 Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
Hello. You likely already know this . . .
Just wanted to share:
If you need a great puller I recommend the Marklin 8822 (BR 194)or equal.
I just finished cleaning one and tried it out. On my layout it will easily pull 11 or 12 mixed 4 and 2 wheel wagons or 10 ore wagons (4 wheel).
It has a three pole motor but the real difference in this one as compared to the 8856 (SBB 6/8) I believe is the heavy metal front shells and the genuine 6 drive wheels in each truck.
Wow it is a good one. I haven’t looked it up so I am not certain which era it is, but if you can fit it into your collection I would recommend it.
Best wishes, take good care.
Dwight
|
 3 users liked this useful post by Zme
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 23/05/2021(UTC) Posts: 252 Location: England, Guildford
|
 Just compared an 88222 with my 8849 Ae 6/6 which is also 6 axle with a different pulling test, again on my Noch Tessin, this time dragging the track cleaning gondola 86501 around. This test defeats most locos including the Ae 6/6 when used singly, double heading is usually necessary. The Tessin includes gradients up to 6% and the occasional 145mm radius curve so is quite demanding but the E94 can manage both circuits on its own. I’ve been re-discovering a lot of my mini-club and came across the track cleaner and gradient measurement car 86191 at the weekend so put them to good use. I have about 4 versions of this loco and the different eras and owners (1 is ÖBB) don’t worry me, the only stock I have none of is the North American outline. ChrisG  Just tried using the motorized track cleaner car 8802 to do the hauling and it walks it! 
|
2 users liked this useful post by Mman
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 26/07/2021(UTC) Posts: 635 Location: Sydney
|
Agree, it's a great loco, so I got a few spares. Add a bit of lead (11.34) to the roof or better still some tungsten (19.25) or platinum (21.4) if the budget stretches that far. There are a couple more spots to add lead and add some lead shims on the sides of the motor for that last nth of a gram.    Add some tyres. 
|
2 users liked this useful post by Toosmall
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
Hello. Thanks for your input. You definitely know the strength of the 8822 and related types.
I have not added weight or traction wheels. I don’t have the gradient gauge like pictured so I don’t know how steep my hill might be. I know with a loco like a BR 110, 3 or 4 two axle wagons are possible. Today I attached 8 four axle wagons with a load on each (tractor trailer) and it was pulled, no problem. Adding one more did not work.
I forgot to mention the other day, that each truck on the loco in addition to the three drive axles, has three intermediate drive gears. This adds weight right where it is needed.
I firmly believe all these factors result in an outstanding locomotive, possibly one of the best.
Take good care.
Dwight
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 26/07/2021(UTC) Posts: 635 Location: Sydney
|
To get gradient put some blocks of wood or a book or two under one end of the layout. First benchmark that section of track to horizontal. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
Hi.
My layout platform is level, how is grade determined after this?
This is my first layout, likely did not get thing correct.
Still amazed about this locomotive.
Thanks, take good care.
Dwight
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 26/07/2021(UTC) Posts: 635 Location: Sydney
|
If you have a level layout, great, that is what I was trying to achieve but failed dismally. I didn't really want gradients but it was the only way I could stuff in as much track as I could with the scenery I was after. The best option is to have all the track at an RL (relative level) of say about 10 metres (Z: 45mm) minimum above the base so one can have scenery below track level to help with the illusion of gradients. The 8822 does look the part going around mountains. 
|
2 users liked this useful post by Toosmall
|
|
|
|
Joined: 23/05/2021(UTC) Posts: 252 Location: England, Guildford
|
And the pulling power is increased by having the pantographs raised and touching the catenary wire giving a downwards push onto the loco. Of course it will add a bit of friction also, but would think that would be outweighed by the extra traction gained since, adhesion to the track aside, the Z locos are powerful - just a case of harnessing that power.
Curves give drag, the sharper the more drag so I try to avoid the 145mm radius ones.
I spent some time designing a two level layout to fit into my bay window with the ‘fiddle yard’ and reverse loop on the lower level and a 2.5% gradient between. A long way in I realized that I would not be able to see let alone access the yard and to make a suitable difference in height would mean the gradient percentage rising to an impractical figure. Second thing I realized was that you can’t run locos with the pantograph in use (to actually supply the current) around reverse loops and still run diesels and steamers on the rest of the layout. This is where 3 rail triumphs, I wonder if they considered three rail Z when designing mini-club!
ChrisG
|
1 user liked this useful post by Mman
|
|
|
|
Joined: 23/05/2021(UTC) Posts: 252 Location: England, Guildford
|
I was amazed when I attached a 8802 track cleaning rail car to a hard to pull consist, it punched way above its weight. It has wheels with a very rough tread, the front pair larger than the rear to give a deliberate slip between the two to scrape the rail surface. I will have a go at transplanting the axle with the smaller wheels into a regular loco to see if that improves the pulling power of it. If it does I’ll have a go at knurling a larger wheel on a steamer.
