Specific Gravity and Weights: Element-------Specific------Pounds Name---------Gravity-------Per Cu Ft Platinum-------21.52--------1342 Tungsten -----19.62--------1224 Gold----------19.24--------1208 Lead(Cast)----11.35--------708 Lead(Rolled)---11.39--------711 Nickle----------8.67--------541 Brass----------8.56--------534 Steel----------7.85--------490 That might help put things in perspective.
Instead of the frame, why not just make tungsten Rapido couplers? Something that big hanging off both ends should add a satisfactory amount of weight... :tb-biggrin:
I agree w/ the aftermarket idea -- nothing frustrates me more than a great looking (Atlas/IM) locomotive that can't pull much. I usually have to have at least 2 kato's in my 4 unit consists to be able to pull a decent length train. I'd pay extra to upgrade my loco's (diesels, easier it sounds like than steam) to be heavier.
actually I don't believe all locomotives need a tungsten alloy frame, however the small one could use every bit of weight you can cram in them. Electrical reliability is also a factor with small wheelbased steam and diesel. So the benifits are not only pulling ability, its also electrical reliability. I would like to see a comparison between the Bachmann 44 tonner and this new steamer just to see what the 40:1 gear reduction and tungsten frame would compare to conventional construction. Mass production of the models(like most runs are now) would significantly reduce the costs. However one idea I have for Atlas, lifelike and kato locomotives, is a flywheel replacement made out of tungsten alloy, those two chunks of brass represent quite a bit of weight in the loco, tungsten alloy would make them almost three times heaver, thus improving intertia and traction. Dapol is apparently selling this loco for about 90 to 100 dollars, considering the gear reduction and frame material, this is a very good cost ratio. Rob
Thanks. Wonder where the stuff Atlas frames are made from falls in this list? All that would do is make my junk box heavier when I replace them.:tb-biggrin: Good idea about the flywheels, I've often wondered about the effectiveness of them and wondered if the space would be better filled with weight but your idea of making them from tungsten is a better one. Now I see how much heavier it is, tungsten flywheels and truck frames might add enough extra weight to a diesel without the expense of doing the whole frame in tungsten. The Dapol DCC instructions have some good shots of the Terrier mechanism. DAPOL - Terrier DCC instructions 27.03.09 I think the engine will sell well in the UK as they were popular with railfans, lasting till the end of steam in the 60's on a couple of branchlines with light bridges.
Now your trains REALLY would be an investment!! I think we should just ask for PLATINUM frames... what a better way to invest than in your favorite hobby.
My wife is getting suspect with all the expensive jewelry I am buying to melt down for casting frames. She thinks I might have a girl friend.:we-laugh:
I gave into temptation and ordered a Terrier last night, I thought there's only one way to find out how well they run. And they look so cute. Browsing Dapol's website they seem to be quite an innovative company with new ideas and models no one else has done. The terrier isn't the first time they've dabbled in tungsten, their 9F 2-10-0 is listed as having tungsten boiler weights.
So far I think the best idea we've seen in this thread is Tungsten flywheels. If tungsten is about twice as heavy as those brass flywheels we currently have on most things, we'll not only see better traction due to more weight, but also better smoothness due to heaver flywheel.
Hmm it is a pretty good idea. But, there is a bad side, you are gonna wear out the motor bearings and brushes a lot faster.
Bearings maybe, motor brushes shouldn't be affected, good lube should preclude any premature wear, (unless the bearing material is real cheepo) Rob
Wouldn't it also depend on the orientation of the brushes? If they're horizontal, not additional weight should really affect their wear. Then again, when's the last time we've seen an engine with horizontal brushes?
Mark, the brushes are not affected regardless of orientation. They are spring loaded to maintain contact with the commutator so naturally have play in them. There is probably more of an issue with differing spring tension causing uneven wear of the brushes. As Rob points out, the bearings are what will take the stress of additional weight since they support and centre the commutator in the motor frame. Gravity kinda sucks...
Actually bearing stresses on the motor can be negated by providing bearings on the inboard side of the flywheels, that would take the pressure off the motor bearings. If the flywheels weight is allowed to rest on the motor bearings, one would have to insure adequet lubrication is periodically applied to prevent premature wear. Rob
Having to apply lubricant periodically puts it as far out of my league as DCC. That just won't happen unless they included an easy: Shell off Lube on Shell on. I've seen way to many "How do I get the shell off" threads.
I don't think we'd be looking at applying this to large engines just smaller, weight challenged ones, for instance the Walthers 0-8-0 would be much improved with a bit of extra weight. As for the discussion of bearings wearing quicker with the extra weight, any improvements in mechanisms that are an offshoot of the use of tungsten would not be a bad thing. The Dapol site mentions that the Terrier has 'self lubricating axle bushes' so maybe they are already onto the problem.
