I decided to start a new post to discuss Accucraft 4-4-0 performance. The video link showing the engine run was provided by Art filmed during our welcome home yard work party at John Frank’s house yesterday.
http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...rumid/11/postid/38542/view/topic/Default.aspx
As most of you know, I typically modify Accucraft engines to achieve the performance I need for operating with extended run times at high grades. Thus far, my 4-4-0 is 100% original with the exception of dropping a Bark Box in the stack and adding RC. I am having too much fun to take it out of service for modifications.
Performance out of the box is honestly difficult to explain. I have not actually coupled it behind a C-16 or C-19 to actually verify that it will out pull them, but in operations it pulls everything I usually pull with either engine. Again for a smaller, lighter engine, I fully have yet to explain this unusually high performance that greatly exceeds the prototype capabilities.
I will give a few tested facts. The locomotive will easily pull 2 stock J&S coaches up a 2-1/2% grade on a 5’ diameter curve. I am sure some railroad expert will help, but I think this is equivalent to 3 or 3-1/2% grade on a strait section. Easy is defined as being able to start from a dead stop in this condition without excessive wheel slippage. The engine will actually pull 3 stock J&S coaches up this section with a running start with a fare degree of slipping. With 3 coaches, it slips on a dead start attempt and is difficult to get moving. It probably would start with 3 coaches in this very challanging condition with a few more ounces of weight added in the cab.
As shown in the video, the force to pull a J&S car is roughly equivalent to 3 or 4 Accucraft freight cars. The 4-4-0 pulled the 10 car freight train at only higher throttle settings at with 2 J&S cars. I had sufficient throttle remaining to pull approximately 12-14 Accucraft freight cars on John’s railroad which has grades less than 1%. Obviously 12-14 cars is ridiculous looking behind a 4-4-0.
What is also difficult to explain, is that I get a full 30 minutes of real run time with the engine operating under high loads at 60psi. Again difficult to explain is that very low burner settings are required and the engine is the quietest of any Accucraft engine I have.
I know some may be skeptical, but the video captures the claims made. I did not have a stop watch on these specific runs but they were easily in the 30 minute actual operating run time.
In every run I have had, the fuel runs out before the water so I no longer have to check the site glass (assuming I am sure the boiler if full at the start).
As I was expecting this little engine under high loads to have run times closer to the Shay (15-20 minutes), I was anticipating having to modifying it with a larger fuel tank and servo pump to get the run time up where I like. With the out of the box performance achieved, I am now questioning if the efforts are worth while.
In prototype service after the C-16 came out, the 4-4-0 typically handled passenger consists which is what I intend to use if for. Without all the switching involved in freight, a 30 minute run time may be more than adequate.
Anybody like to speculate why this little engine have very similar performance to the C-16 and C-19? I am still scratching my head and had everybody at John’s house in disbelief. One additional note; the 4-4-0 does not discharge oil onto the track unlike its larger brothers which greatly assists in maintaining high traction forces throughout the run.
One last note, I purchased both a C-16 and K-27 Bark Box (fully discussed in this forum). As I have been testing my 4-4-0 for the past several weeks, I installed the C-16 Bark Box in the top of the stack on the 4-4-0 as it was a little too big for the smoke box. The results are simply unbelievable. I think the contribution of the Bark Box is as significant as Larry Bangham’s work on the whistle. For the $100 price tag, it is a real bargain for the sound it produces. Again the video adequately demonstrates the sound it produces. I am not exaggerating in stating that I can easily hear every chuff from all the way across John’s yard or approximately at a distance of 150’. The sound is totally proportional to throttle setting with medium throttle typical in the video. The chuff volume is approaching the lower ranges of being loud at full throttle going up my 2-1/2% grade on a tight curve. Volume is difficult to compare, however I believe the volume is very typical of what most people set their electric sound modules at. The biggest difference is that the sound of the Bark Box chuff is truly proportionate to throttle setting which is something that even the highest quality sound system has not mastered.
I have not cut a Bark Box open yet to figure out how it works (and may never bother at the very reasonable $100 cost). Out of respect to the manufacture, I would not disclose the secrete even if I do ever figure it out. That being said, I have absolutely no idea how something that looks more like a model airplane muffler, can actually be a highly effective sound amplifier with the resulting sound so close to prototypical digital recordings. Truly amazing.
For those considering an identical Bark Box installation in the 4-4-0, installing one in the stack is very easy but it does initially load up with water at the beginning of the run. It takes a couple of minutes of running to blow the water out. I expect when the Bark Box is installed in the smoke box as intended, the water is likely rapidly turned to steam due to the heat present and probably less or not noticeable at all.
I have not posted earlier as I am not into taking video and did not want to make claims that some would question. Art's video fully captures all performance claims however everybody present was wondering if the laws of physics had somehow changed.
