Roco 2014 Catalogue- S160 in H0

[adb968008]

Arguably not a massive distance from where it was originally built although, in the context of North American continental distances, that would be massive to us.

Alaska is misleading in size, it's about 1/3rd the size of the rest of the US, in length it's pretty much matching all of Europe and is about the same land mass as Spain + France + Germany + UK combined.

 

From Baldwins Eddystone works, to Warsilla, Ak is (557's current overhaul location) is 4303 miles, direct overland through Canada, 5132m via Seattle and ferry.

 

From the same location to London, is 3565miles all via sea to Southampton, from the factories Docks.

 

Once took a train from Fairbanks to Anchorage, one stop, (some passing loops) until Denali, it took 12 hours... that was only 1/4 length of the state. (Flight from Anchorage to Seattle takes 4 hours).

[Bernard Lamb]

Alaska is misleading in size, it's about 1/3rd the size of the rest of the US, in length it's pretty much matching all of Europe and is about the same land mass as Spain + France + Germany + UK combined.

 

 

Once took a train from Fairbanks to Anchorage, one stop, (some passing loops) until Denali, it took 12 hours... that was only 1/4 length of the state. (Flight from Anchorage to Seattle takes 4 hours).

It is indeed a big place.

Once went from Anchorage to Vancouver by local transport. Must have been 1997.

Quite an adventure, three days on a coastal ferry sleeping on deck and scrounging lifts on sea planes being some of the modes of transport used.

Finished up in Bellingham due to a fishing blockade and had to get the bus back north.

Did have a train ride down to Whittier, didn't see much as it was during a snow storm.

Bernard

[jjb1970]

Talking of size, when did Roco become a small supplier?  

[adb968008]

Talking of size, when did Roco become a small supplier?

 

Since they made a small 08. :-)

[railroadbill]

Since they made a small 08. :-)

Nice model, runs very well.  Model liveried as class 500/600 of NS  [the NS seem to have bought 100 of them, first 10 ex WD then  an order for new locos] or traktor nr. 6 of the DSB.  [That was in Denmark from 1945 so must have been a WD one].

 

Putting the HO Roco shunter next to a Bachmann 00   08  really  does show the difference in scale.....   

 

 

I think Roco also did the Dutch one in the later yellow/grey livery as well as the earlier green one.  The DSB livery is green.

[Horsetan]

Roco did all versions of the NS 600 series. I have none

 

I had one in my late friend's Estate. That one was sold quite quickly.

[Kelly]

Lovely looking model. A shame it isn't available in 4mm anywhere as I could see a use for one.

[Bernard Lamb]

Roco did all versions of the NS 600 series. I have none

Back in the 1970s, three day week and all that, we had a real one at work to use as a stand by generator. I wonder if it was unique in being repatriated

With the wheels removed it sat on a low loader.

The good citizens of Adeyfield complained about noise and vibration preventing them sleeping at night so we had to keep it well hidden.

Bernard

[adb968008]

FWIW I did some comparisons on the 4 class 08's on the market.

 

Bachmann  237g weight,  0.08a to power up, 0.1a  max draw with a drawbar pull of 50g

Hornby        231g weight,  0.08a to power up, 0.22a max draw with a drawbar pull of 56g

Roco           186g weight,  0.1a  to power up, 0.22a max draw with a drawbar pull of 50g

Railroad (H) 146g weight,  0.1a to power up, 0.22a max draw with a drawbar pull of 22g

 

relative weight to draw bar pull Roco is the strongest, the most energy efficient goes to Bachmann, but the grunt award goes to Hornby.

It's worth considering at the time of creation, the Roco 08 would be on the same shelves as the old Hornby x04 class 08, Lima 09 & Wrenn 08...

 

Only the Railroad 08 chassis has traction tyres, but clearly doesnt benefit from it.

 

I found in general coaches weigh in the 140-160g range and have a rolling resistance pull of approx 4g, which doubles to 8g on a curve (max 3 coaches sit on a 90 degree curve on 3rd radius track at one time ) and approx 2-4g additional resistance per 1% gradient per coach sitting on that gradient.

 

Ive done this study on 100 locos so far, Roco wins the award for drawbar pull, US models take the award for energy consumption and am in process of validating weight loads of my findings against actual loads on my layout, taking into account factors like curves, gradient and resistance of rolling stock wheels.

[Horsetan]

Lovely looking model. A shame it isn't available in 4mm anywhere as I could see a use for one.

I've gradually been accumulating parts and drawings to build one. The S160 is the sole reason why I've been trying to learn how to use DraftSight CAD.....not exactly successfully.

