Pulling force - and other forces

by Flemming Lund, DMJK (first published in Danish in "Signalposten" no. 5, 1975)

After the first trial runs on the new layout at Gb (Copenhagen goods yard) and the
inauguration I have been asked if it is possible to predict the pulling performance
of a given locomotive. I have for a long time had an interest in the subject; in this
article I will try to give an overview of the physical relations that influences pulling
performance and a simple set of rules that may be used when construction model
locomotives and rolling stock. Evidently such considerations will have to be quite
general and therefore must be taken with some reservation; they may, however,
be used as guidelines. But let me start on a series of explanations that I hope may
be understood by the reader and start with:

1) Prototype weight and model weight

We build our models in 1:45 scale ratio regarding linear measurements, but the
weight ratio will for the most part be different. If weight should scale according to
the linear scale ratio, 1 ton of prototype weight equal appr. 11 g of model weight
in 1:45 scale, as weight reduce in the third power of linear scale ratio as length,
width and height are all reduced.
A type A passenger carriage weighs appr. 32 tons, which should equal a model
weight of 32 * 11 = 352 g. I think that in average a model of this carriage will
weigh appr. the double. If we consider a type MZ diesel locomotive that has drive
on all six wheel sets, the prototype weighs appr. 120 tons in operational condition,
equal to a model weight of 120 * 11 = 1320 g. If we use the same ratio as for the
carriage, the type MZ diesel locomotive would weigh appr. 2600 g. This weight
sounds feasible for such a model but in practice the pulling performace may be
found lacking.
The explanation is quite straightforward: First it is not that easy to built a model
locomotive with six-axle drive so many modellers may use only two or four axle
drive. Hence the adhesion weight, i. e. the weight on the driven wheel sets, and
also the maximum pulling force will be reduced. Second the layouts are built with
heavier grades due to place restrictions, and the curve radii used (often 2m
minimum curve radius) are less than allowed by the Danish State Railways in
harbour track. The average rolling resistance from a string of wagons is also larger
relatively for the models than for the prototype; I will return to this later on. These
conditions make it necessary to increase the weight of model locomotives as well
as reducing the weight of rolling stock as much as practically possible if we want to
run trains of the same length as the prototype.
I will refer to the standards of the Danish Model Railway Club; I recommend that
everyone building models in 1:45 scale read them carefully.
"Summary"
Rolling stock is built as light as practically possible.
Locomotives are built with as large adhesion weight as practically possible.

2) Rolling resistances

In order to give any values we shall consider how large forces must be used to
move a wagon, or the rolling resistance of a given wagon. Rolling resistance may
be divided in three parts:
1. Rolling resistance on straight and level track.
2. Rolling resistance on straight track on ascending grade.
3. Rolling resistance curved and level track.
In practice we must consider the worst case when the three resistance forms are
present at the same time as is the case on the new layout at Gb. The conclusive
examples reflect this.
To measure rolling resistances I have used an incline as shown in fig. 1; when a
wagon is running down the incline with constant speed forces are in equilibrium.
The wagon weight P is thought to act in the mass centre of the wagon and is
allways acting vertically downward. P is decomposed in two components N and F
perpendicular and parallel, respectively, to the rail surfaces on the incline. At
constant speed the force F trying to pull the wagon down the incline is equal to but
opposite the force F' trying to hold the wagon back, or in other words the forces
acting on the wagon are in equilibrium.
Mathematically F = F' is calculated
from:

as the triangle PNF is equiangular with

the triangle LL'H.
In order to give a general term for the
rolling resistance it is calculated in
grams per kg of wagon weight and is
called Q.

