Operating a Steam Locomotive II

StanleyAmes · Apr 17, 2009

Since the other thread quickly went off topic and digressed rapidly in part because of some very poor English on my part and sloppy typing, I will humbly start over.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss how prototype main line steam is operated.

The reason is simple.

We spend a great deal of time on the fidelity of our models and our scenery. The latest offerings from the manufacturers are truly amazing as to how accurately they have reproduced the model for our enjoyment.

Some then go to great lengths to weather the model and then place the model in a scene that represents a particular place at a particular time. The static modeling can be absolutely stunning.

Then we operate the model and the illusion is gone. Our models simply do not operate at all like the prototype.

For example, on our models we spend most of our time adjusting the throttle. On the prototype very little time is spent on adjusting the throttle, instead the time is spent adjusting the valve gear and the brakes and for a significant amount of time you glide the prototype with no power being applied and the valve in a neutral setting.

To me this is a very interesting topic worthy of serious discussion.

Stan Ames http://www.tttrains.com/largescale/

DKRickman · Apr 17, 2009

Ok, I'll bite.

As a professional locomotive engineer, I feel somewhat competent to comment on the differences between model and prototype train handling and operation. I've also given the subject considerable thought, trying to figure out how the two could be brought closer. Here's what I've come up with so far:

1) There is a fundamental difference in the mechanical properties of model vs. full sized locomotives. Model locomotives cannot, for the most part, roll freely. The almost universal use of a worm gear to reduce speed and change direction of rotation results in a model that MUST be powered to be moving. The result is that any attempt at realism will require a SIMULATION of true locomotive operating dynamics, rather than the real thing.

2) There is a fundamental difference in the operating properties of model vs. full sized trains. Our models do not have brakes, in any form. That means that, if a locomotive could free-wheel, the train would quickly get away on a down grade, and be rather difficult to stop at a desired location.

3) Most model railroads, in whatever scale, do not have the complexity of even a mile-long branch line, when if comes to train handling. Generally, they will be flat, or a simple up-down arrangement.

4) Most model railroaders do not want the complexity. After all, I spent eight months in training, in addition to the 7 years as a conductor before that. I doubt that the average model railroader really wants to devote that amount of time to learning to operate his railroad.

Based on these points, I've come up with a few conclusions. First of all, it would be a neat technical achievement, and great for bragging rights. However, I don't think it's practical, or desirable in the long run. It's far more satisfying for most people to be able to let the train run, turn the knob to the right to go faster, left to go slower, flip the switch to go the other way.

Also, if you think about it, whether you control the voltage (on a model), the cut off (on a steam engine) or the generator field (on a diesel electric) is really immaterial - you're varying the level of power developed at the wheels. In fact, if you think about it, DCC basically IS varying the cut off - you apply full voltage, and vary the pulse width to determine the percentage of power used. Sounds a lot like applying full steam pressure, and varying the length of stroke during which that steam is supplied.

Finally, there are only two ways I can think of to really implement the sort of changes you're suggesting. The first, most obvious, most desirable (in my opinion) and most difficult, would be to completely re-design our models so that they have the ability to roll freely, and working, controllable brakes. That's a tall order, especially in the smaller scales. It's doable, but impractical in the larger scales. The other option is to implement everything in software installed in a DCC decoder or controller. It makes the most sense to implement it at the control interface, and still use a standard decoder. That keeps it equally applicable to all scales, and does not require rebuilding or re-designing models. However, it requires an entirely new operator interface and the hardware & software to go along with it.

Can it be done? Of course. Has it been done? Yes. Is it desirable? Yes, to some people. Is it practical commercially? I doubt it.

Just my $0.02 worth
Kenneth Rickman

East Broad Top · Apr 17, 2009

...Then we operate the model and the illusion is gone. Our models simply do not operate at all like the prototype...

While I agree that our models operate nothing like the prototype, I don't think that diminishes the illusion in any way. For most, the illusion lies not in the actual mechanical operation of the locomotive, but the overall movement of the train through the garden environment. Generally speaking, we operate our trains from the conductor's perspective. When I operate my railroad, I want to enjoy the visuals of the train rolling through the miniature landscape. I don't need to have my hand on the throttle to be transported where I want to go. Just the sight of the trains running is sufficient. I know I want the train to stop in front of the station, so I play the role of the conductor, and tell the engineer via my controller that I want him to stop. When I want to "drive" the trains through the garden, I bring out one of my live steam locos. They are far closer to the prototype than the electric mice ever could dream of being, but still lack mass, inertia, and all those other tangibles that go along with full-size railroading. In truth, I find myself concentrating more on the ways the live steam isn't as "controllable" as the electric locos, and how it actually lessens the illusion of realism for me. I can't do the slow, smooth starts or stops, and speeds are generally faster than how I run my electric ones--simply because the physics isn't on my side.

