Boycott Steam!!!

Ahh to steam or not to steam. A small primer on real steam operation VS diesel.
Having grown up with them I'm somewhat familar with them so here goes.

Steam had some advantages over diesel in the early years. The first was power to the rails in a single unit. It took two to three Geeps or Fs to replace a single 2-8-2. The second was low tech. when it came to maintenance. Big hammers, big wrenches, and ordinary materials like iron, steel, brass, and tin alloys. Feul was cheaper to process to produce the power. Early units burned anything that would combust in the firebox, and later units were designed to use the available coal in the area of operations.

Steam offered some advantages in weather extremes also. You can't wade through water with a diesels traction motors, and fine blowing snow could have the same effect on the early units, that didn't bother the steamers.

On tractive effort again advantage steamer in that it was inherently heavy due to a boiler full of water and the materials used to build it. Tractive effort equals pounds per square inch at the rail head, and adhesion. Early diesels and even todays units are ballasted to give the weight for tractive effort and the smaller wheels means more weight per square inch.

Disadvantage to steam was the limits on milage per feul and water load. Service interval was not a big issue on later units, reference NPs running over a 1000 miles between service stops, with only stops for coal and water.

There were two track standards, and still are. Which is one of the big issues that carries over to model railroading. Big steam, especially big drivered steam, needed wider curvature. To get around that some steamers had the center drivers blind, or flangeless. They also had lateral motion devices that allowed the drivers to have some lateral play and vertical suspension to keep all drivers in contact with the rail in dips in the track.

The full scale advent of the diesel allowed tighter curvature and tighter switches. In the 1950s a lot of steam was stored servicable against an upturn in traffic requiring more power. When this happened, and the steamers were temporarily returned to service, problems arose in some derailments at spots where the track had been realligned to the diesel standards.

Logging and shortlines typically used small drivered steamers because of tractive effort needs, and because of the tight curvature found on those lines. Rarely was anything larger than a 2-6-2 used in a rod engine, and if it was it was usually used on thier mainline built to class one standards. Therefore a lot of 4-4-0s and six drivered locos saw service on them in addition to the geared locos.

Which now takes us back to the N scale steamers. The limited swing on the pony trucks of most, limits the curvature they will take. If you had the same amount of swing motion in the pony truck as trailing truck on some, tighter curvatures could be handled. The larger wheel base types, 4-8-4, 2-10-0 and 2-10-2 cannot handle the curves on most small layouts or tight switches. Thus the better performance of the smaller 2-6-2s and 2-8-0s. Most of my four wheel lead, or pony truck, locos don't like tight curves and switches due to the lack of adequate swing motion. The same identical wheel base with a 2 wheel pony truck, and greater swing motion will negotiate curvatures that the former won't.

I had a 2-10-0 that would squirm through tight curves that put most others on the ties. But it had blind drivers on three axles, and good swing motion on the pony truck.

One of the problems today is that there are few folks in the modeling industry that begin to understand the running requirements of steam. And few locomotives incorporate the design features that allow them to run on a lot of home, and club layouts. The inherent design of model steam drive mechanisms does not allow for lateral motion, but they could have blind drivers. And not much can be done to increase the swing motion on four wheel pony trucks, and keep it looking realistic. There is the problem of a set of steam cylinders in the way. Back to blind drivers again to allow slightly tighter curves. And then there is marketing and the fine print. Nobody seems to figure out that that SUV got up on that rock outcropping by being lifted there by a helicopter. Makes a great photo though. Problem is when the folks at the LHS sell the loco they don't tell you there is some track limits, and they probably don't know. They just count the $$$. Few folks really read the revues in the mags. If they say minimum 9 and 3/4ths then its probably pushing it. I haven't seen too many state the minimum turnout it will get through.

Basically big steam needs big radius. Four wheel pony trucks, and large diameter 8 drivered and over locos, need 18 inch radius or better period. Therefore 4-8-4 Northerns, 4-8-2 Mountains, 2-10-2 Santa Fes, and big drivered 4-6-2s don't belong on the branchline, and in a yard with tight turnouts.

On my old layout the big fellas stayed on the mainline, and on the new one they will again be confined there and to staging.

Unfortunately steamers are like cars. Do you really need that big Humee that you can't fit in anywhere, or turn around, and guzzles gas, or would the smaller Jeep that you can manage to find a parking spot for do you better.

