Ballasted locomotives

minesweeper Jan 21, 2015

  1. minesweeper

    minesweeper TrainBoard Member

    636
    1,286
    37
    Good day all,
    i have run into some articles that state that some US locomotives were ballasted in order to increase their weight and consequently, their tractive effort.
    Having a kind of reverse problem for my free lance railroad, due to low axle weight I am just wondering how much first (F3) and/or second generation (ALCO 420) diesels may be ballasted to be around their 230/240 Klbs weight (wikipedia data). Therefore how much can these kind of locomotives lose in weight by removing the ballast (if fitted). Can they get closer to a 180Klb, maybe not just taking the ballast off, maybe also by replacing the prime mover and dynamo with newrer, lighter components, reducing the fuel tanks....
    What I need is a Rough Order of Magnitude as no one will actually put the HO F3 or C420 on a 1/87 scale.

    Thanks very much
     
  2. HemiAdda2d

    HemiAdda2d Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    22,014
    27,407
    253
    Maurizio,
    I don't have that sort of data available, but you can look to prototype railroads that ran on light branchlines. Take for example the Milwaukee Road SD10, a chop-nosed SD7/9, with shortened fuel tank. They were especially modified for use on light branchlines that weren't built with heavy rail, deep ballast and robust bridges. Milwaukee also ordered GP38s with shortened fuel tanks for use on Montana branchlines. Any SD7/9 is a good branchline locomotive. The 6 axles spread the weight out to decrease per-axle loads. Early Geeps (GP7,9) were ideal for light branchlines. I would suggest an ALCO RSD-4/5 as well, since it had the 6-axle arrangement.

    It really depends on the prototype. Granger lines (such as those operating Midwest branchlines: Milwaukee Road, Chicago Great Western, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, Rock Island and others) heavily utilized F-units and early Geeps for midwestern branches. If you have specific prototype in mind, try to find a book on their motive power. Many books on specific railroads go into those kinds of details. If you cannot find one, or don't have one, ask here: someone is bound to be able to help.

    I am guessing your question really deals with exterior features that make a lightweight locomotive distinguishable from ballasted or heavy versions of the same model.
    Does that answer your question?
     
    Kurt Moose likes this.
  3. minesweeper

    minesweeper TrainBoard Member

    636
    1,286
    37
    Thank you,
    there is no question of exterior modifications as I would not like to do heavy work on these locos; I have 2 ALCO 420 and a F3 that happened to get into my roster for different reasons (one was a xmas present when I was a kid, another one i bought in the US during a visit, the F3 was intended for my son to play the part of "wilson" from the chuggington cartoon, but I later gave him another loco and kept the F3 for myself).

    My layout is set in Italy, and is a mixture of state railways (the main operator there) and a fictional free lance RR which operates a branch line of the main network.
    This fitted two things:
    - the first is to actually practice the concept of free lance as i learned it in MR and other US model RR resources
    - the second is to get different kind of rolling stock on the layout, as I imagine that the Free lance RR was of course trying to get second hand equipment from the cheapest source available leading to a very composite fleet, among which there are the 3 US locos and a couple of RDC we are talking about.

    The problem I have at this point is that the max axle load in Italy in the 70s was around 44Klb (20 metric tons), and that applied for main lines. Branch lines, the more so if not from state RR, were definitely less, (some lines of the state network still had 70 pound rails); however since my free lance is a "well kept" one, I can stick with 90/110 pound rails and an axle load of around 44 to 46Klb.
    However this allows for these 4 axles locos, the 180Klb I was talking about, which are quite far from the 220/240 i got from internet sources (I did not know at that time how big was the difference of axle loads between US and european RR).
     
  4. HemiAdda2d

    HemiAdda2d Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    22,014
    27,407
    253
    It seems you are looking for very light gauge rail. I'm not an HO scale guru, but Code 70 track is likely your best bet for mainlines, and code 60 or smaller for branches, sidings, etc. Getting smaller than code 70 might be tough; you might need to handlay your track and scratchbuild your turnouts. There's kits from
    Code 83 is average mainline track for HO, with code 100 being the heaviest mainlines like that in the Pwder River Basin, where 18000-ton coal trains run with streetcar frequency.