The rolling resistance Q is composed of

two parts a) rolling resistance between
wheel and rail and b) friction in the
bearings. The first can hardly be measured with smooth thread surfaces,
while bearing friction has crucial
importance so we study this further.
Fig. 2 shows a wheel set with a journal. To find an expression for the resistance
the work (force times length) for a given length of travel, here one turn of the
wheel set, is calculated.
Using the designations in the figure, as the outer work at the thread shall be equal
to the inner work at the journal and the tangential force O = the coefficient of
friction times the wagon weight P, we get:

This equation tells that the smaller the wheel

diameter D and the larger the journal diameter
d the larger the resistance will be. This is
confirmed by the tests I have carried out, the
factors are shown in fig. 5 and 6. But back to
where we started and:

2-1: Rolling resistance on straight and level

track
These tests are carried out using wheel sets to
DMJK standards sheet 6, which is shown in fig. 3, with 22mm diameter
corresponding to 1m prototype wheel diameter. On the standards sheet 6 please
notice the 3 thread coning which cause the flanges on straight track not to touch
the rail heads, and second, the fillet between the thread and the flange. This has a
large impact as I will try to show in the next section.
Click to see >> fig. 3
Here I have to put in an assumption, or assertion if you will, as I will argue that
lubrication with thin oil as is often used is of limited advantage; the disadvantages,
the posibility of oil on wheels and track, are far greater than the advantages. The
oil dries out in the open bearing perhaps as fast as in 2-4 weeks and may leave a
sticky residue that increases resistance.
For this reason I have carried out all tests
except one using non-lubricated bearings.
The Molykote grease I have used keeps
its properties for a very long time. A set
of bearings that I have had running for
four years now still has its grease in good
condition.
Four types of bearings have been tested:
a. normal brass or bronze bearing,
b. same as a) lubricated with Molykote
Pasta G Rapid,
c. bearing with PTFE bushing,
d. ball bearing.
The test results are shown in fig. 4; the
tests do show quite some variation which
is usual when testing. I believe that the
test results are representative when there
is no jamming of the bearings and no
other irrelevant matters influencing
results. The resistance values are
decreasing with increasing wagon weight

Fig. 4: Rolling resistance on straight

track
Bearing type

Resistance in g/kg

Brass bearing

18-22

Brass & Molykote 15-19

PTFE bushing

12-16

Ball bearing

6-10

Fig. 5: Correction factor for wheel

diameter
Wheel diameter in mm

Factor

14

1,6

16

1,4

18

1,2

20

1,1

22

1,0

24

0,9

Fig. 6: Correction factor for journal

diameter

but only very little.

Journal diameter in mm

1,5
Comparing the test results with
resistances for prototype railway wagons, 2,0
the prototype resistance may be as small
3,0
as 2-3 kg/t or g/kg wagon weight. The
4,0
difference is probably caused by the more
With ball bearings
secure bearings and installation and
better lubrication of the prototype wagons
that we have no possibility of copying in model form.

Factor
0,75
1,0
1,5
2,0
1,0

2-2: Rolling resistance on straight track on ascending grade

To find out about this we once again return to the incline shown in fig. 1. Last time
we set the wagon to roll down the incline with constant speed and called the
resistance F'; this time we will try to pull the wagon up the incline. To do this we
must overcome the wagon's rolling resistance on straight and level track, but
furthermore we must overcome the force F parallel to the rail surfaces and hence
the wagon weight. It is deduced as before from:

As the angle a is very small I introduce only an insignificant error by setting L = L'
and get the more handy expression:

The expression H/L' for L' = 1000 is the same as the grade in promille (per
thousand). The resistance that must be added to the resistance on straight and
level track is hence in g per kg wagon weight = the grade in promille. If the grade
is for instance 10 promille the resistance is 10 g/kg. The largest grade on the new
layout at Gb is 16 promille i. e. a resistance of 16 g/kg.
"Summary"
The grade is determined by the layout design so we must accept that the
resistance is of this magnitude; we can only influence the wagon weight which
should be kept as low as possible.

