7th Street Shops - Romley: An Historical Overview - Post 34

Boarding house & Station as seen from the P.O. after 1908. - Poole Col.

Romley was never a large town and in the summer of 1885, the population was only about 150 people. Of itself, the town probably didn't generate enough traffic to warrant more than a small depot. But it was encapsulated in the economics of the mining company. It isn't surprising then, that the railroad dis assemble the large depot at Hancock and brought down grade to Romley in 1887.

When the railroad arrived at Hancock in 1881, the town was already in the height of its boom. For all of the activity at Hancock the South Park built a large 16'x48' (Standard) depot. This structure had a larger platform.and a freight room over 13' x14'. But, as is wont of mountain town booms Hancock soon fizzled after 1885 and by 1887 there was very little activity in the area.. Even though there was sporadic activity from time to time the town never recovered.

2nd mill, boarding h'se, stables & depot (thru trees). 1900 - Poole Col.

The Mary Murphy Mining Company (MMMC) continued to prosper into the 1890s. The first stamp mill was erected in 1882 and the operation expanded into the '90s. However, by the turn of the century the first mill was gone; along with the structure that stood across the tracks above the tailing ponds. These structures were destroyed by fire. A new mill was constructed  next to and up grade of the old foundation. This mill would last until 1908.

Romley P.O. from the grade 1950s - Poole Col.

The large depot at Romley also remained until 1908. Then a report in the 18 July Golden Globe (Golden, CO) described; 

"Fire  caused by a locomotive spark  destroyed the little town of  Romley on the Colorado and Southern, twenty five miles west of Buena Vista, on the 7th causing a loss of $12,000. The Colorado and Southern depot, the Mary Murphy shafthouse and equipment, two residents and several smaller buildings were consumed," 

2nd Romley Depot survived the tracks by more than 50 years - Poole Col.

As the 20th century approached it would seem reports like this one became a systemic rhapsody of buildings built along the railroads. Fires were not uncommon but as locomotive technology implemented longer smoke boxes with straight stacks (that drafted better) the occasion of fires increased notably. The newly created Forestry Service became demanding of the railroads because forest fires were also on the rise. It turns out that a better drafting locomotive is more proficient at scattering live sparks. Without the greater volume of diamond type stacks, sparks were easily scattered abroad.

This became such a common occurrence that when new construction, such as the depot at Lyons, CO, was discussed, the railroad's documents assumed; "...when the depot burns down..." not if the depot burns down!

The C&S Ry wasted no time in replacing the Romley depot. The new structure was smaller (12'x23'). The platform - more of a covered porch - was perpendicular to the track. With an additional shed on the uphill end, the total length of the structure was just 38'. It was located exactly where the former depot had been.

The mill that was destroyed in 1908 was the replacement of the first mill built in 1882. That mill was destroyed by fire between mid 1890s and 1904. By that time, the property included both the Mary Murphy and Pat Murphy mines, Romley and all of the structures owned by the MMMC. This was sold to the Golf  Mining Company (GMC ) with headquartered in London, England in 1904. It was that company which which quickly built the last mill at Romley, The new mill was again built upgrade and next to the second mill. Foundations of the 3 structures, all in a row, were still evident as of 2006.

The Third Stamp Mill  in 1921 - Poole Col.

Original Stamp Mill still operating in 1890 - Poole Col.

The focus of the GMC quickly shifted one half mile down grade from Romley where they built the large 100 stamp Golf Mill. This location had first been called Murphy; where a small water tank was erected in the 1880s. The tank was moved before 1890 to just below St. Elmo. The Golf switch was installed very near the old tank location. About 1000 feet up grade from the Golf switch was the Lady Murphy tank (45K gal.). The complex from the Golf switch included several spurs both above and below the mill. Also, the company built tramways to connected multiple tunnels of both the Pat and Mary Murphy mines. The GMC also improved the tram from Mary Murphy's Level 4 to Romley.

By the late teens the GMC mines began to wither. WWI and economic ebbs began taking a toll on productivity. The railroad was also changing; in Oct.1910 the Alpine Tunnel closed because of a small cave-in, It was not particularly planned to be a permanent closure but at about the same time Trout Creek washed out the track from Newett to the Arkansas Valley. Except for the Denver & Rio Grande 3 rail track through Buena Vista to Leadville the Chalk Creek line had no connection to the rest of the C&S system. These factors, together with the changing fortunes of the mining industry, the railroad  sought and was granted authorization to abandon the line in 1923. In 1926 the rails into Chalk Creek were completely removed.

Related  "Rails & Flanges Regeared"  Posts;  8, 10 & 31-33

 

7th Street Shops - Romley: An Historical Overview - Post 33

 

The ghost town of Romley was still in good shape in the mid 20th Century - Poole Collection

On the gently sloped plateau below the railroad, trees were cleared and framed dwellings were constructed. The town was named Morley after the Mary Murphy Mining Company's president James H. Morley. There would be a school and a teachery and perhaps a third boarding house and there was probably some type of commissary. But, there isn't any indication of a church or saloons nor was there any formal law enforcement other than perhaps the mining company itself. It was a company town and as near as can be determined it was started in 1883 by the MMMC;.

Romley, about 1900. Note the tailing ponds in the mid ground - Poole Col.

Early in 1885, perhaps confident that an actual municipality had been establishment at the MMMC works, Robert Coleman applied for a post office on behalf of Morley. Coleman engaged Gus Helmer (who was once again the Postmaster at St. Elmo) as sponsor for this second attempt. An Application ("Location Paper") was issued to Coleman by Malcolm Hay, First Assistant to the Postmaster General, on 29 April. Robert J. Coleman was named as the Postmaster and it was Coleman who completed the form that was returned to Hay on 18 May. The document was sealed on 23 May, 1885 and with a Post Office, the town was recognized as an established municipality.