Curiously, the one electric locomotive on the market that behaves most like the prototype is Bachmann's K-27. Because of its gearing, it needs a bit of extra throttle to get up hills and you need to back off the throttle when running down them. But if you listen to the critics of this loco, its gearing is something of a significant failing. I personally don't see it that way; the ones I've had on my workbench have all run very smoothly, and are very controllable locos, but you do need to tend the throttle a bit more with them.

The problem lies in that in the garden, we don't have feedback beyond visual cues as to how the loco is working. We can see it speed up or slow down, but that's pretty much it. We're not physically on the train, so we can't feel it working harder or easier. Therein lies the major obstacle to any system that tries to mimic the prototype. That's why flight simulators on your home PC are nowhere near as effective as a full-size simulator with hydraulic lifts. There's no sense of movement that tells your body how things are going.

While I do think a control system that can mimic the controls of a steam loco would be cool (I think someone did something like that years ago for an article in Model Railroader or something), I don't think it would have the effect of fulfilling the "illusion" that Stan finds missing from his experience. I think anyone who has run 1:1 equipment will readily admit there's no way to replicate that experience in miniature.

What we can do, however, is mimic certain attributes. The momentum of a train is perhaps the easiest to replicate using today's technology. Most (all?) DCC and many R/C throttles have some level of adjustable momentum on them. I've been playing around with that on Aristo's new system, and am looking forward to getting the railroad cleaned up so I can try it in a true operating session. It is something of a challenge when doing switching operations to press "stop" and have the train prototypically drift to the point where you actually want it to couple to your train. I think that's one inherent advantage of a push-button throttle control. It's not necessarily instant; you've got to plan a few feet in advance.

Later,

K

Dwight Ennis · Apr 17, 2009

4) Most model railroaders do not want the complexity. After all, I spent eight months in training, in addition to the 7 years as a conductor before that. I doubt that the average model railroader really wants to devote that amount of time to learning to operate his railroad.
This is a great point Ken, and one well worth considering! As an analogy, I was very into the air combat simulations in the late 80's and very early 90's. They were full of combat action and lots of fun! As the 90's progressed, simulation makers strove for ever greater realism. As a result, the learning curve on each new sim became steeper and steeper, and the airplane harder and harder to control, and to use effectively in combat, making these sims less and less fun.

By the time Falcon 4.0 came out in 1998, the damn thing had umpteen-million radar modes, and that was just for air-to-air. Air-to-ground had another umpteen million radar modes. The airplane itself was relatively easy to fly due to the F-16's fly-by-wire nature, but trying to manage all the combat systems while in the middle of a furball was impossible without hours and hours (weeks and weeks) of practice.

The WWII sims had gotten just as bad in their own way. Engine torque had been modeled requiring constant adjustment of airplane trim. Tip stalls and sudden spins were also now modeled. I ended up spending more time fighting my airplane than I did fighting the enemy.

Were the sims more realistic? Definitely. Were they still fun? Not hardly - at least not for me. The way air combat sims fell out of favor around that time tells me they weren't all that much fun for most others either.

To bring it back to trains... based upon my experience with these sims, I heartily agree with your point quoted above. Most modelers don't really want and wouldn't really like the complexity of a control system that modeled the functionality and operating characteristics of a real train. One need only look at the speed with which most people switch cars and couple to see this.

MHO.

Greg Elmassian · Apr 17, 2009

Just a couple of minor points. Most DCC decoders and systems can be set up to act very much like a locomotive, large momentum values, a button to apply brakes, etc.

But with today's mechanicals, prototype action cannot be completely modeled with just mechanical bits, you have to do this with electronics and a microprocessor.

One thing I have found, there are very few people that have visited my layout and want to (or can) work with prototypical momentum. Of course you could argue that our layouts, being much shorter than the prototype, need shorter starting and stopping distances.