[47137]

FWIW I did some comparisons on the 4 class 08's on the market.

 

Bachmann  237g weight,  0.08a to power up, 0.1a  max draw with a drawbar pull of 50g

Hornby        231g weight,  0.08a to power up, 0.22a max draw with a drawbar pull of 56g

Roco           186g weight,  0.1a  to power up, 0.22a max draw with a drawbar pull of 50g

Railroad (H) 146g weight,  0.1a to power up, 0.22a max draw with a drawbar pull of 22g

 

relative weight to draw bar pull Roco is the strongest, the most energy efficient goes to Bachmann, but the grunt award goes to Hornby.

It's worth considering at the time of creation, the Roco 08 would be on the same shelves as the old Hornby x04 class 08, Lima 09 & Wrenn 08...

 

Only the Railroad 08 chassis has traction tyres, but clearly doesnt benefit from it.

 

I found in general coaches weigh in the 140-160g range and have a rolling resistance pull of approx 4g, which doubles to 8g on a curve (max 3 coaches sit on a 90 degree curve on 3rd radius track at one time ) and approx 2-4g additional resistance per 1% gradient per coach sitting on that gradient.

 

Ive done this study on 100 locos so far, Roco wins the award for drawbar pull, US models take the award for energy consumption and am in process of validating weight loads of my findings against actual loads on my layout, taking into account factors like curves, gradient and resistance of rolling stock wheels.

 

Thanks for all of this.

 

A point of detail, but the Roco shunter is structurally similar to the BR class 11 rather than the 08. It comes in a few different generations - I have examples of the first design (with a screw on the roof to hold the body) and the most recent (which has a decoder socket and includes an Australian version).

 

- - 

 

More importantly - can you share your test rig with us? I can only think of a cord passing from the drawbar over a pulley to a pan with some weights on it, and of course this can only do the effort from start-up. Perhaps with the track on an inclined base to kind to try adhesion on different gradients.

 

- Richard.

[railroadbill]

I had a thought  that one of these Roco shunters would go with the S-160 if repainted in WD livery.  But I'm not sure at the moment how the wartime built locos differed externally from the later 08 type shunters. (Although looking at the Dapol 08 thread there are lots of differences on 08s!)

 

Here's my one in NS livery.  I realise that I never fitted the handrails and other extra details!

 

 

 

Roco catalogue number is 43393

 

 

 

With HO stock (the wagons are also Roco) this looks fine scale-wise on this side of the layout.

 

 

 

But unfortunately when little brother meets big brother......

 

 

 

Here's a preserved NS shunter, 521, at the museum at Goes on the Goes - Borsele preserved line. They are a very friendly bunch, have an excellent condition wagon lits dining car, and - there is an S-100 in the shed. There's some videos on youtube about it, worth a visit. We had a good steam hauled run on the 16km line several years ago.

[adb968008]

Thanks for all of this.

 

A point of detail, but the Roco shunter is structurally similar to the BR class 11 rather than the 08. It comes in a few different generations - I have examples of the first design (with a screw on the roof to hold the body) and the most recent (which has a decoder socket and includes an Australian version).

 

- - 

 

More importantly - can you share your test rig with us? I can only think of a cord passing from the drawbar over a pulley to a pan with some weights on it, and of course this can only do the effort from start-up. Perhaps with the track on an inclined base to kind to try adhesion on different gradients.

 

- Richard.

 

I'm attaching the loco's coupling to a set of luggage scales, the other end of the scale is secured to the vice.

I'm testing the pull on a gauge master LT test track, together with the amp meter read out.

 

on the layout, the scales are coupled up to the loco's coupling, and the carriages coupling.

[47137]

I had a thought  that one of these Roco shunters would go with the S-160 if repainted in WD livery.  But I'm not sure at the moment how the wartime built locos differed externally from the later 08 type shunters. (Although looking at the Dapol 08 thread there are lots of differences on 08s!)

According to the web pages of the British 1:87 society, the locos were built from 1944 onwards.

 

The Dutch Wikipedia page is more informative than the British one: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_500

 

Translation by Google:

NS locseries 500, 600 and 700 are diesel electric locomotives were used between 1946 and 1998 by the Dutch Railways. Locomotives of this type bear the nicknames Bakkie or Hippel.

 

With the arrival of the English army to the Netherlands at the end of World War II there were also English locomotives from the War Department with. Among them were three-axle diesel locomotives of the type that was already developed in the thirties for the London Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS). After the war, several machines were taken over by the train. After several exchanges were eventually ten former WD locomotives in the train that bore the numbers 501-510 in 1946. They were used for shunting at major stations such as Utrecht and Zwolle and Feyenoord Rotterdam in 1947.