Most layouts are better off with the smaller steam due to track curvature. That being 2-8-0, 2-6-2 or 2-6-0 and smaller. Among them Bmanns 2-8-0, newer version, and the small oldtime 2-8-0s and smaller. Also in real life the smaller steam outnumbered the big stuff and you could find a 2-8-0 almost anywhere, even on the head of the local passenger. Smaller facilities also. You don't need a 110-120 foot turntable for a 2-8-0 or smaller, and a simple two stall engine house takes less room, with a 65 to 90 foot turntable. A Bmann 2-8-0 takes 80 foot of turntable and a MiniTrix Pacific uses 90 foot.

My best runners for the money? The Bmann 2-8-0, and nearly every road had a version. Kato 2-8-2 with a little tweaking. Bmann 2-6-2 and 2-6-0 if you are good at tweaking. MinTrix 4-6-2. Doesn't have todays detail but runs good. MiniTrix 2-10-0. Has blind drivers so can take curves but that boiler dosen't line up with the mechanism right and needs some work in the area of the steam cylinders. And the suprise, the Bmann 4-4-0 with tender drive and all traction tires. Bit of a bear to modernize the front pilot with an MT and put a coal load in the tender.

Honorable mention, Concor 4-8-4 if you have the track and the Bmann N&W 4-8-4, again if you have the track. Roundhouse/MDC 2-8-0, 2-6-0. And the old Atlas 2-8-2, however some suffer from a crumbling metal frame with age.

On the problem with crank pins and stuff it comes down to lack of quality in the grass hut production lines and lack of adequate testing of the early and later runs. I also question the quality of some of the materials in being able to hold up to wear. Too much rushing to market something that was way too far in advance advertised and then getting caught
short. I laud Atlas for not pushing their Shay out on the market when they first announced, and taking the time to work on it some more. Even if I wanted one ten years ago.

As far as adding weight to improve traction there is a right and a wrong way. Weight cannot be just added anywhere but kept balanced between the drivers. Too much front or rear, will not improve traction much and will cause uneven wear. If the current trend to use more plastic continues we will soon have locos that just sit and spin with four cars.

 

On the crankpin thing.....

Kis, not that I don't believe you. Just the contrary.

The 'storefront window' for our firm has an HO layout in it. I've been running IHC Consolidations on the lower main line for several years. They are on a timer and get run 7 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The first two both ground off their crankpins, usually after a month. The first literally 'valulted' itself off of the layout when it did so. Spectacular.

So, I started lubricating rods monthly. By most standards, relatively heavily, with Labelle 108.

2-8-0 Locomotive number 3 is now on its SECOND YEAR of operation. The rods are loose and worn, but still hanging in there. Same problem - metal to metal; all rod drive (no gears).

I'm extrapolating that experience over to the N situation; i.e. I'm adding weight but lubricating rods with Labelle 108. The worst part appears to be the eccentric rod - man, that's a tiny pin and constantly spinning. And, my 2-8-4 is basically a shelf queen anyway. The really annoying part was that I couldn't get it around the layout twice without it climbing the outside curve rails and piling up. So, adding weight to the front is primarily for balance, not for tractive effort. It now balances almost exactly over #3 driver, where before it was midway between #3 and #4. The electrical pickup without the tender now is quite good, and it doesn't climb curves.

I have other kingpin material left over from other locomotives, but I don't think I'll need it.

That LL 2-8-4 is NOT for a beginner, that's for sure. Looks great, but even I was intimidated, and Chris 333 and I have been trading details on tearing it apart back and forth. Good thing the forums are out there!

I think LL is kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't. Personally, in a battle over performance vs. appearance, I vote performance. But there are lots of guys that will get upset over the details. LL added an unbelievable amount of add-on parts to the thing - a whole new level in a manufactured locomotive. The design tradoffs would make anybody think twice that expected to actually make MONEY doing this to this audience.

I've always tinkered myself, and rather enjoy it. But N is still very much Caveat Emptor with quality and performance issues and the only place to get the story RIGHT is the experiences here on these forums.

 

THIS is exactly the sort of discussion I savor the most on our message boards.

 

FWIW, the actual railroads considered the Baldwin, Lima, Alco, et. al. as 'beginning points' themselves. While only a select few like PRR BUILT locomotives from scratch, most relied on the locomotive builders to get them started.

But after that, it was a complete free-for-all. Change drivers, feedwater heaters, combustion chambers, smokeboxes, cabs, you name it. I think it would be fair to say that virtually EVERY Chief Mechanical Officer figured 'he knew better' what worked on his railroad than any locomotive builder. After a couple years, away they went.

I'm just upholding a fine, time-honored tradition of steam locomotives that never came 'just exactly right' from the builder!