Regards, Greg

KYYADA · Apr 17, 2009

Stan first of all let me say I read your first post and was angry over the way you were treated, it was very rude and humiliating. I don't think we are passing ourselves off as english majors here. I think at the very least that post should have been deleted and (he/she/it) should have been given a warning that if (he/she/it) posted like that again (he/she/it) would be banned.

I think that if your interests are in prototypical operation you have some points as to changes that could be made on some models of power packs or controls. As for myself in HO and still in G I am more interested in modeling equipment and structures and wanted a realistic layout to run them on, as for the controls not being very prototypical that was of no concern.

Johnny

East Broad Top · Apr 17, 2009

Greg, on the button to apply brakes--on a locomotive, you set the handle to "apply" to add more pressure to the brakes, then back to "lap" to keep the pressure constant. To translate this to our controls, this would be akin to using the button to change the rate of deceleration (i.e., the longer you hold the button down, the quicker you'll come to a stop) instead of just holding the button to decelerate at a constant rate to whatever speed you want to travel once you release the button. I've always thought that would be a very simple thing to set up on a DCC controller. I seem to recall a regular DC throttle that had some kind of arrangement like that, though I don't remember exactly how it worked.

Later,

K

SlateCreek · Apr 17, 2009

Stan,

I have one question only.

Is it your contention that steam locomotives everywhere are operated in the way the ones you ran in Poland are? If your goal is to make for "more realistic operation" it seems to me that the thing to do would be to study operating practice on the actual locomotives we're modelling. No one would attempt to describe operation of the San Juan in terms of how close to the "feel" of the "Mallard" it came, any more than they would in terms of an F-40PH, becauses it's a proverbial comparing of apples to coconuts.

There are two operational K-27's, one of which runs on its own original territory. There are several operating K-36's, and two operating K-28s, as well as several C series Colorado consolidations. There are steam locomotives running on the White Pass and Yukon doing pretty much what they always have, and their operating rules, training, and practice are not state secrets, and none require travelling halfway around the world to observe.

I'm sorry, but this really looks to me like a justification of the jackrabbit starts and stops of the poorly geared K-27, unless you've convniced Bachmann to release Polish outliine trains that would actually make sense running .... well, like Polish outline trains.

I suppose your cheering section will now call for my head. So be it. It won't be the first time you've managed to have the opposition silenced. But you're not fooling everyone.

I have responded to this issue, and to you, in the most respectful, levelheaded manner I know how. It will be interesting to see how the issue progresses from here.

Matthew (OV)

Semper Vaporo · Apr 17, 2009

For those whose Live Steam locos do not have true operational valve gear it is impossible to operate the engine "prototypically".

I do run my Live Steam locos in a prototypical manner... as far as the scaling of physics will allow. I set the Reverser to full forward, then open the Throttle until the engine starts to move. I then vary the Throttle to get the speed I want, and then back off on the Reverser to reduce the cut-off to control power and speed, given the load and grade involved. BUT, that is difficult to do when I am not a passenger on the train. I cannot FEEL the momentum and the minor changes that the body can sense and react to properly. I am controlling the engine from my lounge chair via R/C so prototypical operation is limited somewhat.

I can atest that paying attention to the cut-off setting does limit water usage, but because I do not also have control over the fire, either by variing the fuel flow or dampers, etc. that I cannot control fuel usage the way the prototypes can.

But, for the most part, I am running the steamer because I want to SEE it operate. Sometimes I play "slot trains" to see it go fast and sometimes I run as slow as possible. Sometimes I let it run around and around my double loop-backs and other times I just run it back and forth in front of me on just a few feet of track. I have attempted some "operations" with it, but that was not enough fun to do often enough to expend the energy or cash (to expand the layout) to make it a common occurance.

DKRickman · Apr 17, 2009

Just another thought on "momentum" as implemented on model controls..

I understand the logic. I've built simple transistor throttles, and understand how the "momentum" works. I understand the perceived need.

I don't like "momentum" one bit.

I have two problems with it. For one, it is (usually) not determined by the theoretical load of the train, but on some arbitrary average determined by the manufacturer. I played with the idea of putting capacitors in each car, which would help, but I couldn't get around a number of technical problems, including the fact that cars left standing in a track would still be counted toward a train's tonnage, and DCC pretty much killed the idea.

