Does anyone have any comments on the pulling power of this unit? I have a 4% grade on my table and am curious if anyone has found any issues with it's power on such a grade.
I don't own one of the new 2-6-0s (though I wish I did, it's a neat smaller locomotive, and I would think an answer to the prayers of so many who wanted one for years around here), but I wouldn't expect it to haul much up a 4% grade.
Indeed, the haulage capacity of anything is going to be seriously reduced on something that steep, and that includes the prototypes. In fact, the prototypes consider 2% quite steep; on a mainline with heavy trains, that calls for helper service.
The Western Maryland used to have a line up the Blackwater Canyon in West Virginia (abandoned now since the 1980s). It was 3%, and had lots of curves, too. Standard operating procedure in the late steam era was 10--10!--H-9 (WM class, not the famous PRR class) 2-8-0s on a 100-car coal train! These engines, despite the age of the wheel arrangement, were not old and small; they were behemoths built in the 1920s, just about the heaviest in the world of that wheel arrangement, and weighed something like 150 tons, with long, graceful 12-wheel tenders--much larger than the 2-8-0 Bachmann sells (although driver diameter was about the same):
http://www.brasstrains.com/classic/Product/Detail/014240/HO-Oriental-WM-H-9-2-8-0-Worthington-FWH
The engines were run with three on the point, four in the middle, and three more cut in ahead of the caboose. Coordination between the engineers was with whistle signals, and smoke and sound were reported to be fantastic. One fellow, photographing such a coal train as it clawed its way up the 3%, commented that the lead engines smoked up the canyon so much he almost couldn't get a photo of the mid-train helpers because the sun was blotted out! (The smoke did clear just in time, though.)
The diesel operation still required 10 units, but only three crews, thanks to diesels having MU controls.
Solution: buy more 2-6-0s!
P.S.: Coming down something that steep can be as big a problem as going up. I don't have time to go into this, but others can tell you about gear bucking on down grades.
The new Alco 2-6-0 is light on its feet. On my layout it will just pull three 60' passenger coaches on my 2% grade.
If you have 4% grades on your layout I would reconsider this engine and consider a larger heavyier engine for such a high grade. You might consider the Bullfrog Snot for coating some of your drivers, I am advised it works very well for handling grades.
Note that there are no traction tires on this model so I consider its pulling power adequate for what I need it for.
I did add weight to the tender as it was riding too light and I was haveing problems going through switches. Once I added weight to the tender it runs fine now. I did not try to add any weight to the engine itself, maybe later, but I doubt it.
I would not expect a road to use a 2-6-0 on 4 percent grades. I think you are asking for too much from this loco. Just maybe with two 34 foot wood coaches which one road did on steep grades many years ago.
Rich
Can you tell us, outside of the 4% grade, what is your railroad like? Indeed, what is the 4% for? If it's just a lead to a spur, and you're only shoving one or two cars up to a factory or mine, your proposed 2-6-0 would be fine for the work. On the other hand, if that 4% is in your main line, that small engine may not be too good for what you want to use it for.
On the other hand, it was not unusual for even a main line railroad to occasionally have an odd engine or two for switching or work train service or for handling a short, two-car local passenger train. If you are going to use the engine for something limited like that, it may still be usable for you.
Ronman
Your not alone. My new ALCO 4-6-0 is a little short on the pulling power. My other 4-6-0 and 4-4-0 have twice the pulling power up a 3.7% grade. It is what it is. Now the ALCO S4 is another story. Almost unstoppable.
Kevin
Cap'n-
Put a bit of weight in your 2-6-0 and it will pull a little better.
-- D
Thanks for all of your input.
Ronman
I noticed a lot of down force on the pilot truck. Loco had trouble getting it's self and a caboose up a 3.7% grade. Took it off and bent the bracket a bit. Now it pulls 2 tankers, a box car and a caboose up the grade at speed step 25. I guess that pilot was lifting the drives up just enough to loose some traction. Don't know if it will work for you but you have nothing to loose.
Mr. D
I was looking at how to add some weight but can't figure out how to get the boiler off.
Kevin
Quote from: captain1313 on April 10, 2012, 01:06:16 AM
Ronman
I noticed a lot of down force on the pilot truck. Loco had trouble getting it's self and a caboose up a 3.7% grade. Took it off and bent the bracket a bit. Now it pulls 2 tankers, a box car and a caboose up the grade at speed step 25. I guess that pilot was lifting the drives up just enough to loose some traction. Don't know if it will work for you but you have nothing to loose.