Large depot at Hancock 1885 - Poole Col.

Coleman identified the location on the Application as Morley. However, that name was rejected by the U.S.D.P.O. Morley would not be Morley. Instead,on the document, "Mor"ley  was partially struck out and the first three letters were transposed into "Rom"; thus Romley would be the name. The reason for this would have been that there was already a P.O. named Morley somewhere in the United States. Whether the town agreed with this change would not have mattered much; to this day, Mile Post 155.6 on the old Colorado & Southern Railroad grade is the location known as Romley. 

First 16'x42' Depot moved to Romley from Hancock 1887- Poole Col.

The railroad handled the mail traffic to and from Romley but in 1885 they had not yet installed a depot at that location. By 1882 the Ogden Eating House was built at MP 155.6 within the railroad right of way but, there is never any indication that Ogden actually belonged to the railroad. Whatever the arrangement, almost certainly there would have been an agreement between the railroad and Ogden that probably included limited depot duties. Whether Ogden survived to 1885 is not known.

The Post Office was established upon the approval of the application and when the actual structure was built it was conveniently located 50 feet below the depot. This was also at M.P. 155.6.  In terms of the mail service, Coleman ran his charge out of the mining office until the structure was built. Coleman was an employee of the mining company. 

Romley in the Summer of 1983 after the Forrest Service had knocked down the renaming buildings - Poole Photo

7th Street Shops - Romley; An Historical Overview - Post 32

 

Camera positioned over the D.S.P.& P.Ry. M.P. 155.6. (Romley, CO). Ogden Eating House and both depots to left. Spur tracks to ore bin and rear of 3nd mill to right.  1987 - Poole Photo

(Fig.1) R.R. r.o.w. & MMMC road at Murphy, 1881 - Poole Col.

It was 2.3 miles from St. Elmo to what would become Romley. Of course, there was no Romley in 1881; there was nothing except the road Col. John Kelly, (General Manager of the Mary Murphy Mining Company) built from the mine head to St. Elmo in 1880. The purpose of the road was to transport ore and supplies between the mine and the town and it was one of the first improvements to the property by the new owner.

The mine was discovered near the top of  Chrysolite Peak, perhaps as early as 1870. It with other industrial properties were purchased by a St. Louis company for $300k and the Mary Murphy Mining Company (MMMC) was formed to develop the property. The 2.5 mile road that Col. Kelly built started at the mine head, dropped down Pomeroy Gulch until the south bank became so precipitous that the road had to turn south and traverse to the valley floor. There it looped to the north and proceeded to the town. (fig. 1). When the D.S. P.& P. track came through, it crossed the pr-existing road.at Mile Post 155.6 and the railroad designated the station as "Murphy".

Mary Murphy, Chrysolite Peak, 1983 - Poole Photo

Over the years, names for M.P.155.6  came and went. Unlike "Murphy", Romley had no district source; spoken, locale, cultural, persona or "otherwise". But even the several interim names tended to be confusing. In a few cases two names appeared on the same page as the same place. Sources and advent of names were often obscured. But, as we may find once available information is sorted out, it will become more clear how the names and town evolved.

M.P. 155.6; Ogden, MMMC ore bin & mill, June 1882 - Poole Col.

Right away the railroad installed a switch at M.P. 155.6. This was to service an ore loading bin and perhaps a platform constructed above the grade by the MMMC. There after the railroad renamed M.P.155.6 Murphys Switch. The photo shared below was probably take in June, 1882. Along this spur a coal car was spotted next to the ore bin (for low grade ore). Also the mine's first stamp mill appeared in the background. However, the dense stand of pine below the grade where the town would later be built appeared untouched. 

Early in 1882, Fred H. Werlitz, the company  Engineer, approached Augustus Helmer, Postmaster of St. Elmo, and request a Post Office for Murphys Switch. In response, Frank Hatton (First Assistant to the Postmaster General in Washington D.C,) sent an application to Werlitz; care of Gus Helmer. Werlitz's promptly filled out the application and returned it to the Department of the Post Office (DPO). 

Fred's information on the application supplied substantial insight into the beginnings of what would become Romley. Accordingly, there was "no village" near the station. Mail would be delivered to the mining office (this was within the boarding house from which it is likely the June 1882 photo was taken!). Fred also stated that the population of Murphys Switch was 105 individuals - "and increasing". Of course, most of this population was employees of the mining company but perhaps there were a few attached to the Ogden Eating House.

 MMMC's 1st stamp mill at Murphys Switch, June 1882 - Poole Col.

The application proposed naming the new Post Office "Neva". The significance of this name is unknown and, fortunately, it is never seen again! The document from Hatton was dated 25 April and Werlitz returned it on 18 May, 1882.

Nothing came of the 1882 application. Nor has an explanation turned up as to why. Presumably the application did not qualify. A reasonable hypothesis might be gathered from information on the application. Perhaps most significant is that there was no town at Murphys Switch. The small population, was almost entirely employed by a private company with no allegiance to stay at the location other than money literally dug out of the rock. Even the applicant was an officers of  this objectively dubious operation. From the perspective of the DPO the application simply did not qualify.

Boarding house at Level 4, 1983 - Poole Photo

The MMMC had two boarding facilities for employees. The first, as mentioned, was at M.P. 155.6 in the same building as the  company office. (See painting in Post 8.) This 2 story structure likely had a dining hall and could house 40 men. The second was at the Level 4 Tunnel about a mile up Pomeroy Gulch from M.P.155.6. This building had a capacity to bunk of 60 men.