 

No mention of any differences. I suppose the pedants would say, the S160s in Britain were shipped to Europe in 1943, a year before the WD shunters, but this wouldn't bother me for my own layout.

 

Thank you for the photos, and it is so nice to see someone else who dabbles in both H0 and 00.

 

- Richard.

[47137]

Lovely looking model. A shame it isn't available in 4mm anywhere as I could see a use for one.

I've been pondering this for ages - I think Rapido Trains would be the best bet. They are the only firm I can think of who would tackle the bar frame chassis. I wonder if they would get enough deposits to make a go of it?

 

- Richard.

[jjb1970]

Terneuzen​, there's a place, I used to go there sometimes. My Dutch colleagues in Rotterdam used to call that part of the Netherlands the Gaza strip. The old Roco EE shunter was a good model, it was cringe inducing to compare it with OO models of the 08 prior to the new generation Hornby and Bachmann models. The difference between OO and HO is very obvious and does mean that running HO models in OO trains looks very wrong. This is similar to the situation in HO where mixing 1/87 and 1/100 coaches is a big no-no.

[Horsetan]

I've been pondering this for ages - I think Rapido Trains would be the best bet. They are the only firm I can think of who would tackle the bar frame chassis. I wonder if they would get enough deposits to make a go of it?

 

It would be an expensive beast, and it would still need rewheeling / a new chassis for P4. Correct wheels have not been available since Sharman Wheels died.

 

An etch, even if only a scratch-aid, would take us some of the way, but wouldn't solve the detail castings problem.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... can you share your test rig with us? I can only think of a cord passing from the drawbar over a pulley to a pan with some weights on it, and of course this can only do the effort from start-up. Perhaps with the track on an inclined base to kind to try adhesion on different gradients.

 Very simple to do in this way with an etched brass set of W irons and a steel pinpoint axle, mounted inverted on a bevelled block so that the axle is over the edge of the baseboard. Cotton will do as the cord. I use a 2g hook rather than a pan, and hang on a set of weights

 

Significant considerations for accurate and repeatable results:

The track must be straight, truly level, and in line with the pulley.

The top of the axle must be at the same height as the attachment point to the loco and stock.

 

That will measure the tractive force, speeds are so slow that it remains effectively constant from start up to max.

The rig will also drag unpowered vehicles, enabling force estimates to be made. Vehicles can equally well be tested on an accurately graded inclined plane.

 

Although the absolute values 'adb968008' reports differ from mine, the offset between the Bach and Hornby 08s of much the same all up weight is the same: typically 12% more traction from Hornby as compared to Bachmann. (I imagine the offset will be differences in the coefficient of friction between the respective manufacturer's tyre materials and the rails.)

[tetsudofan]

I believe Roco are producing a Chinese National Railway version, can anyone confirm this please as I'd love to add one to my collection.

 

I've pre-ordered a CNR version so will let you know when it turns up.

 

Keith

[adb968008]

Although the absolute values 'adb968008' reports differ from mine, the offset between the Bach and Hornby 08s of much the same all up weight is the same: typically 12% more traction from Hornby as compared to Bachmann. (I imagine the offset will be differences in the coefficient of friction between the respective manufacturer's tyre materials and the rails.)

50g by Bachmann, vs 56g by Hornby is an 11% increase, so we're pretty close.

(I only have 1 Hornby 08 so can't widen the sample). :-)

 

My test rig is on the gaugemaster lt (minus rollers), the runners are quite rough.

I'd imagine the factors include the "fit" of the gears in the box to the axle (a bad fit can lose torque), the fit of the rods on the axles (too much play / quartering can impact the transfer of energy to the rails) and the wheels themselves.

 

I have some steep gradients and found, that just by roughing up the track with a file, I added a coach to a train length using a 6 coupled loco.

[47137]

 Very simple to do in this way with an etched brass set of W irons and a steel pinpoint axle, mounted inverted on a bevelled block so that the axle is over the edge of the baseboard. Cotton will do as the cord. I use a 2g hook rather than a pan, and hang on a set of weights

 

Significant considerations for accurate and repeatable results:

The track must be straight, truly level, and in line with the pulley.

The top of the axle must be at the same height as the attachment point to the loco and stock.

 

That will measure the tractive force, speeds are so slow that it remains effectively constant from start up to max.

The rig will also drag unpowered vehicles, enabling force estimates to be made. Vehicles can equally well be tested on an accurately graded inclined plane.

