Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse Although the up-grade is 3.1%, the down grade is closer to 3.7%. The Heisler started slipping on 6 boxcars going down.
QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan Originally posted by SpaceMouse man those are some steep grades, no wonder you're pulling so low. Real railsroads really tried to no get over a 1.5-2% grade, and really prefered a 0.5-1% grade, many old time railsroads would go 10-12 miles out of their way just to build a smoother grade than a direct route would have. where alternate routes were not possible, they'd cut the land, or fill the approach to achieve acceptable grades. Imagine 300 chinese or irish laborers doing land excavations with picks and shovels, that was cheaper than multiheading or cut and shuffle for the railroads. What can I say. My kid wanted some bridges and tunnels. I wrapped the grade from as far back as I could and the best I could get was 3.1%. My next layout will limit the grade to 2% on the main line even in the helices. There will be some logging and everything there will be geared to the Heisler, Climax and Shay's abilities. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply rrinker Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Reading, PA 30,002 posts Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 3:13 PM I'm kinda surprised at the lack of pulling pwer from the Heisler though. 3.1% is steep, but not hideous. I did some testing with a 4% incline set from Woodlans Scenics, I wanted to make a flyover junction effect, short (less than train length) but steep grade to get the one line up and over. None of my switchers could start 6 cars on the grade, but it LOOKED like they would have been able to continue on had they started on a flat. Maybe not. But then, the switcher wouldn't ordinarily be in that area. My F7 and GP7's started the 6 cars just fine. Just the same, i decided to cheat and lower the benchwork 2" and have one track climb at 2% and one descend at 2%. All of my stuff can manage on the 2% grade. So I will have the effect of a 4% grade but no train wiull ave to negotiate more than 2%, --Randy Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more. Reply dinwitty Member sinceAugust 2004 2,844 posts Posted by dinwitty on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:22 PM You will have to think like the prototype, doublehead, or larger engines. Consider the N&W would use their Y6's doublehead heavy coal trains with pushers up the virginia mountains. Reply Don Gibson Member sinceJune 2004 From: Pacific Northwest 3,864 posts Posted by Don Gibson on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 11:43 PM 3% grades are comewhat common in HO RR's. The average HO engine can outpull it's prototype, but small HO engine's (such as IHC) wiil have problems. Be aware that Spectrum 2-8-0 and 2-10-0's are above average engines except for weight - and are not 'puller's'. That seems to be a trend with today's plastic steam. I doubt any of today's diesels have problems with 3%.. Don Gibson .............. ________ _______ I I__()____||__| ||||| I / I ((|__|----------| | |||||||||| I ______ I // o--O O O O-----o o OO-------OO ########################### Reply selector Member sinceFebruary 2005 From: Vancouver Island, BC 23,330 posts Posted by selector on Thursday, April 7, 2005 12:54 AM My P2K Heritage 0-6-0 is used to get small ore cars up a 3.6% incline, and really struggles with more than three cars. I wi***hat it weighed another two or three ounces, because it is much too light with a plastic body. Hopefully I can find a way to weight it. Reply ac4400fan Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Arizona. Born And Raised In Chicago ILL. 743 posts Posted by ac4400fan on Thursday, April 7, 2005 2:01 AM gsetter ,i couldnt say it better, my grandfather told me some storys,,hehe your right ,,,,my regards spacemouse carl GO> Chicago NorthWestern.BNSF& Illinios Central, AC4400 ALLTHE WAY! DREAM IT! PLAN IT! BUILD IT! Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Thursday, April 7, 2005 8:16 AM Now the I've just cleaned the rails of everything, as in painted and scraped, I think I'll clean the wheels on the engines and re-run the tests. I'll post the results. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply CP5415 Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Whitby, ON 2,594 posts Posted by CP5415 on Thursday, April 7, 2005 9:54 AM Don's right. It has do do with the weight of the locomotive. My IHC 4-6-2 can haul 5-6 Athearn passenger cars up a 3.5% grade, any more than that I have to get a diesel out to help it. My Proto PA can haul 15 Walthers Budd coaches up the same curved grade. Gordon Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H! K1a - all the way Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 7, 2005 10:29 AM Chip, two suggestions. In the shorter term, try adding weight. A-line sells a moldable putty that is 90% lead and I have nearly always been able to squeeze more or less of it into my steamers. (The MDC 2-6-0 might be a problem on this, though). In the longer term, plan on double-heading. My current semi-temporary layout (for fun and testing while I complete the finishing of the basement) has 2% grades as planned for the permanent layout, versus my layout in the previous house which was all on one level. I quickly learned that my small steam needs to be double-headed in order to pull satisfactory train lengths up the grade (for me, a minimum of 10 cars with a goal of 15). Even with DCC, you'll get the best results double-heading steam by using two identical models. Your biggest problem will be installing Kadee couplers in the front. It's usually possible but rarely easy, and I often decide in advance which of each pair will be the front and rear double-headers, thus only adding front Kadee to one of them. The double-heading has the added benefit of always impressing casual visitors. Of course, I have to say that the additional expenditure was unwelcome and is being spread over a two-year period. Reply Edit MidlandPacific Member sinceFebruary 2003 1,138 posts Posted by MidlandPacific on Thursday, April 7, 2005 10:31 AM Adding weight is the best solution; you can probably also buy or make drivers with traction tires (essentially a thin rubber band) that may help the problem. But you're right: grades reduce pulling power very quickly. The best answer is probably to do what the prototype did on heavy grades: double the hill or add helpers. Another point to note is that curves add resistance, and increase the effect the grade has on your train (if your power pack has a voltmeter or an ammeter, you'll be able to see it there). http://mprailway.blogspot.com "The first transition era - wood to steel!" Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Thursday, April 7, 2005 12:55 PM Actually, I knew weight was an issue as is friction and weight bearing on the drive wheels which is why the Heisler out performs the other engines of is size/weight. I'm more curious than anything. The way I'm solving the "problem" is dropping to 2% grades of less on the basement layout. For the 4x8 layout small trains are fine. I didn't think of it as a problem, but the traction tires and putty weight sound intriguing. Not a lot of room in those old steamers though. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply robengland Member sinceFebruary 2003 From: New Zealand 462 posts Posted by robengland on Thursday, April 7, 2005 4:20 PM Another thought: is it really 3%. You probably know this already but: if you measure from flat bit to flat bit you don 't get a true reading. The real grade is the middle part of the incline NOT COUNTING the transition curves at the top and bottom. It can be a lot steeper. I've been caught by this one when designing layouts on paper. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread, curves make a BIG difference. the late great John Armstrong did some tests and soemwhere, i think Layout Planning for Realistic Operation, there is a table of the "effective grade" depending on the curve. At the tight radii we often work with, we are nearly doubling the effective gradient, as I recall it. Rob Proud owner of the a website sharing my model railroading experiences, ideas and resources. Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Thursday, April 7, 2005 4:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by robengland Another thought: is it really 3%. You probably know this already but: if you measure from flat bit to flat bit you don 't get a true reading. The real grade is the middle part of the incline NOT COUNTING the transition curves at the top and bottom. It can be a lot steeper. I've been caught by this one when designing layouts on paper. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread, curves make a BIG difference. the late great John Armstrong did some tests and soemwhere, i think Layout Planning for Realistic Operation, there is a table of the "effective grade" depending on the curve. At the tight radii we often work with, we are nearly doubling the effective gradient, as I recall it. You're right, I eased into the incline and did not take that into consideration. I'll recalculate tonight. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 7, 2005 6:05 PM Based on my previous layout experience, on a small model railroad, there's definately something to be said for "flat as a pancake". You could achieve bridges by "digging" into the benchwork. Just throwing that out there as you're contemplating your next, larger layout. Sounds like you're having fun!!! Reply Edit dinwitty Member sinceAugust 2004 2,844 posts Posted by dinwitty on Thursday, April 7, 2005 6:18 PM I never would consider an 0-6-0 for serious grade operations, more for light grade level switching or into industrial areas. For me, my layout is being designed heavy grades and serious pulling which means big engines that PULL, to move hoppers over those grades. Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Thursday, April 7, 2005 8:33 PM The results are in: http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=34964 Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply jimrice4449 Member sinceApril 2004 From: North Idaho 1,311 posts Posted by jimrice4449 on Thursday, April 7, 2005 8:57 PM There's a solution to the wimpy performance of HO steam engines. Power the B unit (also referred to as the tender). I have a test helix (it makes two circles and dead ends). It's 1 1/2% with 42" curves. I have this obsesion with long trains and I run 3 unit 1st generation power consists (sometimes w/ an extra dummy B just for appearance) and they handle 40-50 cars with no problem. Couple up a steam engine of comparable HP and it can't start the train on the flat. I've been threatening to power a tender or two to try this out in the real world for years (OK decades) and I think this year's the time I'm really going to do it. I got a Bachman Niagara to serve as a guinea pig (if I screw up I'm only out 50 bucks) and this is the ultimate wimp. It runs great but it barely gets three brass psgr cars up the helix. This from the equivelent of 3 E-units. I tried floating this idea to the letters to the editor of the 3 major MR magazines but Mainline Modeler was the only one to print it but it generated a lot of comment. I'll post the results after I get my stumps in gear and do it. Reply Subscriber & Member Login Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more! Login Register Users Online York1 see all » Search the Community ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Model Railroader Newsletter See all Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox! Sign up
Originally posted by SpaceMouse man those are some steep grades, no wonder you're pulling so low. Real railsroads really tried to no get over a 1.5-2% grade, and really prefered a 0.5-1% grade, many old time railsroads would go 10-12 miles out of their way just to build a smoother grade than a direct route would have. where alternate routes were not possible, they'd cut the land, or fill the approach to achieve acceptable grades. Imagine 300 chinese or irish laborers doing land excavations with picks and shovels, that was cheaper than multiheading or cut and shuffle for the railroads.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!
K1a - all the way
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
QUOTE: Originally posted by robengland Another thought: is it really 3%. You probably know this already but: if you measure from flat bit to flat bit you don 't get a true reading. The real grade is the middle part of the incline NOT COUNTING the transition curves at the top and bottom. It can be a lot steeper. I've been caught by this one when designing layouts on paper. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread, curves make a BIG difference. the late great John Armstrong did some tests and soemwhere, i think Layout Planning for Realistic Operation, there is a table of the "effective grade" depending on the curve. At the tight radii we often work with, we are nearly doubling the effective gradient, as I recall it.