event. So much for that argument.
It is not about how fast or slow you run your locomotives. It is about whether a manufacturer designs a locomotive that reflects the prototype, and that includes prototypical speeds.
Rich, as I previously tried to explain it was never my intent to cause you offence but as I have, I hope you will accept my unreserved apology. Yours humbly, the Bear.
I have a switching layout with a 32' mainline. Although I always set CV5 of all my locomotives to match the prototypical max speed, I never use the upper speed steps of the cab. I much prefer slow speed even for the through freight or the passenger train.
Edit: by the time I wrote this reply, it became irrelevant. Sorry.
Guy
Modeling CNR in the 50's
Rich: "Shoudn't a quality built locomotive be designed to run as fast as its prototype is designed to run? I am not saying that Intermountain is not a quality built locomotive. It is a quality built locomotive. But, it is flawed in the sense that it cannot achieve maximum prototype speeds".
Absolutely, the speed range should match the prototype, that means slow when desired and, (in the case of a F40 or P42), a top speed of 110mph. All too often, this doesn't happen.
Of course, My layout isn't designed to run at Class 6 speeds or above, so top speed is not a factor for me, but if your layout or Paul's club is built to run at passenger speed, your passenger power should be capable of running that speed.
richhotrainIt is about whether a manufacturer designs a locomotive that reflects the prototype, and that includes prototypical speeds. Rich
Rich,That would help the older P2K locomotives so they would be a tad faster but,I know railroads had this habit of sitting the overspeed alerter at a safe maximum speed and how every engineer I worked with watched his speed so the overspeed wouldn't sound. If it did he would have to give account. A habitual overspeed violation would get the engineer fired.
What this have to do with modeling?
Glad you ask.
A lot of E units was geared to 85 mph some higher. A lot of freight units was gear to 65 mph.
A F3 was geared at 62:15 with a top speed of 65 mph.
Your F3 should match that top speed.
Does this help?
I am not being philosophical when I say that I would expect a passenger locomotive model should reach approximately the same top speed as the prototype.
I do have to wonder how people are measuring speed? Everyone have radar guns or one of those speed trap devices? I know about counting poles, but I am talking about actual data measured accurately, not approximations.