As the largest producer in the district, employment at the MMMC was indeed increasing and optimism that would have justification a request for a Post Office is understandable. But transient men living in boarding houses was no measure of a permanent, growing community. It is plausible that the MMMC recognized this as the reason for the apparent denial. Neither is it hard to believe that the company would have translated this setback into determination. So far as we know, there isn't documented to substantiate what seems evident; that they set out to rectify their shortcoming by building their own town. As the stand of pine below the grade began to recede a company town emerged. It was first called Morley after the company President, James H. Morley.

 

7th Street Shops - Romley; An Historical Overview - Post 31

 

St. Elmo late 1890s; depot at left edge (above the turntable) with the 1164 sq. ft.freight building along the Aspen Spur (added to 1894 B&B listings). View looking up East Chalk Creek toward Tincup Pass. Romley was up the valley to the left - Poole Collection

The Denver South Park & Pacific Railroad (D.S.P. & P. or South Park) reached Forest City (St. Elmo) at the confluence of Chalk Creek and East Chalk Creek on 31 December 1880. The rails were in a construction race to reach the rich gold fields of the Gunnison River Valley; Gunnison, Crested Butte, Lake City and the San Juan region beyond. As the "Pacific" in the herald implied, the South Park had ambitious goals set for itself. Immediately in front of their efforts was the Saguache ("sah-watch") Range - the Continental Divide. 

From the former D.S.P.&P.R.R. right of way near Nathop, Mt. Princeton at 14,204 feet, towers more than 5,000 feet above the Arkansas Valley. The Chalk Creek District is through the gap at left.   Princeton shoulders Chalk Creek on the north and Mt. Antero (14,271 feet) shoulders (out of view) on the right . Beyond is the Divide of the North American Continent and Alpine Tunnel. Carrol Weiss Photo, 1942 - Poole Collection.

Work on the Alpine Tunnel under Altman Pass (renamed Helmers Pass) had already begun. This pass, yet 8 miles up hill from St. Elmo, was a relatively low point in the ridge The area at the top of Tunnel Gulch had been intensely and meticulous surveys throughout 1879. Excavation started on 9 January 1880. There was great expectation that the tunnel would be completed even before track reached Altman and that the South Park would handily beat the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad (D.&R.G.) into Gunnison. However, when track arrived at St. Elmo, tunnel work was already 6 months behind. A train would not pass through until July of 1882 (an engine went through in Dec. 1881.) and the D.&R.G. reached Gunnison in August 1881.

Beyond the farthest ridge (Mt. Antaro) is the Arkansas River (25 miles east, 4000 feet down), the camera was a few hundred feet above Atlantic (east portal, Alpine Tunnel) and mere yards from the Continental Divide. Romley is at the center of this view. Pomeroy Peak rises to the right - Poole photo 1985

The elevation at the apex inside the tunnel was 11,524 feet and only about 500 feet below the pass. The tunnel was 1772 feet long but measured as 1780 feet daylight to daylight in March, 1900. At the east portal (Atlantic) the track entered on a 24 degree curve that turned more than 90 degrees to the left  Geographically, the tunnel is aligned north to south.

Jackson Photo Special (Engine 42 with sleeper) stopped just beyond Pacific in the small hanging valley named Alpine. William H. Jackson took this view not long after the first train passed through the Tunnel on 19 July 1882 - W. H. Jackson Photo, Poole Collection.

View directly before the train in the photo above. Poole Photo 2005

If you need more details about the Alpine Tunnel a good place to start would be Dow Helmers' "The Alpine  Tunnel". Also, "The D.S.P.& P" by Mac Poor and Colorado R.R. Museum "Rail Annal No. 12" (Cornelius Hauch). There are many more publications in both books and magazines that are excellent resources for this and much more about the railroad. . 

The South Park gauged the rails at what Coloradoans (note the CORRECT  spelling of that noun!!) call Colorado Standard Gauge - 36" between the rails. (The rails were 30lbs to the yard.) This diminutive sizing was intended to reduce the costs of building a railroad in the Colorado Rockies where the motto was; "around the rocks, not through them". But this Tunnel - which was the only tunnel on the entire narrow gauge system for nearly 70 year of history - was an unavoidable exception, given the company goals.

In the distance, Brittle Silver Basin and the head waters of Quartz Creek. The railroad climbed out of the valley where it passed The Palisades and crossed the Toll Road down from Williams Pass. Poole Photos - 2005

During 1881, the South Park pushed the track work as fast as the crews could lay it; they reached the tunnel in mid October 1881. When grading reached the Tunnel several months earlier, it provided a direct supply route to the construction site.  The construction companies used the grade as a wagon road for transportation ahead of the track as it was built.

Of course, this wasn't the only road into Tunnel Gulch. For many years prospectors had traipsed all over the district. Some of the trails they created or "developed" from the natives became wagon roads and eventually a toll road was built from Forrest City (St. Elmo) up Chalk Creek. It crossed the Continental over Williams pass. On its decent into Quartz Creek, this Alpine & South Park Toll Road was crossed by the railroad grade just above the feature known as "The Palisades" (a vertical rock formation that rises several hundred feet above the grading). Supplies via the Toll Road could be forwarded up grade from the crossing into Alpine, the small hanging valley that is the location of the Tunnel's Pacific portal.

On the Atlantic side there was a road from the Toll Road westward up Tunnel Gulch but the construction camp was still hundreds of feet above the creek and the road.

Supplies were also packed over Altman Pass from Atlantic construction site.When the bore finally broke through, the arrival of the grading at Atlantic improved the supply to both construction camps from the east portal. .

View from above the railroad grade at Romley, looking north and down grade. The Pomeroy Bridge is located just beyond where the road disappears. Poole Photo - 1987

In the next post we will continue the overview of Chalk Creek and in particular Romley. This series of post is relative to Post 8.