ChrisG
|
1 user liked this useful post by Mman
|
|
|
|
Joined: 23/05/2021(UTC) Posts: 252 Location: England, Guildford
|
 Took the anti-clockwise tour to include Gaugemaster at Ford near Arundel yesterday who had been listing E94 88227 at a reduced price. This has a new type motor which may be suitable for continuous operation. All my electric and diesel outline locos get hot after several minutes, the 3 poles especially -no wonder there are so many burnt out examples- only the steamers with open motors sticking out of the cab stay coolish. The worst are the completely enclosed 0-6-0 locos, no ventilation! After my last experience with new Z purchases I was wary but undaunted and went ahead and bought it. This morning it is running in on my Tessin layout where it negotiates both inner and outer circuits with no bother. It didn’t want to know my smaller briefcase layout continually derailing on the sharp curves and uneven track but that one is really only suitable for 0-6-0s and railbuses. Another challenge which I think I have read about is keeping the pantographs down. There is no hook to latch as with the modern ones but relies on an ‘over centre’ position, one of the pantos refused to stay down (on the Tessin inner circuit there is bridge over the track that would be hit by a raised one) so I had to do a bit of tweaking to improve matters. Haven’t tried a maximum load test yet but with the track cleaner only it looks promising. One of the photos is shewing the derailed front axle on the smaller layout, I didn’t notice at the time. ChrisG 
|
1 user liked this useful post by Mman
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
Hello, hope all is well.
Beautiful locomotive. The lower truck frames look huge. Maybe it is the deep red color which accentuates them. I like it. It will be interesting to see how the new motor does with the pull test. I know this is defective logic but, I always assume the quiet motor is a weakling. Prove me wrong, please.
Hot running can be caused by a number of things. I have been working on a number of mine and can share a few thoughts, you likely could add a few more.
Yes the tight brushes can cause excessive heating but to me are difficult to adjust. Look up doing this on YouTube. I think ZHobo had something posted. I haven’t given up on performing this solution.
The lite oils don’t cake and harden,but they tend to sling off and this gets oil where you may not want it. Cleanings need to be more frequent.
The Marklin oils do harden and this could cause heating.
Although I clean my track rather consistently, small pieces of “vegetation” material got caught up into a truck and caused it to interfere with free rolling operation. I sometimes fear breaking down a “Bo Bo” type assembly, but found it beneficial to do so. It does give you a chance to see if something is broken or if the wheel contacts are not located behind the wheel, causing binding.
It is best to work on a hot engine because what I discovered years ago, is this. Yes, it will work, but eventually it won’t. And another concern is that the heat will eventually soften and expand the plastic shell, and it won’t stay on. Shells are costly too.
Just a few thoughts hope it helps.
Let’s us know what you discover with your new loco it should be interesting.
Take good care.
Dwight
|
1 user liked this useful post by Zme
|
|
|
|
Joined: 23/05/2021(UTC) Posts: 252 Location: England, Guildford
|
 After testing this morning find that this E94 is my best puller (without traction tires) so far. In my standard test going clockwise around the outer circuit of the Tessin which has a 3.5% gradient (according to the 86191 measurement wagon) it has managed a record breaking 20 x 2 axle wagons! I ran out of readily available tankers and added what may be heavier box cars until it could no longer make it up the bank due to wheelslip. Some years ago I bought a jar of ‘Bullfrog snot’ from someone in the US and when I find where I have stored it I will apply some to see if 20 can be bettered. Apart from the pantos keep popping up it is my best loco so far, it has been hauling for an hour now with no signs of heating up. After the disappointment of the V80 with a can motor it is good to see one working so well. As far as the pantographs are concerned I will have to swap them with those on a defunct Swiss Ae3/6 that I have. ChrisG
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
Hello.
Wow, amazing photo.
Dwight
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
Hello.
Wow, amazing photo.
I had a problem with Pantos too, but at close inspection, I notice a small tab on it and when I pushed this slightly inward it stopped popping loose. This was one on a restaurant wagon, but the problem with the panto there are many different types. Yours looks larger and might not have this tab.
I wonder if anyone has a Youtube on this or a discussion of a solution. Have to look around, you could start by searching it on this site. There may be a discussion here.
Of course, you could always change this part out. Does it extend kind of lopsided? It could be missing springs or something minor and maybe this is related to it popping up.
Glad you are happy with your purchase. I am as impressed as you are. If many more wagons are added, the loco will be viewing your last car in the circle.
Take good care.
