# Adding weight, how much is 'just right'?



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

I was thinking that, while there are no hard and fast rules, there should be a 'sweet spot' range for most engines between the factory weight and blowing the drive. Rather than just "cram all you can and hope", has anybody actually experimented or have found a 'perfect fighting weight' for common engines that they'd be willing to share? 

The B'mann Big Hauler had several drives, but what is a good weight for an Annie? A Connie? a K? the Indy?

How about the LGB Porter? Stainz? Mogul? Forney?
The Aristo c-16? Others?


Thanks in advance!


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

my elder Stainzes: between four and five pound (total weight) for many years without any problems. 
more weight did not better the pull on steep grades.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

My rule of thumb is; Light enought to cause wheel slip when max tonnage is hooked on... 
For my small locos, 3 passenger cars and an express boxcar makes a long passenger train fot the 4-4-0 and 15 or so freight cars behind the C-16 should max it out. 
I have grades and I would rather 'double the hill' than to add more weight. In fact my battery conversion with batts in boiler lightened the loco, 14 batts is about 2/3s of the weight removed. I added shot to bring it up to 3/4s of the original weight.... My hope is running prototypical consists should ease the strain on gearing.... fortunately I don't have to deal with gears that crack on the shelf.... 

Shorter trains makes my layout bigger. 

John


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Part of the reason I'm asking is the 0-6-0 that turned into a mogul w/ plow currently weighs about 17oz I can probably fit 8# of fishing sinkers in it, but know that's pushing what a Bug Mauler drive wants - especially with old sloppy loose bushings (they'll get changed 'eventually')


----------



## W3NZL (Jan 2, 2008)

Why not scale weight everything, it'll work fine for U... I've been doing it for well over 50 years now,
both HO & G scale, engines & rolling stock, an I haven't burned up an engine yet...
Paul R...


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I was going to echo that remark, seems to work for me too, although I weight the cars to just a tad over unloaded weight. 

Greg


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Quote: 

Why not scale weight everything, it'll work fine for U... 

Unquote: 

Well because the model that I am currently building would have to weigh in at *5.309 Metric Tonnes....* There IS a formula that will tell you the tractive weight of your loco to prevent wheel slip for a model loco. This has been around since *1904*. This equates to: "For every Kilogramme of loco weight 230 Grammes are available for tractive effort, the loading on each driving axle should therefore be no higher than this". 

In the case of the locomotive above the axle loading should give a working weight of 2-10-10-2 = 4.6 Kilogrammes spread over the 10 driving axles plus a further 460 Grammes spread over the leading and training pony trucks. 

This "should" give an all up weight of 50.6 Kilogrammes with a tractive effort of 11.638 Kilogrammes. 

regards 

ralph 

"The Model Locomotive: Its Design And Construction; A Practical Manual On The Building And Management Of Miniature Railway Engines" 
Henry Greenly 
Published by Percival Marshal and Company Ltd 
1904


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Why not just start with the scale weight of the loco? 

for a GE Dash 9, that's 425,000 pounds. converted to 1:29 that is 17.4 pounds... not unreasonable, an Aristo Dash-9 with all the factory weights is almost exactly that. 

Nothing wrong with scale weight I can see. 

Greg


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Honestly? Have you guys ever heard of "K.I.S.S."? A simple "Don't go more than X total" is what I was looking for. If I make the 2-6-0 with 4th gen Bachmann drive weigh 2# it won't pull it's own shadow. If I make it weigh 20# and it stalls, it's pretty likely to strip the drive. In between is a lot of 2 oz fishing sinkers. Yes, I COULD sit here and foodle around - adding and testing, adding and testing, adding and testing, adding and.... BUT since somebody else probably already DID that, asking "How much?" instead of starting from scratch makes a whole lot more sense to me.


"Scale weight" is okay, IF you have a rough idea of how much the prototype weighed -- IF there even WAS a prototype. Most steam wheel arrangements came in all sizes from tiny to huge. This is the closest I can come to a proto for my mogul. The photo weighs half an ounce. The loco itself, I have no clue. So saying 'scale weight' is of no real practical value to me on this.









Also, the physical DRIVES themselves will haul the same max weight before something breaks whether I make it into a 2-2-0 or a 4-12-2. 


If I sound grouchy, I apologize. My sugar has been way, way up for two days - it isn't from anything I ate, and the meds aren't bringing it down much


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I would qualify my statement that the loco needs to have a known "not weak" drive, Aristo and USA both no problem, Bug Maulers have weaker drives, so you could scale back, and of course the different generations had different "strength" gearboxes. 

I don't think you can find a pat answer. 

Greg


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg.... 

You seem to have forgotten some very basic Physics... Your view is that the WEIGHT on the loco wheels should be the cube root of the MASS of the loco. Which would be fine if the model loco was made of exactly the same materials and had the same density as the original. But it is not. Working on the GE Dash 9 a C0-C0 loco and applying the Formula shows us that the minimum weight applied to the rails for no wheel slip is 6 x 230 Grammes = 1.380 Kilogrammes. This would give a tractive effort of 317.4 Grammes. Thus any increase in weight on the axles above this would not alter the grip of the wheel to the rail -but would contribute to the total tractive effort. Apply the figures you supplied 17.4 lbs (US) to 7.892 Kilogrammes gives a tractive effort of 1.815 Kilogrammes. Applying other Formula in the same book gives you a total train mass pulled by the loco of 19.25 x 1.815 Kilogrammes = 34.941 Kilogrammes. (These formulae are based on oiled Brass Steel plain metal bearings as roller races were not really common for home and model builders in Edwardian times...) 