7th Street Shops - Ma and Pa Balance Post 30

 

Colorado & Southern narrow gauge drag east of Trout Creek Pass challenged by 3 & 4% grades

I set a Delrin truck (Sn3) I'd just built on the track at the top of Trout Creek Pass (Denver, CO layout). As soon as I let go, the truck started and quickly gathered speed (grades 4% to 0). When I finally stopped it, it was coasting toward the 40 foot mark.

"HO Primer" by Linn Westcott published on the early 1960s

 "Arrange a 36" length of straight track on a board so one end of the track is 1" higher than the other. Then lubricate the wheels on your cars. ...and try rolling them on this hill. Some may take a slight nudge to start but, if any car won't pick up speed, it is a candidate for better wheels or trucks." HO Primer 6th edition, page 39.

While determining the traction effort of a locomotive on a controlled test track it seems the results are a bit optimistic to those realized under normal operating conditions of the layout. On the test grade the slope is constant and controlled. There are no curves and, when using a single car to carry all of the weight, only 8 journals boxes have any influence on the test.

On the layout, the same load is distributed over several cars. This increases the number of wheels, axles and bearing points. It also multiplies any adverse conditions that may be found in the track itself by the number of wheels involved. On a layout the track isn't consistent - often intentionally. Some cars may be on different grades while others may be in a curve. Naturally, all of these conditions come down to one factor; friction.

Modern model trucks have been refined to the point that they almost never cause trouble - especially in terms of friction. But if you run vintage or swap meet "treasures" you may need to be more mindful of the trucks. One way to overcome the short fall of practical operation is to lubricate the truck's journals.

Total train tonnage after lubricating the truck journals =  34.25oz (rare slipping)

Nearly all of the cars in the 54" train above did not roll like the Sn3 truck and the initial train test was not acceptable. Even individually, most of the cars did not roll down the 2% grade as well as expected. (The flat car uses Intermountain trucks.) One car did not volunteer to roll at all. 

Other factors to seek out would the inconsistent grades. There can be places where the track dips or bumps slightly and these can show up during a heavy haul. Also check the track gauge, particularly in the curves. Even when within gauge tolerance the rails can bind the wheels slightly. This can effect the pulling effort of the locomotive. A slightly loose gauge in curves is usually better than tight.

With the exception of the flat car, all of the cars are Central Valley Old Timer Series. Central Valley trucks were among the best available in their day. Because they are metal (which helps lower the center of gravity of the car) and they are sprung by the bolster, they are still my favorite HO scale truck. But, they are all metal and they should occasionally be oiled. 

After oiling all of the trucks (I recommend a light machine oil such as La belle) the test results more closely replicated the single car tests. But not quite; one car was still a little problematic.

We've discussed the tangible advantages locomotive balance can have on tractive effort, the nuances of car weight and well rolling trucks. Now let's consider how this information might also enhance the fun in model railroading abstracts.

Yard personnel and conductors of the trains require accurate records and markings of the various equipment as well as the anticipated load weights to manage their traffic. Especially for the local or peddler freights, where from one location to the next the consist frequently changes, it is important to monitor and collate the information in order to manage the day's tasks. Particularly in rugged country, it is important to assess the tonnage against the motive power's ability. This might exceed the useful limits of fun within our railroad's abstract but it is interesting to consider - the purpose of railroads being what they are.

Of course, we, as modelers don't actually move any commodities. This is one of the abstractions of our hobby that assist our enjoyment - without the mess. Yet, for those who like to play the "game" of operation it seems likely that the actual weights and capacities of the models might be incorporated into the evening's scenario - since they do have an actual affect on the operation. Give it some thought, gamers.

In the photo at left, you can see that the tags call out the weight of each car in real values. I'm still debating whether to use these values or some kind of "realistic" coding. Eventually, this information will be applied to the sides of the cars - where the "conductor" can read them.  

The Moore & Moore Lines is a "big" layout folded, spindled and more or less mutilated into a 4.5'x7' "acreage" But it isn't really that big nor is it particularly designed for the operation game. However, it is certainly aligned with the abstractions of  Whim. 

The primary purposes of this layout is to enjoy running trains and telling the tales of the little railroad, associated communities and the inhabitants thereof. But this doctrine of Whim doesn't precluded realism. The trains do run and they do so because the laws of physics still apply. Therefore the observer should expect to see that the folks and goats and cows and whatever else occupies these acres still have their feet firmly planted on solid Terra Foama.

Reality is the backdrop "texture" for this story book layout; very much in the spirit of the late E.L. Moore and his  Elizabeth Valley R.R. Any details that provide substance to its believability is welcomed to make the narrative convincing and entertaining. Thus, the caricaturization of every engine, car and

M&ML Local takes the train over the high bridges above Elizabeth

feature of the line - whether it physically exists or not.

The weights of the cars and the ability of the locomotives to pull them will be incorporated into the narrative in whatever way the opportunity may offer. The ruling grade is 2% and the one and only passing track can hold 3 - 4 cars. And that's the reality of it.

7th Street Shops- Ma and Pa Balance Post 29

A custom weight helps tailor this model to its intended purpose

With the weight finalized in the Gem Models 4-6-0 the locomotive pulled a train of 17.75oz with "rare" slipping. Additional weight was loaded progressively onto the 1oz test car until the slipping increased to substantially more spinning than forward motion. The maximum weight with any forward motion was 23oz therefore I rated the engine

Each disk is about 0.35oz or 0.7oz in the cab

tonnage as 17,75oz on a 2% grade.

Up to this point, I had used the test car (with Intermountain Models plastic trucks) with a range of weights that could be combined to any multiple of 1/4oz. It was time to take the investigation to the next level.

