Light weight and traction issues.

[Dorsetmike]

If space is limited one alternative is to have the baseboard on a an incline, for example 1% down from left to right and your incline at 1% up left to right, thus halving the distance to achieve the desired clearance.

[Newportnobby]

Yes, but also bear in mind you can get away with less than 55mm depending on thickness of the bridge. If you don't need to get hand under for access, and can make it strong enough a train will go under a much lower opening.

I found on my last layout that so called 2" thick timber is now 44mm and that all my steam and diesel locos would pass under that with no problems (baseboard to underside of overpass). I can foresee issues if you have electric locos with pantographs though
If you need under board point motors in such a place that would be a no-no.

What about a battery powered banker?

I had one of those but then they closed the local branch

[Old Crow]

Thanks guys for all the advice, much appreciated by a newbie. Yes, regarding just how petite the rolling stock is in N gauge it seems one can get away with a good bit less than 2 inches.

[njee20]

It is a fallacy that adding weight improves track holding... The critical factor is the interface of the wheel and rail. i.e. that the track is reasonably well laid to the correct gauge, and the wheels are the correct gauge and profile.
Adding weight to a Loco will improve tractive effort provided it is evenly spread so as not to unbalance the loco (which could reduce haulage capacity!) Adding weight to rolling stock does little other than reduce the number of wagons a loco can move...

It's not a fallacy, but arguably is a compensation for poorly laid track. Something like the Dapol IKA Megafret container flats have tiny wheels and weigh very little. I find with a reasonable train that they'll derail on anything but perfect, flat, straight track, including the weight of the train pulling them off the inside of sharper curves if you're not careful. Adding containers (preferably themselves with added weight) turns them into very acceptable runners.

[Delboy]

Quote from PLD.

Adding weight to rolling stock does little other than reduce the number of wagons a loco can move...

I have just acquired a set of 3 Farish pre-weathered steel tippler wagons (377-279) which are so light that, without some added weight, you cannot even couple them up to the loco unless you interfere manually, suggesting that weighting is required in some of the N gauge rolling stock.
Dennis.

[Dorsetmike]

I've got a vague recollection of somebody producing locos with wheel treads milled like the edge of a coin back in the 50s, didn't catch on. Probably as suggested earlier in the thread due to dirt collection.

[ntpntpntp]

I've got a vague recollection of somebody producing locos with wheel treads milled like the edge of a coin back in the 50s, didn't catch on. Probably as suggested earlier in the thread due to dirt collection.

Triang.   Bloody noisy things which collected grot in the knurls.

[Railwaygun]

I've got a vague recollection of somebody producing locos with wheel treads milled like the edge of a coin back in the 50s, didn't catch on. Probably as suggested earlier in the thread due to dirt collection.

the world record holder for N gauge traction was a DD-40 x2 with a depleted uranium frame & milled wheels! 1103 waggons!

- Jim Fitzgerald's custom built "Cotton Brutes"

http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11317790.htm

from RMWeb

As a matter of interest, uranium has been used (legally) for model locos. Jim Fitzgerald built two N scale "Cotton Brutes" back in the early 80s. They were double length Minitrix U30s with 24oz (680g) frames milled from depleted uranium. He worked for an aerospace contractor and had access to "offcuts". Each loco was powered by two Sagami can motors.

In November 1982, one of these locos hauled 513 wagons from a standing start. The two locos together hauled 778 wagons. The train was 6.625 scale miles long. This is a photo of the 778 wagon train (the front and rear of the same train).

At the 1983 NTRAK convention a single Cotton Brute hauled 560 wagons on its own. The two then hauled 950 wagons for 3 hours. They couldn't put on any more as the layout wasn't big enough.

In 1984 the two hauled 1103 wagons, but nobody had the foresight to call Guinness!

[Dorsetmike]

My best was a Langley S15 kit on a Fleischmann 7161 chassis with 8 wheel tender drive, back in the 80s on my loft layout, 42 bogie coaches, a mix of Farish Mk1, Minitrix Mk1 and older Farish. I'd also turned grooves in the rear drivers of Black 5s and a 4P, the 4P managed 15 Mk 1s

[Old Crow]

My issue is with a GF Mk1 coach with one misbehaving bogie - really doesn't like curves or being pushed. Does run well with a bit of weight but how to add. Ideally I'd like to hide it internally. Can you dismantle these coaches without damaging them?

[PLD]

My issue is with a GF Mk1 coach with one misbehaving bogie - really doesn't like curves or being pushed. Does run well with a bit of weight but how to add. Ideally I'd like to hide it internally. Can you dismantle these coaches without damaging them?

If one bogie misbehaves and the other doesn't the problem is with that bogie and nothing to do with the weight of the coach as a whole, otherwise both bogies would be liable to the same issue... 

Most likely either an out of gauge wheel set or something is restricting the turning of that bogie...

[PLD]

It is a fallacy that adding weight improves track holding... The critical factor is the interface of the wheel and rail. i.e. that the track is reasonably well laid to the correct gauge, and the wheels are the correct gauge and profile.

It's not a fallacy, but arguably is a compensation for poorly laid track. Something like the Dapol IKA Megafret container flats have tiny wheels and weigh very little. I find with a reasonable train that they'll derail on anything but perfect, flat, straight track, including the weight of the train pulling them off the inside of sharper curves if you're not careful. Adding containers (preferably themselves with added weight) turns them into very acceptable runners.

If they're the ones I'm thinking of, the wheel profile is horrid with no transition from tread to flange... Adding weight may help, but as you say it's compensation for rather than addressing the root cause which isn't simply lack of weight...

[PLD]

Quote from PLD.

Adding weight to rolling stock does little other than reduce the number of wagons a loco can move...

I have just acquired a set of 3 Farish pre-weathered steel tippler wagons (377-279) which are so light that, without some added weight, you cannot even couple them up to the loco unless you interfere manually, suggesting that weighting is required in some of the N gauge rolling stock.
Dennis.

That's not a weight of the wagon issue, that down to the strength of the coupling springs (Peco wagons are among the lightest yet their unsprung couplings take the least force to couple up...) Answer to that one is to ease the springs - cut about a quarter off the length of the spring, then stretch the remainder to the original length.

[njee20]

If they're the ones I'm thinking of, the wheel profile is horrid with no transition from tread to flange... Adding weight may help, but as you say it's compensation for rather than addressing the root cause which isn't simply lack of weight...

Adding weight does help. That's a fact. The other option is to have them virtually unusable. The wheel size is a compromise for the scale. So it's not a fallacy at all. Pretty weird stance actually. I assume you take any weights out of stock to make them easier to haul?

[Delboy]

Quote from PLD,

That's not a weight of the wagon issue, that down to the strength of the coupling springs (Peco wagons are among the lightest yet their unsprung couplings take the least force to couple up...) Answer to that one is to ease the springs - cut about a quarter off the length of the spring, then stretch the remainder to the original length.

Thanks for the info but that seems a lot of fiddly work to have to mess about with the tiny springs on 6 couplings. Think I will stick to adding a little weight to each wagon and solve it that way.