| Author |
 Topic  |
|
up1950s
USA
1970 Posts |
 Posted - 01/29/2004 : 11:23:45
|
With all the talk about TE I rigged a postal scale up . I used the grams side of the scale because it had more lines to read . Some , well at least one , was curious how some brass locos stacked up . I sampled 42 of my locos . Once on level track , and once on a 3.95 % incline . TT= the number of traction tires I saw on the steamers . They are listed in decending order of TE on level track . I haven't a clue of how many cars any of these can pull . The actual rise in 19 inches was 3/4 of an inch . that is a 3.95 grade . This is now all the types of loco's I have . Not tested was an 0-6-0 and a Doodle bug because of badorder . I put this on a spread sheet as well to aid in the resort of the added items . Also , that postal scale used , was the one you stick a finger in the loop of wire , it hangs below your finger and has a cresent metal scale with a hanging wire for a needle . Used to measure letters , couldn't cost more than 3 bucks .
0% 3.95% tt Loco Manu
40---30-------GTEL 8500-Ovlnd
38---30---4---4-8-8-4---Riv
35---30---4---2-8-2H----Kato loon
30---25-------Veranda---CC
30---25---2---2-8-2H----Kato loon
27---20-------E6,7,8----LL
26---20---4---4-6-6-4---CC
25---23---2---2-6-6-2---Key
25---20-------PA-1------Kato
25---20---2---RS-11-----Atlas
25---18-------E-9-------Kato
25---15---2---2-8-0-----Bach
24---15---0---UP 4-8-4--Key
23---18---0---2-8-8-2---Atlas
23---15-------Erie Blt--LL
20---16---2---4-8-2-----Bach shim
19---15---0---UP 4-6-6-4-Ori
18---16-------SD-7------LL
18---15-------FA-1------LL
18---15-------RS-3------Atlas
17---13---2---UP 2-8-0--Key
16---13---2---4-8-2-----Bach
16---15-------FA-1------Key
16---10-------RSD-4/5---Kato
15---12---2---2-6-0-----MDC
15---13-------RSD-12----Atlas
15---10-------H10-44----Trix
15---10-------F-7-------Bach
15---10---2---UP 2-8-2--Key
15---10-------F-3-------Kato
14---12---2---4-6-2L old-Atl
14---12-------GP-7,9----Atlas
14---12---0---2-10-0----Trix modif
14---10-------RSC-2-----Kato
14---10---0---2-8-8-2---LL
13---12---0---2-8-2H----Kato
13----9-------VO-1000---Hal
12---10-------RS-1------Atlas
12---10-------SW-9------LL
12---10-------RSD-15----MP
12---10---2---2-8-2L old-Atl
12---10-------H16-44----Atlas
12---10-------F-7-------Hal
12----9-------RS-2------Kato
10---10-------RS-2------Ori
10----7---2---2-8-0 old-Bach
10----6---0---UP 2-8-0--Ori
-9----9-------S-2-------Arn
A standing ovation for that ATLAS RS-11 please.
Edit 3-28-04
Richie
[black]WYOMING & LA GRANDE[/black |
|
|
KirkErvin
1096 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 13:05:25
|
Good, standardized tests. I have some questions:
Did you clean the track after each test? Some of the dirt might have rubbed on the track affecting the next test.
At which point do you read the scale, when the engine started slipping, but still pulled, or when the engine slipped and had a ground speed of zero?
All locos are stopped and then started for the test? My concern here, is what effect acceleration has. What was the acceleration during the tests? Slower acceleration seems to me to make a big difference.
I would have liked to see more locos in the test.
Again, thanks. Now, the manufacturers can start labeling the grams that the engines pull, for comparison.
ke
|
 |
|
|
Bruiser
USA
58 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 13:26:13
|
Thanks for using the LL FA 1 unit since this is a useful benchmark for many us. Clearly your best brass articulated has the ability to pull as much as a LL FA/FB consists which means in excess of 40 cars on level track and probably 30 to 40 on a modest grade. The LL FAs are little work horses.
So the best steamer in your fleet can probably pull 40 or more cars on level track. This is nearly 40% more than what the LL 2-8-8-2 will pull around a curve.
I would not worry about the methodologt too much because this is a relative scale along a spectrum of tractive force. I would be satisfied with any steam that would pull 40 cars on level track. I mean how big is the average N Scales layout such that a 40 car train would even fit on most passing sidings or in a yard awaiting departure. If an articulate loco would pull 25 cars up a grade, most hobbyists would likely be satisfied.
Rhode Island & Saint Louis RR
|
|
|
|
up1950s
USA
1970 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 13:40:22
|
quote:
Good, standardized tests. I have some questions:
Did you clean the track after each test? Some of the dirt might have rubbed on the track affecting the next test.
