OK, I'm having a bit of a difficult time fully understanding the question here:

I just checked the manuals that come with the Bachmann EM-1, and they clearly state it is "100% backwards compatible with DC power systems".

So the only issue I can see is if one is attempting to run other trains at the same time on the same track, they will begin moving prior to the Bachmann EM-1, because it could take something like 7.5 volts or maybe 8 volts for the sounds to come on in DC and for the engine to start moving.

My only power supply is the MRC Sound Controller 2.0.  It is highly recommended for those folks who want to buy DCC locomotives and run them on a regular DC layout--in addition to having a plain DC operating mode, at the push of a button (to DCC mode) it provides a pseudo form of DCC that allows the user to access many (but not necessarily all) DCC functions--and it's cheap--well under $100 if I recall, less than the price of most other power supplies. 

In plain DC mode, the EM-1 for me does not seem to draw much voltage prior to the start of movement--but without installing a voltmeter in the circuit I have no idea exactly what the minimum voltage is to actually move the engine.

A reputable store will as a minimum allow a prospective buyer to try one out in plain DC mode in the store.  If anyone has concerns, I urge them to try one in a store.

It's a monster of an engine the runs monstrously well.  I've owned the Athearn latest run Big Boy, the latest version BLI Y-6B, and several MTH engines including the latest UP Challenger (all prior to my recent dallying with diesels)--and the Bachmann EM-1 runs every bit as well or better than any of the others.

Some recent Intermountain GEVO's do require a lot of voltage to run in plain DC mode--this is because Intermountain had the decoder designed to run with the sound equipped versions--so they may actually require 14 volts or 15 volts in plain DC mode, which is more than some power supplies provide.  Therefore, for some folks the Intermountain GEVO's will run only very slowly in plain DC mode (as Model Railroad News stated in their review, the Intermountain engine is really designed to run in DCC).

However, we are talking about the Bachmann EM-1 here, and in my opinion it requires nowhere near the voltage of an Intermountain GEVO to operate nicely in plain DC mode--though again, I don't have a voltmeter hooked up.

Respectfully submitted--

John

Well--imagine that--I stand corrected

However, the use of switchbacks is still far from the norm.

OP, and others with very steep model grades partly due to space--absolutely, yes, it is your railroad and you should be able to run whatever it is on earth that can run on your railroad that makes you happy.

However, it is a little bit unrealistic to expect model locomotives to negotiate grades with train lengths that the real engines never could.  That was the main point I was attempting to make.  At least within HO (I can't really speak for the other scales) many people try to push the limit beyond anything that was remotely possible in the real world.

Best wishes to all.

Not trying to offend anyone or be offended, just trying to stick to the facts.

Even the glorious epitome of 2-8-8-2 design, the Y-6B, was not designed for sustained operation on ridiculous grades--I think the N&W mainline grades--worst case--were in the 3% range, and only for relatively short stretches.

Also, the Western Pacific--which is a marvel of civil engineering for its time, was finished around or about 1909--well back into the steam era.  It featured more than 100 miles of sustained 1% to 1.1% grades, if I am correct, through the Feather River Canyon.  Those relatively modest but sustained grades enabled them to offer competitive freight service for much of the twentieth century, both steam and diesel.  They used 2-8-8-2's during the steam era over that division, but it also was a very well suited line for diesel power--thus they dieselized very early by about the end of 1952.  One reason the line is little used today is its remote location--I don't believe UP has much traffic in that area, and they choose to use the other routes instead.  However, the WP had one of the best alignments of any transcontinental railroad--and it was built during the steam era--it was the last transcontinental railroad completed, and the alignment was possible in part because they had access to explosives that previous builders did not possess.  (The other part being that they followed the river).

However, even by 1909 folks were avoiding the construction of steep grades.

(BNSF's current design guidelines require very flat grades).

East of the Feather River Canyon, for the desert run to Salt Lake City, the WP trains were assigned to a group of six marvelous challengers that were virtual copies of the UP Challenger--but in my opinion were much more attractive locomotives with nicer looking domes.  Because they toiled in the Nevada Desert, they were rarely photographed and are largely forgotten today.  Unfortunately for steam fans, the alignment of the entire WP plus the hard water conditions of the desert made it an ideal candidate for diesel power, so the beautiful monsters of steam passed too quickly...