 

Although the absolute values 'adb968008' reports differ from mine, the offset between the Bach and Hornby 08s of much the same all up weight is the same: typically 12% more traction from Hornby as compared to Bachmann. (I imagine the offset will be differences in the coefficient of friction between the respective manufacturer's tyre materials and the rails.)

I have built a test rig. The "pulley" is a drum made from a 35mm film canister on a brass shaft in plain but good bearings, and the rail is Peco code 75 because this matches what I used everywhere on my layout. The pan is a foil tray from a custard tart (: Morrison's own brand) and my weights are pound coins, steel nails and a 2oz weight for when I came to the S160. Here is my first series of test values, I'm setting the weight to be what the engine can pull away from stationary without discernible wheel slip:

 

Bachmann Passer self-propelled crane ... 12g

Rivarosssi S100 ... 20g

Roco EE shunter third series ... 24 g

Roco EE shunter first series ... 31 g

Mehano class 66 ... 44 g

Roco S160 ... 95 g (ninety-five!)

 

Does this number series look reasonable, even if the absolute values are different to yours?

 

I'll confess I did not level the rig, but it is on top of my fiddle yard which I levelled on installation, and the rig stayed in the same place for each engine. For the engines without traction tyres, the manageable weight seems to be only a gram or two less than the weight which will pull a loco back down the track without any power applied.

 

I'm measuring weights using pocket digital scales, calibrated at 200g if this is important.

 

It's interesting to see a modern steam loco absolutely trounce a modern diesel loco in terms of tractive effort. The Class 66 and the S160 have traction tyres, the rest do not.

 

- Richard.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

50g by Bachmann, vs 56g by Hornby is an 11% increase, so we're pretty close.

...I'd imagine the factors include the "fit" of the gears in the box to the axle (a bad fit can lose torque), the fit of the rods on the axles (too much play / quartering can impact the transfer of energy to the rails) and the wheels themselves.

 

I have some steep gradients and found, that just by roughing up the track with a file, I added a coach to a train length using a 6 coupled loco.

 The range is typically 10-15% better traction per unit weight Hornby over Bachmann, so the agreement is as close as one could practically wish for.

 

If the loco can slip its wheels when held back, then losses in the gear train can generally be ignored as the motor is overcoming them: but a really mechanically rough drive will diminish traction by inducing momentary slipping and stalling, it can cost up to 30% of the predicted traction based on weight on the driven wheels. (Worse than 30% and the loco mechanism is so jerky as to be effectively a non-runner.)

 

Regarding the rail surface, it is actually detectable that well used nickel silver rail has a higher coefficient of friction, the surface having become depleted of copper..

 

.., I'm setting the weight to be what the engine can pull away from stationary without discernible wheel slip ...

For the engines without traction tyres, the manageable weight seems to be only a gram or two less than the weight which will pull a loco back down the track without any power applied...

 Those two statements are enough to tell me that you are getting repeatable results from your rig, as it was set up at the time of doing the tests. I would therefore have confidence that your relative results between the types you tested are going to be good estimates of their haulage power. I don't have a single one of the locos tested in your list, so nothing to directly compare with.

 

From a 250g all up weight metal tyred 0-6-0T, I'd expect circa 30g force pull from a Bachmann model, 34g force pull from a Hornby, if that provides a useful comparator.

[47137]

 

It sounds as though I'm doing it right. It was really nice to make something and finish it in one evening.

 

I'll set up a blog post to record the performance of my different engines. I can dig out my 00 ones too. I thought my S160 was powerful, but I didn't expect it to be more than double my next-best H0 engine.

 

- Richard.

[47137]

Here are the numbers for my 00 gauge locos:

 

Manufacturer & model  /Gross/Drawbar

MR/Bachmann USA Tank  / 204 / 26

Hornby 08             / 235 / 32

Bachmann 03           / 157 / 22

Heljan 05             / 196 / 26

Hornby Sentinel       / 108 / 13

Hattons/Heljan 14     / 243 / 33

MR/Dapol Sentinel     / 118 / 13

Hornby Terrier        / 105 / 13

 

All engines tested cold. I want to think they will do better if warmed up, but in every case the drawbar pull achieved is just a tad less than the pull which initiates a static slide backwards along the track.

 

The figures for the Hornby 08 tie in.

 

- Richard.

[railroadbill]

Quick question about the Roco S-160, just as a matter of interest. Where is it manufactured?  The EE shunter and all other Roco stock I've got (2 other shunters, Kof III and 0-6-0 80 and wagons) are all made  in Austria, but mainly second hand via e-bay etc so go back a bit.