Kevin
There is a simple fact of physics that people keep forgetting and I keep repeating.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Therefore, simple physics states that for 'X' amount of force pressing down on the spring(s) over the trucks, both leading and trailing, then that same 'X' amount of force is also trying to lift the locomotive.
Result? Loss of traction.
Solution? Remove all springs bearing down on locomotive trucks and you
will notice an improvement in your locomotives' pulling abilities. The weight of the truck alone is usually more than adequate on well laid track and the springs are not required, ever. If however, you do find that the truck(s) have a tendency to derail, then add a little weight to the top of the trucks to keep them running smoothly. Do not reinstall the springs.
Quote from: captain1313 on April 09, 2012, 11:27:54 AM
Ronman
Your not alone. My new ALCO 4-6-0 is a little short on the pulling power. My other 4-6-0 and 4-4-0 have twice the pulling power up a 3.7% grade. It is what it is. Now the ALCO S4 is another story. Almost unstoppable.
Kevin
The new Alco 2-6-0 has a plastic boiler, the Bachmann Spectrum 4-6-0 and 4-4-0's have die cast boilers, big diff in weight.
surprised no one has mentioned it yet but "Bullfrog Snot" the engine and it'll pull alot better, the only downside is whatever driving wheel you apply the snot to won't pickup electrical
rye
Don't be surprised, as it was mentioned.....
QuotePosted by: Pacific Northern Posted on: April 08, 2012, 01:36:38 PM
Insert Quote
The new Alco 2-6-0 is light on its feet. On my layout it will just pull three 60' passenger coaches on my 2% grade.
If you have 4% grades on your layout I would reconsider this engine and consider a larger heavyier engine for such a high grade. You might consider the Bullfrog Snot for coating some of your drivers, I am advised it works very well for handling grades.
Note that there are no traction tires on this model so I consider its pulling power adequate for what I need it for.
I did add weight to the tender as it was riding too light and I was haveing problems going through switches. Once I added weight to the tender it runs fine now. I did not try to add any weight to the engine itself, maybe later, but I doubt it.
Jerry
You can go here to find answers to opening the little Mogul up and adding weight.
http://alaskarails.org/creations/PD-208/index.html
Remove the two screws under the cab on each side of the cable socket. Pull off the pressed on top of the sand dome (right behind the stack). Under there you will find the third screw. Now grab the cab at the back and rotate the cab/boiler up and forward. The pilot braces will swing aside out of the way.
Fill the available space in the domes and stack. There are a few small voids on the boiler weight that can be filled. Add sheet lead in the cab roof and below the windows on the sides. Add a large chunk on the firing deck. Fill in between the frame extensions behind the coupler under the pilot deck.
If you want to tune up the sound, use JRMI and any of the generic Tsunami files, to adjust volume of the limited sounds available, and add some momentum while you program your new address number.
My appreciation of the sophistication of Bachmann's design and execution of this little critter grows with each one I encounter. Working on my 5th kit bash so far and the basic unit is a solid foundation. I am still hoping that Bachmann will consider the same technology in design and offer the largest single class of locomotive ever built in North America. That would be the 2120 copies of the U.S. Army Transportation Corps S-160 Consolidations. G.I. Consolidations made it to every continent but for Australia and Antarctica.
Pat Durand
Quote from: rogertra on April 10, 2012, 07:05:51 PM
There is a simple fact of physics that people keep forgetting and I keep repeating.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Therefore, simple physics states that for 'X' amount of force pressing down on the spring(s) over the trucks, both leading and trailing, then that same 'X' amount of force is also trying to lift the locomotive.
Result? Loss of traction.
Solution? Remove all springs bearing down on locomotive trucks and you will notice an improvement in your locomotives' pulling abilities. The weight of the truck alone is usually more than adequate on well laid track and the springs are not required, ever. If however, you do find that the truck(s) have a tendency to derail, then add a little weight to the top of the trucks to keep them running smoothly. Do not reinstall the springs.
I must respectfully disagree.
The springs on leading and trailing trucks of model steam locomotives are
often necessary when passing through certain complicated HO trackwork--in particular the Peco three-way turnouts, single- and double-slip switches, and also some of the #6 and #8 turnouts of other manufacturers including but not limited to Shinohara and Kato. This is true even when the locomotives, leading and trailing trucks are constructed of brass and are heavy--the springs help to keep the trucks from "picking" turnouts and derailing (especially during backup maneuvers).
When I purchased the zamac boilered (and heavy) Oriental Limited Powerhouse Series 2-8-8-2's during the late 1980's, I found it necessary to add springs to those trucks that didn't have them for backup maneuvers to be successful without derailing.
