Gotta hand it to Terry, he's a master when it comes to pulling power!

Paul

Now Paul
I cant think of any way to make the obvious reply without giving poor David Head convulsions, so I decided to delete the last of four attempts and just forego the eh? pleasure?
Cheers
Rod Young

I like to have the draw bar pull of my models consistent with the prototype. I expect  models of a VR H class to pull more than a model NSW 38, and the the model NSW 38 pull more than the model VR R and the model VR R to pull more than a  model NSW 32, just like the prototypes.

Terry Flynn.

Now I'm confused.  Just above you said " Comparing white metal kit weights with RTR models is academic, because you are never going to get RTR as heavy. ".

So it sounds like a nice graduated scale of prototypical tractive effort based on simply the outline of the modeled prototype might go out the window if your 32 is a nice heavy white metal kit but your 38 is a plastic RTR?  Sounds like a tough criteria to work with but whatever floats your boat.

And I won't even get into how our electric motors, while not perfect constant horsepower motors, are considerably closer to the characteristics of a DE than the prototype's constant force pistons.  Meaning that variations between model's starting and grade performance is most definitely not prototypical or even comparable given the lack of impact of grate area, boiler pressure, diameter of the pistons etc...

In NSW 1:40 grades were pretty well found on all main lines of the state, except out of Sydney on the Southern line where the ruling grade was 1:75 as far as Goulburn after that you were hit with 1:40 grades again.

Certainly that grade is not ideal on a model layout, but as you say it does give the chance for adding an assistant engine on the train over the applicable section.

The U.S roads had double heading on many lines & trains so no issue in operating them on the model arena.  I have looked at  many U.S shown in magazines & also notice how they have large radius curves but, they also have in what appears to be most cases, a heck of a lot of room to build their layouts, the average one over there would eat most over here, just like their loading gauge & locomotives.

Thus a lot of what we are talking about may be more common here, I know one thing for sure is that I am glad of only having the one short section of 1:40 & that is also on 28" radius curve, not ideal, but the option to not have it was to try & squash a Helix in, but that would have meant the same radius although a lighter grade.

I did forget to note that the wonderful US basement is a Model Railroader's dream but there are plenty of layouts in people's sheds in Australia that are larger than many found here.  Nevertheless there are a considerable number of very layouts here where a helix (or even two) don't really consume that much floor space % wise (reading Railroader shows this very clearly).

However the basics of the model's physics (drag, wheel profiles, curves etc) and drive mechanisms just don't scale so even if the profile had 1 in 40 that doesn't neccessarily mean it's a great idea for your models.  Not intended as a criticism just as an observation from experience.

And to be honest, I'm not completely sold on using steam helpers to push trains up actually steep model grades as the tolerances between even "identical" models makes this a bit tricky.  It's not difficult to construct grades where you can observe one of an articulated loco's drivers slipping while the others don't, presumably primarily due to a difference in the weight distribution within the model.  I've observed a lot of operator frustration when people are trying to synchronize their separately controlled locos for pusher operation; normally one is slipping if the grade is sufficiently steep.  Much less of a problem with Diesel models, but then again, that's just like the real thing .  

The helper grades I most enjoy operating on are ones where you don't actually need a helper, i.e. the normal power would do the job just fine, meaning fewer things tend to go wrong and little tweaks of speed are all that is needed.  But that's most definitely a luxury of having the space for the lower grade and wanting to run really long trains!

I did forget to note that the wonderful US basement is a Model Railroader's dream but there are plenty of layouts in people's sheds in Australia that are larger than many found here.  Nevertheless there are a considerable number of very layouts here where a helix (or even two) don't really consume that much floor space % wise (reading Railroader shows this very clearly).

However the basics of the model's physics (drag, wheel profiles, curves etc) and drive mechanisms just don't scale so even if the profile had 1 in 40 that doesn't neccessarily mean it's a great idea for your models.  Not intended as a criticism just as an observation from experience.

