Please help with weights for my passenger cars

[mmagliaro]

Good data, trainforfun.

So, now there's two examples with the RS-11, both seem to max out in a similar way.

More data:
A 1st-gen Kato F3 can pull this train up the hill no problem (9 passenger cars, 18" curved grade at 1.7%)

The Old RS-11 I have weighs 82g.  The old Kato F3 weighs about 124g.
I don't know if you would need to add a whole 40g of weight to that RS-11.  That's a lot.  but it might
be possible with tungsten.  I can at least do a few little tests and see just how heavy it has to get
before it starts to pull like the F3.

Ah... the old Kato F3... gotta love them.  They pull like a bull.

[peteski]

Question for trainforfun:  When you said that the loco wasn't able to pull more than 5 cars, I assume that the motor wasn't stalling, but only the wheels were simply slipping and spinning in place. correct?

Adding weight to the loco or traction tires would have allowed the loco to pull more than 5 cars, correct?

[mmagliaro]

Okay, my last poke-my-beak-in comment on this.
I added lead slugs on top of my RS-11 to see how heavy it had to get to pull the 9-car passenger train.

At +34 grams, it just makes it, with a little wheel slip.  So the short answer, unfortunately, is that
it does indeed need to be brought up to the weight of a Kato F3, 124g, to really pull this train trouble-free.
You would need to add 40g to do that, and I don't think there is any way to add that much.  You probably
want a decoder in there too, which makes it even harder.

Plan "B" would be to pull out one axle and put traction-tire wheels on it from the 1st generation RS-11.
I don't even know if they would fit the new one you have.  But that would probably do the trick.

[craigolio1]

This is incredible.  Thanks for all of the help and testing.  My loco would pull even less as I removed weight to fit the 3/8" speaker in the fuel tank and the chop the short hood.  It will have a board replacement decoder in it. Looks like I'm adding a second unit and maybe traction tires.  I can mill groves in the wheels and make my own tires with bull frog snot or what ever.  I can also drill holes vertically down through the frame and add tungsten rods.   I doubt though that I would get it anywhere close to 124g. 

My power car is a 40ft box car with Micro Trains BX Express trucks.  I may be able to fit a kato critter in it and weight it like crazy with tungsten.  Would that pose a problem when it is pushing from the back end on the return trip?  would that design be powerful enough with one power truck?

The entire train has body mounted couplers.

Thanks again, Craig 

[craigolio1]

I just checked a Kato 11-107 chassis.  The wheel base on the trucks are perfect.  I just have to graft the BX Express truck wide frames on.  The chassis would nee to be lengthened...  no problem.  Also it has nothing hanging beneath so I can add all of the detail I need.  A 40ft box car would have enough room inside for the chassis, the decoder, and quite a bit of weight.  This could be the answer, as long as it would work pushing at the end as well.

Craig

[nkalanaga]

Does it have to push, or could it be switched with the loco? 

Actually, coming back, you shouldn't have any problems.  The helix will be downhill, so it's more a matter of matching the speed, and on flat track the only issue should be contact.  If one end loses power and the other keeps running it could cause problems.

[PGE_Modeller]

- snip -

Your grade is about 1.8%, steep by most railroads' preferences, but well within the prototype standards for a mountain railroad.  I'm with the others, though, on the single unit.  Most roads would have used at least two on that steep a grade. 

- snip -

Craig's problem is that he needs to run the train, BC Rail's "Pacific Starlight" Dinner Train, on a layout that will have two (or more) decks, hence the 1.8% helix.  The prototype ran this train on a portion of the Squamish Subdivision that was essentially level, beginning at sea level, climbing no more than about 200 feet in 10 1/2 miles (maximum grade 1.0%, average grade about 0.4%) and then dropping back to sea level over the next 15 miles.  The single RS-18 was rated at 1740 Tons (21 nominal 50-Ton cars) on this section and would handle the train easily on the prototype.  The model is a different story.  On level track, the model RS-18 is not capable of pulling as many cars as the prototype.  Add in a 1.8% grade of the helix with an 18" radius, equivalent to a 24 degree curve - the maximum curvature on this section of the prototype was 12 degrees (36" radius in N-scale) - and the model locomotive hasn't got a chance unless the tractive effort can be increased significantly.

Cheers,

[craigolio1]

Couldn't have said it better Greg!

