# Maximum speed for our locomotives



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Over in the rolling stock forum a topic was getting buried in the K-27 thread and I thought I would move it over here as it allies to all of us in all the various scales. 


Incidentally, I haven't noticed their Shays or the other geared locos running at 30 MPH 


Mark a most excellent question as the Shay is a model a lot of us can relate to. Because it is such an interesting question I have started a thread devoted to this topic. 

The topic is what is the top speed we desire in our models. 

The topic is an outgrowth of a topic on the K27 which has a prototype speed at 14.4 volts and a much faster than prototype speed at 24 volts. 

The Bachmann shay is perhaps a good place to start this discussion because so many of us have this locomotive on our layouts. 

What is the top speed of a Bachmann Shay at 24 volts DC I have never run one up that fast so I have no idea. Might be worth collecting the top speed of various locomotives as a reference point to help the community decide which speeds they prefer. 

Both speed and voltage needs to be a part of this as many of us also operate at lower voltages (for example 14.4 volts for several RC users) so when one talks about prototype speed one also needs to talk about at which voltage this prototype speed should be at. 

Having a desired speed range and a dialogue on what we truly desire would I think help all of our manufacturers. Such a consensus would be of great benefit to the hobby. 

Myself I like slow speed operation and most of the time the locomotives run slower on my layout then most other garden railroads I have visited. That said I also have a C16 that is way to slow at the voltages I prefer to operate and because of this the locomotive is not often out on the layout. So perhaps 24 volts is not the proper place to look for prototype speed. 

There are a lot of pros and cons on this as different speed settings also implies more difficulty in running several locomotives together on DC layouts but I think it still is a useful discussion. 

Maybe a good compromise is 18 volts DC for the prototype speed setting. That would allow those that like a faster locomotive to rev it up in voltage while those that like slower locomotives to still have a wide range of prototype speeds. 

Perhaps this is also an area that Garden Railways might want to consider doing an article on. 

Stan Ames 
http://www.tttrains.com/largescale


----------



## stanman (Jan 4, 2008)

If my memory is correct (ha!) I read somewhere - perhaps the booklet from Bachmann that came with the Shay - that the top speed of the prototype was 19 mph. 

If that's the case, this is equivalent to a 1:20.3 locomotive traveling 83 feet per minute, or about 7 feet in 5 seconds. 

I run mine much slower; think it looks better...


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Oh dear... 

The NMRA (an AMERICAN ORGANISATION) is once again attempting to tell the world how it should run its model railways. Well if you want to know I use 16mm scale and 13.5mm scale neither of which exist in the NMRA Diktat, (thank GOD). 

I run my 16mm scale locomotives at a scale 10 to 15 Kph on a scale 0.75 chain curve, and I have run my 13.5mm scale locomotives at a scale 70 Kph on a scale 3.5 chain curve respectively. 

Which is how the originals operated. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## BigDigger (Jan 3, 2008)

Oh man, thanks for bringin up the question. There should be no maximum speed. Doing prototype speed chugging around a layout is boooooring/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/doze.gifzzzzzzzz. And for me the Kay has too much stuff on it, maybe something in a torpedo shape that's rubberized so when it flies of the jump at the end of the track I can go do it again real fast without have'n to fix it. 

Now that would be cool! 

Lookin forward to that article in Garden Railways /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif 

David


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Mr Ames. 

Having sat down at my nice comfy chair, in my nice warm office, with my nice mug of coffee... 

"Please Allow Me To Introduce Myself"..... 

I find your arguments on the subject of voltage relating to speed to be *specious* at best. While it true that an electric motor of the commutator type the increase in Voltage does provide an increase in revolution -this is by far and away not the whole of the story. 

Consulting the catalogues for the suppliers of the motors that I use I find that the most common one that I use has a MAXIMUM voltage of 6 Volts with a draw of 29 Amperes at a rated shaft speed of 9,000 RPM. Following the manufacturers sequence I find the same motor casing and shaft size but at 12 Volts, 18 Volts, and 24 Volts. 

The windings on the rotor dictate the maximum voltage of the motor just as the thermal decay point of the insulation (class "K" is typically 130C) on the windings dictates the absolute Amperage, (I squared R). 

This leads to the problem of cooling the motor -I use a fan cooled system for my locos and forced liquid immersed one for my commercial designs. 

While for reasons of efficiency it is better to run a motor at high speed this imposes strain on the gearing leading to a rise in wear directly proportional to the square of the angular velocity. 

Thus a good designer will arrange for his Voltages to be within the limits of the insulation, the heating effect of the current to be dealt with, and the angular velocity of the gearing to be within acceptable wear parameters. 

Your arguments relating to "The Correct Voltages To Be Used" as thus invalid -unless everyone is using: the same motor, with the same gearing. 

My current model that I am building has motors designed to take 12 Volts at 12 Amperes. This will involve me designing a PWAM driver circuit based on 24 Volts electronics -a departure from my normal 12 Volt electronics for the board. In my 13.5 mm scale models I have taken the step of providing separate power supplies for the electronics and the motors. Sealed Lead Acid batteries provide the power for the motors and NiMH for the electronics, this helps provide a clean supply for the PWAM board -the 24 Volts line from the SLA will power both motors per axle in SERIES. The choice of these batteries was based purely on the design criteria for the locomotive. 

The model is designed to reproduce a scale 130 Kph pulling 8 "Teaks" -although it will not be able to do this on my tracks. 

Having enquired via e-mail several other builders, I find that while 24 Volts is common on Gauge 1, voltages vary between 3 Volts and 48 Volts -depending on the builder. All of them think the speed of their loco is "about right" and they vary from a Class 8 shunter, (on 48 Volts), to a Deltic, (which actually can reach the scale Deltic Speeds pulling 10 Mk 2's) -on 12 Volts. 

Q.E.D. 

Yours Respectfully 

R.M.Brades B.Ed B.Sc M.Sc M.I.A.A.P. Ph.D


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Ralph, 

I appreciate the very technical discussion. Doesn't running a motor at less than full speed affect the power factor? I guess it just increases the amperage, right? 

Stan- thanks for making this a separate discussion. I don't know why I started to read that thread, but appreciate the continuation here. 

My position is that prototype speeds should be the target at the top end of the motor rating. So, to me, that means that the gear ratio needs to be such that when the highest voltage is applied to the motor, the locomotive will operate at the prototype's speed. For example, I would expect a 4-6-2 pacific with 73" drivers to have a maximum scale speed of about 80 MPH. Conversely, my LGB mikado seems to top out at about 50 MPH, which is good for a freight engine. 

There was a recent discussion about the Aristo E8, and its seemingly slow top speed. I think someone posted it topped out at about 65 MPH? However, it might have been the design decision to limit the top speed to improve the low speed performance. My aristo FA-FB and RS-3 seem to have good high speeds, plus good low speed characteristics. The USA F3A and 44 tonner also have good low speed, but the 44 tonner does run a lot faster than I think a real GE switcher ever should! 

On the other hand the Lionel trains I have seem to run at 200 smph, and go from 0-25 in about a one volt jump. I can live with lower top speed for improved low speed performance. 

Mark


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Mark, 

If I examine the Power / Torque / Efficiency Diagrams [PTED] then for a Johnson 15-06 (my std motor) then the base E is around 20% until after 5,000 RPM at which point it leaps to 60% and maintains this until 9,000 RPM. So, it actually more difficult to run a pump at low speeds than higher. Thus the "draw" on the current supply is far higher, I squared R goes through the roof =*BANG!*. 

The PTED for a 15-12 is radically different, the base E is only 5% until 3,500 RPM at which point it becomes 65% and maintains this until 15,000 RPM. 

This is basically the same motor but wound for different voltages, in the first it is 0-6 Volts and in the latter case 6-12 Volts. Thus the former is a std motor for a 5 Volt line and the latter for a 9 to 12 Volt line. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Crosshead (Feb 20, 2008)

Oh, Dear. 

Once again, someone has bitten off more than he can chew. 

Eventus stultorum magister. 

Give 'em **** Ralph.


----------



## Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

Mr Ames, 

My shay is sitting in a glass in case, I will not run it, as every time I do something breaks! I replaced the trucks and the replacements I got still fell apart. I called Bachmann and they said( guy I spoke to was very rude!) it was in the heat, cold, snow, and I don't recall what else he came up with. The engine sets in a glassed in case and has about two hours run time./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/angry.gif


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Stanley. 
After you were in the design loop on the last engine, and overseeing the various issues that now do not appear to be quite up-to-par, let me just publicly share that this is not the time or place to figure out what speeds the locomotives should run. 
You should have been on top of that BEFORE you got involved with the last engine. 
I, for one, will no longer assist you in your attempt to obtain the necessary knowledge (without the experience) you seek, so that you can spout like an expert on the subject. 
The tales of your dissertation on 1:1 railroad practices at Duncan's have preceeded you. 
Go. 
Away.


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Stan, 

When Model Railroad News reviews a loco, such as the Aristo-Craft C-16, on analog DC they have the start volts =3.2.. At 3.5 volts, 0.50 amps = 1.6 SMPH; 10.0 volts, 0.55 amps = 13.8 SMPH; 15.0 volts, 0.57 amps = 22.9 SMPH; 20.0 volts, 0.63 amps = 30.8 SMPH.. Is this what you were wanting?? 

BulletBob


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Let's at least _try_ and keep the discussion civil Gentlemen. Discussing the issues are fine, but let's _try_ to keep personalities out of it please. 

I fully realize the history here, and I fully realize that the battle lines were drawn long ago. I also realize that these discussions are important and necessary, and go to the core of what MLS is all about. I merely ask that you keep the discussion impersonal (if possible). This isn't the place for hostility. 

Thank you.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Will a pre-emptive strike be acceptable?


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Quite Right -let us keep it *factual*.... 

So, lets us examine a few motors, something I doubt that very few of the members here -have had to do. I have placed a PDF file here: 

http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/PDFS/mfa2a.pdf 

This is a copy of a commercial download file -I doubt they will complain.... But hopefully it will illustrate what the core design parameters have to be. As a thought exercise try and select a suitable motor for your favourite loco to run at a scale 100Kph, (or 62mph!), with a mass of 10Kg (or 22lb). 

If people would like to take this further could I suggest the following books, (both of which are available on line and copyright free) : 

"Railway Electric Traction (1922)", by F.W.Carter. 

"Illustrated Encyclopedia of World Railway Locomotives", editor, P.Ransome-Wallis. 

Both of which are highly informative as the real world locomotive practice, in their respective time periods. 

Could I also point the propective researcher in the direction of: 

"Model Railways" by Henry Greenly -I have the 1928 edition. 

"Modelling in Gauge 1: Book 1 : Electric Propulsion" by G1MRA. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Ralph, 

Most of the power supplys on the market today use 18 volts for max voltage.. LGB loco's max voltage is 25 volts.. So I beleive the issue for the manufacturer is make the locomotive run @ max SMPH with max volts.. I no of only 1 source for this info on locomotive's, Model Railroad News.. The smaller scale manufacturers do this all ready.. We just need to get the large scale manufacturers to do the same.. It would be nice to get different freight diesels that run @ the same SMPH @ the same voltage.. 

BulletBob


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

BulletBob, 

No, you and the author of this thread seem to have completely missed the point.... As I wrote higher up this thread 

QUOTE: 

*Your arguments relating to "The Correct Voltages To Be Used" as thus invalid -unless everyone is using: the same motor, with the same gearing. * 

UNQUOTE: 

Electronicly it would be very simple to servo lock the final axle speed to the input Voltage and I have seen this done in large scale locomotives -typically 5 inch gauge.... 

This would give you say; 5 Volts = 25Kph, 10 Volts = 50 Kph, 15 Volts = 75 Kph, etc 

Your on board circuitry would have to continuously compute the final wheel size and the gear reduction ratio to enable a, (for example), 2-C0-2 with 6 feet 6 inch driving wheels with a 12.5:1 reduction ratio to travel at the same speed as, (for example), a 2-D0-2 locomotive with 4 foot driving wheels and a 16:1 reduction ratio -for the same input Voltage. This would have to feed back to a PWM which would have to continuously alter the Mark to Step ratio -to account for the increasing supply voltage, (both to itself and the motor), and the decreasing time interval required because of this... 

Thus all the models would behave as if they were the same -*regardless of configuration*. 

It could be done very easily. And that is the true *horror* of it... 

Would any modeller want an "Iron Duke" to behave the same way as a "Class 43"? Would you like your "Shay" or "Climax" to behave like a "TGV"? 

If you WANT to lock your speeds to absolute voltages -then this is what will happen. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Ralph- 
I do believe we are getting close to that "pre-emptive strike". 

I can't say any more, or I'd say exactly what I think, and several of our moderators would need CPR. 

And that ain't "Canadian Pacific Railway".


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Ralph, 

I gave up on motors when they thaught me the right "hand-rule" for motors.. 

Stan, 

Your best bet for info is from Model Railroad News sense they list the voltages, currents, Scale Mile Per Hour & the pulling power of the locomotives they review.. 

BulletBob


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I have refrained from commenting until now, as I consider this a very individual choice. What some one wants as a top speed, may not be what I want. That is what the throttle on the power pack is for. At full power (24V) my Accucraft K-27 barely makes 20 scale MPH, in contrast my Bachmann K-27 goes twice as fast. Since I don't like high speeds I adjust the voltage down for the Bachmann. When I run my 1:29 engines, Aristo and USA, I run them faster. They are so fast that I rarely run them at more than 14v. 
I gauge the voltage to the engine and scale. I know that there are people who like to break the scale sound barrier with their train, but that's their choice. 
I have calculated the speed for a measured distance on my railroad (one loop). The length is 87'. I have a little table on my transformer that translates time for a loop to scale speed. 
Here are some examples of scale and speed for my 87'. 
scale speed mph 
time 1:20.3 1:22.5 1:29 
seconds 
60, 20 22 29 
30, 40 44 57 
Scale speed does vary with the scale of train that your are running, even on a fixed layout. 
If I were to build an engine for sale, I would choose top speed that is slightly higher than the prototype. This is not because I want it, but there would be someone out there who would B*t*h that it doesn't go fast enough. And then we would have another group of angry threads to read. 
We used to have a Christmas train show at the U.S. Geological Survey here in Reston, VA. We has everything from G to Z running. There was a large oval of three rail O gauge that circled the G gauge trains. Some of the O gauge runners ran flat out. They lapped our G trains several times over. That's, not my style, but it's their engines and trains that they are stressing. 
Chuck N 
PS Sorry the table didn't come out like I typed it, there should be spaces after the 60 and 30 seconds to match up with the scales.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

If I may interrupt the battle for a moment... 