At which point do you read the scale, when the engine started slipping, but still pulled, or when the engine slipped and had a ground speed of zero?
All locos are stopped and then started for the test? My concern here, is what effect acceleration has. What was the acceleration during the tests? Slower acceleration seems to me to make a big difference.
I would have liked to see more locos in the test.
Again, thanks. Now, the manufacturers can start labeling the grams that the engines pull, for comparison.
ke
Hi Kirk . Only a very few engines were bought used . So the treads on almost all were new . I cleaned the rails after 4 or 5 locos were tested . I guess I should have done it after every test though . Good to remember in the future .
I read the scale after the loco stopped , and the wheel were in as low of a slip as I could maintain .
Yes each test , both the level and the incline had to be a seperate start . I found that if I ran a levl test , and then just raised the track to the incline , the readings wouldn't be as true as when each test had its own start from a slack string .
As far as acceleration , I kept it to as slow as the loco would move . However evn if there was some jerk , other than me , :) , this was nutralized at the slip stage > sometimes I redid test , just to make sure . The readings aren't a snap shot . While seeing the scale , say at 15g , I could increase or decrease power and wach the needle move . One of the things is that this is a hung wire needle , which would swing back and forth . So if it was swinging between 6 and 10 or so , I would call it an 8 .
I would liked to have tested more as well . I had to dig these up . I had them packed for a future move . Because of a now 20 month old health issue , that move is on hold . Maybe I can dig some up and test them . Itwont be tomorrow though . If and when I do I will post them as well . I will also drop you an email so you will know to look .
I wouldn't hold your your breath with makers posting gram TE numbers . I think thats the last thing the want us to know . But before we can even think about getting them to do that , we all have to agree on a specific muasurement ourselves . Only then can we point a finger at them .
Richie
WYOMING & LA GRANDE |
|
|
|
Louis Letourneau
Canada
953 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 13:46:12
|
Thanks for the trouble , I will keep that test printed in my model railroad binder .
Louis
|
|
|
|
KirkErvin
1096 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 13:54:12
|
The spring scale is pretty standardized. As with all measurement devices, it must be calibrated first.
Maybe the manufacturers will not do it, but maybe us or the popular magazines can include it in their reviews.
This can have the equavelent of an engine's tractive effort or HP. Usually, a review will state the measured weight of a loco. So why not also include the TE? The numbers are more for a comparison against something known, so we get a relative pull factor.
We all fall easily into the trap of stating "my 440 will pull 5 overland cars up a 1.5% grade." But at what speed, how much slip, is the track dirty, slippery, what sort of bearings are on the cars? A lot more goes into the pull of a train, verses just trying to measure its tractive effort.
ke
|
|
|
|
LongTrain
USA
2505 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 14:00:51
|
up1950s, sir! You have done a fine job and your post is a great service to all of us.
On the locos you tested where I have examples also, the relative ranking in use on a train on our NTrak layout would be the same as your test.
Outstanding job on this. |
|
|
|
Bruiser
USA
58 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 05:27:25
|
I am a firm believer in manufacturer warranties and representations relating to an item's intended use and expected performance. Its high time we as consumers began to insist that manufacturers warrant tractive power with a representation stating an engine will pull on average X number of cars on level clean track @ so many amperes or what not. There is not a auto sold in America that does not represent what its engine output is and I see no reason why we can not get manufacturers to promote the relative tractive quality of their product. There should also be a graded representation such that no manufacturer would ever again attempt to market a steamer that can not pull its tender up a grade.
I have the 2-8-0 Bachmand, the LL FAs and the Mikado 2-8-2 w traction tires (It absolutely blew before installation of such) and I am very interested in the offered Brass Yellowstones being advertised but I will be damned if I will fork over big $s without some guarantee of top flight performance. If the thing won't pull 30 Atlas ore cars up a 2% grade at scale speed, who needs another white elephant on the pike.
Rhode Island & Saint Louis RR
|
|
|
|
GRSJr
USA
328 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 10:03:31
|
I put Richie's data into a spreadsheet for convenience. It's interesting
to note the loss of TE on a 3 degree grade is 22.5% 0n average
(not counting the Arnold S2 which pulls 100% on the grade - bit
suspicious).
I'm confused by the term 3 degree grade. A grade that rises at a 3 degree
angle would be a 5.24% grade. That seems too large a grade to provide
the most useful information. Could it be that you tested on a 3% grade,
Richie?
It would be interesting to see if others can duplicate Richie's results.
Not all of us have access to the range of locomotives he used.
Perhaps if we could get data for common locos like the LL FA and
SW900 we could use the spreadsheet to see the margin of error
in the data and derive a range of performance for each loco.
Great start on doing something about TE measurement.