And to be honest, I'm not completely sold on using steam helpers to push trains up actually steep model grades as the tolerances between even "identical" models makes this a bit tricky.  It's not difficult to construct grades where you can observe one of an articulated loco's drivers slipping while the others don't, presumably primarily due to a difference in the weight distribution within the model.  I've observed a lot of operator frustration when people are trying to synchronize their separately controlled locos for pusher operation; normally one is slipping if the grade is sufficiently steep.  Much less of a problem with Diesel models, but then again, that's just like the real thing .  

The helper grades I most enjoy operating on are ones where you don't actually need a helper, i.e. the normal power would do the job just fine, meaning fewer things tend to go wrong and little tweaks of speed are all that is needed.  But that's most definitely a luxury of having the space for the lower grade and wanting to run really long trains!

Fair enough.

The thing is though & even on my 1:40 grade, & having worked on the NSWGR as a steam fireman for a number of years, & take particular attention to loads hauled by the 1:1 gauge variants, I also consider not just the their actual tonnage that was hauled but also the length of the trains as well, likewise as far as the rear end banking is concerned, that also had conditions set with it, meaning it was not always allowed thus the assistance had to be carried out on the front, so no worries there.

When you take into account more than the tonnage side of the equation & look at the length loading, that also solves a lot of the problems as well.  When all is considered, & take the NSW 36cl, which can on one route take the same load as a 38cl but was limited to a shorter length of vehicles, which in modelling terms is for me too many wagons to in any way look realistic on a model layout.

Even though the small amount of lead, & the removal of the bogie spring/replaced with lead strips on the bogie, allows me to have more vehicles behind any of my steam models, I have also cut down the size of crossing loops in accord with those conditions after initially having longer loops & running trains to those longer lengths, they looked out of proportion.

Now I'm confused.  Just above you said " Comparing white metal kit weights with RTR models is academic, because you are never going to get RTR as heavy. ".

So it sounds like a nice graduated scale of prototypical tractive effort based on simply the outline of the modeled prototype might go out the window if your 32 is a nice heavy white metal kit but your 38 is a plastic RTR?  Sounds like a tough criteria to work with but whatever floats your boat.

And I won't even get into how our electric motors, while not perfect constant horsepower motors, are considerably closer to the characteristics of a DE than the prototype's constant force pistons.  Meaning that variations between model's starting and grade performance is most definitely not prototypical or even comparable given the lack of impact of grate area, boiler pressure, diameter of the pistons etc...

I'm not a fan of the all white metal boiler 32's, so I do not have one, not a problem for me.

Wether your model train accelerates and brakes in a prototypical manner is largely a function of the person driving it. Some DCC decoders allow acceleration and braking curves to be customized, matching the prototypes performance is doable, if you want to do it.

Terry Flynn.

I did forget to note that the wonderful US basement is a Model Railroader's dream but there are plenty of layouts in people's sheds in Australia that are larger than many found here.  Nevertheless there are a considerable number of very layouts here where a helix (or even two) don't really consume that much floor space % wise (reading Railroader shows this very clearly).

However the basics of the model's physics (drag, wheel profiles, curves etc) and drive mechanisms just don't scale so even if the profile had 1 in 40 that doesn't neccessarily mean it's a great idea for your models.  Not intended as a criticism just as an observation from experience.

And to be honest, I'm not completely sold on using steam helpers to push trains up actually steep model grades as the tolerances between even "identical" models makes this a bit tricky.  It's not difficult to construct grades where you can observe one of an articulated loco's drivers slipping while the others don't, presumably primarily due to a difference in the weight distribution within the model.  I've observed a lot of operator frustration when people are trying to synchronize their separately controlled locos for pusher operation; normally one is slipping if the grade is sufficiently steep.  Much less of a problem with Diesel models, but then again, that's just like the real thing .  

The helper grades I most enjoy operating on are ones where you don't actually need a helper, i.e. the normal power would do the job just fine, meaning fewer things tend to go wrong and little tweaks of speed are all that is needed.  But that's most definitely a luxury of having the space for the lower grade and wanting to run really long trains!

My experience is you can achieve prototype length trains on prototype grades in 1:87 scale. The Illawarra model railway club has a 1 in 38 grade helix, 914mm radius curve, where I have done recent testing of my locomotives. Scale length trains was not a problem. For example a NSW 32 with a mass of 220g can haul slightly more than an Ontrack 8 car BOB set up this grade.