I, for one, do not care one whit what voltage a model is designed to operate at. The fact that that is even a question seems beyone insane to me, given the standardization that has happend in almost every other common scale, but I digress. 

What I care about, and what I take to be the purpose of this thread, is the practical speed range of a locomotive -WITHOUT- several hundred dollars of extra electronics to make it behave. 

I want a locomotive that will start, and run smoothly at a creep. One that will bunch the slack gently, allowing me to uncouple without shoving the cars a foot every time. When it's time to go, I want it to run smoothly, consistently, reliably, every time, no questions asked, at a speed that is apropriate for the prototype. Actually, I find that even a prototypically accurate speed is a bit high, since most layouts are a bit short on running room. 

I've rarely wanted to operate in any scale, with any prototype, much in excess of 20-30 scale MPH. With something like a shay, I'd prefer to run much slower than that. 

My reasons: 
1) Running slower takes more time. Sounds pretty simple, but it's a fact that escapes a lot of beginners. If the point is to watch "toy trains" run in circles, then this doesn't matter, but if we want to pretend that we've built a miniature railroad empire, making it seem larger for free is a great thing. 
2) I like steam engines. I like sound. A steam engine with sound (especially with small drivers, as is common on NG engines) will not look or sound like much when running at a mile-a-minute. When you slow down, you can see the rods and the valve gear moving, and hear the exhaust beats. 
3) The faster you go, the worse the derailment is going to be. Jump the track at 5 MPH, and you just need to re-rail. Jump it at 50 MPH, and you're fixing things. 
4) Slowing down gives me time to enjoy the scene. Watch the engine coming 'round the bend, up the grade, through the tunnel, over the bridge, or past whatever scene I'm enjoying at the moment. Savor the moment. 

It's been my expereince that a super-fast engine is rarely a decent creeper. You can make an engine do one or the other very well, but usually not both. Yes, Stan, electronics can HELP with that, but why on earth should I buy a $700 model that I'll need to invest another $300 in, minimum, just to be able to do anything besides run around in a circle? Sure, if you already have a DCC system, then you "only" need a $100 decoder, but if you're a beginner like me, you have to buy everything. 

What I'm getting at is that I want a model that comes out of the box, goes on the track, and runs slowly and smoothly. No adding decoders, tuning controllers, adding transistors, or praying to the gods of railroading. I can walk into my local hobby shop right now and buy a wide range of models in every sale and gauge combination from Z to O (many from Bachmann, oddly enough), and every one will do exactly what I described. Why is that so difficult for a large scale manufacturer to understand?


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Kenneth, 

If you want to know buy Model Railroad News.. They have all that info for the locomotives they review.. 

BulletBob


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

There are folk that care about consistant speed for multiple locomotives because they either want to double-head them or at least run two trains on the same track at about 180-deg from each other on some sort of loop. If they all ran at the same speed (or nearly so) for any particular Voltage then they could spend less time having to stop everything to get a faster train to pass the slower one. 

Yes, I know that even identical locos will probably run at slightly different speeds, but I have seen many layouts where the owner/operator has two trains on the same track at the same time and they periodically have to manually retard the faster one to let the slower one get way ahead of (or even almost catchup to) the faster one, and then let the faster one go and we all sit back and enjoy watching the faster one catch up to the slower one and it is all done over again. If one were running twice as fast, a lot of the enjoyment would be lost as too much time would be spent resetting the spacing and too little time spent just watching things. 

As for the arguments in this, and similar threads, I wonder if there might be some lawyer type around that might expound on the Libel and Slander laws as they might apply to the internet and forums? i.e.: COOL YER JETS FOLKS! Express your knowledge, for sure, but stop expounding upon what you think someone else doesn't know.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2008)

What I care about, and what I take to be the purpose of this thread, is the practical speed range of a locomotive -WITHOUT- several hundred dollars of extra electronics to make it behave. 

well, as i normally set my trackpowered layout in automode, so that i don't have to touch the regulators, and the trains are steered by reedcontacts, i just give the quicker locos either more cars to tow, or more weight in the cars to tow. 
the backwoods-method...


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

This may sound Stupid but I am going to ask any way since we have a lot of people here who have the technical knowledge to answere it corectly. 

This is just a Idea. 

What about a STEPPER MOTOR. ( Of course you would have to have a driver board for it.) Would that not give you a very accurate constant speed? 

Do they make them small enough to fit in one of our engines? 

I know It might be too expensive to do if one is small enought to fit in one of our engines


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

JJ. 

Stepper motors are freely available in sizes that would fit a scale "Z" locomotive... 

However the problem would be just that, the motion would be in *steps* -not smooth angular rotation. This can set up vibration in the gear chain. It is for this reason that stepper motors often drive "Timing Belts". A variant of the stepper motor is the outside runner motor. In which the coils are stationary and the casing, (with the magnets), is forced to rotate around it by a, "3 Phase AC", flux generated by the coils. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Thanks Ralph for the feedback


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

The thread so far illustrates the problems manufacturers face when they produce a model. No only do they have to deal with the different scale but they also have to deal with the different voltages. 

In the smaller scales the tendency is towards slower models which have a more prototypical speed but most of this is for standard gauge (faster prototype speeds) and for a common voltage (12 volts DC) 

My experience is that in large scale we tend to operate our trains at slower relative speeds then our smaller scale friends, especially for indoor layouts. 

Their are a lot of different opinions on this. As a community we could all benefit from some common agreements on what is acceptable. 

Currently from my opinion the best suggestion I have seen yet for mass produced product is prototype speeds measured at 18 volts DC. This provides greater speeds at higher voltages yet a good range of speed at the lower voltages. 

In Portland this week I will try to gain the input on this from a variety of manufacturers. 

Stan Ames


----------



## Bruce Chandler (Jan 2, 2008)

Why start at the maximum high speed? How many run at that speed? 

I'd rather see that the performance be addressed at the low end. The locomotive should start smoothly and be able to run evenly at a low speed. It should be able to haul an appropriate number of cars based upon the prototype. 

Smooth acceleration and deceleration should be the target goal.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Stan, interesting comment. 
As a community we could all benefit from some common agreements on what is acceptable


Clearly, the comminity wants locomotives that run right out of the box without further modification and without extra electronics. That was what made LGB so great, their stuff just ran. No need for extra junk to make the locomotives work right or additional electrical junk that folks have to end up cutting out anyway. What is so hard about that?! 

It is very simple, and we don't need to go around and around with voltages, motor selections, all the things that engineers at the toy companies are PAID to do. 

The TOY company that can manage to produce a scale model better darn well be capable of making it go scale speeds at "TYPICAL" track voltages, with out mod. Stan, for a guy that was involved with the super socket thing, I am really kind of shocked that you'd ask the question about speed, then ask for 'agreement' about the 'typical' voltage. I guess I assumed to much when all of my locomotives have been rated 0-24v DC. Why is this now in question? At this point, isn't that a little too late? Why change it now? There is no demand for this change. There is however, a real risk that alienation of the existing customer base will result in failure of all.


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

The TOY company that can manage to produce a scale model better darn well be capable of making it go scale speeds at "TYPICAL" track voltages, with out mod. Stan, for a guy that was involved with the super socket thing, I am really kind of shocked that you'd ask the question about speed, then ask for 'agreement' about the 'typical' voltage. I guess I assumed to much when all of my locomotives have been rated 0-24v DC. Why is this now in question? At this point, isn't that a little too late? Why change it now? There is no demand for this change. There is however, a real risk that alienation of the existing customer base will result in failure of all. 


Mark 

For a DC locomotive you want to run out of the box with no modification, the more voltage on the track the faster the speed. The problem faced by all Large Scale manufacturers is what speed at what voltage. Its like the goldilocks question. Is the speed to fast, to slow, or just right. 

All the locomotives produced are capable of scale speeds. Its just at what voltage you can achieve these scale speeds. On my railroad I have locomotives who reach scale speeds at 12 volts (myself I find these models typical run to fast at the higher voltages) and others that do nor reach scale speeds until 24 volts. (typically I find these models run way to slow at the track voltages I tend to use.) 

One of the key design parameters all manufacturers specify is the desired speed at a specified voltage. This in turn is used by the engineers who develop the model as one of the drivers in the selection of the motor and the gearing. (weight, efficiency are other parameters in this equation) 

Do this test yourself. 

Take your favorite locomotive and then run it at the speed you like best. Now measure the DC voltage going to the motor (or for track powered the DC on the track). What is needed is a consensus on what we as modelers expect. Typically modelers today desire a slower speed then what LGB typically specified. 

If it is possible to reach a consensus at what voltage the model should reach scale speeds then in my opinion the community as a whole will be much happier with the models the manufacturers produce. 

Stan Ames


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

I think the question is a fair one ... as long as the responses are given in terms of the DC volts to the motor and the speed (in distance/sec?) ... (railroad modelers often assume that time is invariant with regard to scale - something any engineer doing wind tunnel tests will tell you is not true). 

In my case I run my locos slower than the norm that I observe around me and prefer that my locos reach a lower max speed at somewhat lower voltages than most others. In fact, I would like a K-27 for example to reach a speed of about 2 feet/sec at say 14.4 volts and an absolute highest speed of 3 ft/sec at around 16-17 volts. 

I would like my Aristo RS 3 to achieve roughly the same speeds at the same voltages. 

For B'mann shays, I would like to see about 8 inches/sec at 14.4 volts and an absolute max of 1 ft/sec at again 16-17 volts. 

For a B'mann Connie I would like speeds a bit slower than K-27 ... perhaps 18 in/sec at 14.4 and an absolute top end of about 2 ft/sec 

Most of the live steamers I have known run their locos incredibly fast - I cannot understand why they are manufactured to travel at such ridiculous slot car speeds. 

All these locos should be geared to pull a sizeable load at these speeds - do we need to talk about drawbar pull? And they should not draw more than a certain amperage while they are doing so - but a standard for that would also be helpful. 

These speeds are likely too slow for most folks and also there are those who would apply far higher voltages. Most of the locos produced today have too low a gearing, run too fast, in diesels achieve pulling power by using multiple motors but chew excessive amps while doing so. Can you tell I use battery power? so these things are important to me. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

I do like the idea of running models at prototype speeds, and I do like good slow speed control for steam locos as I like the look of the slowly turning wheels and side rods, for example. I'm not that good at electronics so I will in no way suggest how to accomplish this but just provide it as an observation. 

A problem I see is that folks disagree on the prototype speed. For example, take the K-27. Some say it never ran more than 20 mph max. Some say it typically ran 25 - 30 mph; a reference I found in an article written by Marc Horovitz on 2/19/03. There is a reference on the Blackstone website stating the K-27 was capable of 45 mph on long straight aways; a statement supported by some old timers. I've also seen differences on what a particular Shay prototype speed was. 

As far as how many volts are being used to get to the top speed may depend on what is being used to provide power to the motor. For DC it seems like 18 volts would be a good value, as there is still plenty of room (low end volts) for good slow response. For DCC I think the NMRA recommends max volts of 16 for G, so either this needs to change or they wouldn't be able to quite get top end speed. Some systems can be tweaked to get higher volts, and I have mine at about 22 volts. For battery it seems folks run around 14 volts, so they wouldn't get the high end speed, but I also know some battery folks run 19 volts. 

Also, do you measure the prototype speed as it was pulling a prototype length of rolling stock or empty? 

Overall it seems like 18 volts DC for the prototypes top end speed would be a decent compromise. Would over 18 volts give a higher than prototype speed? Some folks like this as well. I even do this when checking out new rolling stock and or track work. If I can get the train running at the higher speed without derailments then I can be reasonably sure it won't derail at the prototype speed I normally run it at if I leave it running unattended for short periods or get distracted for some reason.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By StanleyAmes on 09/08/2008 12:05 PM

The TOY company that can manage to produce a scale model better darn well be capable of making it go scale speeds at "TYPICAL" track voltages, with out mod. Stan, for a guy that was involved with the super socket thing, I am really kind of shocked that you'd ask the question about speed, then ask for 'agreement' about the 'typical' voltage. I guess I assumed to much when all of my locomotives have been rated 0-24v DC. Why is this now in question? At this point, isn't that a little too late? Why change it now? There is no demand for this change. There is however, a real risk that alienation of the existing customer base will result in failure of all. 


Mark 
For a DC locomotive you want to run out of the box with no modification, the more voltage on the track the faster the speed. The problem faced by all Large Scale manufacturers is what speed at what voltage. Its like the goldilocks question. Is the speed to fast, to slow, or just right. 
All the locomotives produced are capable of scale speeds. Its just at what voltage you can achieve these scale speeds. On my railroad I have locomotives who reach scale speeds at 12 volts (myself I find these models typical run to fast at the higher voltages) and others that do nor reach scale speeds until 24 volts. (typically I find these models run way to slow at the track voltages I tend to use.) 
One of the key design parameters all manufacturers specify is the desired speed at a specified voltage. This in turn is used by the engineers who develop the model as one of the drivers in the selection of the motor and the gearing. (weight, efficiency are other parameters in this equation) 
Do this test yourself. 
Take your favorite locomotive and then run it at the speed you like best. Now measure the DC voltage going to the motor (or for track powered the DC on the track). What is needed is a consensus on what we as modelers expect. Typically modelers today desire a slower speed then what LGB typically specified. 
If it is possible to reach a consensus at what voltage the model should reach scale speeds then in my opinion the community as a whole will be much happier with the models the manufacturers produce. 
Stan Ames




This has to be the scariest dead-end you've explored yet. 
It does appear you want a concensus for max voltage and speed as a hard rule (dare I say "Recommended Practice"?) for all locos. 
As Doug says in the post after yours, he likes his Shays slow. 
Tell you what. 
You put 14.4V to a Shay on the track, the 14.4 to a K. 
Better have big curves on the second test. 
What you NEEDED to do was use readily available power supplies, and apply power to various locomotives and generate gear ratios that sustained what you wanted. 
Oh, wait, you were given that over a year ago, weren't you? 

You expound on design criteria, yet you were GIVEN, FREE the results of MANY YEARS of field testing and development on motors and gear ratios, somebody messed up, and you have seemingly spent your waking hours defending the indefensible. 

If you are dealing with the toy train/slot train crowd, that is one criteria. 
Howver: 
You have wormed your way into a program dealing with 1:20.3 SCALE MODELS. 
We need to discuss SCALE SPEEDS. 

What you propose on track testing and measuring voltage is what we have done here for 16 year or more, to determine the voltage of the on-board battery packs. 
Once again, nothing new. 

Why did no one actually test the pre-production sample of the K for track speed at given voltages prior to authorizing production? 

