Haulage capabilities

[earlswood nob]

Good morning all

I dug out some results from my tests of locomotive haulage. The following is weight pulled and the equivalent in coaches.

Hornby D16/3 pulls 1440g (12 coaches)
Nucast Y7 (Mashima 1015 108:1) 1440g (12 coaches)
Nucast N8 (Mashima 1024 80:1) 1980g (16 coaches)
SEF N7 (Mashima 1024 40:1) 1980g (16 coaches)
Bachmann O4/3 2400g (19 coaches)
Hornby P2/1 2400g (19 coaches)
Little Engines A6 (Mashima 1620 40:1) 2400g (19 coaches)
SEF J39/3 (mashima 1620 54:1) 2720g (22 coaches)
Little Engines A7 (Portescap 1616) 2860g (23 coaches)
Kays O4/1 (Mashima 1624 54:1) 3300g (26 coaches)
SEF A4 (Mashima 1830 40:1) 4100g (33 coaches)
Nucast LMS Garratt (2xMashima 1620 54:1) 6534g (52 coaches)
Little Engines T1 (Mashima 1628 108:1) 9464g (76 coaches)
DJH U1 (2xMashima 1624 80:1) 11081g (89 coaches)

The U1 and LMS Garratt are both waiting for additional supports to the central chassis as I've put so much lead in their boilers that the chassis bows.

I hope this is of interest to kit builders

Malcolm (Earlswood Nob)

[Mersey508138]

I find this to be useful and helpful information although I personally have not yet built a loco kit in OO Gauge but wouldn't mind giving it a go when funds finally allow me to do so.

In respect of haulage capacity, I have 3 locos which do have kit build bodies mounted on hornby loco chassis. The 1st loco I did was a kit build V2 body on a fowler 2-6-4 chassis modified to include a rear pony set at the cab end. The support fir the cab end of the loco is made out of 80 thou plasticard through which a screw holds the body in place although fixing the body in place at thd smoke box end was a bit awkward but I have managed it. The loco will haul 12 mk1s ( 10 bachmann & 2 hornby ) or 14 mk2A coaches. I realise the chassis is essentially incorrect for a V2 but I'm not fussed about it.

The other 2 locos are both A3 bodies again on hornby chassis although 1 is a bit lighter in weight than the other and thus can haul 2 coaches less than the other loco. The 1st of these I numbered as 60168 based on if a new build A3 locomotive was given this number and has before now moved 14 coaches on it's own so the 2nd loco ( currently not numbered ) can haul 12 but will hopefully match with 14 once extra weight has been added.

The highest haulage ability on my end to end test layout ( current format until I finally get to build a full room layout ) is 15 coaches or 31 wagons by my 2-10-0 + 0-10-2 Garratt ( built out of commercially available parts all hornby ).

I hope these records will be shattered once I get my layout fully built but I'll have to wait for that part for now.

[Danby Wiske]

That Y7 is impressive!

[earlswood nob]

Good morning all

The Y7 does not have any lead added. Its the plain Nucast kit from about 1980 with a replacement scratchbuilt chassis.

I have a Kays Y8 with the same motor/gearbox but that only weighs 98g and spins easily. I keep meaning to add a small amount of lead to the sidetanks, but keep overlooking it.

Earlswood nob

[Hatfield Shed]

It is interesting, and the two RTR item assessments in the list are a close match to my own measurements.

With metal tyred driven wheels it is mass bearing on those wheels (ideally as nearly as possible centred on the powered wheelbase) that is the significant limiting determinant of traction. I have been happily fitting suitable RTR OO mechanisms into old (largely whitemetal) bodies since Bachmann started producing the 56xx and 57xx with good mechanisms, and these have performed well due to the extra weight compared to typical RTR, some of these mechanisms now transplanted for the third time as the advancing tide of RTR choice has led to the 'old things' being 'moved on'.

