Deacon, You might be able to make a mold of the space you want to fill (out of heat resistant material), and cast a custom weight from lead, especially if you have the equipment for (safely) casting your own bullets. That gets rid of the airspace between the individual shot. From Wikipedia "Sphere packing": For equal spheres in three dimensions, the densest packing uses approximately 74% of the volume. A random packing of equal spheres generally has a density around 63.5%. Note, that 74% is independent of the diameter of the sphere, as long as it is small relative to the dimensions of the volume being filled. It gets worse as the diameter of the sphere starts approaching the dimensions of the volume. So, from this, one might ask, what difference does it makes what size spheres you pack with (as long as they are small compared to the space being filled?) The answer is that the space within the spheres is, for practical purposes, 100% packed. However, the ~26% void space left between the spheres can be filled a further 74% with significantly smaller spheres. Thus the total void would be 26% squared, or 6.8%, meaning the total volume is then 93% filled. Whereas, if you filled the entire volume with the significantly smaller spheres to start with, it would still only be 74% filled.
So tungsten itself is more dense than lead (0.7 lb/ci vs 0.41 lb/ci), but (there's always a but)... It also depends on how the tungsten paste is made: what is the binder/filler, the shape of the tungsten particles, and/or of (at least) two widely different sizes, etc. Also, ratio of tungsten to binder. It is also possible to get more efficient packing with some non-spherical particle shapes (e.g. cubes). Both Tungsten and lead (and lead sulfide: galena, PbS) have cubic crystalline structures, which contribute to their relatively high bulk densities. But the melting point of Tungsten is over 6000F, where Lead is a little over 600F.
Second that, I have several older locos that do not have the pulling power up a grade. I am in the process of redesigning my Unitrack layout and at this point I and not inclined to include any inclines.
I had similar luck with Unitrack Viaduct inclines, until I added their intermediate pier set. It comes with fittings to add the intermediate height piers at mid-span on the viaduct pieces, which would maintain the original (steep) grade. However, you can also use them just at viaduct piece ends, doubling the total incline length, but halving the grade. That did the trick for me. The resulting grade averages about 3% (less at the ends, more in the middle with vertical easements built into the pier heights), but that also depends on the lengths of viaduct pieces you use (shorter pieces will increase the grade.) Curves decrease the effective grade a loco can pull, due to wheel slip, but small layouts generally can't achieve required vertical clearance without some curved grades. Eliminating curves on grades, and/or increasing their radii when you can't avoid them, helps considerably.
While I do agree curves do decrease the effective grade a loco can pull that does not account for a straight (+10') 2 % grade I have behind 'Luck Penny Yard'. You can watch the trains slow as they climb. 12 car trains make it about 3/4 of the way up before wheel slip drags them to a stop.. Cars have 'clean axles'. Locos have 'clean axles'. Track is clean. For me personally inclines Sorta like driving your car. You see a hill up ahead you tend to speed up a bit to 'take the hill'. If I run my 4 axles at a higher then prototypical speed...they just might 'take the hill'.
I appreciate all the input. I used the simple idea of trying the engines in the other direction and they handle the other way around pretty well! SO the small stuff may wind up running their consists clockwise and the heavier stuff counter-clockwise. I will still add the weight to the Mogul to try that out.
Life at the limits of traction is fun! I noticed recently that my little 70-tonner will pull 8 cars on level track without a hitch, but struggles to push those same cars in reverse. It's a shame none of the DCC function buttons dispense scale sand onto the tracks
Most of the top line decoders, Digitrax, Zimo, ESU, TCS have what is called Trim and Back EMF which is like cruise control when setup right. Not saying it will completely fix the situation, but check your decoder settings. I do not include NCE decoders because they do not have a seperate Forward and Reverse Trim setting. At least they did not, last I dealt with them. And remember, even the real railroads stacked up power for the inclines.
Emphasis mine. One of the many factors that lead railroads to migrate from steam to diesel was the modularity of power, that could be stacked together to meet an individual train's (and route's) power needs, without requiring a crew for each additional locomotive. This was minor compared to drastically reduced maintenance requirements and other advantages, but just another nail in the steam locomotive's coffin. Steam locomotives had a 2:1 maintenance to revenue time ratio. So for every steam loco pulling revenue trains, two more were in the shop, bleeding money for maintenance. Railroads literally replaced steam with diesel as fast as they possibly could, simply because the latter were so much more cost-efficient.
Hmmm... 'curved' inclines are a double dagger for almost all N scale individual locomotives. Bad enough that an incline greater than 2% cuts tractive effort by at least 50%... adding a curve within the incline will increase the loss of traction significantly. I will mention more as I read the responses.
Steam helpers and multi-unit diesels are the medicine for difficult grades. Helpers provide more operating interest, whereas diesels were designed from the start for multi-unit running. Some diesels were even draw-barred together and numbered accordingly (nnnA, nnnB, etc.)
You have the Athearn (nee MDC/Roundhouse) Mogul 2-6-0 and Consolidation 2-8-0. These are tender drives. Unfortunately they are too lightweight to go up inclined grades and worse on a curved grade. The locomotive itself is too light as well. It provides some electrical conductivity as long as the drivers stay on the track. The center wheels are 'blind' drivers so easily lose rail contact. Using BullFrog Snot on the rear driver may reduce conductivity further. Increasing the weight of the tender drive by using Tungsten putty will help 'some'. Replace the plastic coal load with similarly sized lump of Tungsten putty. Even though pure Tungsten is not electrically conducive... I believe the putty version may be electrically conducive. Use Kapton tape to insulate motor from the putty. The putty can be moulded to look like the coal load and painted black and sprinkle some textured material to look like coal. On the locomotive itself put Tungsten putty to keep the wheels in contact with the rails.
Agreed... but some don't have double headed power units and may be looking to use short consists that would look strange with multiple locomotives.
Yeah, my Kato E5 will NOT run on that section, however my other Kato 6 axle engines will. Annoying. Also, have a Kato RDC that hates that section, still trying to get it to behave.
Seems like a track issue if you have two locos that fail there and nowhere else. Is the grade smooth, i.e. no noticeable up or down bends at the joint between track sections? One thing I've done is take a movie of the train going slow with my phone as close as will focus. Watching lets me see where a wheel first comes up off the rail, and I can even go frame by frame on my laptop. When I did this I found the the wheel came off several feet before the derail became evident at a turnout.
If the E5 is anything like the P42 (which shares the same frame design), the trucks don't pivot as freely in the pitch/roll axes as on some other locos. This makes them extra susceptible to dips and wobbles in the track.