For that matter, why did no-one check the chuff triggers on sound systems normally used by modelers in the US? 

Oh, and just to throw another wrench into the fray, one of the reasons to lock #1 and #4 was to allow a FUNCTIONAL chuff trigger on #4 axle with the trigger mounted on the accidentally placed firebox next to the axle. 
Sure seems like locking other than #4 is an attempt to disuade folks from doing that and having something they can use, can depend on, and not worry about finding replacement optics for the Chinese parts (which have no part numbers) WHEN they fail. 

All these years of running my 20 year old Magnus K-27, with #1 and #4 locked, #2 and #3 sliding on the inner axle (gee, nothing new here), showed the concept to be sound. 

Keeping 4 locked actually keeps the cab swing at the tender LESS, but, hey, doing what once can to prove a failed concept is why we are having this discussion, right? 
Keeping 1 locked holds the coupler closer to the inside of the curve than having 2 and 3 locked, plus takes out the mechanical advantage and moment arm forced onto 2 and 3 in a curve, and gives a far better tracking. 

I did 12 of them to prove it works, and even when those folks post here, you seem to find some reason to try to explain how it isn't really working. 

The question was, why is the K so fast, and now we have a thread looking for maximum voltages. 

Okay. 

Why do you have 21 volts on your rails when with the K 10V is all you need, 12V maybe? 

Possibly a new "working group" needs to be formed to look into changing the DCC standards for Large Scale to less voltage, eh?


----------



## BarrysBigTrains (Sep 4, 2008)

Dave, 
You almost got there. 
Mr. Ames, 
This discussion of top speeds/voltages, etc. is due to the argument you put forth to explain away the ridiculous gear ratio discovered in the "New" Bachmann K-27. In the review it was stated that the drive gear ratio was an exceedingly high 14.5 to 1. You have been trying to defend this goof up with an idiotic explanation of voltage to high speed, when you tried to explain this to me after my seminar at the Large Scale convention, I was so insulted I could hardly speak (and didn't). Now I am here to tell you that your expectation that I was supposed understand the logical construct you presented is the most insulted I have ever been. 
Any engineer worth his salt (ex.: Mr Brades), cannot be expected to understand the convoluted logic you have presented to explain away a mistake. Note; it is accepted that even the best engineers make mistakes, but in good management they attempt to correct them as quickly as possible. 
The scenario I have heard is the beautiful gearbox installed in the Bachmann K-27 was completed and installed but didn't perform well in it's downhill trials (if that is how it was discovered). But the point is the gearbox had been built with a single thread worm, a big mistake, especially for a loco of the size of the K-27. A single thread worm in this application will produce surging in a descent down hill. The solution is a double thread worm. 
This solution does not apply without some potential problems. A double thread worm will halve the existing gear ratio; i.e., from 29.0 to 1 to 14.5 to 1. A gear ratio of 29 to 1 would be a very acceptable gear ratio, but a nice, big, beautiful loco does not do well when surging down a hill. The decision was made to substitute the double thread worm into the existing gearbox and try it. This particular Pittman motor produces gobs of torgue (41.3 in.oz.) so it was given a go ahead for production. But the unfortunate result is an unusually high top end. 
When designing my drives I want to find a balance between starting power(very smooth and positive), good cruising power, better climbing power at all speeds. And a decent flat out, but not important. The transition from dead stop to cruising should be seamless. My motor also a Pittman, but an 8000 series, is rated at 10,000 rpm. I've never seen it and probably never will, plus it is not important. What I do want is pure power, not speed. I also want reliability, not speed. Any attainable speeds are useless, since the train will probably come off of the track. 
In the early to mid sixties, I designed and built automotive slot cars 1/24th scale. Extremely fast and had to handle the road course and the 45 degree banks. So I know a bit about pure speed. 
But Stanley, my hat is off to you, you have created enough noise on a non-subject get get the attention of some good well-intentioned people off of subjects which deserve their astute input. 
Now go away and hide. 
Barry - BBT


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2008)

Dam Stan, 
Sounds like your pissing a lot of people off?????/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/blink.gif 
Nick..


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

I think the question is a fair one ... as long as the responses are given in terms of the DC volts to the motor and the speed (in distance/sec?) ... (railroad modelers often assume that time is invariant with regard to scale - something any engineer doing wind tunnel tests will tell you is not true). 



Doug 

Thanks 

For the response. This is the type of information that can be very useful to help define how we operate our models. Perhaps others would care to comment on the speeds you have posted as a reference. 


A problem I see is that folks disagree on the prototype speed. 


Jim 

True indeed but I think this is because in many cases the common day to day speed on a typical run is often different then what the locomotive was capable and because when the locomotive is new and the pride of the railroad it often ran much faster than the speed it ran in later years. 

By discussing the speed we actually like to operate our locomotives at I think we can avoid many of these pitfalls. We are clearly not talking about standards here but instead trying to gather information that can be used to help guide the industry into the future. If we can influence the industry to produce models we are the happiest with we all win. 

Finally an open request to our forum moderators. 

While most of the messages in this thread are friendly and on topic, I do believe that a few of the messages in this thread are neither professional nor on topic. Have we gotten to a point in time where we must make personnel attacks on others to make our points? 

It is sad really. Large Scale model railroading has been known for years as being a family hobby more so then many of the other scales. We are a diverse group with varying opinions and the styles of our layouts and interests are quite diverse. For example I spent Sunday afternoon as a honored guest on the first operation of a 1:20.3 2 ft gauge outdoor layout being build to the track plan of the prototype. Very different than my layout and likely many others from participants on this site. Does that somehow make your or my layout inferior. I hope not. I hope we are still at a phase where difference are enjoyed and encouraged. 

This forum has been know in the community for years as being a friendly place to exchange ideas. True we can have heated discussions and strong disagreements nothing wrong with that. But I think we all lost something when the messages turn into personnel attacks. 

Perhaps it is time to reflect on the forum at large as to what it stands for. 

Stan Ames 
 http://www.tttrains.com/largescale/stan.htm


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Not personal attacks, Stanley, unless numerous people asking you to go away can be considered so. 

One thing this forum has been noted for since its inception is the extrememly high setting of the BS Sensors. 

Alarms have gone off all over the place. 

You want personal attacks, Stanley, they aren't here. 
Rather in communications with Kalmbach, Philly, and other sources. 

We expected a "home run" with this locomotive. 
Not going to speculate on what we got. 

Nobody wanted a Super Socket. 
Surpisingly, even marketing folks in Philly seemed to only be concerned about their own forums, and NOT what the populace in the LS community wanted. 

A usable LS interface, yes, but even after a re-do review was asked for, the re-do said this one ain't it. 

Can't blame me, Stanley, even though you try. 

Other say IN PRINT what I did not (primarily as there was no list of what would or would not fit), or on forums when you get even staunch DCC users dumping on you, it should have been a wake-up call. 

The "how-to's" posted elsewhere are an absolute JOKE for plug-and-play. 

Personally (and I won't be encouraging anyone to follow suit), I shall continue to fill boxes and bags with the cut-out electronics you provide, and folks with units I have done that to shall continue to be responding to you about how well they run. 

That is, until you make it so we cannot, due to motor design criteria, then I shall start filling boxes with motors and gearboxes. 

There may be a few left on this and other forums who might still be willing to give you the information you ask for, but once they figure out how you use that information, they, too, will probably cease doing so.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By StanleyAmes on 09/08/2008 3:35 PM

Finally an open request to our forum moderators. 

While most of the messages in this thread are friendly and on topic, I do believe that a few of the messages in this thread are neither professional nor on topic. Have we gotten to a point in time where we must make personnel attacks on others to make our points? 

{snip} 

Perhaps it is time to reflect on the forum at large as to what it stands for. 



Stan - we moderators walk a fine line on topics such as these. I have posted a request for things to remain civil, both in this thread and on the K-27 thread. 

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 09/05/2008 9:55 AM 
Let's at least _try_ and keep the discussion civil Gentlemen. Discussing the issues are fine, but let's _try_ to keep personalities out of it please. 

I fully realize the history here, and I fully realize that the battle lines were drawn long ago. I also realize that these discussions are important and necessary, and go to the core of what MLS is all about. I merely ask that you keep the discussion impersonal (if possible). This isn't the place for hostility. 
Thank you.


OTOH, as I stated, I know the history here, and I know that such discussions go to the very heart of what MLS is supposed to be about... a place where all things large scale can be discussed, evaluated, praised, and if needs be, criticized. You have placed yourself in a unique position via your involvement with the NMRA Standards working groups, your involvement with the socket that Bachmann chose to install in their K-27 and in the new articulated soon to debut, and your seeming involvement in the K's gearing, among other things. I have watched these threads since they started and know what's been said on both sides. I know what was promised and then not delivered, and I know, as I'm sure you do, that you operate under a cloud of suspicion concerning conflict of interest. I know you've denied said CofI, but have failed to convince many. That responsibility is yours, not mine, as is the responsibility for all the negative feedback you seem to generate. 

While I agree that personal attacks have no place here, at the same time there are occasions where separating the issue from the individual is exceedingly difficult. On those occasions, if the issue under discussion is important to the large scale community at large, we tend to error on the side of allowing said discussion to continue rather than intervening to the detriment of that community. The goal you aspire to - establishing some reasonable standards (and the operative word here is "reasonable") that will favor no one and benefit all is a worthy one. So far, and from my point of view, you've failed to convince the large scale community that this is your true intention, and the implementation of things geared towards achieving that goal has been one-sided at best. Again, that is your responsibility and not mine, and to squash debate under the banner of "personal attack" would be unfair to the rest of the membership. 

I and the other mods will continue to keep an eye on things and will step in if absolutely necessary. As an exclusive live steamer (and, all things considered, a very relieved one at that), I have no ax to grind here (and no CofI) because all of this stuff about maximum speeds, motor rpms, gear ratios, sockets, DC vs. DCC vs. battery R/C, etc. effects me not in the least. The same cannot be said for 95+ percent of the membership.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I would prefer to have a basic engine, rather than one with many bells and whistles that I may or may not want. 
I have more LGB engines than I care to count. I have added sound to some, when I thought it was needed. I stopped buying LGB several years ago when they came out with their new "control" system. Of the several sound systems, that I have, I consider the LGB digital to be the best. Unfortunately, their latest engines required an additional kit to receive the maximum benefits of the the new "improved" sound electronics. There were several engines that I might have bought, but I didn't want the "improved" electronics. I have enough engines that I can't afford to adopt a new technology. Perhaps "newbies" are happy to get the "new" technology, but I can't afford to retrofit all the engines I like to run. 

Just give me an engine that runs well at low voltage that I can add what I want without having a degree in electrical engineering. 

I appreciate this thread. It started out on speed, but it has evolved into other areas. 
KEEP IT SIMPLE!!! I love my Ks, but they are the only engines that I have, that I have to take a towel out to lay on the ground so that I can lay the engine on the side to remove the two plugs that connect the engine to the tender, so that I can bring them inside in case of rain. That is not "KEEPING IT SIMPLE". 
I'm off to Alaska tomorrow. See you in a couple of weeks. 

Chuck N


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Okay, I'm a railfan and know a little bit about how fast the prototypes operated at but I'm no expert. The question posed is for "maximum speed" to which I would say the question is "irrelevant!" What is a "prototypical speed" is much more germane to the conversation in my opinion. 

If we have toy trains that aren't necessarily scale models (Santa, Snoopy, Thomas, Eggliners, etc...) then run them at whatever speed you want! However, there are those of us that have put out big bucks to acquire scale models and thus we also like to run them at reasonably prototypical speeds. For me, the tractive effort of a locomotive is more important than the top speed! 

It should be a "no-brainer" that you figure out the most efficient gear ratio so that the motor is at the top of it's power curve at the "prototypical" speed that the engine would usually run. It (meaning the locomotive) should have excellent slow speed characteristics. It should start smoothly and _it should be a good puller!_ 

So why do we need "mandated" speeds? If we're trying to figure out the optimum power outage then why ask us? There are power supplies that run from 0 to 24v with amperages high enough to fry all the wiring in a locomotive if it happens to short out! Personally, 19v seemed to be a good compromise. I run 14.4 with r/c battery and my K runs just fine (high gear ratio notwithstanding) but I also have some Accucraft locos that need more oomph! I just don't see the "maximum" speed as an issue...


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

A lively discussion to say the least. 

If I take a narrow point of view, for just my operations, I have problems achieving prototype speeds on DCC due to the voltage drops in the various decoders I use. When a loco can only achieve a prototype top speed on 24v DC, then my decoders are probably only putting about 19v to the motor with the typical HIGHEST voltage most DCC boosters put out. 

So in this example I have an Aristo E-8 that can only go 65 smph. 

But taking the wide view, look at the plight of people running battery power, putting enough amp-hours into a loco usually results in not getting more than the 14-15 volts mentioned. Now what happens? This loco is way too slow. 

Set all locos for 15 volts to get top speed? Unfortunately the people using the typically higher voltages on DC will have rocket ships, not trains. 

Run the 24v loco at 15 volts? no good. Too slow in many cases. 

Set all locos for top speed at 15 volts? Well then what do we do with all the 24v locos? 

I don't know the answer, but I wish that either large scale locos were built to lower voltages, or the NMRA would allow higher DCC voltages. 

It's a mess.... 

All I can say is that making locos be able to achieve prototype tops speeds at 19 volts or so would allow the DCC guys to hit top speeds when necessary, and maybe the loss in top speed would be tolerable to the 14.4 volt crowd. 

Dunno, but it's surely not as simple as looking at this as everyone is only DC or only R/C & battery or everyone is DCC. 

Maybe there is an optimum sweet spot, but having locomotives all run at the same speed for the same voltage seems the wrong thing to do. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

I've always thought that a 2 speed gearbox would be a cool idea. (for lack of a better description "granny low" for small layouts, long coal drags and switching and a "road gear" for pulling the hotshot express) Many garden scale locos, especially the larger stream engines have more than enough room to fit a planetary gearset and brake type 2 speed box. The only question is whether people would be willing to pay for such a feature or just gripe about it. 

"Rea"l locos didn't have em, you say? I don't think very many real locos were made of plastic either.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Mik, 

Actually there HAVE been locomotives fitted with epicyclic gearboxes -thus giving the locomotive 1st, 2nd and 3rd (direct) drive. I know -I have built two of them!!! 

Mr Ames, 

Please forgive the Imperial measurements -but the information is garnered from a book published in 1924 by Messrs Cassel and Company (*page 6, Table II*). It is of course the book "*Model Railways*" written by Henry Greenly.... 