Until Hornby started on metal bodies for smaller tender locos, almost all RTR OO steam locos were underweight, with occasional exceptions such as Bachmann's 9F, Hornby's Brit and Heljan's O2. But no matter, Doncaster's larger designs and the parallel boilers of many LNER group locos permit plentiful lead ballast, both in interior voids and by substitution for mazak ballast: this is very effective, and as an example the Bachmann O4 listed - which is a little light on its feet as received - is thereby transformed to a performance equivalent of the whitemetal O4 model in the OP's list.

A similar improvement available from use of RTR pieces is to combine the current Hornby 8F mechanism with the all metal H-D or Wrenn 8F body, which properly exploits the mechanism by the large addition of weight. (I had to wait long and patiently for the excessive 'collectorati' pricing of the H-D and Wrenn products to properly collapse to overcome my mean streak, to make this transformation possible.)

[Horsetan]

That Y7 is impressive!

I'll say! Probably about double the capability of the real thing!

[markindurham]

VERY impressed with the performance of the T1...

Mark

[jwealleans]

The T1 in whitemetal is such a beast that it ought to haul anything you put behind it including the building it's inside. The late Graham Varley brought one he'd built for a customer with him to a show once to run in and it would have pulled every piece of stock on the layout if we'd had room to hang it all behind it.

[markindurham]

To paraphrase the Americanism "There's no substitute for cubic inches", what we're saying here is "There's no substitute for weight & plenty of wheels to put the power down"!

[earlswood nob]

Good morning in the sun of sleepy Surrey,

I like white metal kits because of the intrinsic weight. I cannot think of any of my white metal locos that needed weight added.

However, my old Kay's Y8 could do with some. There is not much room as it's fitted with a flywheel, so there is little room in the boiler. Perhaps some would fit in the side tanks, and more under the cab roof. At the moment it will just handle my "Queen of Scots" rake of eight Pullmans, so I should be satisfied with that.

Malcolm (Earlswood Nob)

[earlswood nob]

Morning on a wet day in Surrey

A thoughts while studying railway books under midnight oil.

1) Does a loco with 100g axle weight for all axles in a 0-6-0, spin the wheels easier than one with 50g+200g+50g weight distribution?

2) If the rear axle chosen for drive, will it handle more due to weight transfer to the rear on starting?

3) If a six coupled loco is fitted with the motor driving the front axle and fitted forward, while the rear of the boiler and firebox filled with lead. Will it out perform one with usual drive to middle/rear axle?

Any ideas??

Earlswood Nob (Malcolm)

[Atlantic 3279]

I imagine it would be difficult to find or to build three otherwise perfectly matched locos deliberately incorporating just those specific differences in order to conduct a true test.

[Pebbles]

It has been said that 4-6-0's were easier to start than 4-6-2's because of weight transfer to the rear driver. To me it would therefore be logical to place weight to the rear of a loco in the direction it is pulling in. The question follows; where do you place additional weight. Tank side are convenient, but are they the right place?

[Hatfield Shed]

Weight distribution between wheelsets on small scale models is of no consequence, what is required is that the centre of mass is centered near the middle of the coupled wheel base. (I have been testing this principle since adding weight to Bachmann's WD (LNER 07), thanks to its sprung 2nd and 4th coupled axles either side of the gear axle. My estimates are 160g on each of the sprung axles, 40g on the gear axle, 80g on the leading axle. I did this specifically to relieve load on the gear axle which has limited bearing surface. The model is stable on track when running, and that's been the case for nearing 24 years.)

I am favourably impressed by Bachmann's new G5, offered via TMC. In common with Bach's Midland 0-4-4T introduced earlier, the construction is arranged to place metal over the coupled wheelbase, plastic and light coreless motor to the rear of the second coupled axle, resulting in the centre of mass placed within the coupled wheelbase. These have stable traction in both directions, pushing or pulling: none of the problems that afflict all previous RTR OO 0-4-4T.

[4812]

In the long-distant past did someone not recommend 3 oz adhesive weight for each 10 tons in the prototype? The proviso was that the motor should still be able to make the wheels slip.