100 wagon challenge

[Il Grifone]

The prototype certainly couldn't have managed much of a train around a three chain curve! (most locomotives couldn't go around it for a start).

 

The old Farish locomotives were quite powerful. I can remember being impressed by a Farish locomotive (a 'King' IIRC) pulling two of their Pullmans. My 'Duchess of Atholl' could just about manage one with a bit of a fuss. They did have traction tyres of course.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Il Grifone

[locomad]

The prototype certainly couldn't have managed much of a train around a three chain curve! (most locomotives couldn't go around it for a start).

 

.

Quite true, it was the curves which defeated us, I reckon 36" radius curves would have been ok.

 

There's mentioned in a few early 1960's RM's that quite a few modellers managed 100 wagon trains using pin point axles.

 

It's been fun trying it though lot learnt about types of model locos which have good haulage capacity quite a few surprises

[roythebus]

Back in the 1960s when I had a Hornby Dublo Deltic, we tried an experiment at the Model Railway Club one night to see how much it would pull. the MRC test tracks haven't changed much since then dimensionally, only the track has changed since then, so anyone who knows the set-up will know the size of the track.

With the Dublo Deltic on the inner track we had a mixture of stock all the way round; a Triang Weltrol or similar spanned across to the middle track, where we had stock going right round again. I can't remember just how many wagons and coaches we had, but it was quite a lot and was reported in the MRC Bulletin at the time.

 

This of course was in the days before pin-point bearings were the norm, probably the only pin point stock was my Trix 5 car set and a few Trix plastic wagons, the rest were a mixture of Triang, Dublo and hand-built. The Deltic shifted them.

 

There was a bit of a cheat though, the MRC controllers at the time were found to give out about 18v DC! But the Deltic survived.

[Il Grifone]

Most old controllers would give around 16-18 volts off load. The 12 volts was at rated current. A Dublo Deltic under load would draw a considerable current and pull it down nearer to 12. The sum of the source resistance and the track feeds would probably be a few ohms.

 

I don't know the layout involved, but as a rough estimate 3 wagons occupy about a foot of track and a dozen coaches about ten feet. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Il Grifone

[Il Grifone]

Here's a Dublo 8F half way there.  

 

She should be able to manage quite a few more (especially if the heavy die cast tender is replaced with something lighter).

[Golden Fleece 30]

Those are not Dublo wagons though, modern pinpointed Mainline/Hornby/Bachmann etc so 51 of these should be easy lol.

 

Garry

[Il Grifone]

Hi Garry,

 

Yes they are all modern wagons with pin-point axles. 51 Dublo wagons would be a struggle even for a Dublo 8F, especially as this is the version with the ½" motor. The ringfield motor gives it a bit more T.E. (presumably due to the extra weight, as the locomotive slips well before stalling*?). Somewhere in the 'bible' there is a list of the expected loads up a 1 in 24 gradient (The Acho elevated sections). I think it is a bit optimistic however.

 

* or at least mine does!

 

David

[locomad]

Hi Garry,

 

Yes they are all modern wagons with pin-point axles. 51 Dublo wagons would be a struggle even for a Dublo 8F, especially as this is the version with the ½" motor. The ringfield motor gives it a bit more T.E. (presumably due to the extra weight, as the locomotive slips well before stalling*?). Somewhere in the 'bible' there is a list of the expected loads up a 1 in 24 gradient (The Acho elevated sections). I think it is a bit optimistic however.

 

* or at least mine does!

 

David

This was one of the surprises discovered while messing about trying to find the best hauler, the 1/2 inch 8F can actually pull more than the ring field motor version, I suspect the ring field upsets the balance of the 8F so less weight on the front wheels causing slip.

 

As mentioned before my 1/2 inch 8F is a converted 2rail, one side steel wheels the other seems to have nickel silver, these wheels have more grip.

 

As for rolling resistance all stock is measured on my adjustable rolling road, just an adjustable incline, can select some HD stock to pass 1:40, have noticed that some pin point axles struggle with that, dirt, wear, wagon sides Wapping, etc can all take there toll over the years.

