Suppose theoretically, that four Alco 251s could fit side by side and end to end each with two generators on each engine, could that work?
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
Do you know what the minimum radii will be for this behemoth? Are you going to be able to run it anywhere - e.g. on your club layout? Or, will this just be a shelf queen?
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
That's when some clever engineering on my part comes in...
First the two Trainmaster boxes that run half the length of the unit act as span bolsters and house two motors each which power two Athearn B trucks each two of the B trucks one from each motor share common D truck sideframes the D trucks (or two B trucks) can both swivel and slide side to side, then the B leading and trailing trucks also swivel and pivot... then each B-D-B set is joined by another span bolster to which the body is attached to... then the decoders speakers weights and anything else needed for a model... I hope to be able to "possibly" (and I use the term very loosely) shoe horn it through 22" radius curves??? But that's minimum radius not planned radius... I am going to the club tomorrow and I will ask the minimum radius used there...
I think R22" will be VERY ambitious. (My MTH 20th Century Limited cars are rated at R24".) For sure it won't look pretty doing it. I do think it would be a good idea to find out what the minimum radii is at your club layout.
Tstage, I agree R22 is stressing the bounds of reality a bit but I never said that it be the typical curviture used I would just like to have that "buffer" between operating radius and minimum before the locomotive jumps the rails, especially in yards...
I now have about 70 bucks saved from Christmas and should have more come my birthday in a month and then of course my seeking meaningful employment upon reaching the age of 17...
Funding is slowly getting better and this project should really pick up steam soon!
Well I went to the club and asked Casey the minimum radius of the layout he said that it is 29" radius at its tightest spot and the rest of the layout is about 30" or greater... Now this left me perplexed because that would give a diameter of 58" and my T-1 derails every time I run through there and it's rated for 22" minimum??? Could he have meant 14.5" radius? But that doesn't make sense because most motive power is 6 axle power, so maybe it is indeed 29" radius...
No, I'm sure he meant R29". Not much of anything other than the shortest of switchers would even make it through a curve <R15" in HO. 6-axle locomotives need at least R24".
"...my T-1 derails every time I run through there". Do you mean that your T1 derails only at a particular spot on the club layout? Or, does it happen all over it?
It does derail elsewhere on the layout especially when running at speed... but the area is a derailment prone area and is soon to be the target of a realignment project...
What "area" are you referring to? A yard entrance? And when you say your T1 derails: Do you mean the drivers derail...or only the front trucks?
The T1 is long and rigid. I think the manufacture's "recommended minimum radius" of 22" is wishful thinking on their part. However, I suspect that there are a combination of issues going on between the layout and your T1.
From my experience with the mth ho bi polar it will do 18inch radius. This is due to fact that the front pilot truck got swivel from the power truck. The power trucks also is allow to swing are little. The body on the mth model is also three pieces with the cabs attach to each end allow to swing left or right depending on the turn.
The section of track that is troublesome is where the mainline makes a U turn at the end of a peninsula across onto a shelf...
Also I found someone to 3d print the side frames but I need a scale drawing with measurements of the trucks, if anyone has or knows where to find them I'd appreciate it, thanks...
Not sure if this would help
Mheetu, the top one looks great let me send it to the 3d printer to see if it's good enough for him...
If you can, try to get someone who knows about eletronics to help you rewire the decoders and motors so your boxcab locomotive runs smoothly.
I wouldn't do that yourself, have someone help you just to be safe.
Rod from the club said he would help me install a decoder... how would I get the sound to be like there are four Alco 251Bs with dual generators each inside the unit coming in and out of sync? The unit will have four motors so would two decoders with two speakers each one on each side of the locomotive that way the speaker facing the back of the layout will sound different from the front thereby creating that cycling effect work?
One generator or two generators per prime mover wouldn't really change the sound. Really be unlikely any railroad would put two generators on one prime move anyway, 4 diesels each with a generator would be monster power - 6000 or more HP.
Loksound decoders have an adjustment to the prime mover to adjust the exact response. The idea is so that if you ahev 4 locos in consist they all won't throttle up the engine sounds in lock step. But nothing says you couldn't cram 4 decoders and 4 speakers in there and set them up this way, so that all 4 prime movers wouldn't be in perfect sync.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
This locomotive uses 16 bipolar motors and is going to operate on 2 to 4 percent grades so power demands are through the roof! Four decoders could be pricey! But anythings an option...
A kitbashed HO Scale locomotive with 4 decoders?! Wow that's a lot of wiring and electronics involved!
16 bipolar motors?! Geez stephen you're really hitting me with stuff today!
The model only has four motors but the prototype would've had 16 bipolar motors... Thats why I was addressing the number of engine sounds...
NWP SWPThis locomotive uses 16 bipolar motors
Why would a diesel engine use ineffecient bi-polar motors rather than regular traction motors?
CC
Generators (or mostly alternators), were pretty much always (read that 100%) driven by the flywheel end of the engine. VERY FEW engines are equipped for power drives on the non-flywheel end.