Thanks Richie
Ray Stilwell |
|
|
|
Bruiser
USA
58 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 13:13:02
|
When you read the disappointment in the posts of those who purchased Model Power Steam or those of use who bought Kato Mikados w.o traction tires or Bachmann Mountains, it is obvious that N Scale steam is being marketing without real world protypical testing. The manufacturers wrongly assume that N Scalers will buy anything they throw at us that is new. Perhaps those who are new to the hobby and still compulsive with their acquisition strategies will continue to sop up mediocre product offerings, but I am now seasoned and while I don't mind paying top dollar, I do expect quality which means, detail, protypical accuracy and most of all durability and performance. Altas and Kato products rule for a reason although I give the edge to Altas for detail.
Example: I would rather spend $26 dollars for one Atlas super detailed MT coupler equipped brown Frisco Caboose then spend $8 for the Altas cabooses that lack windows, decals and detail. Its quality not quantity. I love that Frisco caboose and it is superior to many offerings in Brass that cost 5 or 6 times as much.
I will pay for quality but any manufacturer who sells me inferior product will lose my business for good. Kato needs to up the shell detailing on its F-3s and future F offerings if does not wish to be relegated to toy status and what is up with the paint on the ATSF F-3s?
Anyway I digressed. My point is I want performance specs on engines such that when I buy a new engine, I know what it will pull on level track or pull up an a grade. No N Scaler should have to gamble with his money. We should at least be given the weights of the models so that we can draw inferences about tractive capabilities. The new Life Like E8s/E9s weigh as much as the LL Erie Builts which means about 6OZ each for the A and B units. This consist will easily pull 18 passengers cars up a 2% grade and look good doing it. An ABA Kato E8 set up will do the same. In the end if the engine lacks heft, it just is not as likely to overcome gravity and inertia.
Take the MT FTs for instance. They are pricey and prone to losing the grab irons but these little bull dogs perform and a ABBA consist will pull 40 plus cars up a 2% grade at very low speed and look doing it.
Would I spend $900 or $1000 for the Missabe Range Yellow Stone or a UP Big Boy that can't rival that performance? Not likely unless I don't care about operations and am more of a collector than a train operator.
Rhode Island & Saint Louis RR
|
|
|
|
up1950s
USA
1970 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 16:41:33
|
quote:
I put Richie's data into a spreadsheet for convenience. It's interesting
to note the loss of TE on a 3 degree grade is 22.5% 0n average
(not counting the Arnold S2 which pulls 100% on the grade - bit
suspicious).
I'm confused by the term 3 degree grade. A grade that rises at a 3 degree
angle would be a 5.24% grade. That seems too large a grade to provide
the most useful information. Could it be that you tested on a 3% grade,
Richie?
It would be interesting to see if others can duplicate Richie's results.
Not all of us have access to the range of locomotives he used.
Perhaps if we could get data for common locos like the LL FA and
SW900 we could use the spreadsheet to see the margin of error
in the data and derive a range of performance for each loco.
Great start on doing something about TE measurement.
Thanks Richie
Ray Stilwell
Hi Ray The little measuring gizzmo that I am using may not be sensitive enough when it gets below 10 grams . Could be the cause of the S-2 grade reading the same as level track .
As for the grade itself . I had used another gizzmo , won't any more . The rise is 3/4 of an inch in 19 inches of length . I make that to be a hair over 3.75 % incline . Sorry for that error .
I added 22 more locos to the list . That Atlas RS-11 surprised me . Way to go Atlas .
Richie
WYOMING & LA GRANDE |
|
|
|
GRSJr
USA
328 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 22:18:46
|
Way to go, Richie. How about posting them or E-mailing them to me so
I can put them in the spread sheet.
I think the grade 0.75" in 19" is 3.95% rather than 3.75%.
I'm still surprised that so little TE was lost at that grade.Good news for those with small layouts.
Ray Stilwell |
|
|
|
up1950s
USA
1970 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 23:15:59
|
Ray , the new info is combined with the origional info , it' all there . Thanks for that math correction , after two stupid errors i found my problem . 3.9473683 or 3.95 % Geez , simple math .
Richie
WYOMING & LA GRANDE |
|
|
|
PJ
USA
1104 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2004 : 01:08:22
|
up1950s,
Thanks for putting together some data for us (I looooove data   ) I hope you don't mind but I did some crunching on it, added some columns, and added some somewhat inaccurate prototype info for comparison. If you feel I "copied" this from you I will delete this post, I give full credit for the Nscale TE data to you!!!