Diesels get modified too, but not to that extent. And the good stuff, like swapping out 645 blocks for 567 blocks, and modular electricals, isn't evident to the naked eye. OK, maybe chop a nose and change exhaust stacks. ..a few radicals like CF7's.. not to dis the diesel guys (myself included).

But steam.... good Lord. Everybody tinkered!

 

Ok, ape I'll give you... but great?

Mike

[ 03. January 2005, 18:05: Message edited by: GimpLizard ]

 

Very enlightening subject and great contributions!

It's actually getting me in the mood to tinker again. I used to tear apart everything, but had gotten a little wary due to the complexity of engines like the Kato 2-8-2 or the MP 4-6-2.

 

I agree with Brakemoto. I think manufacturers know there's an unmet demand for steam. That's why they're coming out with such new offerings. But all the major work Randgust did should NOT be necessary- 'specially on a loco that costs this much. I know for many of you this is no big deal, or part of the fun of the hobby. But I contend- the fun should be in going above and beyond in tweaking your models. Not for making them runners in the first place.

My buddy Bill (Boxies) has MDC 2-8-0s and 2-6-0s on his layout. I was over his place last weekend, and they ran sweet as sugar. I'm now getting one of the new B&O MDC-Athearn 2-8-0s to pull my excursion train.

But as far as any other steamers go- I'm going to wait until I see the reviews by the many knowledgeable model railroaders here first.

 

I'll be honest. If I didn't have Chris, and some of the other support group on these forums, there's no way I'd tear something like the LL 2-8-4 down. But after going back on the Atlas forum and seeing the great shots that were posted on putting in the DCC receiver, and the dissassembly directions, well, I guess I can try that.... I see how it comes apart.

And it worked - for what I wanted. But trying to figure out what comes apart in what order, without directions .... man. I grew up in the era where the 'worst' was probably the Atlas 2-8-2 because you had those drivers to set in precise gear order. Most others were easy compared to that one. Today? Whoa! That's pretty much sledgehammer work with your eyes shut.

I can hardly wait for the Atlas Shay.......

 

I'm not tready for a "boycott", but based upon my last 5 steam purchases, I decided I would never reserve/pre-order a steam loco again.

(The last 5 were 2 LL mallets, 1 MP Pacific, 1 LL Berk, and 1 Atlas Mogul. All were useless for my purposes as delivered.)

On the subject of crankpin journal wear:

1) The high miles "storefront" layout loco does not have added weight, does it?

2) Add weight over rod driven drivers, and accelerated crankpin journal wear will occur.

3) Watch for motor overheating. The LL Berk has a small motor buried inside a split frame. I tested mine for 10 minutes with a 7 gram (1/4 oz) A-line weight taped over the sand dome. That increased the drawbar pull from 17 to 22 cars, and almost eliminated the front drive axle trying to climb the outside rail. The additional weight was mostly borne by the two rear axles, which are geared, but in just 10 minutes, the motor ran hot. (This test was after 3 hours of break-in running, BTW)

4) I have 9 steam locos that have provided outstanding service: 4 of the first-run Kato Mikes, 1 of the Bachmann 2-8-0s, 3 of the MDC 2-8-0s and one of the second run "Made In Japan" CC Hudsons. Of these, the little MDC 2-8-0s were the best, right out of the box. Just put them on the track and go - no details to add, no drivers to swap, no long break-in run. Just turn on the power and go! Outstanding!

My Model Power Pacific is turning out to be a nice loco now that it has traction tires, but the jury is still out on that one.

My Atlas Mogul has severe pickup problems, only wants to run at Warp Speed, but pulls like crazy. It will way out-pull my Berkshire.

My LL Berkshire is as slippery as my Model Power Pacific was without TTs. I'm not sure what I am going to do with it.

My pair of LL Y3s have worn out rods less than 10 hours after adding around 1/2 oz of weight. I plan to fix them.

My Atlas USRA Y2 mallet is a good runner, but only a so-so puller. Right now, it needs to have the flex wires replaced between the chassis and the motor again. I will probaby convert it to tender pickup, since the reliability of the factory pickup arrangement was poor from the very start.

My order for the Shay specified undec with Sugar Pine as the alternate, so I am still waiting for mine. If it is good, I will buy another one.

