Does anyone have any experience with this brute? I’m seriously looking at one and according to the BLI site the minimum recommended radius is 24" and I was wondering if anyone has run this engine on anything less. Your experiences would be appreciated.
Thanks
Fergie
I’ll have one in a few days. In matter of fact, it should be here. I’ll try to let you know in a couple days if no one else does. I’m going to try it on 20 and 22, as well as 24
I have the PRR J1. Unfortunately, she has trouble traversing 28" radius. It slows down very noticiably. On 26", even more so. I haven’t even tried it on 24" yet. Sigh…
I have the PRR J1 which is sired by the T-1 “Brute”… I have run this engine on a friends layout which has 24" curves on the main in some areas and gets down towards 22" in other curves Including a few reverse and “on grade” curves.
The J1 demands good trackwork. It tolerated the 24" and even a 22" here and there. It does not like anything less than 24" and at one point it derailed the front driving axle at a really bad spot on one curve. No matter what speed it will come off the track at that same spot.
It was agreed that the engine is too big for that layout; the BLI M1a is about as big as we can go with the non-articulated locos. My curves will be 28" as a result of the experiment with the J1.
Bottom line: 24 is the minimum, if you have flawless track you may squeak it down to 22" but it is not worth trying.
This is running my engine with the middle driving wheel with the no flange or traction tire. I had it on 20 car trains during the exercise.
I just tried it out last night. I would agree. 22" was really pushing it. So much for #6 turnouts in the yard A/D track ack
Looks like I’m going to have to make this one a point to point train and forget long continous loop on my 8 x 12 layout.
Does anybody make DCC friendly #8 turnouts? can’t believe I’m asking for #8s
#6’s should be fine - the closure rail radius is 43" and the substitution radius is 56". Coupled with 32" radius curves a #6 leading into it would even give an easement effect.
–Randy
I agree with Randy, their isn’t a loco that I know of that won’t run a #6 switch. Most of them will run a #5 - it just depends how fast do you want to run?
Bob
Actually you’re agreeing with John Armstrong, and he knew more about this stuff that I will forget. [:D]
–Randy
Well I hope it will go thru a no.5 turnout !! Needs to do that on my layout at one point otherwise it would only have to do no. 6’s and 28"+ radius. BTW I think (per John Armstrong) that the closure radius of a no.5 is 26"r in HO so should work…(I hope!!)
I’ve got the J-1, and I can tell you that it is not forgiving of track–I had to re-lay a curve that I thought was fine, because it kept derailing the first driver, no matter how slowly I ran it. And we’re talking 34" radius here, guys! I know it’s supposed to take a 24", but how, is beyond me–it WILL go through my #5’s in the yard without any trouble, though. To answer your question, Fergie, I just can’t see it handling 24" unless you blank at least two of the middle drivers. If it’s anything like the J-1, it is a powerful, beautiful smooth runner, but FIVE driving wheels on 24"? Boy, I just don’t know–it really doesn’t have a lot of side-play.
Tom
There were atlas code 83’s #4 (ok… #5) on that railroad I ran on and you almost have to eyeball the whole thing all the way thru in both directions. I can slam the M1a thru them but the J1 needed to slow down and take em.
Upon pondering this problem of my tight curve versus the twhite’s 34" curve derail on the very first driving truck… bear with me while I try to explain my theory.
The engine may be feeling one rail on the curve higher than the other rail for some reason and is unable to compenstate. Perhaps a brass loco with FULLY functional suspension may be able to rumble thru the vertical differences but I suspect the engine is too rigid to accept anything higher or lower past it’s flanges on a curve.
Makes sense??
Yes, it makes sense. I don’t know if anyone remembered the problems I had a year ago with wheels popping the rails and how I had super elevated curves and guardrails to prevent this mishap. Well they worked. Whether or not it would work on the T-1 is another question. I’ll be researching some more before I make a final decision.
Later Gents
Fergie
I think Highiron hit the nail on the head about one of the main problems of the 2-10-4, and that is that there is NO suspension. I have other (brass) 10-drivered locomotives with spring drivers and I have had no problem with derailments at all. But this large a non-articulated locomotive with no suspension or equalization calls for VERY carefully laid track. I’m not putting the loco down by any means–it’s become a pretty good friend on my layout, but for its size–and quite frankly the purchase price–I’d be a lot happier if the drivers were sprung and suspended.
Tom