Rob, driving wheel diameter might have some bearing on wheel slippage. Larger diameter wheels are designed for higher train speeds while smaller diameter wheels for more starting and running power on heavier train loads. I wonder if this might reflect in the models? I suspect weight may be more important assuming the motors have adequate torque. Good video, thanks!
I've done a lot of battling with gradients over the years! I'm not entirely sure those tests are representative of how your locos will perform on your layout though. Coaches can have quite a bit of drag, especially if they have lights, pickups etc. Also I think your track plan showed that the inclines are on curves, which will affect performance too. Fun as a comparison though!
Yeah, it's nowhere near a perfect test and I think the results are pretty generous in some cases, but it's given me some reassurance. Next challenge is accurately building the gradients.
Ohhhh Testing Grades. This is a fun video. I have a 40' n scale with a pretty constant 2.7 uphill one way and down the other. subbed. I enjoyed watching and look forward to seeing more. Keep the good vids coming! Brian
Just wondering if the weight of the tenders on your large steam engines should count as trailing weight rather than loco weight? I'm making the assumption they aren't motorised, and wonder if that would explain some of your more disappointing steam engine results? Great informative video, thanks for making and sharing.
@@LittleWicketRailway think one of my worse is a last generation Hornby large prairie, not their current one don’t have one of those as I went for Dapol instead, that got stopped by a slight kink on level track once I couldn’t believe it, it just sat stationary with wheels spinning. Even the Oxford Adams Radial beats it and that is quite feeble. Like you I have a LMS 2p but in SD&JR livery and yes they are rather feeble as well.
Nice variation of video Rob! I'm sure there are plenty of people that will find this useful. I did a much less scientific experiment on my layout last year. I was surprised how poorly the tender driven locos did compared to the loco driven ones of the same size. Traction tires might have also been part of it. I see a lot of comments on the effect of curves. That was my main takeaway too. Curves and carriages significantly changed the results. I guess your next step is to try the actual helix. Good luck!
You should take a look at DCC Concepts Powerbase before you build the helix. It is something that does work. Charlie put it on his Chadwick Model Railway. I have done some experiments with a product called Nano Oils. They have a kit with three grades of lube for model railways. I have some heavy 2-8-0 locos made in 2004 -2005 with QSI DCC and sound. From the box I test with my Digitrax throttle and those locos will take half throttle before those start to move. I remove the old QSI DCC system and replace with Soundtraxx Tsunami Steam 2 decoders. Then I open up the gear box. I use the heavy weight lube for the gears. it is not a grease, but an oil. With a mid-weight grade Nano Oil I lube the sprung brass saddles for the axles and the motor shaft. I reassemble the loco. With lightest weight Nano Oil I put a micro drop on the drive rods at the pins/screws and any place where the rods slide. Then I run the engine around the track to get the lube worked in. Now with the Digitrax throttle barely turned the loco begins to move. So, less resistance in the gearing and the rods also equates to more power available to pull more coaches and wagons. There is no gear noise or motor whine at all. I model On30 using Peco O-16.5 tracks. (1:48 scale) My room layout has grades of 2.5%. However, I am designing a traveling layout, using AnyRail. Maximum grade is 5.5% and minimum radius of 15 inches. It represents a mining layout in the mountains. Locomotive power will be limited to Porters 0-4-0 to 0-6-2. Like you, I need to do some testing, but I will try a curved test track at 5.5% as this layout has very little straight track. It climbs from 0 inches to 20 inches, but there no Helix.
I've been following Charlie's progress with the helix closely. He had some wise words in the last video. Power base just doesn't appeal to me though. Thanks for letting me know about the oils. To be fair some of those locos hadn't been serviced in a while, so maybe they were partly fighting themselves up the slopes. Sounds like a good project. Hope to see it at a show one day.
An interesting test and how you achieved the weight for rolling comparisons. You should make the results table available as a download document for anyone that would like to print a copy out for themselves.