This enables me to build locos that I can lift and will pull wagons and carriages. The BR Fell Loco 2-D-2 would using the scale weight in at *10.569* Kilogrammes using the Formula this becomes *1.840* Kilogrammes. 

With Fuel , Coolant and Automatic Transmission Fluid loaded, this becomes nearly 3.5 Kilogrammes -giving me a loco that I can carry to the bottom of the garden. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Posted By Mik on 05 Mar 2011 07:01 PM 
If I sound grouchy, I apologize. My sugar has been way, way up for two days - it isn't from anything I ate, and the meds aren't bringing it down much 




get your a... err... butt up!
half an hour walking around the neighbourhood before breakfast will bring your sugar down ten to twenty points dayly - without eating less.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 06 Mar 2011 04:58 AM 
Posted By Mik on 05 Mar 2011 07:01 PM 
If I sound grouchy, I apologize. My sugar has been way, way up for two days - it isn't from anything I ate, and the meds aren't bringing it down much 




get your a... err... butt up!
half an hour walking around the neighbourhood before breakfast will bring your sugar down ten to twenty points dayly - without eating less. 


I intend to do that, when the weather breaks. Walking around in the freezing rain would probably give me pneumonia, but then I suppose they could get my glucose levels sorted out while I was in hospital anyway. 20 points would be nice, but I'd still be about 120 too high. If it's still this high Monday I'll call the doctor.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ralph, I'm the guy using some basic laws, scale the mass by dividing by the cube of the scale. scale weight = 1:1 weight / ( 29 * 29 * 29) 

Can't get too much more basic that that! 

I don't know your forumula, cannot verify it makes sense in a scale situation, and don't really care. 

But if you tell me my SIMPLE scaling of weight is subject to more factors, then I ASSUREDLY tell you that your MORE COMPLEX formula is also subject to more factors. You are already bringing up friction, which has to be more tricky than simply scaling the weight. 

I'm happy that your stuff works, you are indeed a craftsman. Not sure about your sentence: "Thus any increase in weight on the axles above this would not alter the grip of the wheel to the rail " 

Are you trying to talk about the coefficient of friction? 

Anyway, don't think Mik will be attempting to calculate the axle loadings on each of axles on the loco. 

Scale weight can work. 

Greg


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Sooooo, 

Unknown weight/(rubber scale x rubber scale x rubber scale) - summat marginal drive = what? Inquiring minds really want to know! 

I looked, I only have a pound and a half of fishing sinkers left and maybe about the same worth of wheel weights. Will a 4 pound loco pull a battery tender AND push snow?


----------



## jgallaway81 (Jan 5, 2009)

Mik, now you are throwing in an additional factor... the plowing of show. You've never been so picky before  Or atleast you've stated all your pics from the start.

To be brutally honest, I think asking a BBH* drive of any generation to plow snow is a quick way to need to order a BBT drive. 

As for the most weight, I gather you want to increase it's pulling power to the point that it begins to effect the longevity of the driver. If correct, I'm certain you are right that some ones out there have already gotten the absolute maximum pulling capability out of their units. It would be nice if they would politely speak up in this.

As for me, I'm afraid that I can't actually help. I don't yet own a BBH.. waiting until I get my road started to add an Annie to my fleet. 



(BBH - Bachmann Big Hauler) 


@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm not worried about snow, or so much about max adhesion either. I just wanted to know where the line was to stay under it. I don't HAVE an unmolested Big Hauler or Annie to weigh (to get even stock weight to fill this)









AND, I figured that while I was asking, I might as well have guesstimates for future projects. So far, we have the concrete numbers of 5# for a LGB Stainz and 17# for a USA SD-45, plus stuff that's a nice theory but mostly useless unless you've actually GOT a prototype to weigh, and a migraine. 


On top of that, I'm quite certain the yield point for a 2nd Gen BH drive is lower than a 4th, which is lower than an Annie - or they wouldn't have revised it. But HOWDAMNEDMUCH?!?!? 



SOMEBODY out there has already put too much in and blown a drive. SOMEBODY has incrementally weighed and tested at least one drive. Perhaps they don't read this forum, but the probaly told somebody when they did it, A lot of smart people who've added weight and modified the various locos do read the forum, and I'm not asking them to give up anything that's top secret. This isn't stuff you can just Google search either, or I wouldn't have asked.


I rarely work from a prototype that I have access to the specs on - often just a photo, I DON'T want to find the line by trashing the drive - if only because I don't have another - AND I haven't a clue where the line even IS.


Yes, I'm getting just a little frustrated. It's like I asked, "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?", and the answer given was "Practice playing Tchaikovsky!" Accurate? Yes. Helpful? Um........


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

My recommendation is to not plow snow with that drive. I would not add more than a pound of extra weight. The drive is just not that tough. 

I think I could do better if you knew which "generation" it is... I think George Schreyer's site has them laid out... the 4th and 5th generation ones have better gearboxes. 

Of course, if we could get TOC's attention, or Barry's, we could get the quality answer you are looking for. 

If I talk to him, I'll ask.. 

Greg


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

According to the pix on George's site it is a 5th Gen gearbox, the gears look good, but the axle bushings are a little sloppy


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, then it should be able to handle more weight, what about adding one pound and seeing it's performance? I'd think the geartrain could handle 2, but with the worn axle bushings, that could add some extra friction, and thus load. 

I'll keep asking around... 

Greg


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg. 

Now that my part of the world has woken up again... "Grip" means the force needed to pin the wheel to the track and force the wheel to obey the coning and flanging. This is the force required to stop the wheel "hunting" between the rails. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I have never heard that explained that way. 