    You definitely want to limit your track size (gauge) to the smallest code you can find in HO scale. At least based on your modeling focus. To get really tiny gauge rail, you might need to hand-lay it. Here's a place to find all you need: http://www.handlaidtrack.com/ho-scale-a/145.htm
     
  5. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,558
    22,733
    653
    Interesting question. Some times that sort of data is available if one can find mechanical department data sheets or records. They may or may not note the as-built weight, and the added weight. Some engines which had short nose hood had concrete poured into an added pan there, or a molded block of concrete added placed. Weight could be tucked into any available space which did not interfere with operation and maintenance. Some had slabs or thick sheets of steel welded onto exterior places such as walkways.
     
  6. fitz

    fitz TrainBoard Member

    9,709
    2,730
    145
    This will not help to answer your question, I am just sending it in the context of "ballasted" locomotives. I am pretty much a steam fan, and there were quite a few logging locomotives that were originally designed as tank type engines with water tanks wrapped around the boiler. Many were modified later by removing the tanks and providing tenders in their place for water. Losing all of that weight off the drivers tended to make the engines "slippery," spinning their drivers, so the logging companies put rail or other ballast along the side of the boilers to bring back the tractive effort which had been lost from removing the tanks. Just information.
     
  7. minesweeper

    minesweeper TrainBoard Member

    636
    1,286
    37
    Thank you Boxcab, looks like I will not get exactly the information (mechanical department data sheets or records), but I think I can "assume" that these locos can lose weight down to what I need.
    for fitz, these problems on tank engines were quite common also in europe, the more so as the axle load was very very low compared to the US.
    On the line I model (the state RR one), even the biggest tank engine (the one in the picture - 1000hp, which was essentially the most popular locos in the roster, a 2-8-0, modified to as a 2-8-2T)
    940004.jpg
    was usually run with the water tanks filled to the top IOT avoid these issues (we are talking 15 metric tons per axle here, 87 tons total) and 10tons of water make a HUGE difference, as these were all on the drivers.

    Thanks to all for the information

    BTW, here are pictures of one of the C420 and of a passenger train (hauled by another loco as the 420 is still WIP)

    1388929935.jpg

    1419174504.jpg

    1419174701.jpg

    Regards
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2015
  8. Hytec

    Hytec TrainBoard Member

    13,965
    6,903
    183
    Maurizio, thank you for your photos. You have a nice looking layout from the few pictures you have posted. Do you have more that you would like to share?
     
  9. minesweeper

    minesweeper TrainBoard Member

    636
    1,286
    37
    Thanks hytec, but that is not my layout, the pictures were made at an open day of club layout near my home.
    My layout now is packed in my garage due to moving family to Rome, but is still in the plywood pacific stage.
    Here are two pictures of a diorama i built some years ago for my grandfather
    Diorama1.jpg
    plivello1.jpg

    BTW the loco is the 2-8-0T i was talking about. (The model is a 50yrs old Rivarossi)
    more pics at www.izziomelis.com
     
  10. HemiAdda2d

    HemiAdda2d Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    22,014
    27,407
    253
    The diorama looks great, Maurizio!
     
  11. ddechamp71

    ddechamp71 TrainBoard Member

    2,153
    653
    46
    Funny, I oftenly wondered about how to make an US diesel, typically in the 120 000 kg range for a 4-axle unit and in the 180 000 kg range for a 6-axle unit, really lighter in order to be able to accomodate european railroad network (one of my dreams, if one of these days I was winning to the national Lottery, should be running north-american equipment for tourist/railfan operations on a decommissionned French State railroad line, let's say a good old GP9, an USRA Mikado and a few old timer passenger cars, + a few boxcars, tank cars, flat cars and gondolas for trackwork and run-bys).

    I guess there's no really way to do that, except the lighter and smaller fuel tank spoken above. I mean, there's no dead weight on these units. No ballast more than chassis, prime-mover, alternator, traction motors, wheels and axles, brake shoes and actuators, control equipment, cab, hood and fairings themselves.