I passed on the Bachmann Mountain because of early QC issues and poor pull unless modified. I passed on the MDC Mogul because I was getting the Atlas Mogul and the MDC was too much like the MDC 2-8-0, I thought. (Really bad decision there.) I passed on the CC 4-8-4 for a variety of reasons, but mostly because it was overpriced and a Con-Cor product. I passed on the Bachmann 2-6-6-2 because it lacks traction tires. I passed on the Model Power Mike because it lacks traction tires. I passed on the CC 2-10-2 because it was a CC loco, and it turns out that may have been a good choice at that price point. I'm waiting to see what happens with the Model Power American and Mogul. I want them, but did not pre-order and will not buy them unless they turn out better than the last bunch of steam locos released.

I could get by with the Kato Mikes, the MDC 2-8-0s and the Bachmann 2-8-0. Unless someone turns out something new that is at least that good, I'll stick with what works, and model an imaginary, freelanced road like I did in O Scale.

 

The storefront layout power is literally an 'out of the box' locomotive - I do NOTHING to them except put them on the track. The locomotives are extraordinarly quiet and reliable and have become favorites - mostly because they just RUN.

The only observation I can make is that the only variable between three identical locomotives running until they literally collapse was the lubrication of the crankpins vs. just letting them run as they came out of the box.

The wear on this layout is so severe that all plastic freight car wheels had to be banned. A Mantua GP on the 'upper' level will last 7-10 months before it literally WEARS THE FLANGES off of the wheels and they fall over as paper-thin. And those are HO Pizzacutters!

Nowhere in the LL instructions does it mention that the crankpins should be lubricated at all, and there was no obvious factory lube. Hmmm. Metal to metal, spinning, under load and torque..... not just along for the ride as in all-gear setups. That's an invitation to failure, the only question is how long it will take to happen.

 

They SHOULD run out of the box. If not, a normal break in period is acceptable to me. If it requires what I have read in this exchange so far, it would be as pleasurable as having colon polyps removed without pain medication.

Longtrain stated he changed the wheels on the MP steamer. I personally witnessed, at Farmingdale, NY, MP's inability to do the same on the two Pacifics and one Mikado I had purchased. They graciously gave me two brand new locos and a return of the third (never opened).

I would like a locomotive that works, not one that I will have to take apart, front, back, top and bottom to bring it up to the performance of even a mediocre modern train.

I am not rushing out and purchasing new steamers as soon as they hit the shelves. I will wait for the reviews posted here by those with knowledge. The only exception is the Atlas Shay. I pre ordered two of them back in March and will not cancel an order a merchant has relied upon.

 

I agree on the MP Pacific. I don't want to take another one apart. The one I fixed does pretty well though. I just wish they came that way.

On the crankpin lube - I do lube the friction points on my N Scale steam. Point is, the LL mallets wore out quickly with weight added. If I had not added weight, I would have not had that problem as soon, if ever.

On reserve/pre-order: I honor my reservation orders too. I've always bought what I have on reserve, if and when they get delivered.

 

I've seen lots of steam drives, and in N scale it seems that a real minority rely on siderod drive only. The LL berk is possibly the ONLY design I've ever seen with 2 geared and 2 rods. Very, very strange..... Conventional wisdom on N has always seemed to be gears on the drivers and siderods along for the ride.

LT, I'm going to watch mine very carefully. Just as an observation - the rods appear stamped - not machined or cast - in the LL berk, and the crankpins are 'probably' plated brass IHMO. So if there were any burrs at all on those rods, they'd cut right into the crankpins. If the rods were softer than the crankpins, you get big elongated, sloppy, holes. On my HO IHC 2-8-0's, the rods cut the heads off of the pins just like it had been done on a lathe. FWIW, it's probablya lot easier to replace pins than rods....

 

This has become one of the most fascinating and informative discussions of N scale steam that I've ever read. In the past few weeks, I've run in 3 LL Berkshires on a test track, perhaps 8 hours each, and found them very smooth-running, though I haven't conducted a real pull test. I've also fixed a Con-Cor Hudson, and can't wait to put a decoder in it.

Question: my LL mallets, now thoroughly broken in, squeak like nests of baby birds. I can kill some--but not all--of the squeaking by lubricating the outside mechanisms. Do I really have to take these apart to quiet the rest of it? Yes, I will have to take them apart to install decoders, but I'm wondering if I am missing a lube point?

 

The MDCs just beg to be bashed. They come with a minimum of detail but a mechanism that operates very nicely.

I just completed one update/rebuild of a mogul for a non-historic railroad. The MDC mogul has sixty-three inch drivers which makes it a good canididate for a rebuild/update. The consolidated has drivers that are forty-eight to fifty inches.

I did a minimum of alteration to mine.

I puttied over the wood panels on the cab, sanded them and painted and lettered. I could have filled in one of the three picture windows, but chose to leave the windows as they were. I might consider the latter on my next one as variations in rebuildings would maek the roster seem more believable.