More grip will stop hunting? From your words, literally, it sounds like Grip is some threshold... is that so? 

Greg


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg.

Think of the coning on the wheel generating a centring force to the axle. Once you have enough to produce this (230 Grammes per axle) you have a functioning steering system. Any additional weight will not improve this -this is the minimum weight required to get it working. Friction does not play a part in this action.

regards

ralph

excuse me I have to get breakfast and catch an aeroplane home!


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Ralph, 

i would like to follow your explanation. 
but i am afraid, that you lost me somewhere between start and end... 
did i understand well: 
1) that 2kg of weight would be the optimal weight for a 0-4-0 stainz? (being 230 gr per aixle the optimum and each kg weight adding 230gr of tractive effort?) 
2) that the total weight of loco plus cars divided by ???* is the needed tractive effort. ( * = please fill in!) 

additional question: do steep grades change this relation?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Interesting item, so "Grip" may be a pretty cool number to know, although poor choice of word, it implies something very different to most people, not what you have explained. 

Is there any other standardized term for this? 

Greg


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

OK -now that I am in the UK and have eaten some decent food for the first time in 3 days.... 

Greg. 

"Grip" would appear to be the word used in the books during the Edwardian era! So far I have checked three of them. The modern one might be "swaying force". 
For a given sideways force and a known velocity it is (mathematically) possible to calculate the downward force needed to stop it. 
For a Gauge 1, 2, and 3 locomotive this is (roughly) 230 Grammes for speeds below 2 Metres per second. 

Korm. 

The tractive force is 230 Grammes for each Kilogramme that is on a driver wheel. 

Case :1 

An 0-4-0 weighing 2 Kilogrammes would have 460 Grammes of tractive force. 
There would be no need to increase the weight of the loco as its wheels would grip the rail and the loco would behave itself! 

Case :2 

An 0-4-4 weighing 2 Kilogrammes would only have 230 Grammes of tractive effort as only half of the wheels are drivers. 
There would be no need to increase the weight of the loco as its wheels would grip the rail and the loco would behave itself! 

Case :3 

A 4-4-4 weighing 2 Kilogrammes would have only 153.3 Grammes of tractive effort as only a third of the wheels are drivers. 
There would be no need to increase the weight of the loco as its wheels would grip the rail and the loco would behave itself! 

Case :4 

A 4-6-4 weighing 2 Kilogrammes would have only 197.1 Grammes of tractive effort. 
The weight on each axle has now fallen below the required figure and the loco "hunts" between the rails, more weight 
must be added to stop this. 

Tractive effort would decrease as the gradient increased as 
1:100 = -5.6% 
2:100 = -11.3% 
3:100 = -17% 
4:100 = -22.6% 

The last thing to answer is "Where does the figure of 230 Grammes come from"? 
It is the rough metric equivalent of 0.5 Foot Poundal Seconds which is the original Edwardian figure (cf 226.79 Grammes) for the "Grip" based on Brass Rail to Steel Wheel. 
And curiously enough 232 Grammes per Kilogramme is the co-efficient of friction for Brass to Steel. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## jonathanj (Jan 24, 2008)

An alternative way of looking at it is that a given loco should be just light enough that the motor ulrimately has the grunt to spin the wheels without either going over temperature or exceeding rated current (which would take it over temperature). This is assuming the gears are stronger than the motor, not always so with cheap drives. That way the motor/transmission are protected by making adhesion the weakest link in the chain - when something breaks, it's the grip of wheels to rail, which is least likely to cause damage and most likely to be noticed by the operator.


If the motor is the limiting factor, the quick'n'dirty way to find out is to hitch the loco up to something solid and immovable, then progressively add weight until its can no longer break traction in an attempt to move. You've now gone too far, so take the last lot you added back off again.


If the (cheap, plastic) gearing is the limit (ie the motor will strip it without suffering damage itself), then unfortunately you're into some calculation to relate the torque capacity of the final drive gear (if you can find it out) to torque at the railhead, and then that to permissible adhesive weight. AFAIK, the gearing is the limit on all the early bachmann big hauler 4-6-0's, columbias etc, so the answer is probably 'not much weight at all'. Annie components have a reputation for being a bit stronger, so the answer is presumably "a bit more than a big hauler". But I'd err on the light side with all these locos, which unfortunately means they aren't the best candidates for plow duty.


J.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Ralph...why in case 3 doesn't it need more weight?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually, I believe the gears in the 4th and 5th generation Bug Maulers are the same as the "Annie" version. 

Ralph, I'm a bit confused (but thoroughly enjoying the conversation!). 

Are you dividing the normal force per axle equally between drivers and leading/trailing truck axles? I don't believe that is true, models or prototypes 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Forget math, and go with your gut. First off, make sure your "typical" train is appropriate for a locomotive of that size. For a small narrow gauge steam loco like a 2-6-0 or such, you're probably looking at 5 or 6 cars up a 4% grade. (The "Eureka," a 3' narrow gauge 4-4-0 that occasionally runs on the Durango & Silverton RR is usually limited to two or three passenger cars on that railroad.) So, if you have an 2-6-0 that can't pull a 14-car train up a grade, don't worry about it. The prototype would not have been able to either. If the loco is lightfooted, then couple it to your "typical" train, and fill a Zip-Loc bag with a bit of lead shot. Drape the bag over the loco and see if that corrects the problem. If it doesn't, then add more lead shot until it does. Then you get to figure out where to stuff the weight, but truthfully it doesn't take much, and it's not difficult to stuff it in nooks can crannies. If the boiler is open, I'll just leave the lead shot in the bag, roll it and stuff it in place. If I need to "glue" the weight somewhere, I'll mix some Bondo and pour the shot into the Bondo. Then I just scoop that mixture into wherever I need to add the weight. If you need to drill through it later for whatever reason (adding screws, etc.) the lead is soft enough to easily drill through (and tap). 