    Furthermore one has to know standard north-american equipment has a far wider gauge than UIC/European equipment. If you want to run, let's say a SD40 or a C30-7 on an european railroad, provided you strenghtened your trackwork in order to accomodate their typical 30-tonne axle load, you're going to scrape your locomotive's roof and hood under the first bridge or tunnel portal it encounters, and to tear off the first telephone pole or signal bridge it finds on its way... :rolleyes:

    So there's a lot of work to perform on your italian railroad or on my french one before we run any US-sized behemoth on it... ;)

    Hope this helps,

    Dom

    [Edit: funny, I see that you're an ATC controller... Don't know whether you work for Approach/Tower/Ground at Ciampino or Fiumicino, or if you work for En-Route ATC, in which case maybe we already have spoken together... ;) ]
     
  12. bremner

    bremner Staff Member

    6,266
    6,246
    106
    The first batch of Southern Pacific SD9's weighed the same as their SD7 fleet, but with an extra 250 horsepower, spun the wheels easily. The next 4 runs of SD9's came with extra weight to make them easier to operate
     
  13. minesweeper

    minesweeper TrainBoard Member

    636
    1,286
    37
    Hi Dom,
    yes, the loading gauge is also a factor. ...That i chose to overlook, mainly for the reason that some of my trains are the "old, not exactly to scale" (1/80 approx, instead of 1/87) Rivarossi models, which got to be similar to US 1/87 models. These do not look too much different.
    BTW many lines were built with electrification in mind, and therefore tunnels and bridges were a little bit higher to accomodate the overhead wires. That actually happened on the small RR (ferrovia sangritana) from which I derived my free lance. Laid for steam traction and metre gauge, but with loading gauge for standard rails and overhead wires. Which actually got after the war.
    Starting from the fact that some US locos were actually ballasted to increase weight, here is a caption on what I thought a small RR with few bucks, but a lot of skilled workers (typical during the 70s) could have done provided the state RR would not give them rolling stock.
    The first locomotives to join the FRA roster were two ALCO C420 coming from the Lehigh Valley. Its 2000 hp, and the good price on the used market were a good starting point for the necessary modifications to be applied in order to have it compliant to european railway standards. FRA was also very interested in the Dynamic Braking option in order to reduce mainteinance costs on the steep grades of the network. The complete refitting in the Castel di Sangro shops was also aimed to reduce the weight of the loco in order to allow circulation on FRA light rails. The prime mover was replaced with a Breda Isotta Fraschini ID36 SS16V, electric equipment was also refitted. Furthermore REC (european wording for Head End Power) and standard 78 pole remote control were added.
    More here
    http://www.izziomelis.com/FRA%20Flottastoria.html
    I just hope that does not come as a "TOTAL" nonsense....

    OT, I did work in Grazzanise MIL TWR and Approach, now I am doing staff duty.
     
  14. ddechamp71

    ddechamp71 TrainBoard Member

    2,153
    653
    46
    The above link doesn't work with me...:question:

    BTW I don't use to fly to Grazzanise MIL / LIRM, so it's unlikely we already spoke together. ;)

    Dom
     
  15. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,558
    22,733
    653
    Nor is it working for me. :(
     
  16. bremner

    bremner Staff Member

    6,266
    6,246
    106
  17. ddechamp71

    ddechamp71 TrainBoard Member

    2,153
    653
    46
    Thank you Bremner. Now we're just missing sight of these US diesels weirdly modified with euro style buffers... ;)

    Dom
     
  18. minesweeper

    minesweeper TrainBoard Member

    636
    1,286
    37
  19. ddechamp71

    ddechamp71 TrainBoard Member

    2,153
    653
    46
    Yeah, I know these. They are "export" version of US diesels, that can afford european railroad caracteristics (gauge, max axle-load), see narrow gauge railroad, like this sample I shot last year at Abidjan (Ivory Coast) that runs on a metric-gauge railroad... ;)

    P8060198.jpg

    Dom
     
  20. minesweeper

    minesweeper TrainBoard Member

    636
    1,286
    37
    I resume this thread as i found conflicting data on an ALCO C628
    Ops manual says it weighs 340Klb, a website says LV were a little over 400Klb, another that Australian models around 390......
    Who is to be believed.
    Or did the manual refer to an empty new one, and the others to filled up with fuel, liquids ... and maybe ballast?
    Anyway for the LV they were saying that weight was an issue.... all the more confusing.
     

Share This Page