Second, "momentum" is really only appropriate for a train starting on level track. Stopping without using some form of braking control is like using the locomotive brakes only. Brakes are much more difficult to implement realistically, and without them the momentum effect becomes unrealistic as well. It's also not realistic for switching, where the mass of the train will vary constantly and widely. If all you want to do is bunch the slack behind a locomotive, simulating the momentum of an entire train is unrealistic, and a hassle.

For example, when I'm at work, here's how I like to switch:
If someone is riding the car, or if we're spotting a car, and especially when shoving, I like to use the air brakes. That way, when I back off the throttle, the train stops right away.
If I'm making a coupling with a light locomotive, I set the throttle, and use the independent (locomotive only) brake to control the speed and come to a final stop.

If I'm on a grade, I might use gravity to move the train and use the brake to control the speed, or I might set the brake and use the throttle to control the speed.

I cannot see a simple way to realistically model these various operations, or a real need to do so.

Personally, I'd rather have a speed knob (or throttle, or whatever you want to call it) which will give ME, rather than some software or electrical engineer, the ability to simulate what MY train is doing on MY railroad, at MY discretion. If I want "momentum," I simply turn the speed up gently. If I want "brakes" I turn the speed down appropriately.

Curmudgeon · Apr 17, 2009

Posted By KYYADA on 04/17/2009 12:47 PM
Stan first of all let me say I read your first post and was angry over the way you were treated, it was very rude and humiliating. I don't think we are passing ourselves off as english majors here. I think at the very least that post should have been deleted and (he/she/it) should have been given a warning that if (he/she/it) posted like that again (he/she/it) would be banned.

I think that if your interests are in prototypical operation you have some points as to changes that could be made on some models of power packs or controls. As for myself in HO and still in G I am more interested in modeling equipment and structures and wanted a realistic layout to run them on, as for the controls not being very prototypical that was of no concern.

Johnny

You didn't like that?
Really?
Do you have any idea, even the slightest clue, as to why so many folks react like that?

Maybe if you asked some questions, off-forum of course, you might gain such a clue.
And, this is NOT picking on you.

You are doing a fine job all by yourself.

DKRickman · Apr 17, 2009

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/17/2009 11:57 AM
Generally speaking, we operate our trains from the conductor's perspective.
I believe that Kevin has hit the nail squarely on the head with this one. We're not trying to be engineers, really. We're trying to be conductors.

Of course, there are those that want to be engineers, and I suspect that any pseudo-prototypical control system would be greeted by them as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I suspect that they are an extreme minority.

parkdesigner · Apr 17, 2009

I'm sorry, but this really looks to me like a justification of the jackrabbit starts and stops of the poorly geared K-27, unless you've convniced Bachmann to release Polish outliine trains that would actually make sense running .... well, like Polish outline trains.

Yup!!

Personally, I'd rather have a speed knob (or throttle, or whatever you want to call it) which will give ME, rather than some software or electrical engineer, the ability to simulate what MY train is doing on MY railroad, at MY discretion. If I want "momentum," I simply turn the speed up gently. If I want "brakes" I turn the speed down appropriately.

AMEN!!!! That has worked for what? 60, 70 years in model railroading? Maybe Longger?! (in other words... it ain't broke - DON'T try and fix it...)

Stan - if you want this, then do it to your OWN locomotives - DO NOT SCREW UP ANOTHER BACHMANN ENGINE! You already blew the K-27...

DKRickman · Apr 17, 2009

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 04/17/2009 1:21 PM
I can atest that paying attention to the cut-off setting does limit water usage, but because I do not also have control over the fire, either by variing the fuel flow or dampers, etc. that I cannot control fuel usage the way the prototypes

Yes, let's not forget the fireman in all this. Any steam locomotive engineer would have started as a fireman. You cannot accurately model the control of a steam locomotive without including control of such things as the depth of the fire, the water level, the draft, rocking the grates, timing the use of the injectors to maintain proper temperature and pressure, using the blower in stations to maintain the fire, etc. etc. My point is not to mock the original idea, which I admit may have some limited appeal. It is, rather, to point out that there is a practical limit to the level of realism attainable or desirable in a model.

Let's not forget that these are, after all, expensive TOYS. If you really want to get that deeply involved in prototypical operations, go volunteer at a museum. It reminds me of a comment many years ago (by John Allen, I think) about model railroaders installing CTC panels. He said that, if you really want CTC, you should install the system and use it on an un-modelled portion of the railroad, with circuitry to simulate the trains. I take this to be a reminder that we don't need or want a truly prototypical railroad, no matter how much we think we do.

