It doesn't hold true for big steamers, but if you look at prototype diesel powered trains, one locomotive isn't usually able to pull 50 cars by itself, more like 35, 30, or less. Most of those longggg trains we see now have between 3 and 5 locos pulling. Unit trains of empties are a different story. Randy
it's true what you say, randy. as i've been reading this, i agree that a big expensive locomotive (i.e. challenger) should be able to pull more than just it's own weight. but in fact, if you were to buy one Rio Grande Challenger, you'd really need to buy 3 to be prototypical. Grande used one on the head end, one mid-train (swing helper) and one in the rear as a helper. on the big passes both the swing and rear helper would be cut out to help with the next train, leaving the rest of the journey in in the hands of the one lead challenger (there were, of course, some exceptions to this rule). as the steamers were fazed out and diesels fazed in, the challengers ended their useful lives as pushers -- with ABBA F units in the lead. steam and diesel together! a nice use of available steam and diesel in Z scale. dave f. p.s. of course all the above applied to Rio Grande style mountain railroading. UP challengers were used differently, in which case 50 cars on the flat lands would not have been unheard of.
I've mentioned in one of my earlier post my evperiment with a powerful drive for big locomotives. Today I had some time to dig into my drawers and found all the components of my (a kind of eyesore) Challenger experimental chassis, I've made about four or five years ago (before I started to play with the SW-1 concept). I put the components together with one improvement, the flexible hose between the two Marklin chassis was replaced with a true ball joint drive borrowed from a cheap Japanese locomotive chassis. The motor is a 12mm coreless, no brand name, but very powerful. This creature runs extremely smooth with no limit in low speed. When I figure out how to shot a video with my new camera, I'll post one. Now, I have this eyesore in my sight, I'll keep working on it. Add another, bigger flywheel, a better ball joint between the motor and the chassis and add tons of tungsten to every places make sense and possible. Based on today's test runs, I bet, this creature will pull at least 120 box cars. s
Yeah, that was the problem with steam. All that smoke and metal and so little efficiency. Lajos, man, I tip my hat to that bash. That is the ultimate. I have to frame it. But I'll bet with the 'battery' shoved up that 'coreless' rear motor linked that front 'powerless' plant, you won't need no stinking boosters. Just make sure we're single trained at the shows 'cause we have too many rear enders and that looks like will clear the way. Now where's my MasterCard ? Priceless ! .
I'm all for the idea to power the tender. I've been playing around with my GS-4 tender the past few weeks. I've been trying to figure out a way to fit ether a GP-9 or F-7 moter and drive into it. I'm just about there. I just need to design the trucks and I'll be finished. In the end everything should run off a single decoder and pull about 55-65 cars. :tb-biggrin:
I dont have any brass loco's at all but the challenger just might be too much of a "challenge" to resist, lets hope the Aussie dollar improves against the US dollar in the future. I can haul 20 -25 coal wagons with most of my Marklin steamies and my yet to be constructed big layout will be flat ( track flat but scenery not ) so if the challenger can do better, even if only by a few wagons, then i will be happy.
Beside pulling power, there is another important issue with big steam locomotives. Articulating. Chassis components must not only fit inside, but fit with a clearance, because of the articulation. As Chris pointed out, the common drive mechanism for articulating locomotives is similar to the diesels, big trucks with tower, and the motor between the towers. It's easy in N-scale and up, but in Z, for example the Challenger, the center of tower to center of tower dimension is about 32mm. This is not enough even for a 10mm Faulhaber motor with flywheels. And for this size of locomotive, my opinion, the 10mm Faulhaber motor is not powerful enough. With the motor in the tender, the drive mechanism above the articulating trucks can be very slim (ok, my eyesore concept is not exactly slim, but you can imagine), so the shell suspension points can be determined based on the artculation. This way unwanted overhangs can be avoided. Another option is to push the whole locomotive via the tender. In the case of Challenger is not a good option either. The tender is big, but not big enough to fit anything substantially more powerful than an MTL F7. Lajos
That all depends on how you define efficiency. It took diesel power a lot of years to match the tractive effort of a single steam loc with a single diesel loc. Raw power was never an issue with steam. It was the continuous upkeep and having to add water all the time. Diesels big selling points were the relative ease of upkeep and operation. They have much better ratios of time in operation versus time in the shop. They are also much easier MU. But a single steam loc generally had to be replaced by two or three diesels. Dan S.