Quite honestly, I wouldn't worry about the robustness of the drive train. The "dubious" drive trains on the market are questionable straight out of the box. If they're going to fail, it's not going to be because you added more weight. You may arguably accelerate the inevitable, but it is "the inevitable" with or without the added weight. 

Later, 

K


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 07 Mar 2011 12:23 PM 
Forget math, and go with your gut. 
.
.
.
.
Later, K 






That's why this stuff is art, not science


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, but putting a lot of weight in a poor drivetrain may accelerate it to "instant failure"... so, while trying to match pulling power with the prototype, I'd say there's a far cry between a stock big hauler and one with Barry's drive in it. 

Likewise, a New Bright loco and a similar LGB. How about the difference between my AML K4 Pacific and an Aristo Pacific. 

As much as I like to follow prototype practice, there IS a wide variation in drive train capability of same prototype but different manufacturer, which, if you read the first post is what this thread is all about, specifically, on a particular loco, Allen wants to know how much weight. 

Greg


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Mike: 

6 axles gives a weight of 333.3R Grammes -above the 230 Grammes threshold. 

Greg: 

You are correct that the level of weight distribution is not the same on bogie and driving wheels for original locos. In the case of the 4-6-4 the weight ratio should be 2 : 3 : 5 : 7 : 5 : 3 : 2. Some of the true design aspects have to be sacrificed to produce a simpler system. If you remember when these books were written, the average school leaving age was 12 and apprenticeships ran from 14 to 21 years of age.... Thus most people use the practice that a driver and bogie axle carry the same weight. 

When Henry Greenly was writing these books he wrote them for the production of *model* locomotives. To quote him "It is better in my humble opinion to produce a finely behaved model that one may appreciate at work than that is fit for naught than the display shelf". 

Kevin: 

I have to fundamentally disagree with you... The only time I go with my gut is when I am cooking, (and even then I would be the first one to admit that I cannot make pastry). Everything else is done by masses of pure calculation beforehand. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

So Ralph,

It seems that the average tractive effort equates to approximately 23% of the combined weight on the driving axles, yes?

Just curious mind you, but did Mr. Greenly use the .80-L.P/.85-H.P. main-line, .75 industrial constant to compensate for the lack of a perfect locomotive (i.e. steam pressure differential boiler/cylinder, and friction losses) as was done in the prototype, or something else totally different?


----------



## jgallaway81 (Jan 5, 2009)

Ralph, first of.. by "hunting" are you referring to the tendency of a car to slide left-to-right within the track gauge, there-by "bouncing" off the flange and sending it back the other way?

If this is the case, then wouldn't this be solved by the whole "correct wheel-gauge/track-gauge" thing that everyone preaches? Now, on the real railroads, (US-based, AAR-member, FRA-compliant) this issue is resolved by the way the wheels are cut: there is a taper on the tread, causing the the car to literally, albeit very minisculely, be lifted up in the air, on the side that is closer to the rail. There-fore gravity will inherently try to balance the car by "centering" it within the gauge. Further, in a 4ft, 8.5in gauge we are talking a clearance of 1/8th to 1/4 inch. Anything larger and the track needs to be worked/taken out of service.

There are two other "hunting" verbages I'm familiar with, both dealing with motive power. With the reciprocating parts of a steam engine, there is a tendancy for the pistons to cause an oscillating force around a pivot located near the drive axle. With a diesel, hunting is when there is a fuel control problem that causes the diesel-engine to rev-up/spin-down/rev-up/spin-down in an endless cycle.

As for the question asked, I'm afraid I don't see how it applies. 

Mik... maybe it would be easier to ask if anyone knows the weight of an unadulterated 4th/5th gen BH unit? 
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

SteveC: 

For an electric traction loco -yes 23% of the force on the driving wheels. 

"Becareful of what you wish for..." 

The Greenly formula is fairly standard for a two cylinder simple: 
tractive force (foot poundal seconds) =the square of the cylinder bore in inches multiplied by length of stroke in inches multiplied by the pressure in the boiler in pounds per sq inch divided by the driving wheel diameter in inches 

Quote " One may usefully use a reckoning of 60% for small pot boiler raising to a level of 70% to 80% for the larger multiflues for steam pressure". 

jg81: 

"Hunting" in this case I define as the wheel moving from side to side on the track and bouncing off the flanges. 

If you look at the specs for a G3 wheel and do the addition -you will find that the sum of the numbers is less than the gauge of the track viz: 1.6+58+1.6 =61.2 Millimetres leaving a gap of 2.3 Millimetres. This equates to *51.98* Millimetres in real life and if we add the 1mm gauge widening at the corners -this now equates to *74.58* Millimetres. As you say 3.2 Millimetres would be excessive in real life, the model version is 23.3 times greater -and this is when the track is perfectly in spec!!! 

regards 

ralph


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

ralph, thank you!


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Unforetunately, sometimes it doesn't take that much additional weight to really screw things up.

Case in point: I have a USA NW-2 that I stuck the standard old LGB "square of lead" in the speaker compartment. Even though I pull short trains, with a 2.5% grade, the motor started to burn out the the lead wires to the various windings on the armature. Over time the engine got "balkier" and "balkier" pulling less load until it refused to start many times, depending on where the brushes came to rest. The only cure is to replace the motor and remove the weight (now in-house but still to be done).