Curmudgeon · Apr 17, 2009

Posted By SlateCreek on 04/17/2009 1:18 PM
Stan,

I have one question only.

Is it your contention that steam locomotives everywhere are operated in the way the ones you ran in Poland are? If your goal is to make for "more realistic operation" it seems to me that the thing to do would be to study operating practice on the actual locomotives we're modelling. No one would attempt to describe operation of the San Juan in terms of how close to the "feel" of the "Mallard" it came, any more than they would in terms of an F-40PH, becauses it's a proverbial comparing of apples to coconuts.

There are two operational K-27's, one of which runs on its own original territory. There are several operating K-36's, and two operating K-28s, as well as several C series Colorado consolidations. There are steam locomotives running on the White Pass and Yukon doing pretty much what they always have, and their operating rules, training, and practice are not state secrets, and none require travelling halfway around the world to observe.

I'm sorry, but this really looks to me like a justification of the jackrabbit starts and stops of the poorly geared K-27, unless you've convniced Bachmann to release Polish outliine trains that would actually make sense running .... well, like Polish outline trains.

I suppose your cheering section will now call for my head. So be it. It won't be the first time you've managed to have the opposition silenced. But you're not fooling everyone.

I have responded to this issue, and to you, in the most respectful, levelheaded manner I know how. It will be interesting to see how the issue progresses from here.

Matthew (OV)

This is typical of commuter ops, right?
Screech to a stop, set the engine brakes, release the train brakes, crack the throttle, wait for the "highball", dump the engine brakes and hang on?

So, now all we are looking for is something to justify jackrabbit/stonewall?

Kevin isn't right about the K.
Close, but not right.
While it does need more "oompf" to get it moving, it is WAY too fast.
It's like saying a NASCAR unit run on the streets to get groceries takes a but more to get it moving.
Right.
But once it does get moving (and quits burning rubber), Katy bar the door!

Maybe, just maybe, the secret consultant is developing a Polish Train for Howard.
Maybe Howard has run out of western obscure prototypes to model.

I mean, after all, to come out with a never-built Mallet, which is shown on the drawings to BE a Mallet, make it as a Meyer, and then let the shills and enthusiastic children scream that it was never built so they can make what they want.
Maybe, just maybe, the Thomas stuff which was announced next is fitting.

I wonder what gearing the Thomas stuff will have in it?

You're right about the cheering section, too.
Seems whenever there is trouble, someone calls on the Mighty Mice.

Ah, here it is!

http://www.televisiontunes.com/Mighty_Mouse.html

Spule 4 · Apr 17, 2009

Posted By SlateCreek on 04/17/2009 1:18 PM
Stan,

I have one question only.

Is it your contention that steam locomotives everywhere are operated in the way the ones you ran in Poland are? If your goal is to make for "more realistic operation" it seems to me that the thing to do would be to study operating practice on the actual locomotives we're modelling.

I have responded to this issue, and to you, in the most respectful, levelheaded manner I know how. It will be interesting to see how the issue progresses from here.

Matthew (OV)

This is very true.

I imagine from his discussion on the type of running that he is operating PKP's own Tkt 48 class (2-8-2T) steam locos, these are/were assigned to light local passenger/commuter duty, with many still in Wollstein to this day.

The closest US steam that comes to mind would be the PRR E6 Atlantics used in "Clocker" commuter service. Jackrabbit starts and fast operations were the the norm for these.

Not the kind of operation a narrow gauge Baldwin would often see, maybe in a museum today?

In the same theme, my father operated a 3' gauge Shay this week on 8% grades out in California, oil fired.

Would the PKP passenger express loco operate the same way?

Spule 4 · Apr 17, 2009

Posted By Curmudgeon on 04/17/2009 1:59 PM

Maybe, just maybe, the secret consultant is developing a Polish Train for Howard.
Maybe Howard has run out of western obscure prototypes to model.

Please, please, PLEASE give us a Px48....heck, even in On30 or in H0e via Bachmann-Liliput?

It would make a lot of us Polish fans happy!!!

Curmudgeon · Apr 17, 2009

Here is some more.
Stanley seems to like to gain a little information, and run with it.
Ask Greg, RJ, Keven and others about the dissertation on how tires/fillets/flanges work.

Now, go back and look at the photos.

Buffers.
Chains.
Tight.

