Selective compression - of trains

[Triplex]

Sometimes I wonder: How much are modellers willing to compress their trains? I know it varies. Some, like the legendary John Allen, accept no selective compression and have to justify their short trains. Allen's justification was: sharp curves and light rail required small engines. Those engines couldn't haul much up the steep grades. This approach is reasonable for some prototypes, such as Colorado narrow gauge. Others accept very strong compression with no rationale, like Bruce Chubb. His Sunset Valley (the old one, not the current one) ran with mainline freights of 15 or fewer 40' cars. This made his passenger trains (which were less compressed) as long as his freights - an unprototypical situation. I presume his reason for this was his de-emphasis of through freights.

How much do you compress your trains? What is an average mainline freight or passenger train on your layout? For freight, it helps if you say not just how many cars but how long they are. It also would help if I knew what kind of engine consists hauled these trains; how few cars are you willing to put behind an engine? And, to provide some context, what are your scale, prototype, and era?

[traingeekboy]

I tend to design the layout based on certain things like, passing siding length, or in my case storage track length. I think the actual space dictates what we can do. I am hoping to keep my next layout to a 10 to 12 car length with two engines and a caboose. To me thats pretty good.

I'm building a door panel sized N scale layout set in the early 70's. The plan has a couple added staging tracks on the outside of the oval, but this is basically the design. I'm hoping to be able to host operating sessions on this small layout for two to three operators.

http://www.trainboard.com/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/33/t/000646.html

[ July 30, 2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: traingeekboy ]

[Triplex]

I'm guessing those are ~50' cars. Are they typically 4-axle or 6-axle diesels?

[Wolfgang Dudler]

If you can't see the whole train - it's a long train. I run my transfer trains with 20+ cars.

http://www.railimages.com/albums/wolfgangdudler/acr.jpg


Unit trains are not longer because staging lenth is limited.

http://www.railimages.com/albums/wolfgangdudler/acs.jpg

My EXTRAs which serves the industry districts have mostly 16 cars, up to 8 for Third Street District and the other part for Harbor District.

Happy tooooot
Wolfgang

[Alan]

On my previous (N scale) layout the longest train I ran were around 40-50 cars (limited by the staging sidings).

On my current HO scale layout trains are around 6-7 cars smile.gif (limited by the staging sidings) ;)

Well, it is only a short line switching layout :rolleyes:

[Pete Nolan]

I run 40-60 car freights--with car lengths of 40-50 feet, usually pulled by two or four engines, in N scale. Since I model the 1950s, my trains are pulled by first generation diesels. It'll take four Baldwin Sharks or four H15-44s to pull what two Kato PA-1s will pull.

Passenger trains run 4-12 85-foot cars, usually pulled by 2 E-8s or PA-1s.

The ruling grade of 2.75% from deck to deck limits train length. Actually it's the coupler strength of Accumates, with are good for only about 30 cars. I get to 60 cars by putting all the Accumate-equipped ones at the rear.

Steam is another question. I'm satisfied with short trains even behind LL 2-8-8-2s, just for the pleasure of watching them run.

I've found 40 cars are adequate to represent a long freight: guests are pretty impressed. I have no minimum for any engine; I run trains that represent the maximum that any particular (model) engine can pull. If a switcher can pull four cars, and I have only three available, that's just fine with me.

[Grey One]

The Grey and Grandure will run 3 to 10 mixed size car trains. It is just a short line. The GN and CP shared main line will have 4 foot locals and 6 foot MU express running through.

The reason in my case is anything longer would look out of place. 4' is the size of my sidings.

[Triplex]

Interestingly different responses. I'd forgotten about that possibility: basing your train lengths on what the models will haul. My answer to my own question is: For modelling 1990s heavy mainline railroading in N scale, I would design for 11-foot trains; 2 Dash 9s or comparable or 3 SD40s or comparable, 21 Husky Stacks or another set of cars of equivalent length, no caboose. Anything less would seem overpowered. This assumes fairly level track; I would add a helper or two for grades over 2%. If I used more engines, I would run longer trains. For locals, I probably would run ~10 cars, maybe with a caboose, behind 1 or 2 4-axle diesels. All this assumes that I could make 11' passing tracks and at least as long of gaps between them.

[notenuftoys]

Selective compression? It would be nice to have the choice! :(

A 3x6 layout kinda forces compression. graemlins/226.gif ;)

[Stourbridge Lion]

Lack of a layout hurts even more...

:( :( :( :( :(

[Triplex]

Yeah - I don't have that layout I described. That was the maximum compression I could accept. I wouldn't try to model mainline railroading unless I could do that, and since I'm not interested in branch/shortline operations, that leaves me with a little problem...

[beast5420]

my home layout (when complete) will have things compressed to about half the length due to size, space, and grade. however, that is one of the nice things about belonging to the local N scale club. 80+ unit grain cars fit nicely on the layout. goes all the way down one side of the layout..... life is good!!

beast

[BoxcabE50]

I've not yet figured what my new layout will allow. So can't address the question.

However, I do see an up side to compressing length. Excess cars can be run as an extra train. Or a second section if your train is on a timetable schedule. So there could be some added operating interest available.

:D

Boxcab E50

[wiking]

mine is governed by the layouts revese loop.so all i can run is 16 including engines.