Thanks John. I'm in the middle of repeating the test on a cured gradient. Will upload the results of both tests when I'm finished if you think they would be useful.
@@LittleWicketRailway Rob, Other reviewers have had more success, for instance a pug hauling 4 carriages up 3%. This left me confused so I’ve given this a lot of thought. I have come to realise that one weighted carriage has very heavy weight distribution on the wheels compared to the same weight over several carriages. In other words it is not a like-for-like test.
I have to join the crowd and say I too have had a bad experience of adding curves to an incline and had to ditch my first layout attempt as a result. I am hoping to run 6 or 7 coach trains up a 12% incline and (if I can find the space) 3 coach trains up an 18% incline, but I may be cheating by working on a Swiss mountain railway.
Good idea for the test but agree with the earlier comments ref curves. Chadwick Model Railway has done has done fair bit of testing on his Helix but not to the degree you have gone to. Maybe manufacturers ought to provide this type of detail based on an industry standard test, using say 2nd or 3rd radius curves from a standing start with a 'standard' coach? Or perhaps too many variables. Informative video 👍
Very helpful, although the weight of tender engines would have been more relevant without the tender. More important is the influence of curved track. I suspect from experience that radius 2 and 3 curves can reduce the haulage capacity by up to 50%. Has anyone done any experiments on this?
The thing is the higher your grade, the more track length you need. In metric the gradient system is pretty easy to work out,as 1cm equates to 1 per cent,2 cm height equals 2 per cent and so on. I try not to go above 3 cm per metre height, and 15 cm max height as I don't have enough running space Also with my first, second, etc, radius bends, I never add any incline, I always have the curved mains etc, on an even surface and then I continue the ascent/descent.
I'm designing a new layout. I'm going to use two helixes due to the layout of the room. I've already brought a couple of packs of the power packs from DCC concept for my locomotives. The locomotives I've got are A1's, A3's, A4's, P2's, W1's and a few other classes including class 47, 40 and Deltic. Watching this video as showed me what some of the locomotives can do on the gradients. I'm thinking about 2% if not 2½% gradients for my helixes
Hi Robin ,it would be interesting if you did the test again but had 3rd then 4th rad curves on the inclines i think you will be surprised how much more effort is required to go up a helix i recon twice as much meaning all your locos would only pull half as much ..................tony
Hi, interesting video and great timing for me - I’ve subscribed to your channel. I’m about to start building my layout and have planned a helix to get down to my fiddle yard. The rising line is planned to have a 3rd radius curve at 3%. I’ll be running diesels pulling up to 6 coaches or 18 four wheeled freight wagons as I’m limited to max 2m length sidings in the fiddle yard due to space constraints. I’m coming to the conclusion based on the comments here that it would be useful to build a curved test track and test each of planned loco/coach/wagon configurations at 3% before building the helix - fingers crossed that my trains will make it up ! I’d be interested to see the results of your 4th radius curve test - will you be videoing and posting these ?
So in summary, small wheels are better, more driven wheels are better, more weight is better, smoother take off from a standing start is better. Steam locos with big wheels built for speed aren't so good at low speed. Nothing beats a heavy Co-Co locomotive for haulage. When I've seen haulage capacity tests in the past, the Hornby Co-Co chassis used in the class 60, 56 and others has been the king. It would be interesting to see a bigger test of all the Co-Co locos available now (or coming out soon).
You really need to try your locomotives on a inclined curve. I did the same tests as you on a straight. Thinking all would work I put a 2% incline on my layout double track with a 2nd and 3rd radius at the top and bottom. This was a huge mistake. 1/2 my locomotive with a small rake can’t make it up curved part of the hill. Trust me your “coach”number will drop significantly.
The introduction of any curve will unfortunately void your results as the curves will slow the engines. Any helix will be curvy depending on the space available. A good test for the straight none the less, well done. ATB, Andy.
@@LittleWicketRailway I shall expect the 3D graph shortly, with the new axis curves. Its a pity there isn't a standard testing method so all manufacturers had to test it and publish against the standard method. Maybe you've invented the next ANSI.