*No 1 Gauge, Speed Av Max: 3 mph, Av Weight of Loco 8 lbs 3 ozs, Av Tractive train 18lbs. * 

And yes Barry -the 1928 edition of "*Model Electric Locomotives and Railways*" by him also recommends the use of multiple pitch worm gears to drive locos; (*cf pages 234 to 237*). 

Mr Ames, your attention is also drawn to; *Page 204 Table VII*, of the same publication. 

There, Mr Ames, is the answer to your non-question. Everything was worked out over 104 years ago by Henry Greenly in his book "Model Engineering" printed in 1904. He was the designer for Bassett Lowke and actually produced the designs for the locomotives RH&D railway in Kent -whose locomotives are still running. 

Mr Ames can I respectfully request that you go away and do some very basic research into the subject. Once you have so, you will thus be in the position to ask the *correct question* -because at that point you will know at least 50% of the answer... 

I await your results of your research with interest. 

Dwight, 

I hope you have found this entry to be "FACTUAL AND RESEARCHED". 

regards 

ralph


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Guys, 

Am I missing something here?? "Maximum speed for our locomotives" I thought the speed control on your transformer regulated the speed of the engine. I set up an oval of aristo track[8ft dia] and have been running my K with a MRC tech 2 [20volt] power pack.It's pulling 8 of the older b-man tank cars With the throttle at 50 to 60%power the train runs at what I consider to be the proper speed. As others have stated it's a matter of how fast or slow you want your train to run. As long as you can control the speed what does it matter how fast it can go. 

I don't see the point of trying to limet top speed to the prototype. 

chuckger


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By ralphbrades on 09/09/2008 1:14 AM


Mr Ames can I respectfully request that you go away and do some very basic research into the subject. Once you have so, you will thus be in the position to ask the *correct question* -because at that point you will know at least 50% of the answer... 
I await your results of your research with interest. 
Dwight, 
I hope you have found this entry to be "FACTUAL AND RESEARCHED". 
regards 
ralph 





Oh gawd, I about choked on my cheerios. 

How many more varied inputs will he need to get the picture, one wonders? 

He, Dwight,what we REALLY need around here is a no-holds-barred Friday or some such. 
Like, once a month or once a year, a temporary forum set up for one day, where we can use all the descriptive adjectives (and even adverbs) necessary to forcefully get a point across, then it all goes away.......


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

So you're suggesting something like: 

Mellow Monday, leading to 
Tame Tuesday, leading to 
Welling up Wednesday, leading to 
Thinking about it Thursday, leading to 
F-U Fridays? 

/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/tongue.gif 

How cathartic!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

The problem is, being "nice", nobody who is a regular forum user has no idea how utterly piXXed off some may be......... 

How's this, since it's "Tame Tuesday"? 

Instead of "Stick it up your.....", how is "place it carefully in a sideways manner in an location of your choosing where it has been known of many to be permanently shaded"? 

Or, "You're a lying sack of......", to "The truth and thee are not close acquaintances"? 

maybe "Clueless (boy, I can think of quite a few here)" to "A little knowledge certainly causeth thee to expound as an expert with many years of industry experience". 

Of course, we aren't talking about anyone in particular, right? 

See how much easier it would be for once to tell someone (edited to prevent an apoplectic seizure to the moderators)? 

I do recall the website just before MLS came on-line was considering just such a forum. 
With no "logging" of who was posting.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Ha ha ha!! 

I think we would need to add: 
Sorry-for-what-I-said Saturdays, leading to 
Fresh start Sundays. Hey, maybe THAT'S what was meant by Sunday being the day of rest! It's finally starting to make sense now. 

Keith


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

History teacher in gradeschool, 50+ years ago, told the class the first day that we could get away with just about anything on a Monday, but by Friday we'd better be on our best behavior because by then his religion that he got on Sunday would be wearing thin. 

On Tuesday, I asked how come we had to improve our beharior through the week but he was allowed to let his grow thin. I found out that his religion was already thin by Tuesday. 

Frankly, I don't think any of this bickering should be allowed at all. Each of you self indulgent idiots has stated your position on the subject and that should be the last of your words. There is no need to keep expounding on the obvious. 

In short, no matter what the day, SHUT UP!


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Awwww......now you've gone and done it! Ya went and made it _personal!_ (Don'cha read the posts from Deeewight?) We all are just gittn' a lil' bit offn our chests.... sorta "clear'n the air" so ta speak! We calls 'em likes we sees 'em! 
Funny thing though.... when we ask a question that somebody doesn't want answered we are accused of being "negative" and "hurtful to the hobby." Then we have some bonna fide experts that have documented their positions and they are vilified and silenced. THEN we are supposed to swallow this latest pile of machaca and just smile? Riiight....../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/plain.gif


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

They call it stormy Monday, yes but Tuesday's just as bad. 
They call it stormy Monday, yes but Tuesday's just as bad. 
Wednesday's even worse; Thursday's awful sad. 


The eagle flies on Friday, Saturday I go out to play. 
The eagle flies on Friday, but Saturday I go out to play. 
Sunday I go to church where I kneel down and pray.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Just some more data on the subject. 
Trust me, I have lots more. 

As you could see, I submitted the proposal over a year ago for a 19V motor with 30:1 gearbox, based upon all these years fine-tuning the BBT drives. 

Anniversary 4-6-0 and K-27 have drivers similar enough in diameter to call them "the same" for this discussion. 

Many years ago, when Barry's wife was in her final illness, and he shut down to care for her, I tried the NWSL .6MOD gearbox, to see if we had something that would work. 

Being close to West Seattle, calling them wasn't a problem. 

We got one, installed it in an old 4-6-0 chassis, plugged it into the existing tender with radio/battery, and gave it a go. 

I called Raoul and told him never to sell one of these 14:1 units to a large scaler. 

The conversation went downhill, with me, of course, not having a clue about gears and motors (gee, haven't I heard that before?). 

It was 28:1, and how dare I, in my gross stupidity, claim otherwise, and how did I determine the gear ratio? 

Marked the motor coupling and driver, rotated the motor enough times to get one turn of the driver (gee, I did the same with the K). 

He hung up in a snit. 

Called me back a short time later, seems the stock person had put 14:1 DIESEL gears in the STEAM box, and the shippers didn't know, they just packed the order. 

That 4-6-0 chassis, which I still have, wrapped and stored, when it hit the first 6'8" radius curve, it became a 2-3-0, the only reason it didn't go over was the BBT weights were low, not high in the boiler. 

So, in addition to too many years in the hobby, with even MDC reduction drives, and "Helix Humpers" (and that is a noun name of a product, not a bad word), BBT development and NWSL, it appears I don't know anything at all about motors and gears. 

To say nothing of 35 years in the automobile industry. 
Or, dealing with SINS Binnacles, SPS-6 radar units (with their rotating antenna), and all that rot. 

You end up knowing what works, and work within those parameters, NOT inventing new "standards" so outside those parameters as to cause knowledgeable folks to scratch their bald spots in disbelief. 

Some of you know the great lengths that have been gone to in an attempt to shut the mouth of the reporter. 

But, suddenly, we have even more who are speaking out.


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

don't know the answer, but I wish that either large scale locos were built to lower voltages, or the NMRA would allow higher DCC voltages. 

It's a mess.... 

All I can say is that making locos be able to achieve prototype tops speeds at 19 volts or so would allow the DCC guys to hit top speeds when necessary, and maybe the loss in top speed would be tolerable to the 14.4 volt crowd. 


Greg 

Thanks for participating. Your message got to the heart of the discussion. I have no idea if what the answer should be but I agree it is a mess at the present time. If we the modelers can not discuss this and come to a reasonable compromise of opinions, I suspect the manufacturers will also be in the same predicament which results in the state we are now in. 


Am I missing something here?? "Maximum speed for our locomotives" I thought the speed control on your transformer regulated the speed of the engine. I set up an oval of aristo trackΖft dia] and have been running my K with a MRC tech 2 ⎠volt] power pack.It's pulling 8 of the older b-man tank cars With the throttle at 50 to 60%power the train runs at what I consider to be the proper speed. As others have stated it's a matter of how fast or slow you want your train to run. As long as you can control the speed what does it matter how fast it can go. 



Chuckger 

A good question. Let me provide my opinion to answer your question. Your DC power pack has a range from 0 volts to the top end voltage which can vary from about 16 volts to 28 or more volts in the large scale environment depending on the supply you are using. If your locomotive has a too slow a top speed relative to the max voltage of your supply then you may not be able to operate your trains at the top speed you desire. Greg provided an example of this. I have a C16 which has no power or speed at the voltage I operate at for the same reason. 

Conversely if the locomotives top speed is too high in relation to the voltage of your supply then the range of control will be less. For example in the example you provided you would have more usable range of your control if the top speed you desired was at 90% of the control rather then 50-60%. The ultimate desire is to have a smooth wide range of control and not simply on or off. 

I have a reasonably sized layout and during formal operating sessions we try to operate our trains prototypically. Because of distances between stations is large, my operators tend to desire faster (but still prototypical) speeds then is common on indoor layouts where a much lower speed tends to provide a better feeling of operations for the shorter distances typically available. 

Please forgive the Imperial measurements -but the information is garnered from a book published in 1924 by Messrs Cassel and Company (page 6, Table II). It is of course the book "Model Railways" written by Henry Greenly.... 

No 1 Gauge, Speed Av Max: 3 mph, Av Weight of Loco 8 lbs 3 ozs, Av Tractive train 18lbs 



Ralph 

The Greenly book is clearly a classic and the information provided most useful even today. Alas in 1924 we did not have modern American locomotives in 1:29 nor narrow gauge locomotives in 1:20.3. The protypical speeds in both of these scales is different than 1:32 standard gauge locomotives. More importantly the voltages in use in large scale were typically much lower in the years prior to LGB then they are today. This whole issue is much simpler in the smaller scales where the speed is measured at consistent voltages. 

This thread was initiated to try to gain some understanding on how each of us typically operates their railroads. There is no right or wrong answer here. Perhaps we can try to stay on topic. Perhaps those that would rather talk about a specific manufacturer, control system, or locomotive could move that discussion to another thread. 

Stan Ames 
http://www.tttrains.com/sjrp/[/url


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By StanleyAmes on 09/10/2008 8:14 AM

This thread was initiated to try to gain some understanding on how each of us typically operates their railroads. There is no right or wrong answer here. Perhaps we can try to stay on topic. Perhaps those that would rather talk about a specific manufacturer, control system, or locomotive could move that discussion to another thread. 
Stan Ames 
http://www.tttrains.com/sjrp/[/url
...usiness of satisfying their customers' needs?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By DKRickman on 09/10/2008 9:45 AM
Posted By StanleyAmes on 09/10/2008 8:14 AM 
This thread was initiated to try to gain some understanding on how each of us typically operates their railroads. There is no right or wrong answer here. Perhaps we can try to stay on topic. Perhaps those that would rather talk about a specific manufacturer, control system, or locomotive could move that discussion to another thread. 
Stan Ames 
http://www.tttrains.com/sjrp/[/url
...the "official" explanation to be posted here.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Mr Ames. 

Since you seem to feel that the reasearch and the consequent data and information that I have provided you to be "non-applicable" due to the age of the source documents. This despite the same literature details how to use 135Volt DC lines and liquid rectifiers from the "Home Distribution boards". 

Very well then I will assay you with information published this millenium... 

The following information is from: 
"*Modelling in Gauge 1, Book 1 : Electric Propulsion*" Published by G1MRA I have the *2004* edition. 

With apologies to G1MRA for breach of copyright, (and Mr Hughes), I feel that I will have to reproduce the table on Page 31 entitled: 

"* Scale Speed relationship for Motor & Gearboxes in locomotives*" 

Download the gauge1.pdf file found here and open with Acrobat reader. 

http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/PDFS 

The book also contains information as to how on USA trains (inside back cover GP 38-2) and 3 foot Manx locomotives -this does I believe fulfill your criteria of being a modern source of research material in that it has both larger than 1:32 scale and 15mm scale NG locomotives. 

Although most of the G1MRA literature with the covers relates to 24 Volts there *are* articles using 50 Volts (P14), 7.2 Volts (P21) and 3 Volts (P34). 

All the literature I have drawn my research from was from my book case... I would assume that you have access to similar literature. I await the results of your *documented research* with anticipation. 

Dwight, 

I hope you found that to be : FACTUAL AND RESEARCHED. 

regards 

ralph 

Post Scriptumn: Coming from a Commercial Background -I automatically document and research all entries. When you compose an ITT -you must be able to prove EVERYTHING. It is an EU legal requirement.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2008)

i do not understand all of the controversies - seems that there are some factors not known to me. 
but here are my two cents (or pesos): 

max speed 
i fond out about that at about age five. i got two H0 trainsets the same chrismas. both trackpowered, one with batteries and one with a transforrmer/regulator. 
for one loco max speed was full throttle of the regulator, for the other max speed was just a little slower than the speed, where it took a straight line out of the curves. 
since i have changed a little. 
on my nearly 40 years old G-"scale" stone-age-modell-railroad "max-speed" is the speed, at which i like to see my trains running (or creeping, for that) 
and a "max-speed rule" from somebody else is something, that i need as desperately, as i need a rusty nail in my foot. 

scale-speed 
do i need scale-speed? 
yes, if.... 
... if my rails are to scale 
... if my couplers are to scale 
... if my stations are one hundred foot or longer 
in short - if everything else would be really to scale, might be, that i would advocate scale-speed. 

i would like to introduce a new regulation: Hobby-Speed. 
to be understood as a fix speed, only modificated by the following variables: 
mood of operator, radius of curves, electricity bill, headake of wife... ah, yes, and by tipe of train - a modern intercity passenger train might be quicker, than a logging train... if the operator's mood allows it. 

to the (in)famous K-loco 
if a company sells a loco, that is too quick for my taste, that might be a reason to alterate it, or not to buy it. 
but not a reason, to accept an intrusion to my way to execute my hobby ("my" being the key-word) 

ok, i'm creeping back under my stone...


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Perhaps we can try to stay on topic. Perhaps those that would rather talk about a specific manufacturer, control system, or locomotive could move that discussion to another thread. 


I know - let's talk about Bachmann, Lenz, and the K-27... or how about Bachmann, RCS, and the upcoming Mallet. 

Oh! Oh! And let's do it RIGHT HERE... out in the open for EVERYONE to see!! 

"stay on topic" uh... don't look now Stan - but I think that all of your pontificating in this thread has made YOU the topic. 

(And you know who to blame for all of this right? Sure you do...)