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Ralph

Thank you for the answers, I've always gotten myself in over my head, but I keep trying and darn if I don't learn a thing or two in the process.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Todd, the USAT locos do not have ball bearings, if your sleeve bearings in the sideframes are damaged, or underlubricated, you can get too much friction. Sounds like you really overheated the motor and slowly over time developed shorts in the windings. I've definitely seen this. The run of Aristo GP 40's has the same proclivity, get the motor hot enough and the "enamel" on the windings melts and you start shorting the windings, developing less magnetic force, more heat and more current draw. 

I've not added any weight to my USAT locos and also removed the traction tires. I really lost a lot of pulling ability, but no motor failures, and 3.4% grades and long trains, up to almost wheelslip. (I just add more locos in the consist). 

So, I definitely agree with you. Of course I would assume plowing (use of loco by OP) would be done when it's really cold, so that might help keep things cooler! 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg wrote: "Yeah, but putting a lot of weight in a poor drivetrain may accelerate it to "instant failure"... so, while trying to match pulling power with the prototype, I'd say there's a far cry between a stock big hauler and one with Barry's drive in it. 
How many Bachmann 2-8-0s and Shays failed just pulling their own shadows, without any modification to the locos? A poor drive will fail regardless of the amount of weight on the locomotive. (And I agree with you that more weight may accelerate the process, as I stated above.) Sure there's a difference between an LGB 2-6-0 drive and a New Bright drive. For 10 times the price, there darned well better be. The same for Barry's drives vs. Bachmann's early drives. The reality is, though, that most of our locos (particularly steam-outline locos) can outpull their respective prototypes without any additional weight. Maybe not on the flat, but certainly once you start introducing grades where a steam locomotive's pulling capacity falls off exponentially. 

As for a simple answer for Allen's (Mik's) original question, in my opinion there's no "silver bullet" answer. It's going to depend on the particular locomotive and the environment in which it runs. The same was/is true on the prototype. The C-19 class locomotive was arguably the most successful class of locomotive on the D&RGW/RGS. When the EBT was looking for an upgrade to their lighter 2-8-0s, Baldwin sold them a C-19 based on the success it was enjoying in Colorado. While the EBT's #7 certainly proved more powerful than their other locos, the crews found it finicky to run and very prone to slipping. Same loco, different environments, different results. 

Ralph wrote: "I have to fundamentally disagree with you... The only time I go with my gut is when I am cooking, (and even then I would be the first one to admit that I cannot make pastry). Everything else is done by masses of pure calculation beforehand. 
That's why you're particularly well-suited to engineering and I'm on more of the artistic/scientific side of things.  I like to tinker, to experiment to see what works (and often what does not). It's just the way I'm wired. We may well reach the same conclusions in the end. You'll be able to point to the book and say "it says so right here." I'll smile a wry smile and respond, "Yes, and I just proved he's correct" knowing I had a lot of fun doing so. 

Later, 

K


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Hi folks
I know that this thread is way old but it is very pertinent to what I need to do.
I have a layout that has up to a 10 to 15 percent incline and descent. Yes,the gradient big but I had no choice as I couldn't flatten the land at the high end of the garden due to killing tree roots, or make a cutting/tunnel as it would have been too deep and too long or build trestle bridges the other side (even though i would have loved too!) as it is a wide entry to the lawn and the main line goes around the perimeter of the lawn so.... I have to stick with the gradients.

When running diesels (mainly Aristo or USATs with traction tyres) I double, triple or even quad head and I am then able to run fairly decent trains, for my line, (up to 15 or so freight with a caboose or 5 to 6 aluminium streamline cars).
BUT..... when running steamers it is another thing. I have made three motorised stockcars for a 14 car cattle train, and a motorised passenger combine to 'assist' in getting up the hill when using steamlocos (sometime double headed but mostly single).
For most 'short' steam trains I use Bachmann Annies or an Aristo C16 .
If I have one Annie/C16 and a motorised combine, I can hang a flat car, a passenger car and a caboose onto this and it is sort of okay but the Loco will spin its wheels at a couple of places up the gradient even with the assistance of the 'motorised combine which cannot do it on its own. It tends to start spinning the wheels after a few circuits or when the track gets hot from the sun (being in UK, this does not often happen!).
If I put a little pressure on the loco, when it is spinning the wheels, it then 'grips' and takes the rest of the hill quite happily. 
If I double head (two Annies) the spinning does not happen, but a double headed short train is fine sometimes but a single loco looks much better.
All rolling stock have metal wheels and the 'motorised' stockcars have Aristo 'centrecab' blocks, the combine has a small USAT block with traction tyres both of types of block match the speed characteristics of the Annies pretty closely.


My question are these. 
I aim to add about 1 to 2LBS of extra weight to the Annies and the C16...but bearing in mind what I am asking the loco to do...might I be bringing the 'moment of gearbox failure' too speedily?
Before I take the Annies and C16 apart, to add extra weight, has anyone got any good experience of where to shove the weight in?
We can't get real 'lead' fishing weights/shot anymore over here (legally) so I will have to use other forms.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

You might be able to get lead weights at a store that sells and installs automobile tires. They are used all the time to balance the wheels. They are long and slender and will fit into small spaces. You may have to take a hammer to them to straighten them out. 