edit: changes made 1/31/04 - 7pm
changed 3.95%, shortened TE numbers, added prototype TE numbers
thanks for the prototype TE values Rich
edit: more changes 1/31/04 - 8:30pm - more and some bad numbers
| Manu | Loco | Level (g) | N (lbs) | 3.95% (g) | N (lbs) | TT | Prototype | | Ovlnd | GTEL 8500 | 40 | 361K | 30 | 271K | 0 | 212K | | Riv | 4-8-8-4 | 38 | 343K | 30 | 271K | 4 | 700K | | CC | Veranda | 30 | 271K | 25 | 225K | 0 | 137K | | LL | "E6,7,8" | 27 | 243K | 20 | 180K | 0 | 54K | | CC | 4-6-6-4 | 26 | 234K | 20 | 180K | 4 | 612K | | Key | 2-6-6-2 | 25 | 225K | 23 | 207K | 2 | 430K | | Kato | PA-1 | 25 | 225K | 20 | 180K | 0 | 56K | | Atlas | RS-11 | 25 | 225K | 20 | 180K | 0 | 62K | | Kato | E-9 | 25 | 225K | 18 | 162K | 0 | 56K | | Bach | 2-8-0 new | 25 | 225K | 15 | 135K | 2 | 250K | | Key | UP 4-8-4 | 24 | 216K | 15 | 135K | 0 | 360K | | Atlas | 2-8-8-2 | 23 | 207K | 18 | 162K | 0 | 540K | | LL | Erie Blt | 23 | 207K | 15 | 135K | 0 | 62K | | Ori | UP 4-6-6-4 | 19 | 171K | 15 | 135K | 0 | 612K | | LL | SD-7 | 18 | 162K | 16 | 144K | 0 | 90K | | LL | FA-1 | 18 | 162K | 15 | 135K | 0 | 60K | | Atlas | RS-3 | 18 | 162K | 15 | 135K | 0 | 61K | | Key | UP 2-8-0 | 17 | 153K | 13 | 117K | 2 | 120K | | Key | FA-1 | 16 | 144K | 15 | 135K | 0 | 60K | | .Kato | RSD-4/5 | 16 | 144K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 81K | | Atlas | RSD-12 | 15 | 135K | 13 | 117K | 0 | 89K | | Trix | H10-44 | 15 | 135K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 60K | | .Bach | F-7 | 15 | 135K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 62K | | Key | UP 2-8-2 | 15 | 135K | 10 | 90K | 2 | 220K | | Kato | F-3 | 15 | 135K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 61K | | Atl | 4-6-2L old | 14 | 126K | 12 | 108K | 2 | 220K | | Atlas | "GP-7,9" | 14 | 126K | 12 | 108K | 0 | 62K | | Trix | 2-10-0 mod | 14 | 126K | 12 | 108K | 0 | 317K | | Kato | RSC-2 | 14 | 126K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 39K | | LL | 2-8-8-2 | 14 | 126K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 508K | | Kato | 2-8-2H | 13 | 117K | 12 | 108K | 0 | 224K | | Hal | VO-1000 | 13 | 117K | 9 | 81K | 0 | 60K | | Atlas | RS-1 | 12 | 108K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 72K | | LL | SW-9 | 12 | 108K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 61K | | MP | RSD-15 | 12 | 108K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 92K | | Atl | 2-8-2L old | 12 | 108K | 10 | 90K | 2 | 224K | | Atlas | H16-44 | 12 | 108K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 62K | | Hal | F-7 | 12 | 108K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 62K | | Kato | RS-2 | 12 | 108K | 9 | 81K | 0 | 62K | | Ori | RS-2 | 10 | 90K | 10 | 90K | 0 | 62K | | Bach | 2-8-0 old | 10 | 90K | 7 | 63K | 2 | 121K | | Ori | UP 2-8-0 | 10 | 90K | 6 | 54K | 0 | 121K | | Arn | S-2 | 9 | 81K | 9 | 81K | 0 | 57K |
PJ |
|
|
|
up1950s
USA
1970 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2004 : 01:21:08
|
PJ . Thanks for your help . The more the merrier . I am trying to plant a seed here . Create some curiosty , so maybe folks will want to know how their loco's stack up . Please note my math was in erroe twice @#$%^& . Ray corrected the grade to be 3.95 % . That gave the loco's a real challenge . Extrapolation can easily fill in the space from 0 % to 3.95 % . Thanks again .
PJ , I just read what you did . I don't know how you did that . Thats some fancy math and a lot of research . Great addition .
Richie
WYOMING & LA GRANDE |
|
|
|
saydoyster
362 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2004 : 01:44:43
|
Up1950s
What terrific work for a really informative post! Now you have my curiosity going too.... Because of the numbers below 9 from the least powerful pullers, I am wondering how your measuring technique might compare to a pulley and weight system as described in another thread...? And if we might get usable results even lower into the power range form this approach...?
Thanks a lot to all who contributed. This is great info...
All the best!
Bill Deuster
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
EXPANDED Tractive Effort Comparison 0 % & 3.95 %
Forum Locked