I still have an old copy of  HO Primer by Linn Wescott. This was the go-to hand book for HO modelers in the '60s and '70. 

I briefly review the chapter on rolling stock and found that the recommendation was 1/2oz for every inch of car plus 1 extra ounce. A 40' boxcar in HO is 5.5" long over the end sills. According to HO Primer and the NMRA such a car should weigh 3oz with one additional ounce overall for a total of 4oz.

The weighted test car was 18oz with no slipping @ 2%

Of course in those days Truck technology wasn't quite what it is today. On the other hand, mass produced model locomotives shells were all metal and rather more heavy. They could pull more.

I collected together a train's worth of Moore & Moore Lines freight cars - in this case 5 Central Valley Old Timers. I checked and marked the weight of each cars in order to tally the total train "tonnage". The M&ML cars are 36 footers or just under 5" long. They should weigh 3.5oz. according to the given sources but they are all between 2.2oz and 2.95 oz - a little light. The

total weight of the 5 cars is 13.25oz. The flat car with an incomplete caboose on top weighs 3oz. The total train weight is 16.25oz.

The Gem Models Ten Wheeler marched up 2% with 20 1/4oz not counting the 3.25oz tender

Initially, the locomotive did well since the train weight was well below the engine's proven capability. Then I did something radical; or so it might seem these days (we being conditioned to high quality plastic trucks that will take off if you just look down hill). I oiled all of the axles including those of the tender. The cars I used for testing are true Central Valley kits that came with their wonderful metal trucks.They have been upgrade, however, with NWSL fine scale (Code 88)  axle sets. The results were quite interesting.

Again, weight was progressively added to the flat until at 22oz the wheel slip was notable (meaning; the drivers clearly slip with every revolution). I backed the weight off and redefined the engine's tonnage as 20oz at 2%. This was an increase of more than 2oz and that can make it possible to add 1 more car to the train.

The average Central Valley house car on the M&ML weights 2.65oz. This locomotive can handle a 6 car train plus caboose over the steepest hill on the line. Of course, that is longer than the line's only passing track.

Worn 40lb rail from Schwanders CO - C&Sng

Slipping wheels are not a to be tolerated. Slipping wheels can mean tread wear or in the case of stainless steel tires, rail wear. (Both are prototypical by the way; but nobody really wants to model that!) .

To summarize, handling locomotive weight intelligently can increase your enjoyment of the hobby. The encumbrances are that there are many variables, yet seemingly, there is very little discussion about the topic. Of course diesel (pronounced "disease-zel") modelers need not be as attentive because weight is pretty linear in their world. Intelligently balanced, a model steam engine may well out-pull a like model mindlessly crammed full of lead - even if the latter weighs more. Adding too much weight can also mean a shortened life of the power train. 

Below are the stats on this model and a brief of the steps taken to arrive at the best pulling capability.

Tests model; Gem Models 4-6-0. Built by Olympic Models (Tokyo) 12-6-'62.

Modernized Power Train; Sept '18 with NWSL 1630D-9 motor (0.75oz) with flywheel (0.25oz). Balance w/o boiler weight = +1.0oz to front.

Procedures: (Note all train weight total values exclude weight of tender.)

1) (No boiler weight) Added 1/2oz to cab; @ 2% locomotive pulled 9oz plus 1oz car = 10oz Occasional slipping.

2) Added original boiler weight (1.7oz) plus 1.75oz to cab; Train weight of ~20oz @ 2%. Stalled (full wheel slip).

3) Added 5/8"o.d. x 1.1" tube w/ buckshot for total 1.25oz to boiler. Pulled 13oz without weight to cab. Added 0.75oz to cab. Pulled 17.75oz total  @ 2%. Engine weight = 8.25oz, tender = 3.25oz, total locomotive 11.5oz

Then:

@2%, 5 cars plus caboose on flat = 16.25oz.total. Occasional slipping. Checked and lubricated all car and tender axles. Progressively added 5oz for 21.25oz total (until common slipping). Reduced train weight by 0.75oz to 20.5oz for rare slipping - Total train weight 20.5oz. The  Moore & Moore Lines has officially rated this locomotives tonnage @ 20oz on a 2% grade.

Central Valley cars of the Moore & Moore Lines weighed and marked for tonnage purposes

 

 

 

7th Street Shops- Ma and Pa Balance Post 28

 

Gem Models HO Maryland & Pennsylvania 28 (4-6-0) constructed 6 Dec. 1962, Tokyo Japan

In the past few posts I have discussed the tools, principles and a bit of the history about the balance of model steam locomotives. Hopefully, the reader has a better understanding of the importance of balance.

Model Railroading offers satisfaction from the simplest amusement of watching the wheels go 'round 'n' 'round to delving into the complexity of game play that we play called, "operation". It all hinges on one definitive feature - animation. At 7th Street Shops miniature locomotives are FIRST machines and then models; because, they must move. All of the rest of it doesn't really matter if they don't move. 

HOW they move is important to how they meet our expectations. Maybe the point isn't clear; if they don't meet our expectations, even mobility becomes frustrating and meaningless; and that will overshadow the enjoyment of our game. Watching the wheels go 'round 'n' 'round is much more enjoyable when a respectable train comes along with them. Pulling is important and balance of an engine is key to that function.

Without boiler weight engine is heavy to front

So. Let's do it.