Also, there are some locomotives that have limited clearance to "add weight to the top of the truck" because those trucks still have to pivot and clear other adjacent details.
The one Bachmann ALCO 2-6-0 on my layout so far pulls an adequate number of cars for me (about 7 on my layout). I very much prefer the fact that there are no traction tires to fail or cause operational/wear problems (over time) with the valve gear. Also, the wimpy lead truck spring on this engine is not strong enough to provide any meaningful, traction robbing "lift". It is just fine for tracking through my turnouts.
Respectfully submitted--
2-8-8-4
Not a single one of my two dozen or so kettles has springs on any of their trucks and they all ran perfectly on both my hand laid code 70 track and switches and the Altas code 100 track and switches in the staging yards.
Guess it all comes down to how carefully you lay your track?
However, if you are having problems, then adding a little weight to the top of the truck is far better than using the springs as the springs DO reduce traction, which was the point of my original post.
My original post was not about tracking but about traction.
Besides, you can't argue with physics and the physics is, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's the law. :)
I'm a licensed civil engineer, so I do know a little bit about traction--and about model railroad trackwork and tracking of engines, since I've been in this hobby for 38 years (since I was 5).
Perhaps you are only running short trains with small motive power.
My experience includes large, heavy trains with large motive power on club sized private layouts and everything else in between.
In your original post you claimed the upward force of springs is enough to reduce model engine traction--and to that I must call "baloney" in most cases.
Do you actually have one of these Alco 2-6-0's?
Are you aware the spring is at the point where the screw attaches the lead truck--such that it is just enough to provide a minimal amount of downforce on the lead truck? There is virtually no weight transfer at all to the lead truck--the loco weight is on the drivers--the truck would be entirely free-wheeling if not for the very modest force provided by the spring. The weight of the engine is also significantly more than the force the spring could possibly provide--therefore any "upforce" of the spring is zero for all practical purposes. Also, the third driver is placed far enough away by itself to more than counter any moment provided by the mild lead truck spring.
Also--locomotive traction is most influenced by weight on drivers--you will never convince me that a heavy brass or zamac articulated can have enough spring force from lead and trailing trucks to cause the "uplift" you are talking about--and I know from personal operating experience the springs are necessary.
Your argument does not wash.
To increase pulling capacity it would be far more useful to add weight to the (light) boiler than to remove the small spring which barely exerts any force.
Respectfully submitted--
2-8-8-4
2-8-8-4.
I have two of the 2-6-0s but have nowhere to run them at present. As I model based on Canadian practice, I have no need for articulated power and in the area I model, the 2-10-2 was the largest power seen.
However, practical experience on my steam fleet, at the time I had a working model railroad, ranged from Spectrum 4-6-0s (Two versions), 2-8-0s, 2-10-0s, 4-6-2s (Athearn), 2-8-2s (Athearn) 4-8-2s (Both light and heavy) and 2-10-2s (Re-branded IHC), showed that in all cases removing the truck springs allowed the locos to pull anywhere from two to three more freight cars. Remember, I am discussing pulling power, not the ability of the trucks to stay on the rails, that's a whole different kettle of fish. I am also discussing Spectrum, Genesis and P2K and not cheaper low end models. These models are all light weight and the springs will have an effect on traction.
My steam fleet also included P2K 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 switchers but they are outside the range of this discussion, not have trucks. :)
Of course, each and every one of the above then had extra weight added to balance the centre of gravity around the centre of the driving wheel's wheel base and this also increased their pulling power. In the case of the Athearn's, the balancing of the weight distribution made them reliable trackers as they were notorious for derailing leading trucks. Derailment of trucks is also caused by unbalanced weight distribution, both on models and on the prototype. The single act of balancing weight distribution around the centre of the driving wheel's wheel base will improve both tracking and pulling power on almost any steam engine.
On the prototype, if you take a 4-6-0 and a 4-6-2 of about equal weight, driver size and tractive effort, the 4-6-0 will start a train of equal weight easier than the 4-6-2 because when the engine "digs in", the weight distribution moves to the rear of the engine and makes the drivers "dig in" more than the 4-6-2. This is because the trailing truck on the 4-6-2 limits the weight shift on the Pacific. The trailing truck on the 4-6-2 is, of course, sprung and will limit the amount of weight transfer to the drivers.