2-3: Rolling resistance curved and level track

I have not managed to deduce curve resistance mathematically but only by trial. I
would like to emphasize two things. One is that we most often for space reasons
use curves of 2m radius on our layouts, this is equal to 90m at the prototype. This
curve radius is in fact less than recommended by the Danish State Railways on
harbour and industrial tracks. In short, it looks like express train speeds on
harbour track. Second is that in a 2m radius curve a standard wheel set cannot roll
on the threads; if the wheels have the fillet between thread and flange shown in
the standards sheet 6 (fig. 3) the outer wheel will roll a bit up on this fillet to
increase the diameter sufficiently.

Modstand i 2m kurve = Resistance in 2m curve; uden runding = without fillet;

med runding = with fillet; Akselafstand, mm = Wheel base, mm
If there is no fillet the wheel will "scrape" its way through the curve. Fig. 7 shows
the results from my tests with wheel sets with and without fillet between thread
and flange. In the tests there are also some variations in test results so fig. 7
should be taken as a tendency.
The wheel base is the distance between the two outer wheel sets on a rigid-frame
wagon. For bogie carriages (cars with trucks) the bogies/trucks are considered as
two wagons with short wheel base and hence the bogie/truck wheel base is used
in the diagram. The resistance value taken from the diagram is added to the
wagon resistance on straight track.
For prototype railways the engineering handbook "Htte", Volume III, indicates an
empirical formula according to Rckl:

where R = curve radius in m.

R = 90m inserted in this formula gives a resistance of 18.6t/kg or g/kg. It is
stated that the result is depending on wheel base but not how. In "Track
guidelines" for the Danish State Railways the same formula is used for reducing
grade in curves in order to give constant resistance. Considering these
informations I would guess that the formula is deduced for a rather long wheel
base. In my opinion the test results shown in fig. 7 ought to be larger than is the
case compared to Rckl's formula. At this time I cannot explain the difference.
"Summary"
1) Wagon weight should be kept as low as practically possible.
2) When manufacturing wheels the standards sheet 6 should be followed closely,

especially the coning of the thread and the fillet between the thread and the flange
must be present.

3) Calculation of total rolling resistance

As mentioned before it is necessary to consider the worst situation, i. e. to add the
three resistances found in section 2. To do this in a practical way, it is an
advantage to use a form as that shown in fig. 8. In fig. 9, 10, 11 and 12 I have
shown examples of its use as well as how different the resistance can be for the
same type of wagon or carriage when constructed to different principles.

Once again I must emphasize that the results I have presented in the foregoing
are average values, but that they nonetheless may give an idea of the magnitude
of resistances and show how the model builder can influence the rolling resistance
of a wagon during construction. This is mentioned at the end of each section as
"Summary".
Click to see >> fig. 9 >> fig. 10 >> fig. 11 >> fig. 12

4) Expected pulling force

The resistance values resulting from the foregoing investigations and calculations
may not themselves tell the model builder much but compared to the expected
pulling force of a locomotive they become meaningful. The reason for explaining
about rolling resistance first is simply that some of the explanations and
calculations are of use in this section.
The maximum pulling force of a locomotive depends on at least three factors:
1) The adhesion weight of the locomotive.
2) The coefficient of friction between the wheels and rails.
3) Resistances from non-driven wheel sets and current collectors, among others.
Re 1: The adhesion weight is the weight resting on the driven wheel sets of a
locomotive. To keep this reasonably constant it is important that non-driven wheel
sets, if any, are sprung such that track irregularities do not cause weight to be
removed from the driven wheel sets for example if the weight is primarily resting

on the non-driven wheel sets. To keep the adhesion weight as large as possible the
weight resting on non-driven wheel sets should be reduced but not to less than
125 g per wheel set.
Re 2: The coefficient of friction between wheels and rails is per definition the ratio
between the vertical force Pa and the horizontal force F that is needed in order to
move an object with constant speed along a plane surface. This is shown in fig.
13. When the wheels and rails are reasonably clean this value is quite close to 0.2.
If there is oil or similar lubricant on the rails, the value may be reduced to less
than the half. The value = 0.2 that I will use in the following calculations is
present as per the definition when the driven wheels are slipping on the rails. If
slipping can be avoided the pulling force may be increased; tests show that the
coefficient of friction 0 when there is no slipping between the driven wheels and
rails

When starting a heavy train it is possible to take advantage of this by starting the
locomotive so carefully that slipping does not occur. One way to aid such careful
starting is to build a centrifugal coupling into the drive line of the locomotive.