In the photo (left) the open pole motor was replaced some years ago by a motor similar to the Can motor shown. The original motor weighs 1.5oz and the Can weighs 1oz with a 1/4oz flywheel attached. The engine (that part of a locomotive that generates the power to move) weighs 6.9oz without the boiler weight (seen on the scale). The overall balance of the model is rather heavy to the front as seen by the beam drop. The 2 axle pony truck, still in place, has very little weight to contribute to this. Note how far back the operational center of the driver coupling is on Ten-Wheeler types. Despite the long front end the weight still needs to bear evenly on each of the drivers. This certainly contributes to the type's tendency to be front heavy.

In this case, the three driver axles are spaced evenly apart; that makes it easier to see that the engine is on the beam's rocking axis. The model's relative center of balance is substantially ahead of the coupling's mid point. It took an extra ounce on the cab roof to balance the engine (below right).

Adding 1 oz to the cab roof balances the engine

Without any  added weight in or on the engine the locomotive struggled to pull even5 ounces up the 2 percent grade. 

This is a good place to point out that the engine pulls not just the weight of the train but that of the tender as well. This tender weighs 3.25oz. In action it contributes nothing to the pulling efficiency of the engine and plays no part in balance other than pull-down along with the rest of the train. Generally, there is no advantage to an over weighted tender in terms of electrical pick up; clean the truck tires (don't forget the bolsters pads either) and the track and electricity will flow to even a lightweight tender! However, as a light car at the front of the train it needs to have some weight so that the load does not pull it off of the track. The 3.25oz of this tender is just about right. If you remove weight and find that the tender derails when the locomotive is pulling, add back weight a little at a time until the problem is resolved. Any more is waste and robs the engine of pulling capacity.

Unweighted engine could not pull 15oz up 2%

 

I added 0.5oz to the cab roof. It took 1oz to balance the engine but I don't want perfect balance. To counter pull-down I left 0.5oz to the front. I still did not add any weight into the boiler. With this simple addition the locomotive pulls 10oz up the grade though with some slipping.

To establish the Tractive Effort of a locomotives I run the model as slow as it will go so that I can detect wheel slip. The "tonnage" is then defined at the greatest load before the wheels start to slip at slowest speed above stalling. Of course, slight undulations in the track may cause an occasional slip. If the model does stall bump up the voltage until it moves again - without slipping.

I finally installed the original boiler weight back into the engine and increased the cab weight to 1.75oz. The train weight was increased incrementally until it was over 22oz and the wheels started to slip more severely. At this point I was confident of a coarse of action that I'd wanted to do for this model.

I don't need a lot out of this or any of the Moore & Moore Lines motive power. The Ten Wheeler will probably never be expected to haul more than two or three smaller wooden passenger cars that only weigh 5 or 6oz each.

5/8" brass tube with turned brass caps

The M&ML cannot handle long trains and its longest (and only) passing track has just 33" of train capacity. The ruling grade on the M&ML is 2%. 

With these considerations I built a custom boiler weight that is greater in diameter yet shorter in length than the original. I was willing to give up a little weight in order to make room for electronics inside the boiler. It is a trademark of 7th Street Shops DCC installs that rarely are there more than 3 break away wires between the tender and the engine. Sometimes there are none.

The original boiler weight wasted a lot of room inside. It is less than 1/2" in diameter yet 1 3/4" long. Even so, it weighs 1.6oz - it is solid brass. The new weight is a 5/8" O.D. brass tube 1.2" long with turned end caps. It weights 1.25oz filled with buckshot. It fits the target location better and leaves plenty of room in the smoke box for a current storage device or even a small speaker plus the components for the headlamp.

The advantages of using buckshot in a tube is a degree of flexibility to fit the desired location and other components and considerations. An added plus is that there are no unsightly chunks of metal visible from track side. The trade-offs seem worth it.

I also added a smaller tube positioned inside the 5/8" tube to accept the saddle screw. The screw is long enough to pin the weight in place. The alignment of this "pocket" is marked on the end of the weight to aid in positioning the weight during assembly.

The mark indicates where the hole for the boiler screw is aligned

I gave up 3/10ths of an ounce in the boiler and a corresponding amount in the cab. The overall weight of the engine is now more than it was after the motor was replaced. But it is 3/4oz less than the greatest amount with the original boiler weight as I described above. So now how will this model perform with its newest configuration?

I'll tell you about it next time.

 

 

7th Street Shops: The Imbalancing Act - Post 27

Something happened in the late 1970s and 1980 that had a direct bearing on the topic of this post. Motor miniaturization advanced because high potency magnets that used rare earth materials became available. This allow significant reduction to all parts of the motors yet increased their efficiency. Model manufacturers realized the advantages of the new technology and began to use them.

The engine and beam are at balance with the small amount of weight added to the cab roof

Before Can motors, heavy open pole motors would have had a significant impact on model balance and of course, the motors of steam models are typically over the back axles. The worst condition of imbalance is for the rear drivers to carry more of the weight. I'm nearly convinced that the entire purpose of adding boiler weight to a brass model was to counter-balance the weight of the motor that was used.

By the time Can motors caught on there were already millions of brass models with open pole motors in the world. Many models already had worn out motors. But of course, brass models do not get throw away. Rather, they usually wind up in a closet tucked safely in their box. Sometimes they were fixed but the arrival of the new motors logically inspired many modelers to fix non-operating models. Then many more old motors were simply replaced because the "modern" types were demonstrably better.

When commercial DCC came along more old motors were replaced because they could easily spike several amps more than the decoders could handle. Conversely, the better Can motors typically operate at less than a few hundred milli-amps.

It's always a good idea to replace that old motor. They are inefficient to begin with but over time magnets tend to loose potency and of course, this only degrades motor performance further.

However, there is a caveat to replacing an original open pole motor with a smaller Can type. 