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

"Perhaps we can try to stay on topic. Perhaps those that would rather talk about a specific manufacturer, control system, or locomotive could move that discussion to another thread. " 

I need a little help, folks. 
I went through all three pages, found refernces to Aristo, LGB, Lionel, B'man, NWSL, dcc and decoders, but other than references to track-powered packs, no reference to any other control system by name. 

Did I miss something? 

I can't get my eyeballs uncrossed enough to go through them again right now.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Kormsen: 

I've been following this thread from beneath my workbench, for safety reasons.  I've been silent so long, I think I hurt myself./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif 

I believe the moderator filled in the necessary missing blanks adequately in his lengthy post. 

No one wishing to come out even remotely unscathed should pick an argument with a PhD in his field (plus hands-on experience) and a technical person with both a wide array of and specific experience in, a given subject. 

Based on my own experience, I believe Mr. Brades pegged it down with his initial statement that the topic under discussion is a non-issue. The series of replies from the originator, and their tone and contents, make me think that there is a hidden agenda being pursued, of which I haven't the foggiest notion and even less interest since I'll never buy a high-end loco. 

You and I alone seem to have realized instantly what a throttle on a transformer is for. I suppose that comes from excessive horseback riding in the hot sun./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crying.gif Since you have covered every conceivable variable found on a given layout save varying pull on the drawbar (different consists) there's nothing more for me to add, save, why all the fuss over nothing? The verbiage expended to promote an absolutely meaningless point in the face of education and experience has been amazing. All that is left to question is the motive. 

Les W.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Les on 09/10/2008 9:33 PM
Kormsen: 
The series of replies from the originator, and their tone and contents, make me think that there is a hidden agenda being pursued, of which I haven't the foggiest notion and even less interest since I'll never buy a high-end loco. 
The verbiage expended to promote an absolutely meaningless point in the face of education and experience has been amazing. All that is left to question is the motive." border=0> 
Les W. 





BINGO! 
Send that man a Kewpie Doll!


----------



## BarrysBigTrains (Sep 4, 2008)

If a large model train manufacturer brought out a model, the end result of a large investment and there was a serious problem with it's operation, and you wanted to curry favor with that manufacturer for yourself, wouldn't you help if you could (or wouldn't you help even if you couldn't). 

If you wanted to be that help, how about constructing a story, which would sidetrack the attention away from the real problem, to one which you have invented and was not germane to the real problem. Now If you are charming and convincing enough, you might pull it off. 

The K-27 gearbox is a beautiful piece of work, all brass everywhere, ball bearings on every gear shaft (not the axle). Easily the best model train gearbox I have ever seen. But the wrong gear ratio. But the saving grace is the motor which has more power than anyone expected, so it saves the day. 

So far the story isn't needed. And the rest of this is probable guess work: But if you are friends with the guy responsible and you want to help save him from any embarrassing impressions......trot out the story. "We're try to ascertain maximum speed and voltage settings" 

Ha! 

Barry - BBT


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Question away Les. 

Just be prepared to realise that what you think the answer said, is not what the writer meant you to understand. 

A major manufacturer screwed up and the "unpaid" mouthpiece is trying to obfuscate the reality by "spinning" the dicusssion into another subject. 
I guess that is what happens when a manufacturer tries to please everyone with one product. 
The sooner they realise there are two totally distinct avenues of interest in Large Scale neither of which are really compatible. 
These are; 
1. Mainline proptotype, and 
2. Narrow gauge prototype. 

Modellers of the former, the prototypeof which has a top speed at least twice the usual top speed of the latter, want to run their mainline models fast. 
Modellers of the latter expect the models to have a realistic, as in slow, top speed *AND* good pulling power. Good pulling power can only come with sensible gearing, which in the case of the K-27 should have been about the recommended 30:1. 

Manufacturers of narrow gauge models must realise this. 
If they don't and try and cater for everybody will only result in even more dissatisfaction.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Ah now Barry, what could anyone be trying to divert attention from? 

These days, with all the advancements in the hobby like DCC, pre-molded battery wells in tenders, even back-channel EMF - train folks are certainly living the life of Riley!


----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

Subject: Maximum speed for our locomotives?? 

I use the MTH DCS in all my loco's with no problems.. 

My loco's can go from 1 smph crawl or 120 smph balls out rr'ing.. 

DCS isn't limited to wimpy NMRA track voltage standards so my rr doesn't need the NMRA../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/tongue.gif 

Oh yeah I also have remote operated couplers on my DCS equipped loco's so switching is done hands free.../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

If there was a way of converting the energy expended in this thread into batteries, I'd convert from track power today.......


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2008)

Posted By parkdesigner on 09/10/2008 10:38 PM 
.... life of Riley!

Life of Riley....A great Indie Band..../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif" border=0>" 
http://www.myspace.com/lifeofrileyband


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/10/2008 10:00 PM
Posted By Les on 09/10/2008 9:33 PM 
Kormsen: 
The series of replies from the originator, and their tone and contents, make me think that there is a hidden agenda being pursued, of which I haven't the foggiest notion and even less interest since I'll never buy a high-end loco. 
The verbiage expended to promote an absolutely meaningless point in the face of education and experience has been amazing. All that is left to question is the motive." border=0>" border=0> 
Les W. 


BINGO! 
Send that man a Kewpie Doll!





I'd rather have a pair of ~2-1/4" drivers..../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/tongue.gif 

Les W.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 09/10/2008 10:32 PM
Question away Les. 

Just be prepared to realise that what you think the answer said, is not what the writer meant you to understand. 

1. Mainline proptotype, and 
2. Narrow gauge prototype. 

If they don't and try and cater for everybody will only result in even more dissatisfaction. 





Tony, 

Another advantage of age is, I've met the originator's type before. More than once. Thanks for filling in the blanks. 'Motive' was the only fact I didn't have. 

It seems to me a more pertinent question to pose is, why doesn't some bright spark come out with a replacement gear box in a more suitable gear ratio for the slow-mover crowd? Or just replacement gears--if that's physically possible--I haven't seen the gearbox in question. There might even be an adaptable one on the market. 

I admit to having a bit of a problem with the RTR crowd whose only tool is a ballpoint pen and who howl like molested apes when their purchase does not fulfill every conceivable purpose they might put it to. 

Les W. 

"Be not the first to embrace the new, nor the last to relinquish the old."


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Les on 09/11/2008 9:40 AM
Posted By TonyWalsham on 09/10/2008 10:32 PM 

It seems to me a more pertinent question to pose is, why doesn't some bright spark come out with a replacement gear box in a more suitable gear ratio for the slow-mover crowd? Or just replacement gears--if that's physically possible--I haven't seen the gearbox in question. There might even be an adaptable one on the market. 
I admit to having a bit of a problem with the RTR crowd whose only tool is a ballpoint pen and who howl like molested apes when their purchase does not fulfill every conceivable purpose they might put it to. 
Les W. 
"Be not the first to embrace the new, nor the last to relinquish the old."




Actually, work WAS progressing on said gearbox UNTIL there was an attitudinal deficeincy created by the thread originator. 

That work has again been underway for a month or so. 
The problem is the axle OD, making it impossible to use an existing gearbox. 
The physical size of the box limits the gears that will fit, and I thing we can only get halfway to where we want to be. 

You are right, the RTR crowd is taking away the skill level we used to have in the hobby. 

Simply using a "socket" instead of soldering (or screwing) in your control or sound system is too easy, yet the "work-arounds" published to get all the stuff to work ended up being far more difficult than a simple installation without the Ames Super Socket. 

The few who originally thought the Ames Super Socket was a good idea......well, most seem to realize this one isn't, including the re-review writer. 

At some point, someone in the company, either stateside or in mainland China, is going to have to step up and cut their losses, and pitch the ideologies out into the street. 
Problem is, even if they do, the SOP has been not to say anything, and someone may just continue pushing his ideologies, with us none the wiser that he's PNG. 

What is really surprising is the number of folks, including staunch dcc users, who have panned this whole flawed concept, and yet somehow he still has input. 

Can you imagine how easy this would have been if it had simply been screw terminals? 

As in, no soldering? 

And, if we didn't have the inverted electronics that made the light commons and chuff a required rework/rewire? 

And spending all this effort defending the ratio and associated current loads? 

Imagine how this would have just gone away if he had been quiet. 

All started a year ago when he sprung the "new" electronics on us after the NG Convention. 

Had he kept his mouth shut, nobody would have had anything to work with since he would not have been giving us chapter and verse.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Les, 

There have only been two successful(?) continuously variable transmission systems. The first is the DAF "Variomatic" rubber band system which has two sets of cogged pulleys which mesh together as sectioned cones. The other is the infamous "FELL" gearbox -the locomotive that used this gearbox is on my "to build" list. (Surprise!) 

When you examine the substances needed to build small gears you are down to "Hostaform" and "Grear Grade Nylon" -both have the advantages of being easy to mould and very good running. The former is more suited to power gears, (the main "Bull Gear" for my EE-1 is a "Hostaform" gear while the nylon gears are more suited to higher speed running. Delrin, Aluminium, Brass and Steel have to be machined -although I have used "powder metallugy" metal "cast" gears before... 

For the curious: http://www.hpcgears.com/[/b]
regards
ralph


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Not having handled the locomotive in question (out of my price range and too big for my layout) I'm gonna make what may be a wild a$$ suggestion... Rather than a new gearbox, how hard would it be to put a 2:1 (or 3:2-- whichever would cure the problem) reduction -- and maybe even a flywheel between the existing gearbox and motor? Is there space? Or is this thinking too far outside the box?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Looked into that, too. 
Would place the motor too far back. 
Of course, if it didn't have the flywheel and shaft, probably. 
However, since we do this for "free", and have been for a LONG time, one tends to get a tad "weary" of aftermarket fixes for something that SHOULD have been right from the get-go, no matter what it is or who makes it.


----------



## BarrysBigTrains (Sep 4, 2008)

Mr. Brades, 

Interesting site. I buy my acetal gears (with brass hubs) and have my worms (brass) and a small spur gear (aluminum) made by a California machine shop. The worm was developed by a small shop in Colorado, who knew the "magic" of worms. Since incorporating their design my noise woes have largely disappeared. Everything is in ball bearings and locked onto a shaft (of two shafts). I also incorporate the infamous double-thread worm to eliminate the surging. 

That is just the gearing side of things. The rest gets interesting. 

Barry - BBT


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/11/2008 10:07 AM
Posted By Les on 09/11/2008 9:40 AM 
Posted By TonyWalsham on 09/10/2008 10:32 PM 
It seems to me a more pertinent question to pose is, why doesn't some bright spark come out with a replacement gear box in a more suitable gear ratio for the slow-mover crowd? Les W. 
"Be not the first to embrace the new, nor the last to relinquish the old."


Actually, work WAS progressing on said gearbox UNTIL there was an attitudinal deficeincy created by the thread originator. 

The problem is the axle OD, making it impossible to use an existing gearbox. 

Can you imagine how easy this would have been if it had simply been screw terminals? 
As in, no soldering? 
And, if we didn't have the inverted electronics that made the light commons and chuff a required rework/rewire? 


All started a year ago when he sprung the "new" electronics on us after the NG Convention. 
Had he kept his mouth shut, nobody would have had anything to work with since he would not have been giving us chapter and verse.




Weeellll... I hesitate to put forward the following suggestions, for surely you must have thought of them and dismissed them for good reason. However, why can't a smaller OD axle be used and the wheel holes plugged/remachined for the smaller diameter? My first guess would be weight, the second would be torque factors; calculating this last is outside my box of tricks. Perhaps pinned, shouldered wheel hubs on a smaller axle? If you have the clearance. 

As for the electronics problems, I cannot say anything because I've elected to avoid as many boards as possible. Plugs strike me as okay, IF they're high enough quality to stand the environment. But 'inverted electronics'? If you mean that in the polarity or timing sense, someone indeed goofed big time. People at MAC got fired for designing things like that. 

The thing that piques my curiousity is this gentleman's credentials. How'd he come to have such influence? It wasn't until well into the thread, where Mr. Ralph's (sorry, Senior Moment) technical/educational qualifications were dismissed that I understood why such an strenuous objection was initially raised. 

Can I speculate that you are a retired Navy Chief? (I worked the INS on the RF-4B, both in the field and in the lab). /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif 

Les


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By ralphbrades on 09/11/2008 10:48 AM
Les, 
There have only been two successful(?) continuously variable transmission systems. The first is the DAF "Variomatic" rubber band system which has two sets of cogged pulleys which mesh together as sectioned cones. The other is the infamous "FELL" gearbox -the locomotive that used this gearbox is on my "to build" list. (Surprise!) 
When you examine the substances needed to build small gears you are down to "Hostaform" and "Grear Grade Nylon" -both have the advantages of being easy to mould and very good running. The former is more suited to power gears, (the main "Bull Gear" for my EE-1 is a "Hostaform" gear while the nylon gears are more suited to higher speed running. Delrin, Aluminium, Brass and Steel have to be machined -although I have used "powder metallugy" metal "cast" gears before... 
For the curious: http://www.hpcgears.com/[/b]
reg...my opinions to Critters and 0-4-0's.
Les


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Les on 09/11/2008 1:43 PM
Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/11/2008 10:07 AM 
Posted By Les on 09/11/2008 9:40 AM 
Posted By TonyWalsham on 09/10/2008 10:32 PM 
It seems to me a more pertinent question to pose is, why doesn't some bright spark come out with a replacement gear box in a more suitable gear ratio for the slow-mover crowd? Les W. 
"Be not the first to embrace the new, nor the last to relinquish the old."

Actually, work WAS progressing on said gearbox UNTIL there was an attitudinal deficeincy created by the thread originator. 
The problem is the axle OD, making it impossible to use an existing gearbox. 
Can you imagine how easy this would have been if it had simply been screw terminals? 
As in, no soldering? 
And, if we didn't have the inverted electronics that made the light commons and chuff a required rework/rewire? 
All started a year ago when he sprung the "new" electronics on us after the NG Convention. 
Had he kept his mouth shut, nobody would have had anything to work with since he would not have been giving us chapter and verse.

Weeellll... I hesitate to put forward the following suggestions, for surely you must have thought of them and dismissed them for good reason. However, why can't a smaller OD axle be used and the wheel holes plugged/remachined for the smaller diameter? My first guess would be weight, the second would be torque factors; calculating this last is outside my box of tricks. Perhaps pinned, shouldered wheel hubs on a smaller axle? If you have the clearance. 
As for the electronics problems, I cannot say anything because I've elected to avoid as many boards as possible. Plugs strike me as okay, IF they're high enough quality to stand the environment. But 'inverted electronics'? If you mean that in the polarity or timing sense, someone indeed goofed big time. People at MAC got fired for designing things like that. 
The thing that piques my curiousity is this gentleman's credentials. How'd he come to have such influence? It wasn't until well into the thread, where Mr. Ralph's (sorry, Senior Moment) technical/educational qualifications were dismissed that I understood why such an strenuous objection was initially raised. 
Can I speculate that you are a retired Navy Chief? (I worked the INS on the RF-4B, both in the field and in the lab). /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif" border=0> 
Les 




The issue is the design. 
The "inner axle" is, oh, roughly 1/4" diameter, with a key in the middle. 
This rides in ball bearings in the journals, the couterweights are attached the the ends, and this axle rotates only, does not move side to side. 