In fact, a 4-6-0 will start a heavier train than a slightly larger 4-6-2 with less wheel slip. Goes for any engine without a trailing truck. It's why an 0-8-0 switcher can pull more than a road engine, because all its weight is on the drivers. By removing the springs over the trucks, and letting the trucks just go along for the ride, we are, in effect, converting all our locos to "switchers" and putting all the available weight, properly distributed, on the drivers.
My standard train was 16 cars plus van and all except the 4-6-0s were expected to pull a train this long up the 2.5(sh)% grade from the hidden main staging and all could manage it. Just, in some cases as I kitbash my engines so some have different tenders, cabs and fittings than others of the same brand but they all could do it with no wheel spin. However, I don't see what train length has to do with truck derailment.
BTW, I've been a "modeller" for 50 plus years and had a toy train set ten years before that. :)
All the above has, over the years, been discussed in the model press. I am not the originator of idea of removing truck springs but took the idea from articles in the model press and found the results to be as "advertised".
Interesting discussion BTW.
Quote from: rogertra on May 01, 2012, 12:25:05 PM
By removing the springs over the trucks, and letting the trucks just go along for the ride, we are, in effect, converting all our locos to "switchers" and putting all the available weight, properly distributed, on the drivers.
I can agree with the above statement.
As an aside, coming over here from the Atlas HO forum, this is as contentious of a thread as you'll hopefully
ever see me post. Hopefully, it's more constructive than contentious, but others will have an opinion on that.
First of all, it seems Roger is or has been dealing with a lot of lighter weight--perhaps sometimes even
underweight--steam locomotives. If the engines are basically underweight, then I will concede the lead/trailing trucks could possibly be an issue.
The other observation I'll make is if your motive power is a 2-6-0 that can pull say 7 cars, and you add 3 more cars pulling capacity--that is actually quite a big improvement.
Also, I do not believe in operating my engines at their maximum limit of adhession--the point of impending wheel slip--so my ratings are always conservative in favor of long term locomotive durability. I learned many years ago when playing with my own and my friends' brass steamers, on an attic layout with 2.5 to 3% grades and 48" radius curves that it was a bad idea to operate engines in a wheel slip or near wheel slip condition.
My perspective on pulling power of models is also a bit different: When I can take an early 1980's Key Imports/Samhongsa-built steam engine like the Rio Grande L-105 4-6-6-4, take it out of the box, put it on the track, and pull more than 50 cars (including a dozen or so heavy brass freight cars) up the 3% grades at a walk, without any slip whatsoever, the need to gain a couple more cars of pulling capacity is...questionable at best...so it's just not something I'm looking to do.
Finally, where my comments about heavy long trains and tracking of big heavy motive power over turnouts should begin to make sense is that if one is going to seriously switch or even back a long train of up to 50 cars, or even a shorter cut, into and out of yards over complicated switch configurations such as the three way or double slip turnouts--the forces on the motive power are magnified and
any out of weight balance issue will come to light very quickly in the form of derailments of lead and trailing trucks. That is where having the factory installed truck springs on those big steamers is a good idea. When one or one's friends are playing with expensive rolling stock...well we wanted to eliminate any chance of derailments possible. So that is why although some would happily delete those lead/trailing truck springs, myself and the local "lodge" members would not.
Best Regards--
2-8-8-4
2-8-8-4.
You made some great points and based on your last post, I agree with everything you say.
For locos that can pull a heavy train right out of the box, why remove the springs? I agree, it doesn't make sense.
And yes, the Spectrum, Athearn and P2K engines I use are too light and are in need of added weight. I have found that removing the springs does help with their pulling ability as does balancing the weight over the centre of the driving wheel wheel base..
I'll also add that like the prototype, I avoid complex switches like three ways and single and double slips like the plague so I don't encounter the same issues that your group may.
Hope you become a regular on this forum.
Rogertra--
Thanks for your comments.
Although one layout I built had the complex turnouts to save space in a yard ladder (based on either a John Allen or Armstrong's "spaghetti bowl" type track plan), my current layout went minimalist for the reasons cited above. Instead I'm trying to emphasize the scenery and put trains in a rural America context...it's a work in progress.
I love all the complicated turnouts--I really do--but they can become a maintenance headache.
My current layout runs around the outside of my basement to save floor space for other things (kids to play, etc.) and has only a total of 5 turnouts with a loop at each end of the layout. We just like to turn trains on and let them roll at my house...it's not for everyone.
For me the turnouts are the biggest headache--any dirt and I may have a brief power drop--enough to stop a train once in awhile, so I religiously apply the Atlas Conductalube to the rails to keep them clean (any excess evaporates).