Do you know what happens on a 100-car freight if you just slam the throttle open and sit back?
Somewhere back about, oh, halfway, the draft gear will part company with the car it was attached to, the air hoses will separate, and you will go into emergency.

I've been around 1:1 stuff long enough to know, and to see the draft gear slung over the edge of the roadbed.
One place I know of, the wood end beam and coupler still exists.

So, to take one type of specialized operation, and try to develop and operating protocol from it, is ludicrous at best.

I've had first-hand experience with his protocols, and want nothing more to do with them.

StanleyAmes · Apr 17, 2009

Posted By SlateCreek on 04/17/2009 1:18 PM
Stan,

I have one question only.

Is it your contention that steam locomotives everywhere are operated in the way the ones you ran in Poland are? If your goal is to make for "more realistic operation" it seems to me that the thing to do would be to study operating practice on the actual locomotives we're modelling. No one would attempt to describe operation of the San Juan in terms of how close to the "feel" of the "Mallard" it came, any more than they would in terms of an F-40PH, becauses it's a proverbial comparing of apples to coconuts.

Matthew (OV)

Matthew

I have only operated 3 different steam locomotives and each one operates differently. I only have about 20 hours as an engineer and therefore do not want to even imply I have expertise in this area.

While the operation is different the characteristics are the same. And in evening conversations it would appear that from a main line high speed steam passenger service the operation is not all that different from what England, Australia, Japan and the US had. And last I checked the K-27 was not a high speed mainline passenger engine so I have no idea why you bring it up.

As for jackrabbit starts, you simply cannot do this on the prototype. If you put on two much throttle the wheels slip and you do not accelerate at all (which can also result in a fine of a beer). This is an example of something you likely cannot totally duplicate in a model.

Passenger service works on a schedule and rapid starts and stops are needed to keep on schedule I hauled several passengers this morning and what the passengers care about is getting to the destination safely and on time. That is no different then passenger service in the 40s in the US.

What is most different to me at least is the glide. About a mile or more out of the station traveling at about 60mph, you cut off the throttle and the speed is maintained with only a very slight slowing down. When you are almost at the station you perform a brake application, The brake has a rather rapid result so the concept of momentum is not at all like what I have experienced in model operation or expected.

While not all prototypical operation can be duplicated or likely would be useful to duplicate. I for one feel that duplicating some of the feel of locomotive operation would enhance the fun of operating a model railroad.

Stan Ames

PS For those of you who have not experienced this, I understand this is the last such service in the world and it is not that expensive to participate in. I highly recommend it. I know of nowhere else you can operate a high speed steam locomotive at over 60mph for a 55 mile run carrying paying passengers.

PPs It is raining hard and the rails are very greasy so tomorrow mornings run should offer a totally new experience.

Greg Elmassian · Apr 17, 2009

Stan,

I agree, you cannot make the entire prototype train do a jackrabbit start. You could though really jerk things around if you had not taken up slack. I think though TOC mentioned about this being different on this passenger train, don't know if it's different couplers, or link and pin locked down till the buffers touch, etc.

But on a model, you definitely can make jackrabbit starts. What the physical differences are I don't know for sure, more power in our models, better tractive effort, less "scale" weight... have not analyzed...

But I think I do take exception, or at least want a justification for the statement: "While the operation is different the characteristics are the same.", based on the previous sentence: "I only have about 20 hours as an engineer and therefore do not want to even imply I have expertise in this area." I would ask for some other information to justify that statement. Since you state immediately afterwards you don't have expertise, then exactly what characteristics and who says so?

Not giving you a hard time, but I just cannot see what you are trying to say, and how that statement is supported.

If the "characteristics of all steam locomotives" are indeed the same, I follow your line of reasoning. But I believe they are not; however, I too, am not an expert in this area.

Regards, Greg

Curmudgeon · Apr 17, 2009

Just wait until he tries opening the throttle on a non-superheater equipped loco after being "trained" on a superheater.

Next thing you know, Greg, he'll run a cog engine and expect that to be the "prototype".

Semper Vaporo · Apr 17, 2009

Posted By StanleyAmes on 04/17/2009 2:27 PM
Posted By SlateCreek on 04/17/2009 1:18 PM
Stan,

I have one question only.