The "outer axle" is, oh, 11/16" diameter, with the axle stubs cast as part of the driver. 
They are pressed onto a plastic sleeve with a "slot" to mate with the inner key. 

The axle gear is attached to the insulator, not physically touching the axle stubs. 

The axle gear is VERY wide, with plastic collars in the gearbox to allow the outer axle to slide sideways with the gearbox staying roughly centered. 

One would need to be able to disassemble the axle halves without breaking them, generate a new larger axle gear, and a new larger gearbox to enclose said gear, all the time keeping everything concentric. 

It's no wonder the effort to defend the design has been made. 

Barry THINKS we can get 20:1 in that box. 

We shall try. 

6 years, Cold War era, 637 class Nuke, later COB on of all things a Soviet Foxtrot diesel boat.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Les, 

The DAF Variomatic drive is here: 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R8AzqtomwD0 

The FELL gearbox is here: 

http://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxfell.htm 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

I apologize if you have checked this out already, but have you guys looked at using a Maxon motor, with an integral gearhead? They have an amazing selection of high efficiency motors and drive combinations...I would be very surprised if you couldn't find one that could be made to fit right in if you're only talking 2:1 reduction at the engine. Expensive, yes, but if you want a lifetime solution, that might be an alternative. 

Keith


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 09/11/2008 4:18 PM 
I apologize if you have checked this out already, but have you guys looked at using a Maxon motor, with an integral gearhead? They have an amazing selection of high efficiency motors and drive combinations...I would be very surprised if you couldn't find one that could be made to fit right in if you're only talking 2:1 reduction at the engine. Expensive, yes, but if you want a lifetime solution, that might be an alternative. 
Keith

Not a bad idea. 
However, 
Why should the consumer be paying for the Bachmann stuff up? 
That is the whole point of this thread. 
Bachmann stuffed up. 
It would cost them a fortune to fix the problem. 
Hence an attempt to obfuscate the issue by the man who helped screw it up in the first place.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Tony, 

I'm not suggesting the consumer pay. Brawa did it right. They realized the motor they shipped with their new RhB G4/5 steam loco wasn't cutting it, so they replaced them all (including the ones they had shipped already) with Maxon motors. In that case they didn't need the gearhead, but I'm sure it still cost them a lot of money. They earned a lot of respect with that move. I don't expect that of Bachmann....


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

One of the issues we encountered with gearheads was the short shaft and moment arm of the output shaft. 
The motor has a LONG space between bearings for support, while the gearhead does not. 
The forces generated by the double-lead worm was enough to cause me to not look there for long. 

I would have thought our own official unofficial spokeperson would be more interested in addressing the issues brought up by many (remember, one of the first reports was by the person doing the video, "throw it into reverse just like the prototype to stop it") and working towards a solution instead of such obvious denial. 

Obvious.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Ralph: 

Okay, I know the DAF as 'variable diameter' pulleys. Fairly straightforward in theory, at least. I've only encountered one instance of a V/D pulley--in a treadmill. It worked just fine. Point of fact, I still have it, just in case.... 

The Fell unit, OTOH, gave me a severe headache just trying to trace the shafts out. TWO differentials? Motors to run superchargers for four other motors? I bet for sure, it was noisy in the station, torquing up. 

While I enjoy contemplating nigh-impossible propositions, in the Fell unit, I've met my match./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/laugh.gif 

BTW, I went to the gear site you gave, and all I can say is, wow. They've got it all! Now I can build a Shay, perchance--though I believe I'll start on something more simple, first. Like the Critter I found in a 1997 issue of Narrow Gauge & SL Gazette. Uses a chain drive. Essentially a powered 4-whl flat car w. vertical boiler. (Electric drive). 

The one serious endeavor I want to undertake (when I get the house repairs finished) is to fabricate a gearbox suitable for fitting inside the power brick of the several New Blights I have. Large changes will have to be made, for I want to study the effects of a flywheel on slow-speed mechanisms. I also want to investigate sprung driving axles--though likely not the drive axle. Just another article I read in that mass of old magazines I bought. Perhaps I'll have accumulated enough $$ for a mini-mill by then. 

Thanks again for the info. 

Les


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/11/2008 10:07 AM 

The issue is the design. 
It's no wonder the effort to defend the design has been made. 
Barry THINKS we can get 20:1 in that box. 
We shall try. 

6 years, Cold War era, 637 class Nuke, later COB on of all things a Soviet Foxtrot diesel boat.




I cannot visualize from the verbal description. I have to wonder if all that is actually necessary, if I understand correctly that the wheels are electrically isolated from the gearbox and each other via the plastic 'stubs'. (Spokes?) 

Ah well. Too complicated fer this ol man. 

COB, hunh? I am impressed, I yam. Chiefs and SrM/Sgts were the go-to guys for us product support folk, though I did very little Navy support. Just the recon Phantom. I almost once got a two-week cruise on a carrier. I was young 'n dumb, because I was heartbroken to get passed over by a 'real' engineer. Turned out the 'guest quarters' were right under the catapult. Those guys didn't get much sleep for two weeks. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/laugh.gif 

And I had no clue there were diesel boats still in the inventory in those days. I'm unfamiliar with the S/F class. 

Les


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Our Veteran's group took over showing this old Russkie boat (we used to shadow them). 

They appointed me COB, as I started fixing the dead stuff. 
When they sold it out from under us, I had all indicator panels working, alarms, ventilation, we had stripped and varnished one compartment, built replacement dive station controls, had a bunch more in-work that went to the dump. 

We even had a BIG sound system with Fainrbanks-Morse diseasemals running in the engine room.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 09/11/2008 4:48 PM 
Not a bad idea. 
However, 
Why should the consumer be paying for the Bachmann stuff up? 
That is the whole point of this thread. 
Bachmann stuffed up. 
It would cost them a fortune to fix the problem. 
Hence an attempt to obfuscate the issue by the man who helped screw it up in the first place.



Here's the thing, from MY POV. What's done is done. A recall is rather unlikely. And a second generation version is probably a non starter unless they sell a TON of the things. Instead of arguing "coulda" "shoulda" and pointing fingers about who screwed the pooch, wouldn't a more productive use of time and energy (all around) be trying to devise ways to make a smooth running silk purse out of the alleged sow's ear? Besides, if it really IS such a POS won't there be $$ to be made for the guy who comes up with a simple way of retrofitting them (and markets it)?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

True. However, here we are with the person involved in the development telling us there IS no problem. 
Trust me, I've been here before, with morons who tried everting to convince folks the wheels were not falling off Shays. 
Not interested in doing that again, UNLESS we get Bachmann behind the effort and get them to shut up the obfuscator.


----------



## BarrysBigTrains (Sep 4, 2008)

Les, 
Re: flywheels in large scale. When surging on a down grade became a problem with my drives, thanks to Mr. TOC, a solution had to be found. One of the ideas tried was brass flywheels (larger than the one currently mounted on the 9000 series Pittman in the K-27). The flywheel had no, I repeat no effect good or bad, just nothing. I concluded that flywheels would have to be huge in order to be a factor. I also believe they would inhibit acceleration. The solution, we all know now is the incorporation of a double thread worm on the motor. Followed by the appropriate gear ratio of about 30 to 1. 

The flywheel installed on the K-27 is not for the usual flywheel effect, but I believe, for the optical rpm reader (which I have installed on other locos at the request of the customer). 
Les, I hope this inspires you in other directions, but if it doesn't I do have about six flywheels lying around, if you are interested. 

Barry - BBT


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

This thread has wandered from its origins in that it perported to be a simple survey of the speeds that users ran their locos at. 
However, it is my belief, that the author of this thread has not vouchsafed himself from a vested interest in the results. 
He himself confesses to be attending a meeting in Portland amoungst several commercial manufacturers of power supplies. So perhaps it behooves us to examine the types of power supplies that are generally available and the synergy between them and the motor. 
In keeping with the author of this threads declared preference for recent information I have again sourced the extracts from a book published this millenium. 
The following is taken from: *“Model Railway Electronics”* by Roger Amos -I have the 2nd Edition 2001 pub. by Haynes. 
Paragraph 1 from Page 17 
QUOTE: 
“The purpose of a controller is, of course, to regulate the direction and speed of a model train. An ideal controller would give infinitely variable control of speed from a barely percepti 
ble crawl -a scale 1 mph say -to full speed, which may be a scale 100mph or more for modern express passenger train, Moreover it should give prototypically smooth starts and stops.” 
UNQUOTE: 
Paragraph 3 from page 17 
QUOTE: 
“Imagine your train is standing in the station ready to leave. You advance the speed control and nothing happens. You advance it to perhaps 75% of full power when suddenly the train bolts from the station with the abruptness of a bullet leaving a gun! You can now turn the speed control down to 25% say, of full power and reduce the trains speed to a reasonable level but it is too late; the illusion has been destroyed. Prototype trains -even electric ones with brisk accelaration - pull away smoothly appreciable time to accelarate to normal cruising speed.” 
UNQUOTE: 
Paragraph 1 from Page 18 
QUOTE: 
So, unless the speed controller is turned down as soon as the train begins to move - and there is no practical way of knowing exactly when to turn it down and how far -the train will race away in a thoroughly unprotypical manner. Model railway manufacturers have attempted to tackle this problem from the motor end rather than the controller end. Permanant magnets motors have gentler characteristics if the armature windings are small relative to the size of the magnets. So, either a conventional small magnet is used with an armature having five, or even seven, small poles, or a conventional three pole armature is completely enclosed between a pair of massive permanant magnets, the latter is known as a ring-field motor”. 
UNQUOTE: 
Paragraph 3 from page 31 
QUOTE: 
Model train motors slow down on uphills and tight curves primarily as a function of their inherant electrical resistence. As the loco enters the upgrade it has insufficient torque to take on the increased load so it slows; it’s “back EMF” opposingthe supply voltage from the supply falls and so it draws more current. The extra current passing through its resistence raises the potential difference (known as IR) which is effectively in series with the motor and starves it of power” 
UNQUOTE: 
Hopefully the basics of the start up,steady state and stressed characteristics of a modern model locomotive electric motor have been explained. 
So, let us examine the market 
I think this is about as basic a PSU as you can get(!) 








This particular transformer delivers 24Volts (AC) at 5Amperes from a (UK std) 50Hz 230V input. Push that through a simple bridge rectifier and a dustbin sized capacitor then a voltage regulator -you should have a nice 24Volt smoothed supply. 
And then let us partner this with a basic controller 








This particular controller delivers 0 to 18Volts EQUIVALENT. 
This is of course a PWM controller. 
The reason why 18 Volts is so common amoungst PWM controllers is due to the NE 555 timer chip which is commonly used to generate the Mark / Space intervals. 
So, let us ask a question: 
WHY ARE CERTAIN VOLTAGES SO COMMON? 
The answer to this is actually very simple... It has to do with the wire 
sizes available to wind the motors from. 
The following information is taken from: 
“*Model Locomotive Construction*” by Martin Evans -I have the 1974 ed, pub by MAP. 
This is Table 1 from page 39 
(Again apologies for the use of Imperial units). 
Recommended Copper Wire Gauges for Armatures for Model Electric Locomotives 
(Permanant Magnet) 
Armature size Voltage (DC) Wire Size 
1/2 x 1/2 12 39swg 
1/2 x 3/4 12 38swg 
1 x 1 6 28swg 
1 x 1 12 32swg 
1 x 1 25 34swg 
1 x 1 1/4 12 30swg 
1 x 1 3/4 25 32swg 
1 1/2 x 1 1/2 12 26swg 
1 1/2 x 1 3/4 25 28swg 
So, the question we now have to ask ourselves is this: 
Why is Mr Ames going to Portland to recommend a working voltage of 18 Volts -when it is patently obvious that any motor that has been wound will easily take, (and will have been designed to), *25* Volts? 
Dwight 
I hope you have found the above to be FACTUAL AND RESEARCHED. 
*What follows are my personal thoughts and feelings*. 
It is obvious from just a few hours of research amoungst the books on my shelves that I have determined the correct operating voltage for a motor powering a Gauge 1 locomotive -regardless of its scale *1:32, 1:29, 1:19.1 or 1:13.5* 
I have also determined from tables and data written over 104 years ago what the gear ratio should be for the size of my driving wheels, allied to this what should be the shaft speed for my desired running speed. Should I wish I can even tell you the type of steel and thickness of the laminations to make your armatures from -again sourced from a book *104 years old*... From the above we now know the thickness of wire required for the armature and thus by simple division the number of "turns". 
If I can do this research and design criteria working from my home sofa and my Blackberry -it behooves us to ask: 
a: WHO was responsible for the poor research and design criteria that went into the gearbox design for this locomotive? 
b: WHY the sudden desire on one very ernest individual to assertain the running voltages of locomotives? 
c: WHAT is going to happen to when the rest of the world discovers the mistake? 
But we already *know* the answers to that don't we? 
*End of Personal statement* 
regards 
ralph


----------



## Guest (Sep 12, 2008)

and that Ladies and Gentlemen concludes the presentation....Elivs has left the Building..........................................


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Ralph, 

Facts? What are those?!


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

"Facts" my friend are those irritating, annoying, inconvenient, irrefutable but NOT unobfuscatable "truths" that have a way of tripping up certain elected officials, CEO's, manufacturer's etc... Depending upon how good one is at "obfuscation" seems to be a determining factor as to a person's qualifications for political office (or as an un-official spokesman for a certain manufacturer!)