Dwight
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC) Posts: 581 Location: England, Cambridge
|
Originally Posted by: Mman  After testing this morning find that this E94 is my best puller (without traction tires) so far. In my standard test going clockwise around the outer circuit of the Tessin which has a 3.5% gradient (according to the 86191 measurement wagon) it has managed a record breaking 20 x 2 axle wagons! I ran out of readily available tankers and added what may be heavier box cars until it could no longer make it up the bank due to wheelslip. Some years ago I bought a jar of ‘Bullfrog snot’ from someone in the US and when I find where I have stored it I will apply some to see if 20 can be bettered. Apart from the pantos keep popping up it is my best loco so far, it has been hauling for an hour now with no signs of heating up. After the disappointment of the V80 with a can motor it is good to see one working so well. As far as the pantographs are concerned I will have to swap them with those on a defunct Swiss Ae3/6 that I have. ChrisG Would you mind popping it on your kitchen scales and letting us know what it weighs? I'm keeping a spreadsheet of loco weights (which I'm very happy to share, if anyone is interested) and would like to add this one to my list! Thanks very much! Chris P.S. If you'd do the same with your V80, that would be great, too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 23/05/2021(UTC) Posts: 252 Location: England, Guildford
|
The letter scales were a disappointment since they only read in 5 gram increments so dug out small electronic scales which read 37.9 grams for E94, a mere 21.4 grams for the V80 and out of my interest 30.8 grams for a Swiss Ae 6/6.
ChrisG
|
1 user liked this useful post by Mman
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC) Posts: 581 Location: England, Cambridge
|
Originally Posted by: Mman The letter scales were a disappointment since they only read in 5 gram increments so dug out small electronic scales which read 37.9 grams for E94, a mere 21.4 grams for the V80 and out of my interest 30.8 grams for a Swiss Ae 6/6.
ChrisG Thanks very much, Chris, I really appreciate your taking the time to weight these. I realise I have an unnatural obsession with locomotive weights, but for anyone who is interest, here is the data I have accumulated so far : Part No Description Weight (g) 8874 BR216 (V160) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 37 81071 BR218 B-B Diesel Hydraulic 24 81176 BR V200 31 81450 BR232 Co-Co Diesel Electric 33 81551 BR111 B-B Electric 23 81870 BR 111 B-B Electric 24 88025 Klv 20 VW "Bully" 8.5 88131 BR234 Co-Co Diesel Electric 36 88132 BR W 232.01 Co-Co Diesel Electric 34 88133 BR232 Co-Co Diesel Electric 34 88167 BR 798 railcar 18 88203 BR220 (V200.0) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 33 88227 BR 194 "Crocodile" 38 88353 BR14 B-B Electric 29 88501 AE 6/6 C-C Electric 30.8 88699 BR212 B-B Diesel Hydraulic 26 88740 BR 64 2-6-2 21 88742 BR 64 2-6-2 21 88780 BR218 (V164) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 26 88783 BR216 B-B Diesel Hydraulic 23 88784 BR216 B-B Diesel Hydraulic 24 88786 BR218 (V164) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 24 88803 V80 B-B Diesel Hydraulic 21.4 88889 BR85 2-10-2 33 88931 BR85 2-10-2 33 88942 BR 94 0-10-0 31 88943 BR 94.5 0-10-0 31 88956 BR 130 2-6-0 28 88962 BR 86 2-8-2 25 Cheers Chris
|
2 users liked this useful post by Poor Skeleton
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
Hello. Interesting statistics. I noticed this video showing a weight increase for the Ludmilla from 34 to over 50. Is this possibly a result of the metal filled plastic alone? Is this likely going to be the best puller ever? Maybe. Take good care. Dwight Edited by user 19 October 2021 17:38:05(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC) Posts: 581 Location: England, Cambridge
|
Originally Posted by: Zme Hello. Interesting statistics.
I noticed this video showing a weight increase for the Ludmilla from 34 to over 50.
Is this possibly a result of the metal filled plastic alone?
Is this likely going to be the best puller ever? Maybe.
Take good care.
Dwight Maybe, though it’s not been promoted as featuring a metal impregnated plastic body. I did note the coreless version of the Class218 had increased weight slightly, perhaps as a result of the flywheel, but I can’t see that accounting for 20g or weight gain! I’m hoping mine might arrive soon, so I’ll be sure to report back when it does. It’s already a good puller so that extra will make it unstoppable! Cheers Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 23/05/2021(UTC) Posts: 252 Location: England, Guildford
|
This subject has got me going, digging out locos and wagons and coaches to weigh them and add their weights to my stock index.
When I did my pulling assessment of the E94 I mixed tankers (my usual standard load) with 8605 box cars and 8609 brake vans little realizing the large differences in weight, ie 2 axle tankers 4.38 gr, box cars 6.56 gr and brake van a mere 3.84 gr.