John

Quote from: Rangerover1944 on May 11, 2012, 11:35:53 AM
I'm also aware that as 2-8-8-2 said in his post that most rail roads had no grade problems. Except in mountain area's, that's why some brilliant engineers came up with "switchback" to achieve the impossible impassable mountains. Jim

A.  I never said that most railroads had no grade problems.  That is an inaccurate quote.  They actually had significant grade "problems".  What I said was that most mainline railroads avoided mainline grades over 3.5% due to both economic and safety reasons.  This by definition excluded logging railroads and some of those others who had little other alternative.

B.  I am a licensed professional civil engineer--and switchbacks are a horrible engineering solution, and those engineers were not what I would call "brilliant" either--they settled for the easiest, cheapest solution--perhaps they were forced to bow to the economic pressures of those railroad owners of the day.  Switchbacks involve excessive waste of time and resources to get trains up and over a mountain.  How many mainline Class 1 freight railroads still in operation today have a switchback?

To my knowledge the answer is none--I rest my case.  The economics and safety benefits of correctly designed railroad alignments put those railroads out of business--excepting some (essentially) tourist operations that remain who retain the switchbacks for scenic or other reasons--like perhaps to access the timber.

The correct engineering solution is to either tunnel through the mountain or use a series of cuts, fills, and curves to balance the grades to get them within reasonable tolerances.  Anything less is actually lazy engineering.  In the long run the operational costs of operating a poorly designed and built railroad will exceed the money saved during initial design and construction--which is why most of those railroads that featured the excessive grades are now out of everyday freight usage.

John

Also--if you are calculating the distance required for one track to get up over another track, there are tables in some of the better layout books that do that for you.  However, the key criteria are how much elevation difference do you want between railheads?  And how thick is the overpass bridge (because that thickness must be subtracted from the elevation difference in order to calculate the maximum height of rolling stock that one can allow on the layout)?

And yes--a simple figure 8 up and over layout for modern (excess height) freight cars might possibly fill an entire 4' X 8' or 5' x 9' in HO--depending on the clearance chosen.

That's also why layouts the run along an exterior wall--with return loop(s) somewhere in a room to allow continuous running--might be preferred for "permanent" layouts.  They also take up less overall floorspace from a room, but require more complicated design and construction than the good old 4' x 8'.

I know that designing for "modern" equipment and/or full length passenger cars is all but impossible on a standard 4' x 8'.  That is reality in HO.

John

First--Original Poster--are you talking degrees or percent of grade, because there is a significant difference between the two?

A 2-degree grade is actually 3.49% (100% times the rise in inches divided by run)--which is more than most railroads ever had on a mainline.

A 3-degree grade is actually 5.24%--and most engines, real or model, should be spinning on that grade.

Actually, in the model world we generally expect our engines to pull way too much relative to the grades we have than the prototype engines could.

Second--I absolutely despise traction tires in general because they become a maintenance headache in the long run that can also affect the durability of the steam engine valve gear (increased stresses and wear patterns on the valve gear).

I am very thankful Bachmann chose to leave traction tires off the 2-6-0 and 2-8-8-4, and if the cars are properly weighted and roll properly, my 2-6-0's are pulling an adequate length of train.

John

The more I read here, the more it seems we simply take for granted today--we've forgotten how far we've come.

There are toy train museums like the one near Strasburg, PA, that have all sorts of old trains--including the later Tyco stuff in them.

However, there are plenty of people sitting on inventory of those old wood and metal kits even now--most guys never assemble them.

I have a truck driver friend who must have at least 50 of those old wooden kits brand new in the box.  Who knows when or if he'll ever assemble them--most guys just don't ever get around to it.

To me, those old kits are actually quite common, as I've seen plenty of them here in PA.

Regarding brass models--most of the ones I've ever bought do indeed run pretty well--but I stick to 1980's or later vintage, with a few exceptions for Westside or PFM models--especially the ones built by Micro Cast Mizuno in Japan.  The issue with brass is that I can no longer afford those high quality models--so I stick to plastic.

