newbie with a question

[sunhuntin]

thanks, balto. they should look fine then.

thats another good idea, jim. something to work on in the future when im feeling more confident.

d, does rolling stock usually need weight added before use? im quite happy with how the loco is running, though the front wheels seem to skim when its going too fast. at a sensible pace it goes nicely. what do you mean by "stall draw"?

[Doneldon]

sunny-

Most rolling stock seems to need extra weight to track properly, even the expensive stuff. Too light cars are especially problematic when backing or when in the middle of a long train. In that case, the weight of the train behind the light cars can exert such a load that the light cars between the locomotive and rear end will "clothesline" and wind up pulled off of the track to the inside of the curve.

The NMRA says HO railcars should weigh one ounce plus a half ounce for every inch of length. So a roughly 6" (40') boxcar should weigh about four ounces [1 + (6 x .5)]. Tenders should be similarly weighted but they are less often a problem because they commonly have heavier trucks than regular cars and electronics inside. Too light tenders can be a real problem backing through switches because they can ride right up and over the points. You'll hear some MRs tell you not to worry about weight because all of their cars are light and they work fine. My guess is that they either haven't figured out why they have derailments or they operate mainly short, slow trains going forward only. A few probably just can't admit they don't know what they're doing.

Postal scales and cooking scales are the easiest and most available ways to weigh cars. You can use anything to add weight. The ubiquitous coffee can full of odd screws and hardware usually has some material that really isn't going to get used. Ever. (I have stuff from my Dad's coffee can in with my own. And he's been dead for 40 years!) Use plastic safe glue or caulk to hold your weights securely. Pennies work for about $.17 an ounce, a real bargain compared to the manufactured weights, solder or BBs. I try to put my weights as low as possible though I'm not convinced it matters a lot at our slow speeds. Flatcars and gondolas are the toughest to do unless they have loads. You can often put a false bottom in gons but flats will almost always require a steel plate concealed by the frame, a heavy load or the expensive stick on lead weights. Tank cars are impossible unless you open them up or drill holes in their bottoms for BBs.
                                                                                                                                -- D

[sunhuntin]

thanks for that, d. its neat learning new things.

[jward]

i myself prefer heavy cars. i find everything stays on the rails when weighted to at least nmra specs. that said, weight is a compromise. too much weight will drastically reduce your locomotive's pulling power, especially on upgrades. and smaller locomotives like the jupiter are more affected than say a larger diesel. on a small steamer there really isn't anywhere to add weight that would increase pulling power.

for weight in cars, i tend to use a couple of different things. for closed in cars like boxcars, i use stacks of pennies over each truck. this gives good weight distribution and it is dirt cheap. for cars like hoppers i use buckshot glued between the bays. for gondolas, it is a simple matter of finding something like cera,ic bathroom tiles that can be used as loads.


for a pictorial on how i used pennies in a tank car, look on this forum for a thread titled "tank car weight"

[sunhuntin]

good advice, jward. thanks

[CNE Runner]

Sunhuntin - Your idea of using the Bachmann Jupiter as an excursion locomotive is an interesting one. If you were trying to be true to prototype, the 50' Overland cars are way too large. During its working life (more on that in a bit) this locomotive hauled freight cars of the 34' range and smaller (the Roundhouse cars, being 36' long, are really from the very end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th). Passenger cars of 36' (or smaller) length would be more prototypical...unfortunately models or short, mid 19th century cars are hard to come by. Some of the Mantua offerings are the correct size if you can live with their 'toy like' look.

The real Jupiter was built, by the Schenectady Locomotive Works (September 1868), and shipped (via sailing ship and later barge) to San Francisco, CA for delivery to the Central Pacific Railroad (where she became CP # 60). She was a woodburner - which was a species that was rapidly going out of style as coal has much more energy per pound than wood (although there is a heck of a lot more wood available to the CP than coal). The Southern Pacific acquired the Central Pacific in 1895 and renumbered the Jupiter as SP # 1195.

After years of rebuilding and upgrading (including a conversion to a coal burner), Old #60 looked nothing like the locomotive you possess. She was finally scrapped in 1909.

Bachmann, AHM, Rivarossi, and Pocher locomotives of this type are [sadly] poor runners. The motor is in the tender; with a shaft that drives the driver gear train (not the best design - but probably the only solution in a boiler of this size). Electrical power pickups can be improved and there was a posting on this forum in the past on how to accomplish that (maybe one of the other readers can find it). I know you have your heart set on a mid 19th century locomotive; but the Bachmann Spectrum 4-4-0 is a much better choice (it models a locomotive from the very end of the 19th century [1895+] to the early 20th century). These are excellent runners and are of the vintage to pull 36' freight and 50' passenger cars.

Good luck,
Ray
Monks' Island Railway

[ebtnut]

I might also note that the AHM/Rivarossi models were oversized.  Not sure about the Pocher ones.  Bachmann's are at least to scale, but still suffer from the tender drive issues.  My theory is that these models were designed to a price point, and that depended on using available material, including motors.  Today, there are motors that would fit inside the boiler and if Bachmann wanted to re-tool these engines they could do so, but they would probably have to be priced at what the Richmond and Baldwin 4-4-0's cost, not what they sell for today. 