I have no information that would describe the in-house approach various manufacturers used to address balance of the models they produced but clearly most of them did. The best builders were very good at it. You can determine this for yourself if you have the tools and a model that hasn't already been been altered. But herein lies the problems. Set aside that the number of untouched models is dwindling; how do you actually determine engine balance? What tools - and where do you get them - do you need to do that? You might be able to diminish the issue with a lot of trial and error but without the tools and know how, your success will likely be a matter of luck

The manufacturer probably engineered the balance of a given model based on known data that included the weight of the motor. After the fact, when we replace that old motor we don't particularly have all of the data. But we can weight the two motors and find their differences. We will likely find that the old motor is 2 or 3 ounces heavier. What ever the difference, it will be displaced to the front axle when the new motor is installed. This isn't as serious as overburden of the rear axle since train pull-down will relieve some of that but it still robs the model of performance. 

What compounds the problem is that it isn't detected when the deed is done; unless the installer knows what to expect. There isn't an overt change in how the model runs. Rather, the issue distills into observation of the model over time and it is slowly realization; this model just doesn't pull quite as good as it use to... what happened? Then, as is often the case, the issue is further buried under the arbitrary addition of more weight. Folk, the laws of physics are immutable and they do not forgive.

Motor to left is typically replaced with the  can motor at top.

In the photo to the left the large open pole motor is readily replaced by the can motor (top). Another NWSL 2032D-9 is disassemble at right. That armature measures just 13mm in diameter and the total weighs is less than 1.5oz. The open pole motor weighs 3.6oz and has an armature nearly 18mm in diameter. The Can motor is more powerful but if it replaces the open pole motor more than two ounces would be improperly displaced. A motor's power becomes irrelevant if the drivers do not engage the rail tops.

The condition that is manifest in an unbalanced model is that one or more of the driver sets float. It is true that springs can also cause drivers to float; where they pass above the rails ineffective. What most often causes this condition however, is a model that is out of balance.

Model balance is not well understood by the hobby community. I took a model and the balance to a "new" local hobby shop to show the younger proprietor what the beam could do. It was quickly apparent none of what I shared with him was of any value. Nor was it certain he even understood the point. The "math" of my situation became very clear as I looked around at all the modern diesels in the store. Is the age of steam over in the hobby? Tractive balance of steam engines is of no real relevance to diesel traction and the coming generations of modelers are progressively less connected to that old railroad charm. The response to diesels traction issues (as well as shays and other shaft driven models)  is that blunt-instrument paradigm; add more weight wherever it will fit.

Unfortunately, this topic has always been obscure and digging into old magazines to find related discussions will bear that out. When discussions of poor pullers come up the general and relatively easy solution is "add more weight" - wherever it will fit. Adding weight indiscriminately can exacerbate a balance error. It can also create risk to motors, bearings, driver tires and perhaps other power train parts.

Yet, again, even if the modeler suspects a locomotive is out of balance how does he effectively identify the causes and arrive at the proper solutions? Does he even know what the factors are and where does he get the tools needed to accomplish all of this?

Beam is gauged to (lt. to rt.) O, S, On3 (not shown) HO and Sn3

As I described in the last post the rewards are clearly worth the effort to find practical solutions to this issue. Over the years I have gathered materials and thought about how they should be used. I quickly recognized that a rocking beam would be the best means to gauge balance.

I recently built the beam that you see here since I know of nothing commercially available. This tool is substantial in that it is heavy, rigid and smooth in operation. The beam itself is milled and calibrated and it is grooved for the gauges we service. The only thing that moves the beam (and only in a rocking motion) is any slight imbalance of weight.

Using the beam is relatively simple if all the principles are understood. The.entire primus is based on centering the driver coupling over the proper location of the beam's cross axis. A "driver coupling" is the joining of 2 or more axles by means of linking bars, or more commonly, side rods. What matters most to achieving balance of a model steamer are the two outboard axles (front and rear) and the exact mid point between them. Inboard axles are incidental to these 3 elements. It is the mid point between the two end axles that we must place exactly at the rocking axis of the beam.

Before the actual test is conducted we may remove lead and trailing trucks. They have little effect on the driver coupling itself because most of their weight is born by their own axles. Therefore, unless they are massive multi-axle trucks that would bear down on the beam itself, they probably won't significantly alter the balance on the drivers.

At this point loose pieces of weight are used to bring the engine into balance. In the title photo a few small weights can be seen on the cab roof. Weights should rest somewhere on the model itself. Placing them on the beam within the dimensions of the model is permissible but I prefer to place the weights directly onto the model as near to their mounting locations as I can determine. Certainly, weights should not be placed on the ends of the beam.

Buckshot is added to the cup a little at a time

The two places weight usually winds up are in the smoke box and in the cab roof.  Placing weight evenly over the driver coupling can achieve greater traction without too much impact on balance but that is not always easy to achieve. If the model is already balanced this is the only place that weight can be added "where ever it will fit", but the weight must be distributed evenly within the center-to- center limits of the coupling. Keep an eye on the balance.

I sometimes find a small measuring cup useful when seeking the point of balance. It is easy to add just a few bee-bees at a time since exact balance can be achieved in this way. Be careful however; buckshot and bee-bees are notorious escape artists and a bunch of tiny balls on the floor can be hazardous.

Once balance has been achieved I adjust the weight equation to lean 1/4 to 1/2 ounce to the front of the engine. Again, this goes to what happens when an engine pulls a train. There is a slight pull downward on the rear axle as the train weight takes affect on the engine; therefore tilting the weight slightly forward helps to counter that pull down. At this point I install the weight and test the improvements to the model's "Locomotive Tractive Effort" (LTE). 

If you suspect this is the reason some of your prized brass steamers are disappointing pullers and you don't want to do this yourself contact 7th Street Shops. We can help.

When we continue this discussion I will share a "live" example to demonstrate how adjusting balance improves performance.