And I can't switch the car out. Well I can do anything but I want top operate as the prototype did.  For the first part of the run, the loco and power car were paired.  For the ride home, the loco ran around the train and ran backwards, leaving the power car at the other end.  So yes, for the return trip down the helix the loco would be at the front and power car at the back of the train.

Actually powering the power car helps me in that I needed power pick up and a decoder in it anyway to light the marker lights on the return home.  This handles all of that plus the bonus of a motor.

Craig

[trainforfun]

Question for trainforfun:  When you said that the loco wasn't able to pull more than 5 cars, I assume that the motor wasn't stalling, but only the wheels were simply slipping and spinning in place. correct?

Adding weight to the loco or traction tires would have allowed the loco to pull more than 5 cars, correct?

Yes the wheels were slipping .

[VonRyan]

Craig, you may want to consider removing any weights that the cars already have in them.
I've found that the unweighted cars preform better than with the stock weights in, not to mention it allows the engine to pull a more prototypical-length train.


-Cody F.

[peteski]

Craig, you may want to consider removing any weights that the cars already have in them.
I've found that the unweighted cars preform better than with the stock weights in, not to mention it allows the engine to pull a more prototypical-length train.


-Cody F.

The only problem with that is that his cars are illuminated (picking up power from the rails). Light cars=very poor electric pickup.

[robert3985]

The only problem with that is that his cars are illuminated (picking up power from the rails). Light cars=very poor electric pickup.

Since it's obvious that either the engine needs mo' weight, or traction tires, or both, and the cars need to lose weight...but they're lit...it would seem to be time to do a bit of research and install a lighting circuit that runs off a battery or has a capacitor to take care of the "blinky-blinky" of lit cars which rely strictly on track power for their lighting.

Since the passenger consist remains the same in the run, positioning the circuit and maybe the battery (if you go that route rather than capacitor) in the power car and connecting the lights in the rest of the consist with connectors between cars would not be a difficult thang to do.

However, the FIRST thing to do is to get the train moving...that's the very first priority.  Doing some experimentation would pretty quickly tell you if there's enough weight to remove in the train.  It may be that no matter what you do, (other than powering the power car) you can't do it without losing a couple of cars.  But, that's just a guess.

In my experience, traction tires add tremendously to a loco's pulling power, so Bullfrog Snot would be the very first option to try.

Just sayin'....

[mmagliaro]

Well, just because once I get my teeth into an engine performance issue, I'm not so good at letting it go... 
I have some tungsten.  I am going to pop the shell and fuel tank cover on my RS 11 tonight and see what I can do.
You may not be able to do what I do if you have a speaker and decoder in there, but at least it will show us
if weighting is even in within the realm of possibility.   That fuel tank area is pretty big under there.  Maybe
some of that metal and plastic can be reamed away and replaced with lots of tungsten to get the weight up.

I think traction tires would help, and if you poll the forum, you can probably find somebody with an old RS-11
from which you can scavange two TT wheels.  If I can find them around here from when I took them off mine,
you can have them.  But I do recall that I really didn't like them because on only 6 pickup wheels, the engine
was too stall-prone.

I wonder... I've got some old LifeLike F units around.  They had those rough black anodized wheelsets, and those
engines could pull like crazy, partly because of that.  I wonder if the wheels would swap in.   Another thing
I'll look into.

This problem intrigues me because you have very constraining, but prototypical, constraints.  You are trying to
model an exact train with a single power unit as it existed in real life.  So it would cool if it could be
simulated.

[peteski]

I probably have some of the grooved wheel sets from when I replaced them with tireless wheels in my RS-3s. (same mechanism as Japanese RS-11)
But I'm not sure if those are compatible with the Chinese version of those trucks.

As far as replicating the prototypical operation goes, did the 1:1 loco pulled the 9-car consist up a constantly curved 1.7% grade? 

[mmagliaro]

I probably have some of the grooved wheel sets from when I replaced them with tireless wheels in my RS-3s. (same mechanism as Japanese RS-11)
But I'm not sure if those are compatible with the Chinese version of those trucks.

As far as replicating the prototypical operation goes, did the 1:1 loco pulled the 9-car consist up a constantly curved 1.7% grade? 

No, it didn't, as somebody already posted.  But in our model world, we have to live with tighter curves and sharper grades.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "create the illusion of the prototype, while still imposing even stricter
demands that the real world doesn't have."