John

Oh--I can agree the Athearn locomotives, at least for awhile, were the best thing.

However, if you wanted an Alco Century, or a Baldwin Sharknose--well, Athearn just wasn't an option for those.

I also vividly remember unloading the first run of Stewart/Kato F Units at the distributor back in the day, opening the cases and seeing the brand new models, and how they somewhat revolutionized model railroading.  (By that time Atlas also had gotten their act together and did some very fine FP-7's which still sell new in box for good money--and they are capable of running a very long time).

John

Ha--I'm not superstitious at all and I don't believe in "luck".--However, after my previous post, I just received a brand new steam engine that has a slight bind in it (no it's not the EM-1 I have on layaway, but a far lesser engine).

Murphy's Law.

Now I have the choice of continuing to run-in this engine, since it is much improved at 1.5 hours run time, or of simply returning it to the importer for repair or replacement.

Rather than panic, since I have the luxury of time (literally just received the model yesterday and haven't even sent the warranty card in yet), I'm opting to run this engine and see what happens.

If it doesn't improve to my liking, I still have the warranty/replacement option.

Best Regards All-

John

The Mantua and Mantua Tyco power truck was smooth and quiet for the era--especially so when run regularly (ie not only in December, but the rest of the year) and properly broken in.  I spent countless hours enjoying those engines.  The same power truck was used in most of the Mantua-Tyco diesels.  They only changed the plastic sideframes to "match" the "model".  Those diesels had a (presumably lead) weight in the fuel tank area that was stamped "Mantua - Tyco".  Things didn't change right away after the sale--it took years for the junk to come in.

In fall of 1975 is about when things went south.  They packaged some of the remaining Mantua-Tyco stuff in engine and caboose sets.  The box had a "Limited Offer - Special Value" diagonal band across it--and it said Tyco on the box (today we might recognize that as "final blow out").  Those engines still had the good power truck.  They definitely had special sets of Illinois Central Gulf, Soo Line, Chessie System and I'm not sure what all other roadnames of the Alco C430 diesel with the good power truck, though the cabooses had the junky plastic axles already.  Many dealers still had the good quality engines available for years after that--it wasn't like today--stock did linger for years before it was sold.  You could still buy 1960's Mantua stuff in the late '70's if you knew or cared what to look for.

I vividly remember fall of 1975 because that Christmas was my "best" toy Christmas ever.  I was 7, and had bugged my Dad for months for one of those ICG orange C430's (not knowing or caring they weren't prototypical at all).  I was very happy on Christmas day, thanks to Dad.

However, the next Tyco engines came in the infernal "Power Torque" box with a cheap, crappy mechanism made in Hong Kong.  In the case of the Illinois Central Gulf units, they were readily recognizable in that the text font of the road number was different from all previous production--way too large--and the ICG orange was replaced with a crappy reddish-orange color that bore little resemblance to any shade IC or ICG ever used.  Sometimes you see those bodies on older power trucks, but they did not come that way originally.  The Hong Kong pilots of some diesels were slightly different and slightly cheasier.  The "Power Torque" mechanism had a sickening whine to it that as I recall never went away.  It was one of the few engines I ever just outright threw in the trash.

Then came the infernal "Silver Streak"-style paint schemes as Tyco degenerated quickly...

John

I have had to wait on people and find parts for many of those same AHM and Rivarossi locomotives!

To quote my friend, Rich, a sales manager of a fine train store today--they were "lewd and crude".  3-pole motors---Yuck!

Perhaps they ran ok by 1980 standards, but no thank you--I'll take today's engines over any of those in a second, even at today's prices.

Mr. English explained on more than one occasion that had they not worked a deal with AHM to service the trains many years ago if they could buy them at a competitive price (relative to the big box stores that had them), that had it not been for that one significant deal, that his train store would have been gone many years ago.  Being able to stock parts for and service those engines was the beginning of English's becoming a distributor for several product lines...and ultimately kept them in business to today.

In 1973, the first time I entered that store at about age 4 1/2 or 5, it was just a small store like so many others that have passed on (except they had a train factory in the back room making Bowser, Cal-Scale, etc.--which I later also helped to do).