I have measured the pulling power of a number of engines (the draw bar pull when the wheels start to slip). They typically will pull about one third of their weight. Get a fishing scale and determine the pulling weight of the train on your incline (not on the level), multiply that weight by 3. That will give you a guide as to the maximum weight (engine plus lead) that will be needed for the engine to pull that train up the hill. I do not know how much will destroy the drive train. 10% of the engine weight *might be* OK, but 100% would most likely do it in. You can always upgrade to a better drive. Barry at Barry's Big Trains makes a very good drive for most Bachmann rod engines. 

Chuck


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Thanks for the input Chuck. 
I think that Barry has now retired and that he is only servicing the drives but is not building them anymore. 
I will try the lead weights from the car tyre places....I completely forgot about those!
I have also got some lead roof/gutter flashing and could slice bits of that up (gloves on of course).
I will make up some plastic bag lead sacks to drape over the loco to see what weight 'just' make the difference between spinning and not. 
As I said, all I want is for a single loco (plus the motorised helper car) to be able to pull a believable 'short' train up the incline so I will experiment.

I am also converting some locos to DCC ( I have a DC/DCC mainline) so could try one of the Annies to also have the benefit of back-emf for better running downhill (even if running in DC)


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

There was some confusion last Spring about Barry's status. Unfortunately, I may have added to the confusion. For that I apologize. Lately, Barry has said that he is still making drives.

The fish scale is very handy at measuring the pulling power of engines. To be honest, for your grades, I'd recommend the LGB cog engines. I've used them with that type of grade and they worked very well.

Chuck


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The Hauler with the stock drive will not last long on those grades pulling much of anything. 

10 to 15 percent is really steep... you should get a geared loco or doublehead... 

Greg


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

i killed my big hauler on a 6% grade. just pulling its own tender.


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 06 Oct 2012 06:11 PM 
The Hauler with the stock drive will not last long on those grades pulling much of anything. 

10 to 15 percent is really steep... you should get a geared loco or doublehead... 

Hi Greg, 
as I said in my first post, I run double, triple and quad headed diesel trains also double and even triple headed steam (third loco usually helping at the back) when running 'mainline' trains. I also have the motorised 'helper' cars to slot into the string to assist.

I have a few geared locos. One three truck shay can pull eight bachmann log cars and a short caboose. The climax can haul three log cars with a caboose.



All my 'Big Haulers' are the Anniversary edition so have the better drive but not as good as the new all metal one..or Barry's drives. I have all sorts of locos tackling my inclines and so far none, including the Annies, have come to grief. I have not run any loco to 'destruction' level ....as soon as I get wheel-spin I stop and take cars off until wheelspin no longer occurs.


Today I had two Annies double heading. They were dragging a string including a passenger car, two box cars, two log cars and a caboose (with wheel pickups). The locos were doing just about fine even with no 'helper' motorised combine to assist. They would not have been able to take another car. 

I just want to find out the best amount of weight to add to a single Annie to be able to have the 'grip' to run a 'local' short mixed train up the incline without destroying the gearbox. Also any clues as where to place the weight.

I am going to try 1lb and if that is good I will try 2, keeping a close eye and ear to how she behaves.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

BC: you are trying to get a specific answer. Unfortunately, none of us can give you an exact answer, only general suggestions. We have not seen your railroad. My guess is that you are somewhere in the Empire because of your spelling of tire (tyre). If you would tell us your city, town or village, there is a good chance that someone here on MLS lives near you and could become a local source for assistance. To really know how to help you we really we a lot of more information, such as, how long is th 10-15% grade? Is it straight or are there any curves on the grade? These and many other factors effect the pulling power of an engine on a specific layout no one has seen.

Chuck


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Speaking as a "Child of the Empire" -where we speak German... (my mother came from a part of the Empire where they spoke French). The problem you are raising is one that has a number of answers. Rather than increase the total tractive weight I would go for increasing the traction on the wheels that you already have. This will entail fitting your pieces of Lead foil directly over the driving axles of your loco. This will however alter, (drastically), the centre of gravity of your loco. This will also alter the cornering ability on superelevated curves -should you have any. Rather than simply bolting on a 500 Gramme mass of Lead (or more) to the loco, try a 50 Gramme mass directly over each of the driver axles. I do not know what your rails are made of but it might bear some fruit if they were well polished to ensure a good mechanical contact. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually, it's a well known fact in the community that polishing the rails is the last thing you want to do to get the most traction. 

From best to worst: 

oxidized aluminum rail 
oxidized brass rail 
oxidized stainless steel rail or nickel plated rail 

the word polish means " to make smooth and glossy, especially by rubbing or friction: to polish a brass doorknob. ".... 

smooth, yes, glossy or shiny, no... so clean the rail, but don't polish it. 

Speaking as an American in America... 

Greg


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

There is a simply solution here,... 

Run as a real RR does & switch in double headers and drop 'em off at the summit. 

10-15 percent is unreal.. only Shay country - or as mentioned - cogs - ville... 

Reality is still reality, it's toooo plipping steep!! 

Dirk


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Yes 10 to 15 percent is too steep but that is how my garden is and besides taking the whole slope out together with the trees etc, it is the way it has to stay (we like our collection of trees and bushes).
I could have tried to do a Ray Dunakin lanscaping but I would have been banished by the 'management'! 

Our gardens, in the UK, are generally a lot smaller than American ones and although we do have large ones, my one is not so well endowed so the railroad has to fit to the 'pretty' part.
My main line follows around a central lawn area but it goes through or disappears behind bushes, rocks, plants etc so it gives the illusion of not being seen in its entirety. There is another shuttle line that follows the gradient for some of the way before veering off and then there is a self-contained quarry line. (pictures of the lines are over on the G Scale Central forum).

