Large Scale Central

Scaling speed question

For those that would like to know some real life statistics on prototype freight train speeds:

The average freight train speeds for most of the class 1 railroads in North America, are down, on the 35th week of this year, (2007) over those of a year ago.

 Here are the average speeds,(MPH) as reported by "Progressive Rail Magazine". The % indicates the difference from a year ago.

CSX   20.6  +3.0   %
NS     21.3   -0.9 %
BNSF 23.1   -0.9  %
UP     21.6  +0.5  %
KCS  23.3   -4.1  %
CP    22.6  -10.0    %  
CN    25.0  -3.1  %

It was noted by a wag, that even with long stretches of 60-70 MPH track; UP is not at the top for any average MPH records.
 Canadian National, is still the leader, in spite of a 3.1 % decrease, in average speed.

The problem with those statistics is that they are average. Freights in the West race at 70mph to get to the next siding so they can sit for 5 hours. That really screws the “average speed” statistics. Engineers that I’ve talked to say they spend more time sitting at sidings than actually moving…the old hurry up and wait syndrome. BNSF in particular is working like crazy to double main a lot of stretches of track so they can cut down on their trains sitting so much.

Warren’s observation makes sense. It applies to us, too. How many hours in a week do we actually run our trains? For the full-time employed, the answer is likely to be “not as many as I’d like.”

Unlike the real RRs, double-tracking doesn’t solve our problem!

Dave Healy said:
How many hours in a week do we actually run our trains? For the full-time employed, the answer is likely to be "not as many as I'd like."

Unlike the real RRs, double-tracking doesn’t solve our problem!


Yep, we need clones to sit at work (and bring home the paycheque), while we play trains.
Of course, with my luck, the clone would play trains while I went to work :frowning:

Fred,
What is that stuff in that bottle? Man, don’t drink that stuff.

I doubt he will…:smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :wink:

Ric;
I wish I knew; it’s got my name on it !!!

You guys amaze me… the only thing I miss about work (having retired in '03 in a corporate “downsizing”) is the paycheck… and I still don’t have enough time in the day/week/month to do what I want to with the trains and road…but that’s probably a personal problem with my productivity factor…or what I had to drink at lunch or what else I wanted to do today… golf… fishing … hunting … gardening … but I digress… now where is the tonic…oh h&**… just give me the gin I’ll make a dry martini…what no vermouth!!!.. s*&&…where’s the bhhere…got to go to town again,da%^&*…oh well such is the price we pay…

More to come…I hope…

Mark

Mark said:
You guys amaze me.... the only thing I miss about work (having retired in '03 in a corporate "downsizing") is the paycheck.... and I still don't have enough time in the day/week/month to do what I want to with the trains and road.....but that's probably a personal problem with my productivity factor..or what I had to drink at lunch or what else I wanted to do today.... golf.... fishing ... hunting ... gardening ...... but I digress.... now where is the tonic...oh h&**... just give me the gin I'll make a dry martini......what no vermouth!!!... s*&&...where's the bhhere.....got to go to town again,,,da%^&*.....oh well such is the price we pay.....

More to come…I hope…

Mark


Mark,

Add-up all that stuff, then average it and the result is: Okay! :wink: :slight_smile:

Dave Healy said:
The oval track section we have in the backyard is very close to 52.8 feet long, so a train will need to traverse it 100 times to complete one mile. If a train can negotiate each loop in 20 seconds, it will take a bit over half an hour to travel a mile, at a speed just under 2 mph.

My question is: how best can we scale the speed of a G scale train to the real thing? Assuming a nominal 1:29 scale, is it as simple as multiplying the speed in mph by 29 (i.e., approximately 50 - 55 mph)?

Please note that this is a search for a valid methodology to use for estimation, not precision. There are too many variables impinging on the question to allow a high degree of accuracy.

This question was prompted by a clip:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/189260


To get to back to Dave Healy’s question, there is an element of nature that’s hard to scale down and that is gravity. When movie makers use models to simulate a real train wreck, and the models must fall, they must fall at a realistic rate.

Back in Physics, the formula for the distance for a free falling object was one half of G times T squared; G was the acceleration of Gravity (32 feet per second per second) and T of course was time in seconds.

In 1 second, 16 feet; in 2 seconds 64 feet; and in 5 seconds a fall of 400 feet. But 400 scale feet is in the neighbor hood of 20 feet and that only takes about 1 second. What to do? Speed up the camera 4.5 times (slow motion technique) to 108 frames a second and when shown at the standard 24 frames a second, it slows the speed of the fall and is much more realistic.

