Someone mentioned tungsten frame/chassis, and a company named Dapol is doing just that on a 0 6 0 T, Apparently Dapol cares about there customers, and is willing to push the envelope to accomplish performance goals. Its going to be really interesting on how well this small locomotive performs. Certainly it should be a new step up in Quality and performance. Imagine if Bachmann had made their heavy Mountain in tungsten alloy frame. We probably have to rebuild some bridges to accommadate all the "extra heft". The big question is will the American manufacturers follow the example? I have a great deal of respect for Dapol, they apparently listen to their customers and go the length and effort to achieve the goals. Kudos to Dapol, I can't wait to see how well this loco comes out! Rob
Maybe something like this would be a nice market for a 3rd party chassis upgrade to many popular locomotives? That way, the additional cost can be paid by those that want to pay it, for the additional weight and performance. That way, the price point of the locomotives can still be affordable to the masses, but the additional cost of the upgrade can also be covered by the serious performance modelers.. Hmm..
How about this, Companies like atlas who have a parts division make tungsten frames as an option and sell them in their parts store.
My response to the same topic by you in a different thread: Kudos yes... lamenting other manufacturers for not doing the same in a vastly different package... foolish. You're looking at a steam locomotive with the wheelbase of a HTC truck (i.e, a frame that is exponentially smaller than an average US diesel or steam frame would be), that has no outside linkage/piston assemblies save a set of siderods (i.e, no cost associated with manufacturing and assembling said linkage, which is a significant savings), yet costs ~$94 US. While there are machinable tungsten alloys... their machining costs are still higher than with softer metals or alloys... not that that matters, as frame halves aren't machined to begin with, they're die-cast (much cheaper than machining). While you could conceivably have the tungsten alloy compacted and sintered to your frame halve spec... you're looking at an extraordinary cost to do that for each and every frame halve vs buying a standard blank. not that buying a standard blank would really help.. as then you'd have to machine it.. etc, etc. Tungesten itself has risen some 300% in price in the last five years... You're looking at an extra $75 to $100 (if not more) in UNIT cost alone to go to a tungsten frame... A cheaper route would be to go to a frame that is cast with pockets to put tungsten blocks in, but you're limited in what you can do there, partly by size constraints, partly by casting constraints... but then you have to add the machining, material and assembly costs on top of the exisiting frame halve costs... so add another $10-25 in UNIT cost for that option...
I am not very good at evaluating engines, but I will give it a try. The following pictures is of the Dapol 0-6-0 T “Boxhill” (Terrier). The detail is very well done as is the paint job. A picture of the prototypical 0-6-0 T exists on the web and this engine matches is very closely. The prototype was run by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway and was used for light consists (3 to 4 passenger cars, or branch line freight or as shunting engines. When Dapol built this model, the prototypical use was taken into consideration…thus the 0-6-0 with the 1:40 gearing ratio. In a trail run, with out full benefit of break-in, the engine pulled 6 coal wagons with no slippage on a 2% incline. 6 US 40’ boxcars were then tried and slippage occurred on the incline. The 1:40 gearing ratio provides for the achievement of very slow speeds. Not the best of pictures, but a try.
Anybody have a weight ratio comparison with Tungsten vs. lead and other metals used in frames? I agree somewhat with both Rob and Robbman. Like Rob, I applaud manufacturers exploring new areas to increase performance wherever possible. However I get the feeling if this happened across the board, we would instead be complaining about the 300+ dollar base price of locomotives here today. I'm with Robbman in that not all locomotives need tungsten. Could all locomotives benefit? Of course, but on my layout, anything more than 10 cars and there is more train than track showing. How would I benefit from paying more for a product to gain performance beyond my layout limitations? I especially like the idea of aftermarket frames. Using Atlas for example. They make a loco that runs great, pulls great, and looks great. Enter Aftermarket Frames LLC. Atlas makes royalty for allowing AMF to copy their frame design. AMF makes money from selling tungsten frames to those who really benefit from having them. We now have a loco that runs great, pulls outstanding and looks great. Everyone wins. Those who can live with standard pulling abilities dont pay more, those who dont care about cost and want to pull everything they have find themselves one step closer to that.
Well, I'm going to take a contrarian view here. I think aftermarket frames for steam locos are a problem. To do a replacement, you'd have to drop the drivers and all the associated detail and then reinstall them on a new frame. This is not like replacing trucks on a diesel; it's a major job that is not for the faint of heart. Yes, expense is an issue, but so is performance. I agree that not all steam locos would need tungsten; bigger steam (anything larger than a 2-8-2) would likely have acceptable performance with a traction tire and good weight balance, even without tungsten (see, e.g., the Athearn Challenger, Big Boy and new runs of the Walthers 2-8-8-2). But from 2-8-2s on down, weight over the drivers is a major problem, even with traction tires. I have several Kato Mikados that I've installed traction tires on. They pull well, but I recently installed a DCC decoder in a Mike that had a GHQ pewter shell conversion. That Mike has no traction tire, and outpulls my TT'd Mikes by 100% (double the number of cars). So for me, I'd rather pay more (even $100 more) to have the weight over the drivers on smaller steam. Of course, cast metal shells on current frames would work, too, a la GHQ, and perhaps that would be more cost effective?? John C.
Wasn't really saying that.... just trying to give a realisitic cost anaylisis and issues invlolved in using tungsten for US prototype frames.
My suggestion would be to make a tungsten full body 40', 50' and 60' cheater box cars. Ok, two or three types for the various eras. DCC - Ready with easy to remove shells and pop in decoders.
Those old engines could pull the whole layout away. I wonder how many lead GP38 frames you'd have to eat to get lead poisoning? I must admit I've never handled tungsten, how heavier is it than, for instance, lead. Would just making diesel truck frames out of it add enough weight to make a difference? As someone mentioned the terrier is about the size of a HTC truck. I would probably pay the extra for tungsten frames for certain engines like the Walthers 0-8-0 if the operation was improved, I agree its not the answer for everything but some engines need all the help they can get, especially small switchers. I'll be keeping a eye in the British magazines to see what reception the Terrier gets over there. I see some British on line retailers selling them for around 50 pounds and Dapol has instructions on installing a decoder. If I hadn't mentioned it on the other thread you guys would probably be still thinking a Terrier was a dog.:tb-biggrin:
Tungsten is a necessary upgrade... The smaller diesels such as RS and GP units would be much better runners and pullers. Also... those of us who would like to eventually have sound in these units need the added weight to make-up for the space needed for a speaker installation when a suitable miniature becomes available. If tungsten were universally used by all manufacturers... perhaps the cost on large quantities could provide some savings. There are some engines which run fine on the currently used alloys... but... they would be even better with Tungsten. Cost is a factor... so... I can't say that I wouldn't be one to complain if an typical hood unit was $150.00 MSRP with a Tungsten chassis. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that a super-premium line of locomotives with sound/dcc and tungsten frames would be available in the future though.
The density of Lead is 11340 kg/m3 and tungsten is 19600 or almost twice as much. Gold is 19320, about as heavy as tungsten. Uranium is only 18900. Platinum is 21400.