Cuts and tunnels through the back of the garden were out due to big tree roots and or the obvious problems with very deep 'slots' or tubes in the garden etc. Trestles on the lower side, nearest to the house are out, as this would .... 
1. cause real problems having easy access to the lawn (there is a flight of 5-feet wide steps leading up to it) 
2. obscure the entire view from the conservatory (which is about another three feet lower than the lowest level of the lawn.
3. as the lawn allows access across to decking, an arbour and also to the clothes airer ....another reason why there had to be a compromise on where the rails would lay and no trestle barrier. 

So to get up the incline, I have the geared locos for logging and mining, diesels for mainline freight or streamline passenger services and then steamers for the 'older freight' and short trains. 
The main incline runs quite straight for about 30 feet or so. 
Triple headed diesels pull a good few freight cars and will also haul 6 aristo or 5 USAT streamliners (add another diesel in the mix and another streamline car can be pulled. I mainly use USAT diesels as their traction tyres obviously help with the ...well...traction....
The geared locos do very well as they should.

So, as I posted previously, the Annies do well as a triple headed long train with motorised helper cars in the mix OR they will pull a short train of about 6 cars if double headed and no 'motorised' assistance. 

To cut to the chase.

I would not need them to go to destruction as they are obviously sort of coping already, I just want to give them a helping hand.

I do realise that there is no hard and fast rule about adding weight but my question was ...has anyone added weight to their Annie, how much and where did it go. .

From what I have gleaned so far , about 500g (1lb) is a good compromise and to get the weight as near to the axles as possible.

Many thanks for the measured input boys and it was good to see your thoughts about by little layout's issue!!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Basically, giving them a helping hand will accelerate their destruction, and it's up to you balancing how often you buy new locos and gears. 

So, I would not add anything but more locos if your trains are not long enough. 

With the percentages you are working with, you ALREADY have abnormal strain on the drive trains. 

It's your pocketbook, because you are going to pay extra for insisting on trains that need so many locos or pull more cars. Basically I believe that you could put 2-4 pounds in the loco which will make it pull a lot better and die faster. 

It would be interesting to see the monetary tradeoff between the cost of more locos vs. replacing the locos more often. 

By the way, if you have not already reinforced the gear/axle housing casting on your USAT locos, you should do so immediately (with a brass tube or wrap with fishing line and epoxy). 

By using the traction tires heavily, basically you are making those wheels so equipped do all the work, and they will "crack" the gear housing even sooner... 

Greg


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Greg
If you read my last post you will see that....... I have been running my layout for 6 years........ and I have to say, as of yet, I have not had a broken USAT gear axle, or a Bachmann, Aristo or LGB loco die, and for long trains I already *do* multiple head trains. 
I have also kitbashed cars into motorised 'helpers' ......So all you have said is already happening.
But I will definitely take your advice on reinforcing the gear axles!

But I would like to run a short train with *one* Annie and was just wondering what sort of weight to add. I have read and seen that adding weight to locos is a given process to do that is well tried and tested. 
Given that I have not had the breakages that you warn about (and again, for 6 years), perhaps a small amount of weight will not be any worse for a loco pulling a short train on my steep incline as for a person who adds the weight to a loco to pull a long train on a level track.

So my pocketbook has not been knocked with replacing as of yet but I have already forked out for more locos to consist....................it is just the case of the single loco trains that am after 'improving' their performance on the slope. I know I could throw in a 'helper' car but as I will be gradually moving over to DCC, the 'helper' cars will have to wait till last to be chipped.


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

By the way, if you have not already reinforced the gear/axle housing casting on your USAT locos, you should do so immediately (with a brass tube or wrap with fishing line and epoxy). 

By using the traction tires heavily, basically you are making those wheels so equipped do all the work, and they will "crack" the gear housing even sooner... 





Greg

I agree with this as a must ..... they may be cracked even now and not helping ....... and when I add weight I replace the traction tire wheelset with a non traction tire


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Hi Scott
None have cracked yet ( I have a look every month or so) but I will be reinforcing with the brass tube system. Do you happen to know the gauge of the tube?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I just re-read your last post THREE times... and I don't see where you post that you have been running for 6 years.... maybe I am blind... 

If you had been pulling freights up 10 to 15 percent grades for 6 years and did not have a single "loose wheel" on your USAT locos, well, you are definitely the 0.001% in the world... because half of them are broken before you ever use them. 

So, you have great luck apparently. Put 4 pounds in each, because you lead a charmed life! 

Seriously, it is a bit hard to believe... of course I don't have 6 years of experience with USAT locos, actually a bit more than that, and about 20 of them... with 75% of them experiencing at least one cracked axle. 

So, if you have this great luck and 6 years of doing it... why quit now? 

The usat locos should weigh about 10-12 pounds for an F unit... (oh, did I also miss where you were specific on which USAT locos you are using? I can help more if you are specific). 

Regards, Greg


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

I am also a UK resident. The difference in the number of gears cracked etc can be put down to several things. First and foremost is climate. Secondly is the high price of land in the UK. Thirdly you have a difference in "ethos". 

1: The mean temperature difference between winter and summer is around 25 to 30 degrees Celsius at most (the winters of 1949, 1963 and 2011 excepted) thus there is very little thermal stress on the plastic components as there would be in say Medicine Hat or Walnut Creek. "Grain growth" and "Creep" due to thermal stress are minimal in a UK climate. I do not know how USAT manufacture their gears but I would imagine they are injection moulded rather than machined with a Hob from a solid bar. There is some evidence that injection moulding of gears produces a weaker tooth edge than Hob machining due to the crystal size produced during cooling -however the cracking is on the Boss of the gear theoretically the strongest part... This would point to interior to exterior temperature difference problems. 