Is it your contention that steam locomotives everywhere are operated in the way the ones you ran in Poland are? If your goal is to make for "more realistic operation" it seems to me that the thing to do would be to study operating practice on the actual locomotives we're modelling. No one would attempt to describe operation of the San Juan in terms of how close to the "feel" of the "Mallard" it came, any more than they would in terms of an F-40PH, becauses it's a proverbial comparing of apples to coconuts.

Matthew (OV)

Matthew

I have only operated 3 different steam locomotives and each one operates differently. I only have about 20 hours as an engineer and therefore do not want to even imply I have expertise in this area.

While the operation is different the characteristics are the same. And in evening conversations it would appear that from a main line high speed steam passenger service the operation is not all that different from what England, Australia, Japan and the US had. And last I checked the K-27 was not a high speed mainline passenger engine so I have no idea why you bring it up.

As for jackrabbit starts, you simply cannot do this on the prototype. If you put on two much throttle the wheels slip and you do not accelerate at all (which can also result in a fine of a beer). This is an example of something you likely cannot totally duplicate in a model.

Passenger service works on a schedule and rapid starts and stops are needed to keep on schedule I hauled several passengers this morning and what the passengers care about is getting to the destination safely and on time. That is no different then passenger service in the 40s in the US.

What is most different to me at least is the glide. About a mile or more out of the station traveling at about 60mph, you cut off the throttle and the speed is maintained with only a very slight slowing down. When you are almost at the station you perform a brake application, The brake has a rather rapid result so the concept of momentum is not at all like what I have experienced in model operation or expected.

While not all prototypical operation can be duplicated or likely would be useful to duplicate. I for one feel that duplicating some of the feel of locomotive operation would enhance the fun of operating a model railroad.

Stan Ames

PS For those of you who have not experienced this, I understand this is the last such service in the world and it is not that expensive to participate in. I highly recommend it. I know of nowhere else you can operate a high speed steam locomotive at over 60mph for a 55 mile run carrying paying passengers.

PPs It is raining hard and the rails are very greasy so tomorrow mornings run should offer a totally new experience.

Hee hee hee... I can slip the drivers very easily with a heavy load... I've even seen them heat up and generate steam/smoke... but that scared me that I was damaging rail/tires so I don't do that anymore

I do, though enjoy going fast forward, throwing the valve gear in reverse and opening the throttle all the way to see the drivers run in reverse whilst the engine and train is still going forward. (I'm a BAD engineer! Oooooo shame on me!). Doing the opposite (going fast in reverse and throwing it to forward gear) will chuck rolling stock off the elevated mainline, so I try to control my impulses in that realm!

SlateCreek · Apr 17, 2009

Posted By StanleyAmes on 04/17/2009 2:27 PM

Matthew

I have only operated 3 different steam locomotives and each one operates differently. I only have about 20 hours as an engineer and therefore do not want to even imply I have expertise in this area.

> I hope then, that the "Eventually" part of "eventually translat[ing] the experience to help influence the design of a system ... " ... etc. means you wouldn't run off half cocked and try to institute a bunch of changes either with a manufacturer, or a "standards committee" without not only a lot more experience but consulting a whole lot of other people who have that kind of experience to base those changes on the most pertinent and correct information possible.

While the operation is different the characteristics are the same. And in evening conversations it would appear that from a main line high speed steam passenger service the operation is not all that different from what England, Australia, Japan and the US had. And last I checked the K-27 was not a high speed mainline passenger engine so I have no idea why you bring it up.

> I bring it up because Bachmann Industries, for whom you are the Technical Advisor makes 1:20.3 scale models of American narrow gauge locomotives, which do NOT operate at high speed on the main line, and one specific example is the K-27, the drive for which was the product of your "expertise." You operate, on your own layout, this 1:20.3 scale, narrow gauge equipment. When you recently wrote "My goal is to eventually translate experience to help influence the design of a system that would allor operation to be a tad more realistic" I understood this to mean that you intended to apply your "experience" to the operation of your own equipment, or the products of Bachmann Industries, for whom you provide such "influence." I was hitherto unaware that on your own layout or from the production lines of Bachmann a la Kader, that "main line high speed steam passenger service" equipment had appeared, or even been proposed, so my conclusion was that you intended to effect your proposed changes in the areas in which you had the capacity to exert some influence or control.

As for jackrabbit starts, you simply cannot do this on the prototype. If you put on two much throttle the wheels slip and you do not accelerate at all (which can also result in a fine of a beer). This is an example of something you likely cannot totally duplicate in a model.