You seldom mentioned the number of "rubber wheels". Was that because they lacked them? I think rubber wheels make a huge difference and I do not buy locos with our them.
Not many of these locos have them. I think only two? The 2P compound does. Fresh rubber tyres definitely help. Old, dry tyres just leave dirt on the rails.
FAIL, you can not jump from STOPPED to FULL POWER, move to 20%, then 40%, then 60% Typically you will not run a train over 60% on long runs Also, trains are not designed to be STOPPED on grades then move off All Stopping locations should be on Flat Tracks Use the Power Up above starting on Flat and Level Track Do the Test Over
Rob, driving wheel diameter might have some bearing on wheel slippage. Larger diameter wheels are designed for higher train speeds while smaller diameter wheels for more starting and running power on heavier train loads. I wonder if this might reflect in the models? I suspect weight may be more important assuming the motors have adequate torque. Good video, thanks!
I've done a lot of battling with gradients over the years! I'm not entirely sure those tests are representative of how your locos will perform on your layout though. Coaches can have quite a bit of drag, especially if they have lights, pickups etc. Also I think your track plan showed that the inclines are on curves, which will affect performance too.
Fun as a comparison though!
Yeah, it's nowhere near a perfect test and I think the results are pretty generous in some cases, but it's given me some reassurance. Next challenge is accurately building the gradients.
Ohhhh Testing Grades. This is a fun video. I have a 40' n scale with a pretty constant 2.7 uphill one way and down the other. subbed. I enjoyed watching and look forward to seeing more. Keep the good vids coming! Brian
Thanks Brian 👍
very useful and very interesting and a Few surprises. I will use this a future guide for my own incline I have planned, thanks you Chris ✔✔😃😃
Glad you found it useful
Just wondering if the weight of the tenders on your large steam engines should count as trailing weight rather than loco weight? I'm making the assumption they aren't motorised, and wonder if that would explain some of your more disappointing steam engine results? Great informative video, thanks for making and sharing.
You're right, none of them were motorised, so they're essentially just extra weight.
Do bear in mind that generally tenders weigh very little, so it shouldn’t make too much difference
Great video Rob, that’s some very useful information I have 2% gradients on my layout and know some locomotives can struggle on those.
Do you have any problem locos?
@@LittleWicketRailway think one of my worse is a last generation Hornby large prairie, not their current one don’t have one of those as I went for Dapol instead, that got stopped by a slight kink on level track once I couldn’t believe it, it just sat stationary with wheels spinning. Even the Oxford Adams Radial beats it and that is quite feeble. Like you I have a LMS 2p but in SD&JR livery and yes they are rather feeble as well.
Excellent trials Nice one Rob
Thanks 👍
Interesting results Rob.
Thanks Anita
Nice variation of video Rob! I'm sure there are plenty of people that will find this useful. I did a much less scientific experiment on my layout last year. I was surprised how poorly the tender driven locos did compared to the loco driven ones of the same size. Traction tires might have also been part of it. I see a lot of comments on the effect of curves. That was my main takeaway too. Curves and carriages significantly changed the results. I guess your next step is to try the actual helix. Good luck!
A few people are saying curves make a huge difference, so I might have to do a smaller test to see what difference they make.
You should take a look at DCC Concepts Powerbase before you build the helix. It is something that does work. Charlie put it on his Chadwick Model Railway.
I have done some experiments with a product called Nano Oils. They have a kit with three grades of lube for model railways. I have some heavy 2-8-0 locos made in 2004 -2005 with QSI DCC and sound. From the box I test with my Digitrax throttle and those locos will take half throttle before those start to move. I remove the old QSI DCC system and replace with Soundtraxx Tsunami Steam 2 decoders. Then I open up the gear box. I use the heavy weight lube for the gears. it is not a grease, but an oil. With a mid-weight grade Nano Oil I lube the sprung brass saddles for the axles and the motor shaft. I reassemble the loco. With lightest weight Nano Oil I put a micro drop on the drive rods at the pins/screws and any place where the rods slide. Then I run the engine around the track to get the lube worked in. Now with the Digitrax throttle barely turned the loco begins to move. So, less resistance in the gearing and the rods also equates to more power available to pull more coaches and wagons. There is no gear noise or motor whine at all.