2: This means that there is very little chance of high speed running and I am fortunate enough to have a back garden capable of two straights of 20 metres and even then I have to use curves of 2.25metres radius (which at Gauge '3' works out at a incredibly tight 2.52 Chains radius). Thus the amount of torque applied to the gear is lower over a longer period. 

3: Here in the UK people drive their locos SLOWLY... The MCR was lambasted by the LNWR as "the Society for the prevention of cruelty to locomotives" the Caledonian did the same to the GSWR(!) Here in the UK an american sourced locomotive is rare and expensive and parts are hard to come by -thus we treat them with (probably) a higher degree of gentleness than you would. 

I don't know where BC lives but given the geomorphology of his layout I think he is somewhere in the Peak or Lake districts(?) This will give him lots of very hard rock and limited choices of construction!!! 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The first and foremost is the PROVEN and DOCUMENTED propensity of the Bachmann and the USAT locos having problems. That is real, documented, quantitative data. 

It will happen, and if you do what I did and indeed read EVERY post on this forum, and LSC and LSOL, you too will amass the information that this is not significantly affected by the weather. 

It is indeed design issues, poor plastic choice and dimensions for both siituations. 

It happens to everyone. 

Greg


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

3/8 brass tubing .014 wall 

see my 44 ton build

http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...fault.aspx


----------



## beavercreek (Dec 12, 2008)

Hi Scott...many thanks for the tube dimensions...perhaps I should buy some real quick and fit it before my whole fleet degenerates before my eyes. A charmed life can't be forever

Greg, I apologise if I had not not mentioned before, that I had been operating for 6 years (I thought that I had but had obviously missed that detail out). My mistake









I know very well of your expansive expertise, l as I think that your site is a fantastic, invaluable source of information and tips which I visit frequently. My meagre six years experience may be a lot shorter but I can only report what I have experienced on my own layout, not what has been found on the majority (you say 99.99 %) of USAT users in the States. 


But I am very aware of the USAT axle issues (as I have said before I do check my own every month) and also the Bachmann gear issues (I also check these) and I am sorry that I have not had any breakages yet as, apparently, everyone else does. But I do admit that I have told a lie. There was one loco with a broken axle..but I had bought it that way and replaced the whole axle with a new one some 5 years back.

Just as Ralph says. I run my trains slow. I like the prototypical scale speeds that the trains would have run at across the Rio grande rails (standard and narrow ). The only speed that I cannot use is the 'highball' as my line does not allow this.








My garden is not in the Lake District but it is on a steep hill and due to the large tree roots and the fact that the house behind us might fall onto our land, that is why the hill remains. Our house has an extra floor at the front below the rear due to the hill.

As you said I was not specific about what locos I was running .........
*Up the gradient I run the following configurations:* 
USAT F3 ABB (with another A at times) for streamline passenger. 
USAT GP30's and GP38 as three or four in consists. 
USAT PA1 PB1 for a streamline train or just a PA1 for a 'Yampa Valley' shortie.
LGB Amtrak Genesis pulling 5 amtrack cars and one materials handling car (the genesis have about 500 grams of extra weight in each one).
Aristo RS3 double-headed with a USAT GP9 (as they seem practically identical in speed characteristic) and they pull some 'old' freight cars.
Aristo SD45 which is being batteried for winter running which will double-head with a USAT SD70 which I am converting into an SD50 which will also be batteried.
LGB Uintah and Sumpter mallet but these have no pulling power at all but they will get some more weight (as has been recommended by quite a few others concerning these two locos).

Bachmann K27 with an Accucraft K27 which pull about 5 x Fn3 cars
Bachmann geared locos: Shays, sometimes a Climax and a Heisler(all on their own) pulling log cars, or a string of small ore tippers.


There are other locos like three different 'Geese', interurban and an RDC but they are always alone and do not find the incline a problem. 

And of course my 'Annies' which are used in multiples in consists or with motorised 'helper' tyock cars or a passenger combine (I am also motorising a baggage car 

All rolling stock have metal wheels 
Well ...I will try 500gms but as to the easiest place to put it I will just have to find out. If the gears give out then I will post here as there may just be someone who also has a traction issue with a 'problem' garden which can't be flattened!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I don't doubt "Ralph's" expertise in physics and analysis, although I have not really seen any correlation between speed and breakage. Maybe it's there, but 10 years of data does not point this out. 

I HAVE seen correlation between load and breakage, and just plain age. 

Rapid starts and stops SHOULD make a difference, but there's the difference between the theoretical physics with limited information, and 10 years of data from many people. I'll stick with the latter as my "base". 

I may be giving you advice you don't want or need, and for that I apologize in advance. 

I will re-iterate you are uncommonly lucky with extremely low breakage. 

I would say that 50 to 70% of my axles on my USAT locos were cracked at one time or another... I have not kept records, just modified all of them. Some came broken from the factory indeed. 

I was not being facetious in my statement that with such good and consistent luck, go ahead and weight them down, and I would approximate prototype weight, i.e. take the prototype weight and divide by the cube of the scale. 

If I was living such a charmed life, honestly, I would weight them down and continue running the same way, it is obviously successful. 

At slow speeds, the center of gravity means virtually nothing, so put the weight where it fits. You are not going to tip the loco over because the weight is 1 more inch away from the rails. 

As an aside, would love to see some pictures of your layout. It's always interesting seeing how people tackled difficult locations. 

Regards, Greg


----------