.
I have only ever seen Shrimp Boats and a few Dredges set up for power output drives on both ends of the crankshaft, and even then, the front power drive is only rated at 30% of maximum engine output. The flywheel end is always rated for 100% of engine output.
There is ZERO advantage to driving alternators off of both the front and rear of the engine. Any engineer would just install a larger alternator and split the power to two different loads.
Anyway, none of this matters at all, because you will not be modeling all the neat stuff under the hood. That is where the motors and decoders will be.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
The reason I'm going to use bipolar motors is because the running gear is off scrapped MILW Bipolar Electric units... remember MILW only scrapped the Bipolars because the milwaukee shops did not rebuild the units properly...
Theoretically couldn't flywheels be affixed to both ends of an engine? Doesn't matter but just an academic curiosity...
Now I need some popular opinion vote...
1 Do I build a boxcab single unit like the NYC T motors? Easiest.
2 Do I build an A unit that has a porch at the front and the body stretches to the rear end of the unit? A little harder.
3 Do I build a unit that has a full length body without porches? Harder but doable.
If I do the second or third do I:
1 Build a tender for the fuel? Easiest.
2 Build a slug that acts as a tender? A little harder.
3 Build a B unit? Hardest.
I think I should do 1 or maybe 2 but with option 3. I'm not quite sure so some other opinions would be helpful. Thanks!
Now if they had overhead available, why would they bother to put diesels in it?
There's no way you could just slap extra trucks on and call it good, this would mess with the equalization and the tracking. More is not always better - the more wheels, the less weight per wheel and this end up hurting tractive effort, even if those wheels are powered. Like Overmod said, look at the later electric locos like the E33 and E44. Diesels without the diesel engine in them, and pantographs on top. The Baldwin Centipedes weren't hugely successful and the super power diesels that came after that the UP used ended up with a more standard diesel truck, only larger. Not oodles of wheels.
Three explanations...
1 the MILW scrapped them, the NWP-SWP bought the running gear and they needed diesels to power the monster.
2 because of the extra weight from the engines they made half the trucks on one frame and the others on another and because of the weight they wanted each half to have a leading and trailing truck...
3 the NWP-SWP wanted 1 to 1 replacements for steamers but could run from one end of the system to the other with a few fueling stops...
PS the greatest thing about proto freelancing is you can do as you please because at the end of the day rules 1 and 2 are key, 1 it's my railroad I make the rules, 2 if confused reconsult rule 1...
Besides model railroading is supposed to be fun!
I'm not complaining about being given opinions, I just would like opinions and idea that help me achieve my goal not carpet bomb it till I give up on it... Don't complain that I'm an armchair modeler but you then shoot down every idea I have. Not Cool...
I'd like to apologize for going off like I did. I just get tired of the beating my ideas take every time I post here... I post here to get advice on how to go about things, I could build my monster locomotive and be perfectly happy with not explaining everything but I'd like to have a "prototype" explanation for the thing, but instead I get, "why are you bothering to attempt this there's not a prototype for that!" And that's a great way to get people to leave the forum and possibly the hobby...
I still value your opinions just deliver them in a way that helps me attain my goal, thank you!
The reality is, if you want a prototype explanation for an otherwise fantasy locomotive, then it has to be designed along prototype design principles. You are completely free to make up whatever you want to make up - no one's telling you you can't build whatever fantasy loco you want. There's a web site out there that has a lot of wild designs on it, some I think were built in model form. But you keep adding that you want it to be explainable - that means you need some sort of valid design reason to make certain decisions.
It comes down to - do you just want to go ahead and build a gee-whiz fantasy loco that surely would look impressive, or do you really want to explore the what-if of a prototype buying the frame and running gear of a large electric loco and making it diesel powered? Either path is correct, it's your railroad. All that the rest of us are saying is that if you want option B, then there have to be some contraints and some of the things you've said you wanted to do don't fall within the prototypical constraints you yourself are applying to the project. If you just want to go off and make whatever it is you envision, then it will be like the stained glass display guy - it will certainly be interesting and there's really no room for anyone to criticize.
NWP SWPI just would like opinions and idea that help me achieve my goal not carpet bomb it till I give up on it... Don't complain that I'm an armchair modeler but you then shoot down every idea I have. Not Cool...
So, are you saying that you don't want anyone to point out any potential pitfalls to your ideas so that you don't end up wasting needless money (that you've stated you don't have enough of yet) because you've hit a major design flaw wall? And it's our fault that you are still an armchair modeler because we don't acquiesce to your every idea with "positive" feedback?
Seems you don't really respect the opinions and experiences of your fellow modelers here on the forum as much as you claim you do, Steven. If someone raises a question then it's seen as negativity and naysaying. Maybe your coming to the forum with too much of a consumer mindset rather than one that enjoys dialoguing and learning?
I don't mind people giving me information just be kind about it, tstage your bubble burst picture offended me that's all I'm saying.
I deleted the photo, Steven. Sorry for the offense.
Tom