2-8-8-4
The original post was about the new Bachmann ALCO 2-6-0 pulling power. 6 of these units have now passed over my bench for Kit bashing. All ran perfectly out of the box. From some other posts it may be that a few of these models may have had some minor assembly problems and the spring on the pony truck may have been improperly positioned resulting in reduced tractive effort. I would not expect a prototype 2-6-0 to climb a 4 percent grade with more than three empty cars, why expect more of the model?
Comparing relative pulling power of the rigid frame inexpensive light weight locomotives with fully sprung and weighted locomotives is going to prove one thing. Articulated side rods and sprung drivers keep the tires on the rail providing adhesion. A three axle rigid frame loco will have four of six drivers actually working and a four axle rigid frame loco will still have four drivers doing the work. Put the locomotive on a surface plate and see which drivers are touching, and then realize even if they are lll touching the rail geometry is always changing that little bit. The only compensation is adding all the balanced distributed weight you can. I have never been able to stall a locomotive in this process but you can sure improve the DDE effects of a sound system.
In my opinion the metallurgy of the tire also plays a major part in the tractive effort obtained by our models. I have used several Athern Genesis Mikes and Pacifics as foundations for Alaska Railroad Kit bashes. Out of the box they would barely move a properly weighted 6 car train on a 2 percent grade. After removing the springs on the pilot and trailing trucks and building in an additional 4.5 oz of lead there was hardly a measurable improvement. Only after adding all wheel pickup to the tender and carefully adding Bullfrog snot to the rear drivers would they work on a grade, increasing tractive effort by 100 percent over the unweighted loco with out the frog snot.
At the NLMRR Club we have created a dynometer car to measure drawbar pull. A small digital scale from that tool company is mounted on a flat car. The scale is then connected to the tender drawbar and you can measure the actual pull in oz in a stall on level track or on any gradient you set up. Very instructive tool.
Pat Durand
roger and yellow-
I'm glad the two of you found some common ground and acknowledge that you each have a point. The physics don't change, of course, whether we're talking about a full-size 2-10-2 in Canada or an HO Challenger from Colorado. What might change is the significance of the effect.
Pushing up on any part of the bottom of a locomotive will unquestionably change the weight bearing on other supporting wheels. BUT, will a little spring make enough of a difference to really matter? Probably not. It strains credulity to assert that the minuscule weight change from pilot or trailing truck springs could materially affect how many cars a locomotive can pull, although one could certainly identify different weight on the drivers. It's easy to see. Just weigh the weight on drivers using a postal scale with extra wheels supported off of the scale both with and without the springs. There will be a difference but it will be moot.
-- D
2-8-8-4 and roger.
with regards to the effect of the force with which unpowered wheels press down on the rails reducing tractive effort: that is a well documented fact. sorry, 2-8-8-4 but it's true, increasing downward pressure on unpowered axles decreases tractive effort, lessening that pressure increases tractive effort.
perhaps, being steam modellers, many of you are not aware of one of general electric's newest diesel locomotive types, the es44c4. this locomotive has an a1a-a1a wheel arrangement, with the two outboard axles on each truck powered, and a center idler axle. this center axle is able to be hudraulically lifted slightly when starting a train to place most of the weight on the powered axles. once the train is moving and the need for tractive force decreases, this axle is lowered back into its normal position. by doing this, general electric was able to produce an ac drive locomotive that does with 4 motors what took the equivalent dc drive locomotive 6 motors to accomplish.
prototype practice almost always has similar applications on model railroads.
Quote from: jward on May 02, 2012, 11:49:17 AM
sorry, 2-8-8-4 but it's true, increasing downward pressure on unpowered axles decreases tractive effort, lessening that pressure increases tractive effort.
My argument is that the decrease in tractive effort due to having a sprung lead/trailing truck, in the model railroad operating conditions and environment that I
usually have (ie
not running 2-6-0's and short trains but running big engines that are
already properly weighted with long heavy trains) is negligible for practical real-world purposes.
Also, it is worth noting that the real railroads were far more interested in weight on drivers than weight on lead/trailing trucks (as long as the axle loadings were beneath the maximum). The real railroads realized that weight on lead and trailing trucks had only minimal effect on tractive effort.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion, or rather it would not have taken this turn, if it weren't for the fact that some folks desire their model locomotives to outperform the pulling capacity of real locomotives! Again, my personal preference is for operational reliability and good tracking over maximum (model) pulling capacity, but not everyone will have the same approach as me, and that's ok. It's your railroad--if you don't want the springs, then remove them--it won't bother me one bit at all.