[Terry Toenges]

I guess it's time to repost the pic of my Bachmann Jupiter 4-4-0 pulling 29 cars up a 2% grade.
(the grade starts about where the green box car with yellow door is. On the lower right. )
These 4-4-0's have traction tires and can pull a lot. I could do a standing start on the grade, too. You can barely see the Jupiter on the right, about to go around the tree.

[sunhuntin]

thanks for the history, ray. i will check out the mantua offerings. i dont plan on stressing the loco. it will be used on the massive club layout every now and then, but will mainly be used on the small layout i plan to build. im thinking the layout will be set around a big top or some sort of fair ground, but that will wait until ive decided on rolling stock. while the excursion cars would be ideal, im open to other types.

terry, that photo is amazing! i never imagined the jupiter could pull that many.

[BaltoOhioRRfan]

Here is a pic of the bachmann Carolowood Pacific 4-4-0 with a bachmann style coach,

I had a shot of the bachmann 4-4-0's (Old timers and richmonds) with the roundhouse 34ft coaches but i seem to have mis placed that pic.

if you search on ebay or have the privliage to get to a train show(like me) you might beable to find the bachmann or rivarossi/ahm CP coaches.

[Terry Toenges]

Sunhunting - Looks can be deceiving. It's the traction tires.
The cars are all stock Bachmann, Mantua, and Roundhouse old timers.
They aren't weighted and some have plastic wheels.
Properly weighted and with metal wheels, it wouldn't pull as many.

[jward]

i am not a big fan of traction tyres, or tender drives.

i recently bought a roundhouse 2-8-0 for my other half (she's delighted with it!) and found to my surprize a tiny engine with the guts to outpull anything with traction tyres. this locomotive dates from about 1900, as near as i can tell from photos. it has a can motor in the boiler, enough weight to really get down and lug, and provisions in the tender for a decoder and speaker.

how good of an engine is it? i have 4% grades on my layout, and 18" radius curves. i can pull 11 cars with this locomotive, which means it pulls as well as most diesels i own, and better than a few twice its size.

i know roundhouse specializes in small steamers from the turn of the century. if the rest of them run as well as this one, you have some very good choices out there if you'd like a second locomotive.

[Jim Banner]

Has anyone considered gutting their 4-4-0 and putting a drive unit in a passenger car?  I recently did something similar in 0n30 to help a 2-6-0 get a string of varnish up 3-1/2% helix and have been very pleased with the result.  I am considering replacing the 2-6-0 with a hand build, unpowered locomotive.

Jim 

[Johnson Bar Jeff]

I might also note that the AHM/Rivarossi models were oversized.  Not sure about the Pocher ones. 

I've had numerous versions of these engines continuously since I was a kid back in the 1970s. If memory serves--and it may not--Pocher built the engines for the old AHM back in the '70s. One thing I am certain of is that the engines I had in the '70s were a bit smaller than the later models sold either as Rivarossi or by IHC; I know this because I held onto my 1970s "Reno" until two years ago, when I started to sell off some of my "holdings," so I was able to do a side-by-side comparison. The 1970s engines may have been closer to scale, but I couldn't say for sure, but they were still larger than the Bachmann "Jupiter" or "119." And, to be completely honest, I've always thought that these engines were better looking than the Bachmann engines. Sorry, Mr. Bach-mann.

As to whether these engines were, or are, poor runners, I feel that both depends on which version of these engines you're talking about, and, of course, personal opinion as to what constitutes poor running. The very late (I guess 1990s) version of these engines (came in a solid red box) are, in my opinion, fine runners, smooth and quiet. Do they look and operate as fine as a Bachmann DCC Richmond 4-4-0? No, they don't, but for a DC old-timer, I find them perfectly fine. I also think the size issue isn't so apparent if you are only running them with other versions of the same model (e.g., the V&T "Reno" and "Genoa" on a two-train layout). The real size issue for me is that in this line of model, the 2-4-0 "J.W. Bowker," in reality a tiny locomotive, is as big as the eight-wheelers. Now, that's over-sizing! 

[CNE Runner]

I guess I should add a comment from the vendor side of the table... These little American 4-4-0s (whether they are of Bachmann, Pocher, AHM, IHC or whatever) fly off the table at ridiculous prices! A couple of years ago we were selling off parts of a consignment collection (mostly toy quality). The show started at 0900 and by 1100 hrs. we had sold ALL five of the 4-4-0s (+ a Bowker) for the asking price...no dickering. I advertised all these locomotives as being "untested and running condition unknown". The Bowker actually sold for 20% MORE than the asking price as two chaps began a bidding war against each other. 'Go figure.

Someone mentioned (either in this forum or another) that there were extremely small, very efficient electrical motors on the market today. I'm sure someone could design a prototypically correct mid 19th century American (size, etc.) with proper weight and the motor/gearbox in the engine (the decoder - if any - would reside in the tender). This hasn't been done because there is little retail pressure for items from our railroads' Golden Age...but who knows?

Ray