I agree banking at the rear is difficult to achieve using DC, but using DCC I have been able to match steam locomotive speeds close enough to avoid derailments. Better load sharing is achieved by decreasing the BEMF. It's not just speed matching that is important when banking at the rear, it also requires a balance between the wagon weights and locomotive tractive efforts. By limiting the rear engines tractive effort by leaving the truck springs on, or using a light locomotive, the likely hood of derailing the train can be minimized. Fortunately the specific prototype I model does not require banking at the rear, but I visit a layout where it is the norm and the owner likes the challenge.

Back to the VR. I am unaware of a VR mainline that has a grade steeper than 1 in 48, so a 1 in 50 grade is a practical maximum grade in my view for a VR layout if you want to run prototype length trains behind RTR steam outline locomotives.

Terry Flynn.

Well, R717 arrived today andis in my hands, well actuall not in my hands as I type, but sitting on a side table.

I had no idea what R number this second one was to be, so it is a interesting to have, I had no choice, as I had R761 as a defiate.  I'm sure that caused ROn some fun inchoosing......

Well soon to take it down and give it a go. Then to try both R's together. I predict 7 powerline cars double headed.

Regards,
David Head

Not trying to be funny here but it sounds like a more expensive version of the old Trax 48/830, nicely detailed model but the mech would not pull a sausage off, of a greasy plate.

Not trying to be funny here but it sounds like a more expensive version of the old Trax 48/830, nicely detailed model but the mech would not pull a sausage off, of a greasy plate.

The loco works very well, it moves off  smoothly and works a treat. Mechanism it is a good one. Weight is the only issue. The trax 48/830 is not comparable in the running abilities.  True the pulling power is  the issue.

The 2nd R works just as good as the first one. As we all get used to the model people will add weight, and some will share how to do so for  others to get the nerve to pull theirs apart to follow suit.

The loco is good, we were never told it would pull like a diesal loco, and  whether the prototype was more powerful than other locos is a moot point, these models are not built to reflect prototype tractive effort - each model on it's own merit determines how it pulls. /some people make bettter performing locos, some make better looking models, some both or have other individual results.

I'm happy with both my R class locos.  

Regards,
David Head

I'm not a fan of the all white metal boiler 32's, so I do not have one, not a problem for me.

Wether your model train accelerates and brakes in a prototypical manner is largely a function of the person driving it. Some DCC decoders allow acceleration and braking curves to be customized, matching the prototypes performance is doable, if you want to do it.

Terry Flynn.

One would gather then that you will not be obtaining any of the Eureka 50cl models?

One would gather then that you will not be obtaining any of the Eureka 50cl models?

The only reason why I will probably not be getting a Eureka 50 class is because I already have 2 NSW 50's, I don't need any more. Both already have DCC sound and TCS keep alive capacitors fitted. I doubt there will be much difference in the tractive effort of the Eureka 50 and the brass ones I have. I have seen the pilot models and they are a nice model that runs well.

Terry Flynn.

The only reason why I will probably not be getting a Eureka 50 class is because I already have 2 NSW 50's, I don't need any more. Both already have DCC sound and TCS keep alive capacitors fitted. I doubt there will be much difference in the tractive effort of the Eureka 50 and the brass ones I have. I have seen the pilot models and they are a nice model that runs well.

Terry Flynn.

But!, the Eureka model is still metal, & that's likely to be the case with the 53, 55 & 30classes if Eureka produces them, thus I imagine you would be ruling them out as well.

I forgot to add that the valve gear was wrongly assembled on one side and the wheels on the 6th axle don't touch the rail head.

Does anyone else have a problem with the rear loco bogie?  The front is too high on mine?

Mark

Does anyone else have a problem with the rear loco bogie?  The front is too high on mine?

Mark

While of no help to your specific question, I know of several who had a similar problem with the Eureka 38cl, don't know what the fix was though. For some reason when coupling 2 x 38cl together there was an issue with the coupler heights not matching.

While of no help to your specific question, I know of several who had a similar problem with the Eureka 38cl, don't know what the fix was though. For some reason when coupling 2 x 38cl together there was an issue with the coupler heights not matching.