Re 3: Such resistances are normally rolling resistance from non-driven wheel sets
and tender wheel sets calculated the same way as for wagons in the form in fig. 8,
and resistances from current collectors. According to DMJK standards locomotives
must be provided with two sets of current collecters of which at least one set must
be in operation at any time. The downward acting force of the current collectors
naturally reduce the adhesion weight of the locomotive. The force from a current
collecter must according to the standards sheet 10 be between 30 g and 60 g per
side. In order to keep a good electrical contact between current collectors and the
third rail the force from the current collecter should be as large as possible. As a
compromise I have chosen to use 60 g in the following calculations.
Before we proceed I must presuppose that the motor of the locomotive is powerful
enough to bring the wheels to slip on the rails in all conditions, otherwise the
calculations will be incorrect. Likewise I must presuppose that all non-driven wheel
sets are suspended in such a way that they can follow the track sideways, and that
they in curves are kept appr. perpendicular to the centre line of the track; i. e. that
two-wheeled trucks has a pivotal point some distance from the wheel set, for
instance like the Bissel truck.
In order to make the calculations in the most expedient manner I have made the
form shown in fig. 14. I will add a few comments to the form refering to fig. 14
and the following forms. The form is designed such that first the pulling force
available at the driven wheels is found. From this the resistances found is

subtracted. In the second line are inserted two current collectors of each 60 g
regardles of if both sets are mounted on the locomotive or one set is mounted on
the tender. In the third line the pulling force is calculated by taking adhesion
weight times coefficient of friction = 0.2. In the fourth line the friction force from
the current collectors are subtracted as the downward force times = 0.2 and the
number 2. In the sixth line the grade resistance for the locomotive without tender
is subtracted. The other resistances are calculated in the same way as in fig. 8 as
separate wagons.

When chosing the following examples I have tried to show the use of the form with
different types of locomotive as well as chosing realistic weights for the examples
even though I haven't actually weighed particular models on the layout. From the
examples the following guidelines may be extracted:
1) The adhesion weight should be as large as possible.
2) Non-driven wheel sets and tenders should be as light as possible.
3) As many wheel sets as possible should be driven.
4) The bearings of non-driven wheel sets should be as good as possible.
Click to see >> fig. 15 >> fig. 16 >> fig. 17 >> fig. 18 >> fig. 19
As a conclusion of this long tale I have compared the locomotives from the
examples in fig. 15-19 with the rolling stock from the earlier examples in fig. 9-12
as the rolling stock is shown in the rightmost columns and the locomotives are
shown in the lower rows. In the cells are written how many of the wagons or
carriages in a train the locomotive in question will be able to start when the train is
standing in a curve on a grade. The last column is thought to be a wagon with

rolling resistance equal to the average of the preceding four.

I think that the numbers in fig. 20 look quite reasonable; but as mentioned earlier
this account cannot be taken to cover all possible conditions, only that the values
found by these calculation methods are not far from the truth.
Fig. 20
Fig.
Wagons Type
Resistance [g]

10

11

12

Hbis 211 5
000

Hbis 211 5
099

AF
78

AF
82

Average

23

54

17

57

38

Fig. Type

Pulling force
Number of wagons per locomotive
[g]

15 F

118

260

11

15

105

461

20

27

12

107

16 S
Locomo17 P
tives
My
18
1101
19

My
1108

If any of the readers that have followed me this far have information that may
throw further light on the subject or have any questions, please don't hesitate to
contact me and I will try to answer to the best of my ability.
Flemming Lund
Changes:
2008-03-15: Translated from Danish.
2009-01-01: Typeface updated.
Updated 2009-01-01