If you want to leave comments you will first need to "Follow" this blog.

 

7th Street Shops: ? of Balance - Post 26

-

Balance; this HO Pacific (Key Imports A.T.&S.F. 1226) is about to undergo a balancing act

Several years ago a client sent a P-B-L, S scale, narrow gauge K-36; similar to the model shown below. Among other cosmetic repairs he complained that the model did not pull well. His layout included a 2 percent grade helix where the model could only pull 8 freight cars to the top. This was disappointing as the K classes were the largest locomotives on  D.& R.G.W.narrow gauge and to this day they pull longer trains of similar cars up steeper grades on the Durango & Silverton R.R. 

 

The model did not meet his expectations. He had several of the 480 class big mikes and it is assumed they all did better than his 486.

 

The issue of model traction is a subject that I've studied for many years. On my Sn3 C&S layout I discovered that the small moguls and consolidations were unable to pull even a single brass passenger car up hill from Hess to Bath. Swallowing my own disappointment I defiantly decided I would come to a better conclusion than to just set those models on a shelf - as it seemed Overland thought little more of their product than that. I had several intertwining ideas about what to do but after the K-36 I began to realize a more deliberate approach to the problem. Unfortunately, I don't have the layout anymore nor do I have time to work my models. Instead I've set out to enhance our services to the benefit of our clients at 7th Street Shops.

Even this finely crafted P-B-L K-36  is subject to physics

 

Let's examine the issue a little closer. When a model doesn't pull well it seems the common assumption is that it lacks sufficient weight. But my experiences show time and again simply adding weight is more like  trying to pour a gallon of water into a 1 quart jar. When more weight is added to say, a four axle coupling and only 1 axle is actually pulling, adding weight is a waste and the issue is not addressed.

 

Most manufacturers add ample weight to their models. Adding more weight starts to burden the power train (motor, gears and mechanism). Too much weight increases wear on these parts and they may prematurely fail. The reality is that simply adding weight to a poor puller is likely not the correct answer.

The fundamental problem is that of floating drivers whereby one or more axles do not sufficiantly press their wheels onto the rail tops. Two factors cause floating drivers; incorrect springs and a driver coupling that is not properly balance. For this reason it should go without saying that this topic is generally exclusive to side rod steam locomotives. In other words, these issues rarely effects sidewinders, diesels and other models that depend upon powered or shafted trucks rather than reciprocating drivers.

We will discuss springs at another time (springs, not suspension). True driver coupling suspension is rarely found on production models).

 

You have to be pretty dedicated to properly determine the specifics of an imbalanced driver coupling. The determination process is a bit tedious but the real impediment is the availability of the tools required to investigate the state of balance.You cannot fix what you can't determine needs fixing.

 

You likely have noticed a few of my tools in the photos shared here. The beam seen in the title photo didn't come by UPS. It came out of our machine shop. Nor did it just happen. When I started I did not know what features it would need. This beam is the result of a developmental process. When I tested Patrick's K-36 I temporarily fastened a small diameter rod to the table top and attempted to balance a plate/beam over it. This arrangement was difficult to manage because it was very easy to move the plate and or rocker rod when the engine was set upon the plate. But I persisted and until I could determine that the engine was out of balance and which direction it was too heavy.

 

The second tool is a scale with some degree of accuracy. I already had a postal scale. While it can't be relied upon for gun powder accuracy or exact postage due for shipping it does quite well for this purpose.

 

There must also be some type of weighting material that offers both flexibility and the ability to attach it to the model. I have a box full of lead pieces that I use for this purpose. You will need material to be used to make the corrections permanent as well. 

 

I've mentioned our machine shop. The ability to make boiler weights is often a valuable asset. Of course, the average modeler may only have an occasional need to do this but when many models come thru the door - all in needing some type of attention - the need becomes apparent.

The last "tools" are more abstract; that of knowledge. I'm sure there is a cadre of experts out there (there always are) with this knowledge (which is why we see so much published on the matter) but frankly, very little is readily available and at times, what I see suggests that this knowledge is generally far from the average modelers purview. What I've learned is from hard earned experience and a few bits and pieces from old magazine that offered hints along the way.

I'll finish this post by sharing the rest of the story of my client's K-36. This will be enlightening.

I determined the model had come from the factory out of balance; there was no indication of any modifications. The boiler weight was soldered to the shell per usual so actually removing it would be very difficult. Therefore I cut away material where it was excessive and added weight until the model balanced on the makeshift beam. This attained the goal of equal pressure of all 8 drivers on the rails. What ever a steam locomotive can do with what ever weight available to it, equal pressure will maximize its tractive effort to that measure. This is the reason cramming lead into every nook and cranny is not usually necessary.

I returned the model to the client and when we talked on the phone some days later this is what he told me; "I don't know what you did to this model but where it could only pull 8 narrow gauge freight cars (in S scale they are roughly the same actual size as an HO 40' standard gauge car) it can now pull 18 cars up the same 2 percent grade on a curve!"

The K-36 experience has not been unique. With the proper tools and working knowledge the results are consistently that direct. After balancing the Sante Fe engine in the title photo above it is capable of pulling 12, 40' freight cars - 42oz (each weighing 3.5 oz) - up a 2 percent grade. The weight in the model was not increased or decreased from the factory; merely redistributed. The engine, itself  a medium  size, only weighs 13oz. The tender weighs 6 oz and is in addition to the 42oz. The effective pulling is determined at the point just before the drivers begin to slip. With slipping it can pull a few more cars.

 

HO (40' box) and Sn3 (30' box) cars are roughly the same size (6" L x 1.5" W x 2" H @ 3.5oz ea.)

 

We will continue this discussion in a future post.