So there is some sense in using a fast clock; speed up the clock by 4 and then if your train is running a scale 60 miles an hour, it’s only running 14 miles per hour per scale time. Leisurely, right?

The ratio to speed up the camera is the square root of the scale. 1:20.3 comes out 4.5, 1:24 is 4.899, 1:29 is 5.385, and O gauge would be close to 7. In HO, the camera would have to be sped up over 9 times. Of course, most wrecks are ‘shown’ in slow motion so that means the camera would have to be sped up more that the scale modifier suggests.

Anyone for aspirin?

Art

Art,

Nah, no Aspirin. Sounds quite logical. :wink: :slight_smile:

Check this out:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=16213303

My old eyes reckon this bloke is doing sixty or better. That said, the illusion of speed is greater as the distance to a moving object decreases. Anybody want to adopt a more scientific approach?

Here’s an excerpt from Utah Rails about UP fast SD40-2s:

“With the increased growth of piggyback and container traffic along its routes between the Midwest and the West Coast in the mid 1970s, Union Pacific became aware of a need in its motive power fleet for additional high speed locomotives…In February 1976, three standard SD40-2s, geared for normal 65 mph operation, were modified for high speed operation. The newly modified units were renumbered to the 8000 series, taking their number series from their new 80 mph capability.”

Notwithstanding observations about the average speed of American freight trains, this excerpt indicates that certain freights, at certain times, on certain track segments, move at very high speeds.

Do I want to simulate 80 mph on a track segment that has a 5000 gallon concrete water tank inches away from the train, on a 14’ diameter curve? Mmmm . . . .

Dave,

No science required!

Most model railroader run the trains too fast. That’s all there’s to it. :wink: :slight_smile:

BTW since DCC allows for resetting of speeds without adding parts, I think I will set the speed limits of my engines as would be appropriate for the section I model. The proto has 3.5% grades, tight curves and the top speed on that section is 50kmh. Which means it will take that much longer from end to end.

Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Dave,

No science required!

Most model railroader run the trains too fast. That’s all there’s to it. :wink: :slight_smile:

BTW since DCC allows for resetting of speeds without adding parts, I think I will set the speed limits of my engines as would be appropriate for the section I model. The proto has 3.5% grades, tight curves and the top speed on that section is 50kmh. Which means it will take that much longer from end to end.


Sounds logical, but EXACTLY WHAT is the scale speed in real-life terms; for example how long is a scale (your scale, of course) mile or km in real-life units, and what is the length of a scale hour in real-life units?

Inquiring minds want (or need?) to know!!

I suspect that model railroaders DO NOT run their trains fast enough!!!

Been buggin’ me for years!

Art

Dave, Art and all,

For those that have seen this before, I apologize for repeating.

I constantly ponder this same question. For the answer, I went to the big guys, 1:1, operating railroads. For actual speed, I use scale speed as to what I am running. The career railroaders of old always used time between line side polls and hardly relied on a speedometer, in our digital age that is different. Mainline trains, freights in this area, have a top speed of 55 mph. To me, close enough to a mile a minute. For ease of conversion, I break this down to 1:24 and measure that across a 12 ft bridge. Figuring my “look time” from bridge to watch is not perfect and certainly trying not to be that exact, I use 10 ft of the bridge, allowing for the one foot error at each end. So it comes out to speed at 1:24th scale travel time over the 10ft.

If the engine travels the distance in -

2 seconds = 82 mph
4 seconds = 41 mph
8 seconds = 21 mph
16 seconds = 10 mph
32 seconds = 5 mph

I get use to these speeds and then can carry them through out the railroad.

I try to run a tourist railroad, much like the EBT, Cass, Georgetown Loop, Cumbres and Toltec or the Durango and Silverton. 21 mph is certainly top end. So I try to not travel faster than 10 feet in 8 seconds. At a mainline facility, like Marty’s, the 10 feet in 4 seconds, should certainly be more the norm. The one thing every one of these railroads do is that they have crew watch every wheel go over every frog through every turnout, when pulling on to or off the mainline. They couple at less than 5 mph and do a “3 step” safety check before uncoupling a car or stepping between them. Try that and it will really suck up the time.

As for switching and station stops, that is more 1:1, as it takes the 1:1 guys just as long as it does us to couple, uncouple and pump up air or tie a freight car down.

This has worked on the KVRwy, but we always have the “throttle jockies” and the “turtles”, so it all works out.

I now know far and away more about scale speed than I ever imagined I wanted, or needed, to know. Whew!!

Andrew Moore said:
I now know far and away more about scale speed than I ever imagined I wanted, or needed, to know. Whew!!
Welcome to the site, Andrew! Glad to have you on board...