How can the problem be similar when the 38 is usually modelled as a Pacific, not a Hudson?

Mark

How can the problem be similar when the 38 is usually modelled as a Pacific, not a Hudson?

Mark

You really take the cake & cream don't you.

Does anyone else have a problem with the rear loco bogie?  The front is too high on mine?

Mark

Mark,
Without trawling back through this long post, I do recall somebody mentioning earlier that the 6th axle of their R class was sitting too high above the rail. I didn't bother making any comment at that stage.

However, it brought to mind some modifications a mate and I found necessary to do to a few of his brass models of US outline locos. These locos had 4 wheel rear bogies and he was having problems with derailments when reversing. After extensive slow-motion testing through turnouts etc, I determined that the only way to cure the problem was to perform major surgery to the bogie/s.

In each instance, the troublesome bogie was of the type that had a pivot lug which extended forward of the bogie and was attached to the loco via the rear-most screw that held the drivers' keeper plate in situ. As such, the arc through which the rear bogie travelled, was not allowing the 2 axles to maintain proper contact with the rails.

The fix was to chop off the pivot lug and fabricate a short drawbar. This pivoting drawbar was attached to the centre of the bogie and extended forward, to be attached to the original mounting point screw. This allowed the bogie to move more freely in a lateral plane. Given that these bogies were metal castings, the weight was sufficient to keep them on the rails.

If you do a similar thing to your R class, I suggest you would need to add some weight to the bogie. This assumes, of course, that the bogie is attached as I described above.....it sounds to me as though it must be if the front axle is sitting above the rail.

Roachie

Mark,
Without trawling back through this long post, I do recall somebody mentioning earlier that the 6th axle of their R class was sitting too high above the rail. I didn't bother making any comment at that stage.
......................
Roach

That was me.  I am left with two options, it's just my loco or no one else has looked.

It's not derailling, just running as a pacific with that axle sitting high.

Mark

That was me.  I am left with two options, it's just my loco or no one else has looked.

It's not derailling, just running as a pacific with that axle sitting high.

Mark

Okay....if you don't feel inclined to modifying the bogie as I described, then I would at least consider removing the retaining screw and seeing if you can substitute a slightly longer one which might allow the front axle to be lower and thus ensure that those wheels are sitting on the rails.

Roachie

But!, the Eureka model is still metal, & that's likely to be the case with the 53, 55 & 30classes if Eureka produces them, thus I imagine you would be ruling them out as well.

The Eureka NSW50 like the Eureka VR K is a mixture of metal and plastic. Both have a plastic cab, running boards, cylinders, bogies and tender body.  My choice not to buy them is based on the fact I already have a H0 steam fleet which includes a NSW 53 and NSW 55. Nothing to to with running qualities or tractive effort, which is as good as what I already have.

Terry Flynn.

Now Paul
I cant think of any way to make the obvious reply without giving poor David Head convulsions, so I decided to delete the last of four attempts and just forego the eh? pleasure?
Cheers
Rod Young

Go on Rod, make me go red !!!!!!

Taking one of the R's onholiday with me too

Regards,
David Head

I always take my Rs on holiday with me, hard to leave it at home

I always take my Rs on holiday with me, hard to leave it at home

well I am in the envious position to leave one behind to mind the house.....

Speaking od which, when is the R class tender repower mech available Us R class pulling tragics will want the ultimate R, with a powered tender all wheel drive......


Cheers
David Head

Haven't spotted this yet,  Has anyone else received theirs without the 16 page manual as shown by Rod in his blog post? Discussing it at the club last night it appears I'm not alone in this...
Would someone that does be willing to scan a copy to send around to those that missed out by any chance?

Haven't spotted this yet,  Has anyone else received theirs without the 16 page manual as shown by Rod in his blog post? Discussing it at the club last night it appears I'm not alone in this...
Would someone that does be willing to scan a copy to send around to those that missed out by any chance?

Would it not be better to contact the seller and let him know that you (and others) didn't receive the booklet? It could be a case of him having to place the booklet into the boxes and that he forgot to do some.....so he may have a big stack of booklets in his shed/office and wondering to himself...."I wonder if any those numbnuts who missed out on their booklet will contact me to ask me to send it to them?"

Roachie