 

Pin point axle trains seems to greatly increased the rolling resistance on the curves, these does not effect as much non pin point.

 

Another factor I have noticed is momentum, heavy train has momentum, loco stalls or struggles on some section of track, the train itself pushes the loco over the rough section, trick of cause is getting the train going in the first place, great fun trying to drive the train, slight slip and reduce the power then apply slowly.

 

I think it is still possible, one or two very powerful locos, TH 9F, HD Co-Co, etc selected good running stock, 4foot curves even with non pin point axles

[roythebus]

To answer Grifone, the layout is the MRC's test track which consist of something like a 6' straight section and semi-circles of about 4-5'radius each end; there's 3 circuits. It still exists in the same form today as when built in the late 1940s.

 

Pin point axles will give more friction on curves as the pin point tries to bore its way through the axle box journal. Also the friction on the inner end of the pin point will be far greater than on the outer end of the pin.  

 

The old MRC controllers were wired to give up to 24v dc as back in the 1940s some 00 stock used 24v! they were replaced some time in the 1970's to something more modern, like H&M duettes.

[locomad]

 

Pin point axles will give more friction on curves as the pin point tries to bore its way through the axle box journal. Also the friction on the inner end of the pin point will be far greater than on the outer end of the pin.  

 

I am beginning to think this challenge has opened up a lot more questions than answers, certainly learnt a lot over past two months, this might explain why older stock tends to decline in performance over the years basically pin point axles wear more.

 

The HD 2 rail axles also suffer wear while the metal 3 rail don't.

 

I've some 3 rail stock, locos and track so did over the weekend try some out on carpets, did notice that 3 rail locos can pull a lot more using 3 rail metal axles on the straights, however they did stuggle on smaller radius curves. I've future plans to lay a 3 rail layout in a shed where once a 2 rail layout once was, will certainly design in some larger radius curves using peco track an lay a 3rd rail in the centre.

 

Back to 2 rail and I'am very surprised in the difference between certain locos of the same type and class, adding extra weight, swopping motors, good overall service & clean etc I'am begining to develop a super class, certainly learning a lot

[Il Grifone]

To answer Grifone, the layout is the MRC's test track which consist of something like a 6' straight section and semi-circles of about 4-5'radius each end; there's 3 circuits. It still exists in the same form today as when built in the late 1940s.

 

Pin point axles will give more friction on curves as the pin point tries to bore its way through the axle box journal. Also the friction on the inner end of the pin point will be far greater than on the outer end of the pin.

 

The old MRC controllers were wired to give up to 24v dc as back in the 1940s some 00 stock used 24v! they were replaced some time in the 1970's to something more modern, like H&M duettes.

 

Plain bearing friction increases on curves as the end of the axle or the wheel boss restrains the sideways movement of the wheelset. Theoretically there should be no difference but it certainly does not seem that way - I lack the precision equipment (and the time and inclination) to actually measure it. I suspect the major influence on curves will be the drag of the flanges against the rail however.

I don't understand the statement about the friction on the inner end of the pin point however. The only point of contact with a pinpoint bearing is the actual pin point. The axle end is tapered at 60° and the bearing at 55° to ensure this (or at least that is the standard).

 

 

I am beginning to think this challenge has opened up a lot more questions than answers, certainly learnt a lot over past two months, this might explain why older stock tends to decline in performance over the years basically pin point axles wear more.

 

The HD 2 rail axles also suffer wear while the metal 3 rail don't.

 

I've some 3 rail stock, locos and track so did over the weekend try some out on carpets, did notice that 3 rail locos can pull a lot more using 3 rail metal axles on the straights, however they did stuggle on smaller radius curves. I've future plans to lay a 3 rail layout in a shed where once a 2 rail layout once was, will certainly design in some larger radius curves using peco track an lay a 3rd rail in the centre.