There is a reason that railroads obsessively avoided 4% grades (excepting Saluda). Even today, there is a sustained 2% to 3% grade in PA over Keating Summit that requires one 3000 horsepower six-axle diesel for every 8 loaded hopper cars (according to a dvd)--and most steam engines did not produce anywhere near 3000 horsepower. As a design engineer, I'd never think of designing a prototype alignment that steep, because it borders on economic lunacy. That's also why the PRR built Horseshoe Curve--to avoid what would have been a 3% grade.
2-8-8-4
maybe the dynamics are different for steamers, but general electric spent alot of money developing this locomotive. the concept has proven so successful that bnsf has over 300 of them in service, and production of dc drive locomotives has almost ceased at ge.
with regards to the real railroads, almost anything is heavy enough to track well. about the only weight related derailments i came across when i worked in the industry were related to empty intermodal cars being pushed on
Clarification: My comments are generally pertaining to the model world.
I also think adding even one rubber tired driver or the bullfrog snot probably has a much greater impact than removing a lead or trailing truck spring from those engines that have them.
As for me--I despise the rubber tires and am glad Bachmann left them off the 2-6-0--and I'd never expect a 2-6-0 to pull a long train (unless it was one of the larger 2-6-0's that ran on the SP in flat portions of California where they were known as "valley malleys" and actually did pull 50 car trains.)
Why am I so against rubber tires? It has come to light that some of the companies who apply them put them on a non-geared driver, which over time results in excessive wear of the valve gear (holes wear egg-shaped). Also, if the main rod is one solid piece crossing multiple axles, that by itself can lead to excessive wear over time. The "better" model steam engines (at least in the larger sized steamers) have multiple piece main rods just like the prototype. If the steamer is going to have rubber tires, the multiple section main rods are a good idea for durability due to the forces on the pins during starts and stops--which are exacerbated by the rubber tired axle(s).
Apparently Athearn learned from the problems experienced on a number of Genesis Series steam engines (as reported by at least one reviewer online), and did the SP MT-4 4-8-2 with 3-piece main rods, similar to the prototype.
John
A little weight could help, had it apart and there is room for some if you take out what looks like a bracket that would hold a smoke machine under the stack ,ALMOST LOOKS smoke unit ready if for no electrical contacts at the frame area.
Jack
Quote from: ryeguyisme on April 13, 2012, 03:39:23 PM
surprised no one has mentioned it yet but "Bullfrog Snot" the engine and it'll pull alot better, the only downside is whatever driving wheel you apply the snot to won't pickup electrical
Weight IS NOT THE PROBLEM,check the slop in the drive axle journals,they are loose and uneven causing uneven pressure on the 6
drivers,if you put some paint on the drivers,hold the engine to the rail with pressure you will see the wear marks on the wheels ,mine does
not show ay on the center axle compared to the front and rear ,showing that the contact is uneven with the rail,tested this on a few of
them same thing ,it probably would pull better if all the drive axles were even ,and the drive wheels did not wobble in the loose bearing journals.Bad way to cut cost,needs bearing inserts to even things up and remove the excessive play in the axle journals,check it out ,if they are all like that they need to all go back ,What then?
Quote from: ALCO1000 on February 14, 2014, 09:49:33 AM
Quote from: ryeguyisme on April 13, 2012, 03:39:23 PM
surprised no one has mentioned it yet but "Bullfrog Snot" the engine and it'll pull alot better, the only downside is whatever driving wheel you apply the snot to won't pickup electrical
Weight IS NOT THE PROBLEM,check the slop in the drive axle journals,they are loose and uneven causing uneven pressure on the 6
drivers,if you put some paint on the drivers,hold the engine to the rail with pressure you will see the wear marks on the wheels ,mine does
not show ay on the center axle compared to the front and rear ,showing that the contact is uneven with the rail,tested this on a few of
them same thing ,it probably would pull better if all the drive axles were even ,and the drive wheels did not wobble in the loose bearing journals.Bad way to cut cost,needs bearing inserts to even things up and remove the excessive play in the axle journals,check it out ,if they are all like that they need to all go back ,What then?
Jack
Talking about the problems and running it more and more just won't fix the problem.
Try sending it back to Bachmann and get it replaced or fixed as it definitely sounds like yours slipped through the hands of the quality control dept. ;D.
Jerry
Being somewhat of a B&M and NH fan, I remember seeing firsthand, these locomotives at work, and cannot remember any of them pulling world-class trains-passenger or freight. In fact, about three or four passenger cars-and wood at that-was about all I saw the B&M Moguls pull-unless they were in tandem. Most longer B&M passenger trains were pulled by Pacifics or other heavier motive power.