I also think he would be a little bit sad to see just how many of the small train stores are gone.

John


I live in Marysville, PA, and have only really embraced/understood/appreciated steam power in recent years.  I had always preferred the Alco Century series diesels, but after awhile one realizes that they are not as interesting on the layout as steam power...well at least if you are me.

The Mantua Tyco trains were very well made up until 1975.  My first trainset (in 1973), which my father traded a worn out Lionel trainset in to purchase, was the Santa Fe C430 freight set, in the red warbonnet scheme correct for the U28CG.  Lewis K. English, Sr.'s train collection still has my father's Lionel train in it, though Mr. English passed earlier this year.  That collection is valued at more than $1,000,000...it's probably being quietly liquidated now.

The pre-1975 Mantua-Tyco stuff ran very well; we also bought some of the older red-box Mantua cars which were still readily available.  I ran the wheels off the stuff.  It lasted, as did the Model Power Austrian-produced Sharknose--one of the first rtr plastic diesels to feature a nice can motor.

The frequent customers of English's Model RR Supply got me into brass in my very late teens and early 20's (very late 1980's).  I bought and traded a lot of it (being somewhat of a perfectionist) and had a lot of fun running all the different brass models with those friends who I met while waiting upon them at the train store.  (As an employee of a distributor, I was able to get the 40% discount off just about anything, and sometimes more.  The discount at that time also extended to brass models that I could reserve).

Today for one reason or another most of us are out of brass.  The one guy at one time had $100,000 in HO brass models...and we played with them all.  It was a lot of fun--doubleheaded articulateds, etc. on 50 car trains.

Now the same guys are playing with plastic hybrids, and engines like the Bachmann EM-1, instead of brass.  It was one thing to own brass when new diesels were only $300 or so each, factory painted..it's quite another thing today.

In fact, I decided to buy the EM-1 because my old friend, the one-time brass heavy hitter, gave it a very favorable review.  Plus, it ran near my father's home town of Butler PA.

Being not rich, I'm selling some Athearn Genesis steamers to buy it...

John

Historically I've taken a "when it breaks throw it away and replace it" philosophy.

In some instances (but certainly not all) by the time I send an item back for warranty repairs, and pay any associated fees (depending on the manufacturer), it works out almost being cheaper or more cost effective to simply go buy another item instead.

I've had big dollar LGB steamers fail twice within a year (same over-engineered engine--that's why they went bankrupt), and have paid as much as $65 shipping each time while being without the use of the steamer for 8 to 12 weeks at a time...so I got out of large scale.  If the stuff isn't available to run, and repairs are costly, then why bother to have it at all?

In HO if a locomotive breaks, it's not quite as big of a deal to replace it as if it was large scale...I've only ever had to "write-off" a few engines, and in most cases, they had more than served their time and owed me nothing.

Only two times in my 38 years in this hobby have I ever needed to send an HO engine back for warranty service, and I usually don't know where the receipts are anyway, but the two items still got fixed under warranty.  Also, one time I returned a "factory refurbished" 2-8-2 that I had just purchased to BLI because it was not correctly re-assembled when they "refurbished" it.

John

At 43, I can remember plenty of things discussed above.

However, the Mantua trains of my youth, after sitting at home for many years, did not run so well anymore and I did not consider it worthwhile to try to repair them as my current motive power and rolling stock are...light years ahead of them.

The only item of rolling stock from "that era" that I retain is a single Mantua trolley, and a plasticville barn that is on the current train layout.

The trolley runs ok on the one or two occasions a year when I run it.

All my other rolling stock and motive power is new within the past 2 years (but it's a modest fleet).

I routinely "trade up" to whatever the most current engines and rolling stock are that I "have to have".

Right now I have one Bachmann Alco 2-6-0, one more in the mail, one Bowser Alco Demo C-628, one Atlas ACL S-2, and 14 freight cars plus 1 passenger car on a modest 81 linear foot HO mainline, with 2 passing sidings.

One 2-8-8-4 is on layaway.

Though I have some fond memories of the trains of years ago, including many brass ones I played with and subsequently traded (before house and kids, and some of the brass cash went into the house), I don't have any wish to go back in time.

Best Regards--

2-8-8-4