 

Back to 2 rail and I'am very surprised in the difference between certain locos of the same type and class, adding extra weight, swopping motors, good overall service & clean etc I'am begining to develop a super class, certainly learning a lot

 

 

Worn bearings and axles require replacement, but I would agree that the metal wheels and axles are superior. The nylon was supposed to not need lubrication but I find that graphite from a pencil works wonders. I have a Dublo full brake that refused to run freely with nylon wheels, but fitting meta wheels cured it. Incidentally Dublo made a retrograde step in the early fifties changing from zinc alloy rolling stock wheels to sintered iron. I don't think it's the material so much as the awful square profile of the latter. One day I must experiment and attempt turning some to a decent profile and see the difference.

 

There is a noticeable difference between the friction of wheels on the 15" radius curves and the 'large' 17¼"  radius, but both are exceedingly sharp by prototype standards.

 

I find there is quite a difference in performance of Dublo mechanisms, which any amount of swopping magnets, brushes, armatures etc. makes no difference. It has to be bearing or gear tolerance, as far as I can see. My 'Mallard' ran very well when I first got her (in the mid eighties) but stupidly I tried swopping the armature with my 'Sir Nigel', which was showing signs of tiredness. (She was mine from new at Xmas 1952 and has seen much use!). Despite care with keepers and later replacement with a neodymium magnet, she has never quite recovered performance.

 

Edit for momentary mental aberration....

Edited September 30, 2017 by Il Grifone

[locomad]

In response to the difference in Hornby Dublo mechanisms I too have discovered a big difference between models of the same make, one general conclusion I've noticed is the "top shed" locos the ones that perform the best are the ones which have had almost continuous use over the last 50 odd years, been hammered in childhood and used on all layouts since. Non have had a remag, all consume lower than average amps, and seem to pull the heaviest loads, they just seem to get better with time. Perhaps your right the gears are now properly meshed in.

 

Very recently I discovered my "City of London" 2 rail was unable to pull 8 HD coaches and exceeding amp limit of 0.65, it sounded noisy too, having read somewhere that ordinary car oil might be better to that grease I ended up putting a dab of modern synthetic car oil 5/30w on gear.

 

The response was amazing after a good run in, amps dropped to 0.45 and was quite easily coping with 10 HD coaches, course effect might only be temporarily as oil could dry up quickly, so see what performance is like over next year.

 

Course I've still some poor performers can't work out why some drive straight and others wobble from side to side yet wheels look straight

[bike2steam]

100 wagons ?? When I still had my last layout I tested the maximum load possible, without slipping/ struggling, of my loco collection. Well, 100 wagons was Bachmann 16T minerals, and only 2 types of steam outline managed it with consummate ease, which meant a load of wagons round the 36 inch curve at both ends of a roundy layout. The types were 1) my 3 x loco drive Model Yard ( Stuart de Boer) converts of Hornby's last batch of tender-drive 9F's, and 2) 2 x K's kits of 72xx heavy tanks.

Edited September 29, 2017 by bike2steam

[davefrk]

A while ago people were complaining that their newish Bachmann locos could only haul around twenty wagons and I suggested they look at the wagons rather than the locos as they should be capable of hauling at least double that. The Bachmann 4F was quoted a few times as having difficulties but after looking at and servicing their wagons it was said the locos were performing better. My own 4Fs have been converted to EM gauge with Gibson steel wheels and they perform much better than the slippery dark chrome plated wheels of Bachmann. The 4Fs have been well run in now so on Wednesday I thought I might try the hundred wagon test. All the kit and RTR wagons are now fitted with brass bearings and Gibson point axles with a tiny drop of plastic compatible oil in the bearing and wheels checked for free running, they all have three link, screw or Jackson type couplings. The 4F I had with me coupled up and slowly walked away with the whole lot and continued to circulate at a nice steady scale speed, taking up half the layout. The 4F could even reverse the train but needed a helping hand when the wheels on the first half of the train started to bite into the outer rail of the 6ft curves. The 100 wagons are so free running that they can be pushed gently round the railway without any derailments. Kit built locos handled the train easily and even a kit built Jinty could move the train though struggled on the curves.

As far as HD wagons are concerned I had a HD 8F as a kid and it could haul all the wagons I had at the time 40 odd wagons but with the breakdown crane added it would slip to a stop, father didn't approve.... It's nice to have a play though.

 

Dave Franks.