I model On30 using Peco O-16.5 tracks. (1:48 scale) My room layout has grades of 2.5%. However, I am designing a traveling layout, using AnyRail. Maximum grade is 5.5% and minimum radius of 15 inches. It represents a mining layout in the mountains. Locomotive power will be limited to Porters 0-4-0 to 0-6-2. Like you, I need to do some testing, but I will try a curved test track at 5.5% as this layout has very little straight track. It climbs from 0 inches to 20 inches, but there no Helix.
I've been following Charlie's progress with the helix closely. He had some wise words in the last video. Power base just doesn't appeal to me though.
Thanks for letting me know about the oils. To be fair some of those locos hadn't been serviced in a while, so maybe they were partly fighting themselves up the slopes.
Sounds like a good project. Hope to see it at a show one day.
An interesting test and how you achieved the weight for rolling comparisons. You should make the results table available as a download document for anyone that would like to print a copy out for themselves.
Thanks John. I'm in the middle of repeating the test on a cured gradient. Will upload the results of both tests when I'm finished if you think they would be useful.
It would be interesting to see the same test done again with the DCC Concepts Powerbase to see what a difference it makes on the results table.
I'd be interested to know how much of a difference it makes, my only issue with power base is that I don't want to put magnets under my locos.
@@LittleWicketRailway My concern is the cost, but I guess there are cheaper ways to do the same.
@@LittleWicketRailway Rob, Other reviewers have had more success, for instance a pug hauling 4 carriages up 3%. This left me confused so I’ve given this a lot of thought.
I have come to realise that one weighted carriage has very heavy weight distribution on the wheels compared to the same weight over several carriages. In other words it is not a like-for-like test.
Very insightful video!
Cheers 👍
I have to join the crowd and say I too have had a bad experience of adding curves to an incline and had to ditch my first layout attempt as a result. I am hoping to run 6 or 7 coach trains up a 12% incline and (if I can find the space) 3 coach trains up an 18% incline, but I may be cheating by working on a Swiss mountain railway.
Good idea for the test but agree with the earlier comments ref curves. Chadwick Model Railway has done has done fair bit of testing on his Helix but not to the degree you have gone to.
Maybe manufacturers ought to provide this type of detail based on an industry standard test, using say 2nd or 3rd radius curves from a standing start with a 'standard' coach? Or perhaps too many variables.
Informative video 👍
Great video! Have you thought of a gradient in curves? I have heard a lot about that but haven’t seen much about that.
A few people are saying curves make a dramatic difference, so I might have to try a smaller test to get an idea of what the impact might be.
Does your class 73 not have traction tyres?
Very helpful, although the weight of tender engines would have been more relevant without the tender. More important is the influence of curved track. I suspect from experience that radius 2 and 3 curves can reduce the haulage capacity by up to 50%. Has anyone done any experiments on this?
Great project farm style video.
The thing is the higher your grade, the more track length you need. In metric the gradient system is pretty easy to work out,as 1cm equates to 1 per cent,2 cm height equals 2 per cent and so on. I try not to go above 3 cm per metre height, and 15 cm max height as I don't have enough running space
Also with my first, second, etc, radius bends, I never add any incline, I always have the curved mains etc, on an even surface and then I continue the ascent/descent.
I'm designing a new layout. I'm going to use two helixes due to the layout of the room. I've already brought a couple of packs of the power packs from DCC concept for my locomotives. The locomotives I've got are A1's, A3's, A4's, P2's, W1's and a few other classes including class 47, 40 and Deltic. Watching this video as showed me what some of the locomotives can do on the gradients. I'm thinking about 2% if not 2½% gradients for my helixes
interesting video thanks for sharing
Thanks Keith 👍
Very useful video
Thanks 👍
Would be interesting to see what the model equivalent of 1 in 21 that 507/8’s do daily on Merseyrail?