I have sufficient tanks just didn’t bother to get them out of their boxes.
Also realized that using the Tessin layout for load pulling tests will not work with tankers if the locos get much better since if the length of the total trains puts some wagons partially on the down gradient as well as some on the up one it will invalidate the results.
When weighing certain locos with unpowered bogies or pony trucks these should be removed since they don’t count as adhesive weight but this gets us into awkward territory concerning the undriven axles in the centre of Ludmilla bogies for example, I suppose simply deduct the weight of two lots of axle and wheels from the total.
In ‘Poorskeleton’s table the given weight of the 8874 Br216 is listed as 37 grams, had this particular example had weight added since it is so much heavier than similar locos?
By Amazon prime I took delivery of a set of calibration weights for my electronic scales to re-assure me of their accuracy on Monday so I can get underway with serious weighing. I like to tell myself ( and try to persuade my wife) that it lends a serious scientific aspect to my hobby!
ChrisG
|
1 user liked this useful post by Mman
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC) Posts: 581 Location: England, Cambridge
|
Originally Posted by: Mman
When weighing certain locos with unpowered bogies or pony trucks these should be removed since they don’t count as adhesive weight but this gets us into awkward territory concerning the undriven axles in the centre of Ludmilla bogies for example, I suppose simply deduct the weight of two lots of axle and wheels from the total.
It's actually worse that this as most pony trucks are sprung, so they bear some of the weight of the loco and subtract from the adhesive weight! My 2-10-2 locos are heavier than my 0-10-0s but have nowhere near the pulling power! Quote:
In ‘Poorskeleton’s table the given weight of the 8874 Br216 is listed as 37 grams, had this particular example had weight added since it is so much heavier than similar locos?
8874 is a very early model and the chassis has much more metal in it than the modern equivalents - hence the huge difference in weight. Interestingly, it's not as strong a puller as my (lighter) Ludmilla which makes me wonder if the shiny silver wheels grip less than the blackened ones. There's a PhD thesis in this for someone! Cheers Chris
|
1 user liked this useful post by Poor Skeleton
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
Hello. hope all is well.
I noticed this locomotive has the similar "large frame" and with the weighted shell, this is what is bringing the weight up. Seems like a good trend to get the new models to be more similar to those early 218/216 models we all appreciate.
Certainly moving to that lighter frame and motor was not an improvement when the 216 was updated long ago.
I am not certain the type of wheels necessarily makes much difference. Seems to me the black finish on the surface is quick worn off, but who knows, it could be a factor.
It will be interesting to hear what is discovered about this locomotive. It may be one I need to add to my collection. If production is sufficient, perhaps it will be possible to get one.
Take good care.
Dwight
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC) Posts: 581 Location: England, Cambridge
|
Originally Posted by: Zme Hello. hope all is well.
I noticed this locomotive has the similar "large frame" and with the weighted shell, this is what is bringing the weight up. Seems like a good trend to get the new models to be more similar to those early 218/216 models we all appreciate.
It will be interesting to hear what is discovered about this locomotive. It may be one I need to add to my collection. If production is sufficient, perhaps it will be possible to get one.
Take good care.
Dwight
Well, clearly 88136 does have the metal impregnated body, which something I'm delighted about! I'm just surprised Marklin have made no mention of it in the product information. Like you, I like the idea of all axle drive - the locomotive in the 81451 set was (and is) advertised as having all axle drive, but I was disappointed when mine arrived to find it was just the outer axles on each bogie. I suppose there must be a reason for this - my suspicion is that the extra friction impairs the slow running. It's a shame that 88803 and 88804 don't have the metal impregnated plastic bodies - It seems like they could do with a bit of extra weight. Talking of which, I see 88804 is now showing as in stock on the Marklin website. I suppose I'd better get my order in! Cheers Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
Hello. Could not suppress my desires to add this one to my collection.
Will have to see what happens.
Thanks for the inspiration.
Dwight
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC) Posts: 581 Location: England, Cambridge
|
Originally Posted by: Zme Hello. Could not suppress my desires to add this one to my collection.
Will have to see what happens.
Thanks for the inspiration.
Dwight Oh dear! I feel like I have lead you astray! All the best Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 842 Location: West Texas
|
Hello
Don’t feel bad, it doesn’t take much.
Best wishes
Dwight
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 07/09/2019(UTC) Posts: 65 Location: Singapore, Singapore
|
Hi there, can you please share with me...more info on these traction tires!? Where do you buy them from? Any experience / advice etc. Thanks Gavin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 26/07/2021(UTC) Posts: 635 Location: Sydney
|
|
1 user liked this useful post by Toosmall
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