I filed and sanded down the mantle-clock headlight (although you Q fans could leave this one)

I added a power reverse. Thanks to GM for finding a photograph of a slide valve locomtive with a power reverse.

I made it into an oil burner by cutting out the coal from the tender piece and plating over it plus adding an oil hatch and railing.

I extended the running boards over the cylinders and added pilot ladders..

This was a minimum of work that produced a believable old steam engine that has been rebuilt over the years and is still running in the 1950s. Further, it is the ideal size for a small pike, even though my mainline curves will accomodate the larger steam engines.

MDC has the right idea, and the more I work with the N scale steam, the more that I like them best. Yes, the B-mann 2-8-0 was a winner and yes, I have my share of them, but B-mann has yet to repeat that success story. It appears that the MDC simply decided to go with the best performing mechanism, which turned out to be the tender drive. I can live with the aesthetic flaw of the drive shaft for a good performing small steam locomotive. MDC has gone with the KISS rule, and it has worked out for them. There are several reasons why I have not gone dashing out to buy the C-C 2-10-2 or the B-personn 2-6-6-2. One is that I prefer smaller locomotives but coupled to that is the fact that the MDCs are performing so well that my money would be better spent buying them, buying some detail parts and using them for my 'light freight work'. Their sixty-three inch drivers also allow them to work passenger locals.

I will let the Kato mikados and B-mann consolidateds take care of the more bruising freight work. This would be in keeping with the practices of more than a few railroads. If you consider that the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie's main business was serving the steel industry and that it did so with mostly consolidateds and mikados , you get the idea. Stell industry trains are made up of VERY heavy and VERY massive commodities. The only thing that the P&LE had larger than a mikado was one 0-8-8-0 for hump work and seven low-drivered berkshires that showed up in 1948 to replace the H-9s (USRA heavy mikado).

You can do steam with the smaller types, and the smaller types are what the manufacturers should do. The superpowers and articulateds are great for club pikes, but like the man above typed, they just do not work on eleven inch radius curves. Eleven inch radius curves are for moguls, consolidateds, ten-wheelers, atlantics and four or six wheel switchers. If you can get to thirteen to fifteen inches, you can get away with pacifics and mikados, seventeen to nineteen will get you mountains, decapods , hudsons and berkshires, but if you want to run anything larger, you need the twenty inch or better curves of the club pikes.

The manufacturer will claim that it will get around a sharp curve to get you to buy it. And it will get around the sharp curve on the test loop in the train store--and in the manufacturer's offices. Those test loops have an oval of nine and three quarters snap track that while it may be often dirty, it is usually better laid than what is on most home pikes. Yes, I have seen a Big Boy go around that nine and three quarter test loop, but I have also watched either it or its train derail repeatedly on someone's sixteen inch radius curve at home. This is where the manufacturers are short-sighted. They sell a buyer something that looks good and runs well until the buyer gets it home. The thing does not perform on the buyer's home pike as it did in the store, so at best, he gives up on steam and deciudes to go to diesel, at worst, he gives up on the hobby altogether. We will even lose a few eventually who make the former choice, as their hearts are not really in diesels, so they lose interest and the stuff winds up on e-Bay or bought back by the LHS for ten-cents-on-the-dollar.

If the manufacturers would concentrate on small to average sized steam that ran well, there would be fewer complaints about N scale steam, although there are those who do need to work on Quality Control (LL, are you reading this?).

One word about MP. There are several, PSG 1790's being the most vocal, who assert that MP steam pulls better the more that it is run. I must add my voice to theirs as I have been giving both my pacifics and one mikado work-outs while I bash my moguls. None of them have traction tyres, but their pulling power has improved markedly. Mr. M. Tager did tell me at Edison, New Jersey that subsequent runs of both the USRA light pacific and mikado are planned and that they will have the traction tyres. He stated that the eight-wheeler will not have traction tyres, but reserved comment on the mogul. He seemed to imply that Farmingdale was going to see how the eight-wheeler performed. Most prototype eight-wheelers did not pull that much. The PRR is a glaring exception: they had some monster eight-wheelers as well as some powerful 0-6-0s and atlantics.

--time to get down

[ 03. January 2005, 21:02: Message edited by: brokemoto ]

 

I am with those that vote with their pocket book. Bachmann has done a marvelous job of providing really nice steam, lots of detail and low prices. My kato runs like a hot knife through butter, as does my MDC connie.

So far those are the only ones I'll trust with my steam engine budget.