Hi Robin ,it would be interesting if you did the test again but had 3rd then 4th rad curves on the inclines i think you will be surprised how much more effort is required to go up a helix i recon twice as much meaning all your locos would only pull half as much ..................tony
I've already built a 4th radius test helix to see what difference it makes 👍
Hi, interesting video and great timing for me - I’ve subscribed to your channel. I’m about to start building my layout and have planned a helix to get down to my fiddle yard. The rising line is planned to have a 3rd radius curve at 3%. I’ll be running diesels pulling up to 6 coaches or 18 four wheeled freight wagons as I’m limited to max 2m length sidings in the fiddle yard due to space constraints. I’m coming to the conclusion based on the comments here that it would be useful to build a curved test track and test each of planned loco/coach/wagon configurations at 3% before building the helix - fingers crossed that my trains will make it up ! I’d be interested to see the results of your 4th radius curve test - will you be videoing and posting these ?
Was relieved to see the hattons class 66
So in summary, small wheels are better, more driven wheels are better, more weight is better, smoother take off from a standing start is better.
Steam locos with big wheels built for speed aren't so good at low speed.
Nothing beats a heavy Co-Co locomotive for haulage. When I've seen haulage capacity tests in the past, the Hornby Co-Co chassis used in the class 60, 56 and others has been the king. It would be interesting to see a bigger test of all the Co-Co locos available now (or coming out soon).
You really need to try your locomotives on a inclined curve.
I did the same tests as you on a straight. Thinking all would work I put a 2% incline on my layout double track with a 2nd and 3rd radius at the top and bottom.
This was a huge mistake. 1/2 my locomotive with a small rake can’t make it up curved part of the hill. Trust me your “coach”number will drop significantly.
You've got me worried, I might have to give this a go with a curved track.
The introduction of any curve will unfortunately void your results as the curves will slow the engines. Any helix will be curvy depending on the space available. A good test for the straight none the less, well done. ATB, Andy.
Interesting experiment.
Thanks Alan. Based on the comments it sounds like I need to try curves though.
@@LittleWicketRailway I shall expect the 3D graph shortly, with the new axis curves. Its a pity there isn't a standard testing method so all manufacturers had to test it and publish against the standard method. Maybe you've invented the next ANSI.
So conclusion, 2% or below should be ok for most Locos pulling 6 coaches!
Add weights if there’s a problem!
Thanks!
Pretty much. Closer to 1% ideally, especially if going round curves or if the coaches have a lot of friction.
Great vid 👍💯👍 learn something everyday cheers buddy 👍
Why was There a blur
I've no idea 🤷🏼♂️
You seldom mentioned the number of "rubber wheels". Was that because they lacked them? I think rubber wheels make a huge difference and I do not buy locos with our them.
Not many of these locos have them. I think only two? The 2P compound does. Fresh rubber tyres definitely help. Old, dry tyres just leave dirt on the rails.
note 2 - if the wheels spin 3 times and the engine only move the distance of 1 spin
then it is a FAIL
Drop the music mate makes it hard to hear you👍🏼🦘🇦🇺
Hi robin I cheat Tri ang series 2 grey track Magadesion class 31 s sorry get away with murder and a good long rake 🤔
Great video Thomas isn't very useful after all
Haha, apparently not. Good at moving his eyes about whilst wheel slipping though.
You are testing the steamers wrong, big wheel steamers are built for speed, not for power. That is why they are bad at handling gradients.
FAIL, you can not jump from STOPPED to FULL POWER, move to 20%, then 40%, then 60%
Typically you will not run a train over 60% on long runs
Also, trains are not designed to be STOPPED on grades then move off
All Stopping locations should be on Flat Tracks
Use the Power Up above starting on Flat and Level Track
Do the Test Over