Tom Burns
RGS in Live Steam
http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...rumid/11/postid/38542/view/topic/Default.aspx
As most of you know, I typically modify Accucraft engines to achieve the performance I need for operating with extended run times at high grades. Thus far, my 4-4-0 is 100% original with the exception of dropping a Bark Box in the stack and adding RC. I am having too much fun to take it out of service for modifications.
Performance out of the box is honestly difficult to explain. I have not actually coupled it behind a C-16 or C-19 to actually verify that it will out pull them, but in operations it pulls everything I usually pull with either engine. Again for a smaller, lighter engine, I fully have yet to explain this unusually high performance that greatly exceeds the prototype capabilities.
I will give a few tested facts. The locomotive will easily pull 2 stock J&S coaches up a 2-1/2% grade on a 5’ diameter curve. I am sure some railroad expert will help, but I think this is equivalent to 3 or 3-1/2% grade on a strait section. Easy is defined as being able to start from a dead stop in this condition without excessive wheel slippage. The engine will actually pull 3 stock J&S coaches up this section with a running start with a fare degree of slipping. With 3 coaches, it slips on a dead start attempt and is difficult to get moving. It probably would start with 3 coaches in this very challanging condition with a few more ounces of weight added in the cab.
As shown in the video, the force to pull a J&S car is roughly equivalent to 3 or 4 Accucraft freight cars. The 4-4-0 pulled the 10 car freight train at only higher throttle settings at with 2 J&S cars. I had sufficient throttle remaining to pull approximately 12-14 Accucraft freight cars on John’s railroad which has grades less than 1%. Obviously 12-14 cars is ridiculous looking behind a 4-4-0.
What is also difficult to explain, is that I get a full 30 minutes of real run time with the engine operating under high loads at 60psi. Again difficult to explain is that very low burner settings are required and the engine is the quietest of any Accucraft engine I have.
I know some may be skeptical, but the video captures the claims made. I did not have a stop watch on these specific runs but they were easily in the 30 minute actual operating run time.
In every run I have had, the fuel runs out before the water so I no longer have to check the site glass (assuming I am sure the boiler if full at the start).
As I was expecting this little engine under high loads to have run times closer to the Shay (15-20 minutes), I was anticipating having to modifying it with a larger fuel tank and servo pump to get the run time up where I like. With the out of the box performance achieved, I am now questioning if the efforts are worth while.
In prototype service after the C-16 came out, the 4-4-0 typically handled passenger consists which is what I intend to use if for. Without all the switching involved in freight, a 30 minute run time may be more than adequate.
Anybody like to speculate why this little engine have very similar performance to the C-16 and C-19? I am still scratching my head and had everybody at John’s house in disbelief. One additional note; the 4-4-0 does not discharge oil onto the track unlike its larger brothers which greatly assists in maintaining high traction forces throughout the run.
One last note, I purchased both a C-16 and K-27 Bark Box (fully discussed in this forum). As I have been testing my 4-4-0 for the past several weeks, I installed the C-16 Bark Box in the top of the stack on the 4-4-0 as it was a little too big for the smoke box. The results are simply unbelievable. I think the contribution of the Bark Box is as significant as Larry Bangham’s work on the whistle. For the $100 price tag, it is a real bargain for the sound it produces. Again the video adequately demonstrates the sound it produces. I am not exaggerating in stating that I can easily hear every chuff from all the way across John’s yard or approximately at a distance of 150’. The sound is totally proportional to throttle setting with medium throttle typical in the video. The chuff volume is approaching the lower ranges of being loud at full throttle going up my 2-1/2% grade on a tight curve. Volume is difficult to compare, however I believe the volume is very typical of what most people set their electric sound modules at. The biggest difference is that the sound of the Bark Box chuff is truly proportionate to throttle setting which is something that even the highest quality sound system has not mastered.
I have not cut a Bark Box open yet to figure out how it works (and may never bother at the very reasonable $100 cost). Out of respect to the manufacture, I would not disclose the secrete even if I do ever figure it out. That being said, I have absolutely no idea how something that looks more like a model airplane muffler, can actually be a highly effective sound amplifier with the resulting sound so close to prototypical digital recordings. Truly amazing.
For those considering an identical Bark Box installation in the 4-4-0, installing one in the stack is very easy but it does initially load up with water at the beginning of the run. It takes a couple of minutes of running to blow the water out. I expect when the Bark Box is installed in the smoke box as intended, the water is likely rapidly turned to steam due to the heat present and probably less or not noticeable at all.
I have not posted earlier as I am not into taking video and did not want to make claims that some would question. Art's video fully captures all performance claims however everybody present was wondering if the laws of physics had somehow changed.
Tom Burns
RGS in Live Steam