Very cool project, my only concern is how this is going to make it around a 195mm radius? I know how they do it on the full size loco's with floating wheels or minor changes in gauge, but in Z do you remove some of the flanges?...or is there plenty of room between the wheels to negotiate curves. I wonder if any running tests have been done yet? Joe
you got the question wrong way round :tb-biggrin: The real question is - when will you make available other radiuses? I'd rather have beautiful steamer that forces you to use flex, handlaid or . . . rather than compromise the design to suit 195mm radius. Whilst I have nothing against the so-called suitcase layouts (after all what one does in the privacy of one's model room is nobody's business), for me, at least, Z is about possibility of building layouts without (or at least with much less) selective shortening and ridiculus looking radiuses.
For a big articulated, try four or five. On level and lightly graded lines, it's surprising what a single steamer could pull. DM&IR Yellowstones, famously, regularly moved 180 70-ton ore cars unaided. The only heavier trains I know of in that era were CGW's longest freights, running over 200 cars behind many F-units.
"...my only concern is how this is going to make it around a 195mm radius?" Yes, it does, but when I dropped the cardboard footprint of the actual locomotive body over the articulated creature, there was no eye pleasing position. Awful lots of stuff were sticking out at too many directions. This size of steam locomotive shouldn't run on that small radius, it looks like mistake. I'll take a photo to illustrate it. Lajos
Joe, I'm not expecting a large loco to run on 195mm radius, nor 220. That's why the BAZ BoyZ elected a 12" (305mm) or greater minimum, to compare with N and HO acceptable "realistic" curves. If I only had space for a common Marklin/MTL 195+220mm radius layout, I wouldn't be buying one of those bad boys (psych: to run on that track). But I'd buy one to weather up right, proudly put it on display and wait until I visited a layout that could properly run it. Sorta like buying a Porsche to drive in traffic. You just have to wait until you have the proper road Lots of locos available for the smaller radius. That's where the mainstream sales can be for these types. .
Jeff, The Northern Division will have no curves sharper that 490mm. Since I can't afford one you can stop by and run here. Cheers, Jim CCRR
Here is the overhead picture of the concept drive with the cardboard footprint of the body on the top. The chassis runs fine, but doesn't look right on 195mm radius... Lajos
One of the things that made the Athearn N-scale Challenger so popular is that the engine really pulls well. All 12 drivers are powered, and the both wheels of the rear axle of each drivetrain unit have traction tires. So it has 4 drivers with traction tires. I would suggest that your Z-scale Challenger will be more popular if all 12 drivers are powered (as opposed to only powering one set of drivers). If only 6 were powered, I think many would view it as a disappointment. I think one of the previous comments was to put "power pickup" in the tender - make sure that the tender wheels help pick up the electric current.
This wasn't ment as a critique, just that not everyone has the room for 305mm radi, just wondering what it would do on normal layouts not uber layouts designed by the supermen at BAZ who have the planning skills and foresight of the Nordic Gods ) See ya at the Cow Palace next month! Joe MTL
"...not everyone has the room for 305mm radi, just wondering what it would do on normal layouts..." There is a simple solution. After market soft rubber shell, bends like a sausage... Lajos :0)
"When I figure out how to shoot a video with my new camera, I'll post one." Well, I couldn't, because the Canon EOS cameras can't shoot videos. Bummer. Tomorrow I'll pick up a moderately priced (I mean inexpensive but not useless) video camera, because I'm going to use it. Short demo videos are coming soon. Lajos
