I started out with a plan to fill the open area at the rear of the U50 with tungsten, and have found that I increased the weight of the lokie from 6.4 ounces to 7.8 ounces just by filling the void with tungsten fishing weighs from Bass Pro. I have a quote from a source to buy machined blocks made to size for $9.00 each which should weight a little heavier. Now I am thinking about taking it one step further. THe upper frame half is a rather simple piece, and if I can get a duplicate piece (excepting the rear of the frame will fill the shell) machined from 97% alloy, I figure I can boost the weight to well over 10 ounces. The stock upper frame half weighs right at 2 ounces as is, and should weigh over 4 ounces if made from 97% tungsten. I have requested a quote from a company that deals in tungsten alloys and machine work, and the frame is on the way to them for pricing. If it comes in under $70 for the frame half, would anybody else be interested? This is a chance to boost your U50 by approx 4 ounces, or around 60%. Maybe this is too high, but I won't be sure of the price until I get the quote. If you are interested, send me an email and tell me what it would be worth to you. If nothing else, I have access to an automated machine shop where I work and may be able to buy the alloy and machine it there.
sounds like a great idea BUT!! will the weight be to much for the drive train?? if not i would be down for two one for the u50 and one for the veranda turbine.
I think they'll have trouble machining tungsten.Might be easier at looking into a mould made? Either way,an interesting project & as mentioned,dont know how those plastic gears will hold up,now if it were a RR mallet with beautiful all brass gearing,that would be a different matter! Might be interested depending on cost & keen to see how you go with this.Cotton Brute anyone?
The U50's not a bad puller to start with, replacement frames for some of the Atlas diesels that spin their wheels when you even look like coupling a train to them might be a better proposition.
I don't own any U50 diesels, but I'm tickled someone is looking into this and getting an actual price. That will give us an idea of whether other such projects (frame halves for Atlas geeps, for example, or for the LifeLike Berkshire) are even within the realm of possibility. Admittedly, a replacement frame that costs $140 for a diesel that originally cost $70 isn't all that attractive price-wise, particularly if you have dozens of diesels. But $150 to replace the frame on a LL Berk that I bought on sale for $100? Now that would be of serious interest . . . John C.
97 percent tungsten is machineable, and the melting point is waaaay too high to mold. The gentleman I have spoken to assures me that it is no problem, so now I just need to see the price. The U50 will be the easiest to do since there are no bearing cavities or other troublesome areas. It would be nice to see Geeps with heavy frames, but not sure the tungsten can be machined at a reasonable cost. It would require a CNC machine and a bit of programming
It can be done much cheaper using Nickel Stainless Steel. I recast a Kato 2-8-2 using this alloy and wound up with a locomotive that weighed almost 4 pounds. I did the frames, the boiler and the tender to get the weight up. The cost for replicating this is dependent on the volume of sales. But the design is all done in my CAD system and can spin up on the CNC in a heartbeat. To prototype and build the working model cost me a couple of thousand dollars. I just did it to see if it could be done. I even played with the alloys to get even higher weights, but they ended up breaking flex track out of the ties, or bowed the rails out of gauge. Rough calculations - about $50.00 for all these pieces when cut in units of 500 sets. Unfortunately, this will burn out the motor in short order, and a better, higher torque motor is needed. A superior quality 7 pole motor with 4.2 foot pounds of torque can be had for an additional $139, again in volume batches. So for about $200 would be the price for a 2-8-2 upgrade that will pull 200+ cars with no traction tires. But as I said above, adding more weight can cause the other problems of wearing out the motor prematurely, or damaging the track. I do not think adding the amounts suggested would do too badly though. Just that the price of the material costs. There are steel alloys that are nearly as dense as tungsten at a fraction of the price. I would say that a complete frame replacement with the heavier metal is the best way because that will not affect the the center of mass like adding pieces in the voids will. Changing the center of mass will affect the driveline efficiency as well. This is just this engineers opinion, and machining and casting is what my company does day in and day out.
I think a lot of prototype roads would have given anything for a 2-8-2 that would pull 200+ cars too.
The weight you cite is not possible in N scale with a nickel-stainless alloy, and it wouldn't be that heavy in pure tungsten. In addition, you can't get 4.2 ft-lbs of torque from an N scale electric motor. You must be referring to a larger scale.
David: This N scale U50 has the truck bolsters at the very ends of the frame. It would seem that any weight placed between these two points would not affect adversely affect the pulling efficiency of the locomotive like it would on a steam engine where it is possible to place weight outside the driving wheels. Any added weight has to be distributed onto the two four axle powered trucks at each end. I have added lead weights to my U50D and it weighs 7.6 ounces.
I am sorry but it is correct. Nickel Steel is the base of the alloy not the total alloy. There are other materials in the alloy that add to the density. Right now, the final alloy is a trade secret. Also, yes this is N scale, and the motor is not one that you may be familiar with. It is one commonly used in satellites because of the super small size and exceptional power. I am in the satellite and aerospace industry as a manufacturer with machine shops and foundries as well as the other processes needed to fabricate our products. This was a project I gave my staff to work on when the book of business slowed down. I challenged my metallurgy staff to think backwards and make things as heavy as they can instead of as light as they can. I chose this route instead of labor reduction, and now that business is back on schedule, all of this was parked on the computer until it was useful enough to bring back. The motor in use is a 7-pole motor used to rotate assemblies on the satellite. As such, it requires high torque and is the same size as the motor Kato used in the SD90MAC. These are not available on the market just yet in the retail space. But I do have access to them through my vendor accounts. The sanguine point is not how heavy, because too heavy is detrimental to the motor and the track. And the point about the center of mass is directly out of sophomore Dynamics class from engineering school, this concept was ingrained into me when I was designing antennas on gimbal platforms and still holds true to effects of a change in the center of mass in the locomotive. Changing the center of mass by any significant amount will alter the balance of the power deilvery and contribute to increased unbalanced wear on the drive components. So the originator of the thread was on the right thread when he discussed re-doing the entire frame.
I find that a nickel steel alloy n scale Kato 282 weighing nearly 4 lbs to be remarkable. If I assume that the boiler plus the cab are solid tungsten I calculate a weight of 278.8 grams or 0.61 lbs or 9.6 oz using a measured boiler diameter of 1.5 cm and length of 8.2 cm. Thus, to achieve a weight of nearly 4 lbs, one would need nearly 7 times the volume or 7 times the density or some combination of both. However, I am aware that high density is very important to gimbaling. It is also very important to ballistic penetrators (bullets and projectiles) and tungsten and depleted uranium are commonly used in this application, based on my experience in developing and producing ceramic armor and armor inserts. Perhaps I have misunderstood some the details of this claim. Respectfully, Jack Sibold
Flash, I presume you also filled the cab/light area? Have you tested to see how much you can pull? The tungsten fishing weights I used in the rear left a lot of open space, and I probably could have gained another 3/8 to ½ ounce if I had used solid tungsten. Hopefully I will have a quote on the frames Monday or Tuesday. I am debating making the frame fill the area currently occupied by the light and the shield portion of the frame. As it is, I haven’t asked for that area in the quote. Since the machining will be the major expense, I can’t imagine it would cost that much more.
I did not fill the cab/light area. I will try to check tomorrow to see how many it will pull by itself. I always like to MU 4-6 units together anyway, but I limit train size to 50 cars on my layout.
David, This all sounds very interesting! Is there any chance of a picture of this little engineering mastery? Would luv to hear more about any "such projects" still on the drawing board.
That is fairly impressive. I was just thinking about the frame I am waiting for a quote on. I never checked to see if my planned frame mod (filling the void at the rear of the frame) will work on the gas turbine. I think I still have a spare shell around somewheres, so I had better get it out and check. I noticed that just the weight I added seemed to help the lokie run smoother, and seemed to have better electrical pick-up.