Hereis a diagram of it web page (http://www.railimages.com/albums/alanmorgan/abe.sized.jpg)

[Pete Nolan]

On smaller layouts, I used to know pretty much how many cars each engine could pull. I had far fewer locos, fewer and lesser grades, and a much shorter loop of about 200 feet, which could be shortened to 100 feet. It made experimentation much quicker. Because it was all MT couplers, I could pull just about any lengt train I wanted. I got up to about 80 cars, before it started to look ridiculous. I think my longest siding held about 20 cars.

Today I have a far greater variety of locos, a layout with a 650-foot loop (325 up, 325 down), and steeper grades that are on curves. I also don't have as much time. But I do have two 30+ foot passing sidings, plus two 20-footers, plus a few others in the teens. This makes 60-car trains quite feasible: currently there are two 55-car through freights on the layout.

But five long grades vary in difficulty, and the length of the loop makes it hard to experiment. Usually the ruling grade of 2.7% around a 24-inch radius 180 degree turn is a pretty good indicator. But not always. Two Trainmasters, for example, will handle a 60-car train with ease, except for that grade. They'll make it, but with a lot of wheelspin. So I tack on a single helper for that grade, rather than run three engines all the way around.

Since I model the 50s, my diesels have between 1000 and 2400 HP in the prototype. I'm not sure what the prototype would use for a 20-car way freight through terrain with that ruling grade with a long curve. I do know a LL FA-2 (or like) will pull it; I also know it will take at least 2 Kato RSCs.

So I guess I do espouse model-based pulling power. It's not so different than the prototype, which had to match loco power to the train and the terrain. I find it rather enjoyable to put together a train, and then try to estimate which consist of engines will make it to the top. Of course, I could put four Kato PAs (or LL FAs, or whatever) in front of every train, and never have a worry, except for couplers.

Now, steam--especially big steam--is a different animal altogether. I will be going with cheaters, or TTs, when I get around to it. I still enjoy watching them run, but they are "excursion" or emergency power for now.

[Powersteamguy1790]

On the JJJ&E which is a steam transition era railroad, I'm also limited by 4 reverse loops. The shortest reverse loop will hold atypical train that consists of a FT ABBA plus 28 cars which are 40' boxcars, 33' hoppers, 50' gondola and 50' reefers.

The average train length is slightly over eight feet.

My steam loco's will typically run trains of 15-16 cars as the JJJ&E is completely graded.

For passenger trains I normally run train lengths of 5-6 cars depending on the steam loco I'm using. With diesels the passenger cars trains are 8-10 cars.

Stay cool and run steam..... graemlins/cool.gif :cool: :cool:

[Triplex]

Pete- If you have 2.7% grades and acknowledge them (some layouts have grades but claim they're less, because the prototype was gentler) transition-era engines shouldn't haul much. Prototypes can outpull models on level ground, but on that grade, the model is stronger. An ABBA FT set could only haul 16 loaded cars up Cajon Pass :eek: and that's a similar grade. A heavy 2-8-2 could haul maybe 11 loaded cars. On level ground, their capacities would've been four times that.

[Pete Nolan]

Triplex,

That's good information. I've never researched much prototype information--I'm more a modeler than a railfan.

I acknowledge the 2.75% grade. I started out with a goal of 2.0% max. But I couldn't gain enough elevation between decks while preserving realistic scenery possibilities. Because I designed with a NO DUCKUNDERS rule, the tracks have to loop around at the door, rather than just going round and round the room, which would be the ideal nolix. I gain 2.5 feet of elevation in 325 feet of track. If I could just climb continuously, that would be about a grade of 0.7%. But large sections of my layout have to be level--yards and bridges, for example.

So I have a 20-foot long yard on the first deck, followed by a 4-foot bridge. How do I climb to the next deck 1.25 feet above the yard? I have, essentially, a 16-foot long table with some bulges to gain 1.25 feet, since the entrance to the second deck is also across a 4-foot bridge, which must be level. Well, on a 16-foot table with a 4-foot bulge, I can get about 50 feet of running length. That's 2.5%! OK, that would be my new design standard

Then I made a mistake building that 4-foot bulge. I realized it only when I started laying track, after building up to the second deck. Should I rip down the table-work from the mistake forward, or compromise? I compromised--what's an extra 0.25%?

It turns out that it was a lot. I'm still thinking of ways to modify the supports to "warp" the table back to 2.5%. In the meantime, it's just an operating challenge.

So I shouldn't feel too bad that my Kato Mikado, without TTs, before I went to DCC, would pull about 8 cars up that grade! I have the TTs--what I don't have is the time to install a decoder.

[dingoix]

My layout will be 18'x4' with a 4x6 on one side to make it a "L". There will be a 2x8 coming off the L to make the layout essentaly a "J". The main wont go on the 2x8 section, that section will be full of industries and spurs.

now, on to train length- CGW was noted for long trains, and I plan to run 40-50 car freights with F units. My grade is pry about 0.25%. locals may be 10 cars or slightly less (depends on my industries). Locals will be pulled by a GP7, RS2, S1, or a 4-6-2.

In my world, CGW has restored a 4-6-2 for excursion service and it will pull locals when no excursions are scheduled. Excursions will be as many Walthers 64 seat coaches that it will pull without much slip.

Ok... I don't have the 4-6-2 yet ,but I ordered it today.