Rich C.
Speaking of pulling power I decided to do a test today.
I took one of my 2-6-0s, which has had some weight added to the front of the tender, needed on all Bachmann steam as well as the pilot truck spring removed, which I also do to all springs on trucks of all steam and the engine moved, on straight and level track, without any wheel spin, 14 freight cars plus caboose.
All the cars are equipped with metal wheels. All weighted to around the NMRA recommended practice but one or two weigh more as they have visible loads added to them. The cars were just randomly picked and are from an assortment of manufacturers. I just coupled up to a cut of cars on one of my yard tracks and pulled the 18 cars. I used the 2-6-0 and with some wheel spinning, it did pull the track clear. :)
I started with eight cars and started adding cars but quit at 14 as my 2-6-0s are assigned to branch line way freight and passenger service and rarely need to pull more than eight cars plus van or a baggage car or combine and one passenger car.
So, add some weight to the tender, remove the pilot spring and you should get similar results. BTW, I add weight to either side of the tender, between the shovel plate and the sides of the tender and as far forward as I can. For weight I use pennies, suitably cut to fit using metal work shears as required.
Cheers
Roger.
Roger, by 'metal work shears' are you referring to the same things that you might know as also called 'tin snips'?
Thank you.
Quote from: jbrock27 on February 15, 2014, 07:25:38 PM
Roger, by 'metal work shears' are you referring to the same things that you might know as also called 'tin snips'?
Thank you.
Yes, why not? :)
I have access to bench shears so it was easy.
Cheers
Roger.
Ok. I was not sure if bench/metal shears are any different than tin snips. I have tin snips.
And sure enough, even if a little tough to get the penny to stay 'flat' in the jaws of the snip, they do work to cut them.
Thank you again for the tip Roger.
Brock;
Those are English pennies-last I remember, those beauties are a big as a horse!
Last I knew, a bench shear is a rather large, stationary "I mean business" tool.
Rich C.
Quote from: electrical whiz kid on February 16, 2014, 12:16:53 PM
Brock;
Those are English pennies-last I remember, those beauties are a big as a horse!
Last I knew, a bench shear is a rather large, stationary "I mean business" tool.
Rich C.
Yeppers. The bench shear was overkill but heck, it was there, why not? :)
And I used Canadian and probably American pennies as well, I wasn't paying much attention.
Cheers
Roger
Thank you RichC.
Ok boys, so are "bench shears" different than the "metal shears" Roger initially referred to?
Really Roger, "not paying attention" using a tool that sounds like it could easily cut your finger off with one slice? ;)
Roger Travis;
I cannot speak for you or anyone else here, but I (generally) try to take a logical approach to things in general; this hobby notwithstanding.
Springs are designed into a specification by better, more knowledgeable men and women than I. I am merely an electrician, and for this discussion, have no other certification; hence, just a layman. To me, the spring offers the only force to keep the pony and/or trailing truck from re-mapping the grade. I have tried it both ways many times on different engines, and have come to the conclusion that trackwork is usually the culprit with this situation. There are generally three components to any plane, and to go "light" with any of them will invite frustration, or a new approach to "kit bashing"... Best advice I can offer based upon experience, many tears shed, and many more blue streaks flung into the air, is to not spare the horses when you are doing your trackwork-as close to perfection as you can get sill help ensure good dependable smooth running. Be especially good when doing long tunnels; Murphy does indeed live...in tunnels especially.
RIch C.
Rich C.
I appreciate your comments but the idea of removing springs is not mine but comes from several articles published in the model railroad press discussing improving the pulling power of steam locomotives.
I should also point out that I do not use set track but use code 83 number 6 switches and flex track on the visible portions of the railway and code 100 number six switches and flex track in the staging tracks. My minimum radius is 30 inches and that's in the staging yards. I also take great care when laying track and do not tolerate derailments. If anything derails, the cause of the derailment is investigated and the problem is fixed. Flex track is much better than set track when it comes to smoother running. On my previous GER I hand laid all my track and switches and again had zero problems with running without springs.
Springs. I experimented with the removal of springs before I went ahead and removed them as a matter of course. I kept adding cars to a steam locomotive until when it began to move, the driving wheels slipped. I then removed the spring(s) from the truck(s) and coupled up to the same cars and the locomotive then moved them, this time without wheel spin.
If you are doubtful whether removing the spring(s) improves traction then try the same experiment yourself. What have you got to lose? You can always re-install the spring(s) if you are not satisfied.