----------



## paintjockey (Jan 3, 2008)

Ya know, after reading all of this and agreeing with 99.9% of it, I still want one. 
If someone would please just beat me about my head and shoulders until i come back to my senses?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Like I had posted in this thread or the one Stanley tried to get us to forget, as long as you are willing to do the things necessary, it's a fine locomotive.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By BarrysBigTrains on 09/11/2008 11:17 PM
Les, 
Re: flywheels in large scale. When surging on a down grade became a problem with my drives, thanks to Mr. TOC, a solution had to be found. One of the ideas tried was brass flywheels (larger than the one currently mounted on the 9000 series Pittman in the K-27). The flywheel had no, I repeat no effect good or bad, just nothing. I concluded that flywheels would have to be huge in order to be a factor. I also believe they would inhibit acceleration. The solution, we all know now is the incorporation of a double thread worm on the motor. Followed by the appropriate gear ratio of about 30 to 1. 
The flywheel installed on the K-27 is not for the usual flywheel effect, but I believe, for the optical rpm reader (which I have installed on other locos at the request of the customer). 
Les, I hope this inspires you in other directions, but if it doesn't I do have about six flywheels lying around, if you are interested. 
Barry - BBT 




Barry, 

In my post to Mr. Brades, I let my mind wander to subjects outside the thread--in conjunction with flywheels--since he's offered a good deal of advice in the past. Just now he's embroiled in larger issues. 

I'm interested in the flywheels, or a couple of them. As a machinist, I can make my own, but depending upon cost/shipping, yes, I'm definitely interested. 

My purpose in investigating flywheels in connection with running has nothing to do with a K-27 or downhill surging but rather to determine what effect a (relatively large) flywheel has on small motor/gearboxes as found in light, inexpensive G gauge engines in terms of accel/decel rates and especially 'crawl'. As Mr. Brades states in his latest post, these parameters can also be addressed from the electronics end. 

The electronics feedback circuitry he proposed several days ago has merit, but no one has picked up on it. If I understand the explanation, it consists essentially of a computerized feedback loop for fine motor control. A form of digital data analyzer, perhaps, since it would be dedicated. 

Please post me at [email protected] at your convenience. 

Les W.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Les- What we determined through extensive testing was that the mass of the armaturs in Large Scale motors is significantly more than that in smaller scales, where flywheels are effective. 
We found non-discernable differences in units with flywheels and without. 

We found control was better with on-board with no flywheels. 

I have removed the flywheels from several K-27's, and have found NO difference in performance. 

I have been told that flywheels on single-lead worm K-27's is desirable, but don't have one of those to check.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/12/2008 11:54 AM
Les- What we determined through extensive testing was that the mass of the armaturs in Large Scale motors is significantly more than that in smaller scales, where flywheels are effective. 
We found non-discernable differences in units with flywheels and without. 
We found control was better with on-board with no flywheels. 
I have removed the flywheels from several K-27's, and have found NO difference in performance. 
I have been told that flywheels on single-lead worm K-27's is desirable, but don't have one of those to check. 





Thanks for the additional input re flywheels. 

Since this is the second post I've gotten referencing the K-27, I want to clearly state that I in no way possess the knowledge or desire to engage in offering meaningful technical advice on the K. I am more than happy to observe from the sidelines, where I belong. 

My post to Mr. Brades was a bit of speculation, if it can be called such, pertaining to my own efforts to construct a gearbox for the el cheapo locos I've bought and want to fool with before taking on something more substantial. I've finally gotten to a place in my life where I can take the time to experiment for my own amusement, and that's how the 'flywheel and gearbox post' should be understood. 

Fame and fortune have so far avoided me all of my life, and I find the rewards of that fact to be far undervalued. 

I'm picking up good bits 'n pieces of info from this thread, Mr. Brades' posts being a prime example of data offered for those who will investigate it further. 

It's probably relevant to wonder where the data from the other side is. 

Les


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Ralph 

Thank you for trying to keep on topic. The information you have provide is indeed most accurate and useful. While you have not presented the waveform for your 18 volt PWM controller from its description I assume it is one of the state of the art PWM controllers which varies the width, amplitude, and frequency of the pulses. This is typical of the better DC controllers found in Large Scale. 

Why is Mr Ames going to Portland to recommend a working voltage of 18 Volts 


Got me. I have not even formed a strong opinion on this yet. 

The reason for initiating this thread in the first place was to gain information that might be useful to the manufacturers for future products. My experience is that manufacturers are much more receptive to new ideas for future undersigned products than they are of discussing changes to existing products. 

One common comment from various manufacturers has to do with top end speed control complaints from consumers, some say the locomotives are to fast, some to slow. Alas when the manufacturers receive this information they often do not ask at what voltage the user was making that comment from. By asking the question of the DC voltage at the max desired speed one can test the various hypothesis to determine how as a community we actually are using our models. 

There are 4 Large Scale manufacturers at the Narrow Gauge Convention. I sat down with each of them to understand their experience with high end speed and the voltages they were using to calculate their prototype speed. Following is what I found. 
Note there is nothing special about these 4 except the fact there are here and a discussion with their engineer was possible. 

1)	Accucraft uses 24 volt Pittman gear motors with stock Pittman gear ratios. They use 24 volts DC as the desired DC voltage to achieve their desired prototypical speed. They use the same voltage for all scales they produce (1:29, 1:32, 1:20). They vary the gear ratio within the limits of the gearing options available to achieve the desired top end speed for the driver size and scale desired. Accucraft indicates that most of their complaints come from users using 18 volt supplies to operate their locomotives. 

2)	Bachman (1:20) uses 16-18 volts DC as the desired prototypical speed. Bachmann develops their own gearing and can develop it to whatever option they desire. They use a gear ratio to achieve the desired speed at this voltage. Bachmann claims most of their complaints is that their locomotives run to slow. No information on the supplies being used by the users making these comments. 


3)	Custom Model Products (1:20) uses 18 volts DC as the voltage to achieve prototypical speed. They use Accrucraft to design their locomotives and use stock gear motors. No speed complaints either way. 

4)	Missouri Locomotive Works (1:20) chose 16 volts DC to achieve their prototypical speed. The motors and gearing were chosen by the manufacturer of their models. They only really support very slow speeds for their models and have had no complaints. 

Since a few on this forum are stuck on the K27 locomotive I suspect you will find that if you take a stock Bachmann locomotive and a stock Accucraft locomotive with the DC system Ralph has specified, one will find that the Bachmann has their desired speed (which many feel is to fast) and performance and the Accucraft locomotives will operate at to low a speed and lack of power. 

Conversely if you use a 24 volt DC system (Bridgeworks for example) The Accucraft locomotive will perform as expected while the Bachmann will operate way to fast. 

Clearly I have done a poor job of scoping the problem that generated this thread. In the smaller scales we tend to use 0-12 volts DC in judging the performance of a locomotive. The desire is to achieve prototypical speed at 12 volts DC. In Large Scale we have a variety voltages being used for prototypical speed. I have expressed no personal opinion as to what this should be but note that it someone has a DC system based on 18 volts DC they will experience poor performance with an Accucraft Locomotive which does not achieve prototypical high end speeds till about 24 volts DC. Conversely if one has a 24 volt system they will not have a full range of control is they are operating a locomotive with gearing designed for prototypical speed at 18 volts DC. Do you have a recommendation in this area? 


I submit that there is, in fact, a very good answer. Toys are expected to run at toy-like speeds, and scale models are expected to operate at scale speeds. The noise about voltage is exactly that. Noise. By all accounts, a "typical" large scale voltage is 15-18 volts DC. There are always exceptions, but the vast majority of systems seem to operate around that voltage. 



Kenneth 

This is a very good answer and perhaps it could become the basis of an consensus. Greg suggested scale speeds at 19 volts DC. Several seem to be saying that scale speeds should occur in the 18 volt range. LGB, Bridgeworks, and Accucraft seem to do this measurement at 24 volts DC. Others have chosen 18 volts DC. And 14.4 volts DC is a very common voltage for battery operation (I tend to use 12 cells myself). 



What we need is a maximum voltage standard, like smaller scales, NOT speed. 




Dave 

This is a different way of looking at the same issue. What the smaller scales have is a minimum maximum voltage to the motor under load which is specified as 12 volts DC. Higher volts are acceptable but the max speed measurements are done at 12 volt DC. The growing consensus in the smaller speeds is that the maximum prototype speed should occur at 12 volts DC. 

In Large Scale we are not as fortunate. Many of us want scale speeds but fail to mention at what voltage we should be achieving the scale top end speed. It really does not matter all that much which voltage we choose to measure this at. The different manufacturers are apparently using different voltages to measure scale speed at and because of this we have problems. 

What is the voltage you would prefer to measure the prototype top speed at? 


"stay on topic" uh... don't look now Stan - but I think that all of your pontificating in this thread has made YOU the topic. 


Sigh my attempt was simply to see if we could discuss a technical topic that leads to problems in our hobby. Clearly that appears to not be possible on this forum at this time. 
If you would like to organize a chat session with a moderator that includes the principle participants I would be happy to participate and discuss the topics you are interested in. 
The reason for starting this thread in the first place was for the future. What exists today is what is. Each year the manufacturers design new product and each is using a different voltages as a guide. The end result will be that locomotive from different manufacturers that have the same prototype speeds will operate vastly differently in a DC environment. 

In my opinion, until we as a community can come to a common understanding, the differences will continue to proliferate and the community will have this same discussion with each model that is produced. 

That’s not pontificating, just observing that unless we have a common DC reference voltage upon which to measure scale speed performance, the differences of opinion will continue. 

Stan Ames


----------



## Bruce Chandler (Jan 2, 2008)

I've only been here since 2002, but, I'd be very hard pressed to find any complaint that a locomotive's maximum speed is too slow. I don't recall any such complaint. 

I do not think that the folks who post here are just holding back, do you? 

I don't think top end speed even came up here until the Bachmann K-27 arrived on the scene. 

Just what problem are you trying to solve this time?


----------



## Guest (Sep 12, 2008)

Bachman (1:20) uses 16-18 volts DC as the desired prototypical speed.


*ok...* 

Bachmann develops their own gearing and can develop it to whatever option they desire.


*Now that sounds a little snippy...or maybe it's just me? 
Even if it flies in the face of conventional wisdom?...re: Brades post.* 

They use a gear ratio to achieve the desired speed at this voltage.


*Even if it's WAY off base as discussed above in the many post leading to this one?!* 

Bachmann claims most of their complaints is that their locomotives run to slow.


*Too Slow!?!?!...People actually complain about their Bachmann Fn3 Locomotives running too slow???????? What is in the Kool-Aid? Whatever...what about the 4+ pages in this thread and those elsewhere that fly in the face of that particular claim...but who am I?... not an official or unofficial spokesman for any LS Train Mfg?...Just a guy who has no plans on investing in said company for a WHILE (though not encouraging or discouraging others to follow suite by any means!) just observing...*


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

If you market a K-27 that runs at a scale 80 mph shouldn't it be stamped "Toy Train" in all fairness?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Stanley. 
I will tell you this. 
Having watched how you use data given to you in the past, there is no way I will give you any more. 
I do believe others may feel that way. 

A year ago, the majority of folks on this forum wanted nothing to do with your socket. 
In fact, they told you they wanted simplicity. 
What did you give them? 

You were given all the data on motors and gear ratios you needed, and what did you give us? 

I watched your last "working group", I've talked to manufacturers (some of who are amazed at the things Bachmann asks for because "Stanley says we need them"), and I do not trust you do do the right thing. 

Here you are, defending a specific gear ratio, and then asking about maximum speeds, when the nmra SHOULD be generating a maximum VOLTAGE for large scale, in which parameters the manufacturers could work with motors and gear ratios. 

My personal opinion is that you have failed large scale. 

That is a personal opinion only. 

I would also personally feel better about myself if I knew I had not given you any data or "facts" to mess up in the next locomotive (or wheels, track, voltage, interfaces, or whatever), and that I would not feel afterwards that I had not done "enough" to ensure a new locomotive (or wheels, track, voltage, interfaces, or whatever) was suitable for the vast majority of large scalers. 

You are on your own, and because of that, you will have no one to blame. 
Even for channels to divert water from electronics.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

1) Clearly I have done a poor job of scoping the problem that generated this thread. 


2) In Large Scale we have a variety voltages being used for prototypical speed. Several seem to be saying that scale speeds should occur in the 18 volt range. 

3) What the smaller scales have is a minimum maximum voltage to the motor under load which is specified as 12 volts DC. 

4) The growing consensus in the smaller speeds is that the maximum prototype speed should occur at 12 volts DC. In Large Scale we are not as fortunate. 

5) Many of us want scale speeds but fail to mention at what voltage we should be achieving the scale top end speed. 

6) It really does not matter all that much which voltage we choose to measure this at. 

7) The different manufacturers are apparently using different voltages to measure scale speed at and because of this we have problems. 

8) What is the voltage you would prefer to measure the prototype top speed at? 

9) Sigh my attempt was simply to see if we could discuss a technical topic that leads to problems in our hobby. Clearly that appears to not be possible on this forum at this time. 

10)In my opinion, until we as a community can come to a common understanding, the differences will continue to proliferate and the community will have this same discussion with each model that is produced. 

11)That’s not pontificating, just observing that unless we have a common DC reference voltage upon which to measure scale speed performance, the differences of opinion will continue. 
Stan Ames




Mr. Ames, 

I now understand the initial objections of the technically conversant. I have left the input you desire below, enumerated as I have edited for clarity insofar as possible your post, above. Think of this as an attempt at cooperating. 

1) Clearly, you most assuredly have. Including slang ('scope')in a formal discussion is not considered good form. 

2) Where is your data for this statement? How are 'several' and 'appear' to be quantified or defined? 

3) Please define the relevance of decisions made for smaller scales to this scale, and why they matter. 

4) Again, please define 'many', and 'scale speeds'. Also, you have substitued 'speed' for 'scale(s)', further obfuscating the confusion. It is my opinion--and you wanted opinions--that it was clearly stated by a manufacturer in this thread that there are two non-specified speed ranges in use: in general terms,'low' for Narrow Gauge and 'high' for Mainline running. After defining--to which of these two major ranges do you intend to set your standard? Should it therefore be inferred that you intend to ignore one portion of the overall potential market? If the inference is invalid, please state how you propose to accommodate both. 

5) I simply am at a loss as to how to answer. This question makes no sense. To pretend it does is sophistry. 'Many', 'mention', & 'should be' have no place in a technical discussion. By stating 'many fail to...' you impute fault on the part of the user. 

6) See 5) above. If the voltage 'really doesn't matter' while implying but not stating scale speed, then your whole position falls apart, since your stated purpose is to define one. 

7)I don't have any problems with speed. I take a power pack lever in hand and 'tune for effect' as the old ham radio guys used to recommend. 

8) Define the parameters. And please don't end a sentence with 'at'. (Bad form). 

9) Need it be pointed out (as others already have) that you've generated an indefinable problem and are looking for a consensual, though non-quantifiable solution? This will never be possible in any venue where you have to address experience, education and common sense. 

10) My opinion: we won't. 

