WOW

WOW.  And I complain about the occasional pothole.

While the trackwork looks like junk.........

......... (and probably is) the photo, probably taken with a zoom makes it look even worse.

Track Conditions

Before the AT&SF shut down their branch to Pecos Texas in the 70s, I watched an old F7 going down the track with a crew man walking down the track ahead of the engine. They were going in to haul the last cars from the town. The ties at that time would have made good kindling wood.

Regards,

John

***********************************************************************************************************************************************

We struggle with the complexities and avoid the simplicities.  Norman Vincent Peale

I think we need to keep "scale" in mind.

In HO scale 3.5mm which is just slightly smaller than 1/8 inch.  When I look at that picture, I notice that none of the deviations in that track is probably more than about 3-4 inches.  In addition, the prototype has sprung suspension that helps it handle the rough track work.  Our models typically don't have any real suspension.  I guess the difficulty is that as little as 1/16 of an inch is almost the equivalent of 6 inches in scale.  Our models might be able to handle scale track that was that rough in scale except that things like weight and suspension it are not to scale.

For instance according to IRON HORSES OF THE SANTA FE TRAIL by Worley, a Santa Fe Gp30 weighed 265,000 lbs. with a tractive force of 66,250 lbs.  If we divide those numbers by 87 to get scale size, a Ho scale Gp30 should weigh @ 3,046 lbs and have a tractive effort of 761 lbs.  If our models were that heavy, it would be relatively easy to design a sprung suspension to handle rough track.  Of course we would then need fairly heavy duty cranes to lift our models onto bench work that would need to be much stronger, and that in turn would require our houses or buildings to be engineered for much higher loads!

Not quite 3,000 pounds

You need to divide by 87.1 for the height, and 87.1 for the width, and 87.1 for the length, so the loco will weigh about .4 pounds in HO.  Mass is three-dimensional.

Milt

Edit:  At least I recall hearing that rationale...

But, if I remember correctly,

But, if I remember correctly, a spring's flexibility reduces with the square of the scale factor.  Thus, to maintain the same bounce, a 265,000 lb GP30 should weigh 34 lbs, 15 oz.  Assuming the springs are scaled exactly.

I think
 

Not sure I understand.

If the model is 1/87 of the prototype size, shouldn't the weight also be 1/87?

On The Level?

Looks more like a CF7 to me, I may be wrong though.

Ran across this video back in my Port Able and Pacific days. The PA&P was based on the Seattle and North Coast...

George

Hummm.... Scale weight...

I think "scale" weight would be more closely related to scale volume. If you line up 87 HO GP30's nose to tail they would be as long as the 1:1 GP30. They would only be 1/87 as tall or as wide as the prototype. It would take 87x87x87 (or 658,503) models to fill the same volume. I would say the HO GP30 should weigh 1/658503 of the prototype or about 6.5 oz. My Bachmann Spectrum GP30 with DCC and Sound weighs 15.1 oz. So I would say it weighs more than twice "scale" weight. There are lots of irregular spaces in a locomotive so this comparison is probably not all that accurate but I would still hold that a "scale" model would not need to weigh 3000 lbs.

If they contained 1/87 the volume of the 1:1 building, some of the structures on my small layout would be larger that my house!!!

Interesting look at what "scale means...

Scale Weight

You are right, George.

"Looks more like a CF7 to me, I may be wrong though."

I was trying to make a point about the weight of a model verses the weight of the prototype as affecting how it would handle bumps and irregularities in track work.  The only reference material that I can go to for access to weights of prototype locomotives is the book I quoted.  It's copy write date is 1965.  The Cf7s were rebuilt from f units in 1972, so I picked out a locomotive that was on the Santa Fe to give a typical weight for a Gp class diesel locomotive.  The Cf7 may be heavier or lighter than the Gp30, but I really have no idea of the weight of a Cf7.

NP Russ

Also, the relative strength of the materials, i.e. the rail, ties roadbed etc do not "scale" well either. We've all seen prototype rail flexing up and down under the weight of a passing train, but rarely, if ever, do you see that on our model train layouts - especially if we are using code 100 flex track.

George

Actually we could probably get our track to flex.

One of the arguments that I see all of the time on forums against foam rubber roadbed material is that it allows the rail to flex under the weight of trains.