Removing the springs will improve traction though basic physics. Newton's Third Law. i.e. For every action (the spring pushing down) there is an equal and opposite reaction (The spring pushing up with the same force it's pushing down). Therefore, however slight it may be, the spring is removing weight from the drivers. Of course, one could ask the question, "If the pressure on the spring is that slight, then what good does it do by pressing down?" My theory on springs is they are added by the manufacturers to assist in keeping the trucks on poorly laid set track used by beginners to the hobby.
In the odd case that a truck doesn't behave itself when the spring is removed, then I simply add some weight to the top of the truck in place of the spring. I use a few lead shots glue to the top of the truck and painted black, which makes them disappear.
Anyway, give removing the spring(s) a try, you've nothing to lose and extra pulling power to gain.
Cheers
Roger.
Hi Roger;
I recall some years behind us that I did just that-with an Athearn Pacific that was giving my some very bad boogie-woogie; I removed the spring from the pony wheels, and lo and behold-it did not improve anything. I looked further into the who and why, and-TO MY BIG SURPRISE-it turned out to be trackwork. Armed with this revelation, I went forth with said locomotive with spring re-installed, and came up with the sad conclusion that I was a lousy trackman, and some serious work was needed. I then decided to go great guns and re-do my trackwork-on the newest endeavor. So far, so good, springety pony and all.
Moral; if one man calls you a lousy tracklayer, pay no attention; but...if YOU call you a lousy trackman, well...
Rich C.
Quote from: electrical whiz kid on February 23, 2014, 12:07:47 PM
Hi Roger;
I recall some years behind us that I did just that-with an Athearn Pacific that was giving my some very bad boogie-woogie; I removed the spring from the pony wheels, and lo and behold-it did not improve anything. I looked further into the who and why, and-TO MY BIG SURPRISE-it turned out to be trackwork. Armed with this revelation, I went forth with said locomotive with spring re-installed, and came up with the sad conclusion that I was a lousy trackman, and some serious work was needed. I then decided to go great guns and re-do my trackwork-on the newest endeavor. So far, so good, springety pony and all.
Moral; if one man calls you a lousy tracklayer, pay no attention; but...if YOU call you a lousy trackman, well...
Rich C.
Very good, Rich C.
Once in a great while I see someone admit this and for sometime they thought they had good track work. It does not take much to cause bad track work, not much at all in the scales we work at.
Very good troubleshooting.
Rich
Quote from: electrical whiz kid on February 23, 2014, 12:07:47 PM
Hi Roger;
I recall some years behind us that I did just that-with an Athearn Pacific that was giving my some very bad boogie-woogie; I removed the spring from the pony wheels, and lo and behold-it did not improve anything. I looked further into the who and why, and-TO MY BIG SURPRISE-it turned out to be trackwork. Armed with this revelation, I went forth with said locomotive with spring re-installed, and came up with the sad conclusion that I was a lousy trackman, and some serious work was needed. I then decided to go great guns and re-do my trackwork-on the newest endeavor. So far, so good, springety pony and all.
Moral; if one man calls you a lousy tracklayer, pay no attention; but...if YOU call you a lousy trackman, well...
Rich C.
Rich.
I have two of the Athearn 4-6-2s and two of their 2-8-2s, the original Genesis locomotives that they've now distanced themselves from.
The main problems with both of them were, first and foremost, there were terribly out of balance when it came to weight distribution. I forget now as it was ten or more years ago but they were either cab or nose heavy. I added weight to both of them. I gave them armour plated cab roofs, filled the steam chest and cylinders, sandbox and steam dome with lead shot. In fact, I crammed lead shot in every nook and cranny. It helps that one of the standard features of all GER steam is a lead filled air cylinder on the pilot deck. I installed the weight so that the engines would balance on the centre driver of the 4-6-2 and between the two centre drivers on the 2-8-2. I also, as is my practice, removed the springs from the trucks. All four engines had way increased traction and no longer derailed.
The second and more difficult to solve problem to solve is their split gear syndrome. The main gear on the driving axle has a tendency to split. You could buy a brand new engine and the driving gear would be split, even as it sat in the box on the store shelf. The solution for me was to thoroughly clean all grease from the gear and axle and very carefully apply gap filling AC glue to the one split gear I had and to the three gears that were not split. Last time I ran these engines, about three years ago, they were still all fine. As they are not DCC engines (yet) they've been sitting in storage so I can't speak for them now.
And, as I've said before, I do not tolerate derailments. :)
Cheers
Roger.