11) Okay. You've sounded the tocsin. You've met reasoned, quantifiable, cited objections delivered by educated, experience people with an argument consisting of nuance and citations of authority to embedded assumptions, all of which are yours. It's bad form to blame the forum for your lack of success. 

Les W. 

Who on occasion likes to play with words, too. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/tongue2.gif


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Les: 
"9) Need it be pointed out (as others already have) that you've generated an indefinable problem and are looking for a consensual, though non-quantifiable solution? This will never be possible in any venue where you have to address experience, education and common sense. " 

Sounds like the Super Socket, which STILL does not have a written list of requirements! 

That said, and going over and over the events of the last year and more, plus all the data posted on these forums in that time, I am formulating a more broad definition of what I think is going on. 

If BobGrosh says the capacitance is too much, as does George Schreyer, for most of the dcc stuff they want to use, I wonder if the capacitance is correct for ONE manufacturer of dcc only? 

Gives one pause. 

Why the push, starting oficially one year ago, to shut me up? 
And, since I never was a "consultant", rather generated field fixes AFTER the fact, how did someone else get involved in the development side? 

The scurry to mandate these standards in the form of a socket, why? 

Could it be that the future of Ames/Bachmann is MANDATED dcc on-board all their large-scale locomotives? 

Gives one pause. 

If you have followed Tony Walsham's posts on the Bachmann board, he still doesn't have an answer on space available, yet when any manufacturer produces a product to the specifications posted, what is going on that would cause him to be so adamant about space availability? 

Other manufacturers of equipment to fit smaller scale Bachmann locomotives have basically ceased to do so, as the specifications change without notice (fully acceptable, right?) and the "remove the lighting board and drop in our board" no longer works. 

It's not just parts we can't get. 

You did know there are two distinct runs of the outside-frame 2-8-0 (at least), right? 

Try to get information on when that change occurred. 
Out in the field, we have to find what those visible changes are, so we HOPE we can spot whether or not internal, not visible without disassembly changes have been made. 

Yet, it's a guess. 
Did those changes occur simultaneously, or at different times in the run? 

We brought up LAST YEAR the size issues, current handling, water ingress, and usefulness in smaller locos, and basically were dismissed (kind of like now). 

So, the gas-mechanical has a totally DIFFERENT socket. 

Smaller loco and all that. 

Funny, when you have a BIG loco with a tender, and want to have a speaker mount, there is room. 

What does one do when there is no tender and you provide a speaker mount? 

What if the motors are vertical and not horizontal? 

Why, after years and years of cut-and-throw, did my mention of doing so on the "K" elicit an unpleasant phone call from philly? 

Why now? 

And why void the warranty if you don't do the electronics "their way"? 

Could it be the mandate to get everyone on-board with dcc? 

And simply telling folks there is an option upset someone's apple cart? 

Gives one pause. 

I am reasonably certain I shall have someone send me one of the new big locos to convert. 
Reasonably certain. 

And, right now, it sure looks like cut-and-throw is not just an option. 

Hopefully they didn't fit the firebox flicker into the Ames Super Socket, or we'll have to spend MORE money to fix that, too.


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/12/2008 5:39 PM
Les: 
Why the push, starting oficially one year ago, to shut me up? 
And, since I never was a "consultant", rather generated field fixes AFTER the fact, how did someone else get involved in the development side? 





I do understand. I don't think there's been one guy who's gifted to fix things right who hasn't been upstaged by someone with charm and nothing much else going for him. It's frustrating as ****, believe me, I know. 

It isn't until recently that I've gotten enough space to figure it out. There are people with gifts. Your's is fixing things to work the way they should. Others have a gift of salesmanship. They can make you WANT to buy whatever they're selling. Politicians who can make you believe them. Natural leaders who can get you to do what you normally wouldn't try on your own. 

Then there are those who, like a sucker fish, imbibe all the data they need and have the ability to make the managers believe they and they alone are necessary as a buffer between the front office and the laboring class. It's a gift. It's their meal ticket through life as sure as yours is analyzing and correcting malfunctions. 

I don't think they're beatable. They serve a purpose in oiling the interfaces of workplace concourse. They succeed, always at the expense of the doer, the technician, the producer. And they succeed because the management boys don't want to have to take the time to find out for themselves what's going on down on the shop floor. 

In essence, these guy's stock-in-trade is trust, charm and glibness, coupled with a quick though shallow mind. 

The only protection is to cut 'em out of your part of the info loop--or as I did to one, feed him bad data for awhile until he quit coming around. 

Les


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

My big question is why is everyone so engrossed on speed . That is what a throttle is for and I for one am not in to slot car speeds. One likes to run locos at a speed enjoyable to observe. I could care less if the loco obtains prototype speeds or not I just want it to run. Later RJD


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Mr Ames, 

The "*Gauge Master 100LGB*" panel in question was stated to be a PWM, (Pulse Width Modulated), not a PWAM, (Pulse Width Amplitude Modulated), device. This is would generate a square waveform, unlike a PWAM device which "chops" a rising sine wave. It is my own *personal opinion* that using a PWM system with a three pole armature is not advisable -and that 5 pole plus is where it is most useful. I have found that a PWAM device to be applicable in any number of poles. 

I am not aware of the starting frequency and terminal frequency of the device in question -but I am assured by the data sheet for one of their smaller panels that the initial frequency is 100Hz rising to 2,500Hz. 

QUOTE: 

Conversely if one has a 24 volt system they will not have a full range of control is they are operating a locomotive with gearing designed for prototypical speed at 18 volts DC. Do you have a recommendation in this area? 

UNQUOTE: 

Very Well. Let us play with a "Thought Experiment". If I have a washing machine that I wish to sell in various parts of the world I will suffer from the fact that the world uses 250V to 110V at frequencies of 50 Hz to 60Hz. I can either have wound a toroidal transformer with several taps to the working voltages in the various parts of the world. Alternatively I can build some cheap electronics and a cheap E+I transformer that is wound for the highest frequency and the highest voltage. This would give me a simple DC power supply between 36 and 80 Volts irrespective of where in the world I plugged it in... 

Given the amount of useless frippery that has been tagged onto model railway controllers the following is* I believe* a perfectly possible premise: 

It should be possible to produce a series of figures that can be "punched in" to a programmable controller. This would define the locomotive motor, the gear ratio, the acceleration / deceleration rate, the terminal velocity (defined as an absolute Mark / Space timing), and the Mark / Space intervals to be used during acc / dec phases, and finally -when to change over from PWM to PWAM (i.e. from Square wave to Sine wave) -and back... 

This data could then be stored in the memory of the controller and the user could then inform the controller that these are the parameters for locomotive code named &1 or &2 etc etc... 

Knowledgeable users could then "tweak" the parameters to produce a locomotive suited to their tracks, viz setting the terminal velocity of a locomotive to be within the cornering radii of their layout, or a "small user" setting that would allow for "enthusiastic experimental operation"... 

*However, none of the above will ever correct fundamental poor design. * 

Dwight, 

I hope you found the above to be FACTUAL AND RESEARCHED. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2008)

to produce a series of figures that can be "punched in" to a programmable controller.

while your tecnical knowledge is far above mine, there is still a basic point of view, that is not represented well enough in this thread - for my comfort. 
because your tecnical knowledge is far above mine, you all don't seem to see the desires of tecnically less educated L-scalers. 
i like to run trains. i don't like to punch in codes. 
why can't the manufacturers make simple locos, that just plain run? maybe with incorporated slots or pins, where cards with additional features can be added. 
i simply don't like the thought, that i have to take an electronics course, just to shut down all kind of costly gimmicks, before i can send a loco to go simply round in circles. 
and my estimated guess is, that i am not the only person in the hobby, who thinks that way. 

korm


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Kormsen, 

I did not wish to offend you -the system as detailed above is/was a very common commercial one. This enabled the vendor of the washing machine to simply change a DIP setting on the EPROM blowing machine, push the program button, and have it work in the US, EU, CIS or Au/NZ from the "local power setting" on the EPROM. 

What could simply be done with a model railway is to turn down the voltage -as you have said. 

My first job as a commercial programmer was to write the control programs for washing machines in Forth-79, the next one was to design the control and power board systems for them. 

I now design liquid cooled computers, so in a way -nothing has changed! 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2008)

ralph, 
neither you, nor anybody ellse in this thread offended me. (and i hope, i did not offend either) 
i just wanted to remind you specialists of the magic "KISS" principle. 
to precise my conception of a customerfriendly loco: 
basic a (relative) cheap loco (maybe with a switch to select power from track or from a plug for batteries) 
plug ins: steam unit to be plugged in two pins in stack 
sound unit to be plugged in in tender or body 
remote control receiver to be plugged in body 

to use your analogy, if i want a simple washing-mashine, why should i pay for dryer and dishwasher electronics too? 

korm


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 09/13/2008 9:52 AM 

i just wanted to remind you specialists of the magic "KISS" principle. 
to precise my conception of a customerfriendly loco: 
basic a (relative) cheap loco (maybe with a switch to select power from track or from a plug for batteries) 
plug ins: steam unit to be plugged in two pins in stack 
sound unit to be plugged in in tender or body 
remote control receiver to be plugged in body 
korm


Korm, 
I Firmly believe you speak for the Majority in the Hobby!


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Dittos!!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2008)

Why don't one of you 1st Class Members post a poll dealing with this very subject (as to where it has wandered)...Simple or More Complex? 

cale


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Okay, see: 

http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/18/postid/49756/view/topic/Default.aspx


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

To follow Kormsens post I would add that my RR is a small backyard affair. I run mainly freight consists and I tend to emulate the Moffat sub (Denver to East Portal)where line speeds are low due to sidings and grades. 

All I use is a small Aristo controller. This is more than sufficient for my five Aristo locos and two Annies. It will reproduce walking pace up to a very fast and unprototypical speed. The train moves very slowly at the quarter to the hour position on the controller; I have never yet needed to run past the 12 o.clock position. 

Slow speeds ensure I am not seeing my train every five seconds. Slow speeds allow my train to weave around my garden, in and out of sight behind plants and bushes: visitors and family are enthralled by it - after all they are not wildly interested in the loco and stock detail, as we railfans are, they just like to see and enjoy the running. 

As Kormsen said there are many out there like us.  I just want an enjoyable railroad hobby: not a nightmare and hassle. I've had that all my working life. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/laugh.gif 

So maybe this is another viewpoint for Stanley's quest regarding loco speeds. Many want it simple and above all most of us want something that works without having to do re-wiring and other modifications.


----------



## gregcoit (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By StanleyAmes on 09/12/2008 2:31 PM

1)	Accucraft uses 24 volt Pittman gear motors with stock Pittman gear ratios. They use 24 volts DC as the desired DC voltage to achieve their desired prototypical speed. They use the same voltage for all scales they produce (1:29, 1:32, 1:20). They vary the gear ratio within the limits of the gearing options available to achieve the desired top end speed for the driver size and scale desired. Accucraft indicates that most of their complaints come from users using 18 volt supplies to operate their locomotives. 
2)	Bachman (1:20) uses 16-18 volts DC as the desired prototypical speed. Bachmann develops their own gearing and can develop it to whatever option they desire. They use a gear ratio to achieve the desired speed at this voltage. Bachmann claims most of their complaints is that their locomotives run to slow. No information on the supplies being used by the users making these comments. 
3)	Custom Model Products (1:20) uses 18 volts DC as the voltage to achieve prototypical speed. They use Accrucraft to design their locomotives and use stock gear motors. No speed complaints either way. 
4)	Missouri Locomotive Works (1:20) chose 16 volts DC to achieve their prototypical speed. The motors and gearing were chosen by the manufacturer of their models. They only really support very slow speeds for their models and have had no complaints.Stan Ames




For me, so far, this is the most interesting information that's been posted to this thread. Assuming that we large scale modellers (like virtually all the other scales) will want Zero to X voltage to match Zero - Y MPH (Y being the max speed of the specific prototype), it makes sense for us to choose X. Lets start at the bottom and work up: 

Missouri Locomotive Works. I really like these guys. I have to since the Falk is the only real steam locomotive I've ever run (until a week ago when I was engineer for a day at Sumpter) and continue to do so 5 or 6 times a year (with luck I'll operate the Bear Harbor #1 next Saturday). The MLW guys are awesome too, but they've only produced 2 locomotives to date and they are both very small prototypes. So, as nice as these folks are, they should be following, not leading, regarding the topic of target voltage. 

Custom Model Products. See above. While they might make 3 or 4 large scale locomotives, they're not big players in this market. 

That leaves Bachmann and Accucraft as the big guys with many different 1.20.3 locomotives produced. I'd like to point out that Accucraft too had some early issues with speed/pulling power (I'm told their first generation C-16 and K-27's were underpowered and ran too fast). Which means we choose between 18 or 24 volts. The advantage to 18v (I think) is that it seems easier for battery folks since they have to pack fewer batteries into the tenders. The advantage of 24v (Again, I think) is greater fidelity of speed control. I have no clue how DCC is affected or if it targets a specific top voltage. I think, overall, I would choose 24v (the pitman motors seem pretty nice) but most important (to me) is that all manufacturers target the same top voltage (as they do in virtually all the other scales)! 

I am curious what the folks who use batteries and airwire think of the K-27 - do they have speed/pulling power issues or is it tempered by the electronics? 

As for the personal attacks in this and other threads - I don't believe they have no place in a forum like this. I get that the Curmudgeon feels betrayed by Bachmann. And I get that he wants to warn us about Stan. But enough is enough. He and his supporters have said their peace on this topic many times over and this website is not a personal bitching forum. Please tone down the rhetoric and let the rest of us participate in the conversation.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Okay Greg, point taken. Let's see if I can answer one of your questions. I have a Bachmann K-27 #463 and have had it "fixed" by TOC so the only issue left would be that of the gear ratios. I have also had Dave install an RCS system with NiMH batteries at 14.4v and a Soundtraxx Sierra digital sound system. The K runs _very_ smoothly with extremely good start-up and slow speeds. The chuff has been synchronized through the tried and true method of magnetic reed switches and the generator and air pump start-up right at the beginning. 
Because I have r/c battery at 14.4v I don't really see "warp speed!" For me, this is really not a big issue. Now, because the gearing is twice what it should be, the pulling power may be quite a bit less than it could be but I haven't really seen that. In fact, my K pulls a prototypical number of cars on grades that are slightly more than prototypical! 
Make no mistake, I LOVE my K-27!! It's the one I was waiting for and it's my flagship locomotive! The detailing is incredible and now that Dave has fixed it's little "problems", it's a faultless runner! Of course, I also have about $1500 invested in it so I expect it to be a great runner!! Considering that an Accucraft version would be about $3500 (with everything added) I consider it to be a great value!


----------