Locomotive suspension is coming . . .

Here are a coupla pictures of our future working springy equalizers .......

. . . . .and fitted to an Athearn Loco Truck.

Makes them ride smooth as silk, and improves pick-up and traction no end.

Level track?

Are you sure the photo isn't tilted? The ties appear to be running downhill to the left. Unless they're all equally out of kilter, a simple explanation would be the camera was tipped a bit. Normally I'd expect the ties to at least average out to being level rather than all of them having a serious lateral grade...

I used photoshop to make the ties closer to level ...

The engine is still tipped pretty good, but it's not quite a ludicrouse as before.

Was the crew getting hazardous duty pay for running on these tracks?

Charlie

Looking at those guys standing next to the tracks.

I wonder if they would have been safer inside the locomotive than standing next tot the tracks waiting for a car to fall over on them?

Years Ago

Many years ago I read an article by a modeler who advocated using a screwdriver to put a slight downward kink in the rail every 39 scale feet on little used sidings and spurs. Danged if I can remember the article or author though.

George

OP

Looking at Alan's (LKandO) OP, the description in bold is a direct quote from the photographer, J. E. Landrum. If you browse to the web page using Alan's link immediately following the description in the OP, you can find a way to contact the photographer - chances are he is still alive, the photo having been taken just two weeks ago.

So much for cork roadbed and using pliobond to hold the rails

LOL a 40 pound engine with 80 - 10 pound coal cars running on a shelf RR. Oh well Say goodbye to your walls.

Can you say Crash & Burn and oh darn honey I just killed your poodle with the engine you got me for Christmas..

Dan

Every time I think of something I'd like someone to make,

You come up with it, Andy.  I want to try out a set of those on my Athearn Cf7 when they are available.

Here are a coupla pictures of our future working springy equalizers .......

. . . . .and fitted to an Athearn Loco Truck.

Makes them ride smooth as silk, and improves pick-up and traction no end.

Code 100 rail flexing : try O scale...

Dear George,

Agree for the smaller scales, but I've had to perform NDT on module designs which were going to have to support actual 4-kilo Sunset brass UP Challenger 4-6-6-4 locos over a 400mm span...

3x laminated 5mm foamcore, + code 100 NS rails _just_ supported the loco weight,
easily coped with a lesser 2-kilo brass GP35... 

O scale can do such "rough track rock-n-roll" easily, if tuned properly...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

CF7, or GP9u?

Dear George, Russ,

The loco "looks like a CF7" because it's running a Clebourne (sp?) rebuild "angled cab". These were the same guys (and the same style of cabs) that were used on the later CF7 rebuilds. The thing that suggests to me it's a Geep (apart from some quick Googling) is the nose, it's too low and "snoot-y" for a CF7...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

RMC May 81 issue...

Dear George, "Kinked track" modellers,

If anyone has a copy of RMC May 81 issue handy, trurn to page 61, and read up on Jim Mansfield's research on just how bad one can _deliberately_ mess-up HO track, and still get reliable running. He covers both L<> R and U<> P kinks, bad joints, and suchlike.

Jim even modelled a "loose railjoint" in HO, by creating a small section of rail that "teeter-tottered" on a piece of wire, thus simulating issues such as shown in this Youtube.

Now, can't speak for anyone else, but even when I'm _trying_ to lay "perfect track", I still get kinks/dips. (I imagine this is similar to how, even when you're _trying_ to cut a straight line on some roadbed material, it still ends up "wonky"...  ).

SO, I wouldn't reccomend _deliberately_ going out to lay "bad track",
but with some mechanical knowledge of one's wheel, track, and weighting standards,
it _may_ be possible to create a "showpiece" section of industrial spur or other "not regularly used" trackage, that gives a operationally-reliable "rock n roll" in HO...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

You are right Professor.

The loco "looks like a CF7" because it's running a Clebourne (sp?) rebuild "angled cab". These were the same guys (and the same style of cabs) that were used on the later CF7 rebuilds. The thing that suggests to me it's a Geep (apart from some quick Googling) is the nose, it's too low and "snoot-y" for a CF7...

I didn't notice before, but the nose of the short hood of a CF7 is flat.  That nose comes to a cut off point.  It is either a chop nose Gp7 or chop nose Gp 9.  That cab is called a "Topeka Cab."