> I suspect you'd find that with practice you would learn just how much you could ask for from your locomotive before that happened, resulting in significantly less beer expenditure. In the model world, a straight up DC power pack often provides the same results, allowing you to start and stop your train nearly on a dime, but as long as you don't get carried away, you won't spin the wheels. Interestingly, the trend toward realism is to build up speed more slowly, and slow down more gradually, based on oft observed characteristics of the trains being modelled.

Passenger service works on a schedule and rapid starts and stops are needed to keep on schedule I hauled several passengers this morning and what the passengers care about is getting to the destination safely and on time. That is no different then passenger service in the 40s in the US.

What is most different to me at least is the glide. About a mile or more out of the station traveling at about 60mph, you cut off the throttle and the speed is maintained with only a very slight slowing down. When you are almost at the station you perform a brake application, The brake has a rather rapid result so the concept of momentum is not at all like what I have experienced in model operation or expected.

> Once again, as you build experience, you'll find that the "On Time" and "Efficient" station stop is not so much a factor of a changing deceleration curve as it is knowing WHEN to start that brake application so that you don't waste time slowing down early, and you don't burn up your equipment by using too much brake too late (or overshooting the platform entirely, which can be worse!) Once you've learned the "feel" of your train, you know when to shut off, and when to start your application. Changes in grade, weather, and train weight make this behave differently from time to time, and you learn to "feel" what your train is doing to compensate. New enginemen find themselves making several brake applications, and occasionally having to reapply power, while the experienced ones can shut off, and spot the train exactly where they want it, sometimes even making a game of how closely they can line up a point on the train with a point on the ground.

While not all prototypical operation can be duplicated or likely would be useful to duplicate. I for one feel that duplicating some of the feel of locomotive operation would enhance the fun of operating a model railroad.

> I would have to agree with that statement. One way to ensure that it would be POSSIBLE would be to make certain that the locomotive was capable of operating equally well over the entire range of its speed, and that the range of its speed was commensurate with the operating speeds and limits of the prototype being modelled. From there, whether you vary your acceleration and deceleration manually with some kind of speed controller, digitally with a computer algorithm in the motor controller, or as a response to a set of computer determined parameters as with a simulator (MS Trainsim, Trainz, Raildriver, Etc.) it's not a problem since the locomotive will simpy do what's asked of it, without any particular need for a device to compensate for its shortcomings, and wil lend itself to more modellers in general, whether they wish to be engineman, conductor, or passenger.

Stan Ames

PS For those of you who have not experienced this, I understand this is the last such service in the world and it is not that expensive to participate in. I highly recommend it. I know of nowhere else you can operate a high speed steam locomotive at over 60mph for a 55 mile run carrying paying passengers.

PPs It is raining hard and the rails are very greasy so tomorrow mornings run should offer a totally new experience.

>> Enjoy the rest of your trip! Only a fortunate few get to try this for real.
Matthew (OV)

jbwilcox · Apr 17, 2009

Okay, I will demonstrate my stupidity:

Is Stan Ames an Employee of Bachmann?

or

Is he just an Advisor?

It sounds like to me, also having no experience with real steam engines, that he really doesn't know what he is talking about. I have ridden on the Cumbres and Toltec. Those engines do not make rapid starts and certainly do not move at 60 mph. So how does his experience with Polish engines have any bearing on the operation of the engines that we have here in the US?

John

aceinspp · Apr 17, 2009

John you can not compare a RR such as the Cumbres and Toltec RR to the RR over in Europe. Your RR is a tourist line verses a true passenger RR that does start and stop more quickly and operate at higher speeds. Pass equipment is designged a lot different than freight to handle the faster Acceleration. Also trains are near as long as frieght so can handle a quicker acceleration rate as long as the enginner knows how too. It's an art to operating a steam or diesel passenger train. To quick starts and folks will have spilled coffey and very up set at the engineer. Later RJD

East Broad Top · Apr 18, 2009

Gentlemen, let's keep the personal criticisms of individuals off the board, lest this version of the topic get locked, too. The differences in various operations (prototype vs. model and differences between various prototype operations) are certainly appropriate and enlightening. I'm sure no one would argue that operating a fast passenger train is different than operating a heavy freight or mountain railroad, and both are completely different from running a small trolley.

Later,

K

Operating a Steam Locomotive II

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities