jjanmarine3
Active member
What car/truck carries the heaviest load of all those available on trainz.
Heaviest load
- Thread starter jjanmarine3
- Start date
Hi,
Some time ago I posted the same question, and here are the results:
http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?24056-The-Most-heaviest-Load&highlight=Heaviest+load
Regards
Ish
cascaderailroad
New member
Ore cars are oftentimes loaded with 2 piles, only dirctlty over the 2 trucks, as if the center of the hopper is loaded with a pile, it will bend the centerframe, and cause wheel contact with the hopper chutes.
There are several really long center depressed flatcars by Bendorsey, that would carry high wide load transformers, and huge semicirular gear segments.
Railgun cannons were also very heavy.
There are several really long center depressed flatcars by Bendorsey, that would carry high wide load transformers, and huge semicirular gear segments.
Railgun cannons were also very heavy.
Last edited:
jjanmarine3
Active member
Ok thanks guys - and Ish too 
I guess I was too lazy to check first before posting.
I guess I was too lazy to check first before posting.The free asset with the largest weight capacity is the KRG heavy duty flat car on USLW, rated at 370 tons (740,000 pounds). I don't know, though, how it performs in current versions of the game, as it was constructed to 2004 standards.
ns
Ok thanks guys - and Ish too
You're Welcome :wave:
Also, Flatcar 6 Axle Depressed Center Empty at the DLS
[url]https://www.auran.com/TRS2004/DLS_vi...AssetID=111026[/URL]
Ish
BTW - if any of you are thinking about making a large depressed center flatcar there are no 8-wheel buckeye trucks available that I know of other then as payware. It is possible to "fake" them by carefully positioning two 6-wheel buckeye trucks close together. Looks ok at a distence but it is noticeble close up. There are 8-wheel, 10-wheel, and 12-wheel trucks available on the DLS as TRS2004 content. I made them for some of my WWI railway guns. Older designs but might be useable.
I have a drawing of the 15 in German Seigfreid rail gun and it shows what clearly are 16-wheel trucks. Must be some serious lateral motion devices involved otherwise this is a straight line only traincar. If there is anyone crazy enough to make a traincar to use them I'm crazy enough to make them for you, lol.
EDIT: They have been built and tested. They are definately not for sharp curves, lol.
Ben
I have a drawing of the 15 in German Seigfreid rail gun and it shows what clearly are 16-wheel trucks. Must be some serious lateral motion devices involved otherwise this is a straight line only traincar. If there is anyone crazy enough to make a traincar to use them I'm crazy enough to make them for you, lol.
EDIT: They have been built and tested. They are definately not for sharp curves, lol.
Ben
Last edited:
Yo Ish:
I hope you realize heavy loads aren't the real problem on Mars. Its inertia. Consider:
Gravity on Mars is about 1/3 that of earth so a loco with 100 tons on the drivers that can haul a 1000 ton train on earth only has 33 tons of weight on the drivers on Mars. Since weight on the drivers is the biggest factor in tractive effort your 100 ton loco on Earth only has 1/3 of its TE on Mars.
However!!! Intertia stays the same. It will still take the same amount of force to get the train moving (or stop) as on Earth so the same loco on Mars no longer has enough oooomph to get the train moving.
You don't need heavier loads - - - you need heavier locos. Make them out of lead, lol.
OK - I know physics is different on MARSZ then on Mars, lol.
Ben
I hope you realize heavy loads aren't the real problem on Mars. Its inertia. Consider:
Gravity on Mars is about 1/3 that of earth so a loco with 100 tons on the drivers that can haul a 1000 ton train on earth only has 33 tons of weight on the drivers on Mars. Since weight on the drivers is the biggest factor in tractive effort your 100 ton loco on Earth only has 1/3 of its TE on Mars.
However!!! Intertia stays the same. It will still take the same amount of force to get the train moving (or stop) as on Earth so the same loco on Mars no longer has enough oooomph to get the train moving.
You don't need heavier loads - - - you need heavier locos. Make them out of lead, lol.
OK - I know physics is different on MARSZ then on Mars, lol.
Ben
jjanmarine3
Active member
Please make them as heavy and as big as possible Ben..there will always be crazy trainzers like me who will have fun with them anywhere in the universe 
Ben,
I read your post.
I do have a question. If the loco weighs 1/3 as much wouldn't the load also only weigh 1/3 as much?
If so then wouldn't the inertia be only need to be 1/3 as much?
Kenny
edit
After thinking about it I guess my question should read wouldn't all forces involved would be 1/3 as much?
If so then the inertia force would be the same as on earth just scaled down.
I read your post.
I do have a question. If the loco weighs 1/3 as much wouldn't the load also only weigh 1/3 as much?
If so then wouldn't the inertia be only need to be 1/3 as much?
Kenny
edit
After thinking about it I guess my question should read wouldn't all forces involved would be 1/3 as much?
If so then the inertia force would be the same as on earth just scaled down.
Last edited:
Well, mass would remain constant, while downward force would be one third, thus friction (& TE) is about 1/3 as well. F=MA, so acceleration would be one third as well.
Energy & Inertia is dependant on Mass & Velocity, not on weight (what we normally consider to be mass is actually a force due to gravity, IE pounds).
So, you need a lot more mass on a loco to keep the same schedule on Mars with the same load.
If we have an expert in Physics around here, please correct me.
Hi Smash:
Yes the load would also weigh 1/3 as much but its mass would remain the same. Weight and mass are two different beasties. Weight is a relative value based on the attarafctive force (gravity) of an astronomical body and obviously varies consideraby. As I mentioned a 100 lb man on earth weighs roughly 33 lb on Mars and 2700 lb on the Sun (if it had a solid surface which it most certainly does not) Mass on the other hand is fixed. If it takes a certain amouint of force to get something moving on earth it takes exactly the same amount of force to get it moving on Mars or even in zero gravity. Its why astronauts, cosmonauts, etc are darn carefull moving things in space. Weight is gone but mass is still there and it can kill you if your not carefull. Mass is a value based on the properties of matter making up an item. Totally independent from gravity. Finally inertia is mass based - not weight based.
Hi jjanmarine3:
Actually I've already made 7 of them all with the same generic look but with 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 wheels. Ish has thre 16 wheeler for testing right now.
Ben
Yes the load would also weigh 1/3 as much but its mass would remain the same. Weight and mass are two different beasties. Weight is a relative value based on the attarafctive force (gravity) of an astronomical body and obviously varies consideraby. As I mentioned a 100 lb man on earth weighs roughly 33 lb on Mars and 2700 lb on the Sun (if it had a solid surface which it most certainly does not) Mass on the other hand is fixed. If it takes a certain amouint of force to get something moving on earth it takes exactly the same amount of force to get it moving on Mars or even in zero gravity. Its why astronauts, cosmonauts, etc are darn carefull moving things in space. Weight is gone but mass is still there and it can kill you if your not carefull. Mass is a value based on the properties of matter making up an item. Totally independent from gravity. Finally inertia is mass based - not weight based.
Hi jjanmarine3:
Actually I've already made 7 of them all with the same generic look but with 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 wheels. Ish has thre 16 wheeler for testing right now.
Ben
jjanmarine3
Active member
Thanks Ben, going to have a peep dl what I can and have fun.
Hi KWS4000:
Apparently we remember our high school physics class, lol.
Actually I seem to remember mass as being independent from gravity. In zero G where something weighs nothing its still there to raise its ugly and (potentially deadly) head. Weight changes based on gravitational attraction. Mass is fixed based on the amount of material in the package (something to do with increasingly esoteric sub-atomic physics).
Gravity gets confusing in that it drops off as an inverse square law. Double your distance from the center of a planet and gravity is reduced by 1/4. On the other hand the smaller the diameter of a really heavy object gravity can get insanly high. A white dwarf star (Sirius B for example) weighs tons per spoonfull. A neutron star (all the mass of our sun in a sphere 15 miles in diameter) weighs in the gigatons per spoonfull (don't drop one on your foot, lol).
I've always been interested in astronomy and physics.
Ben
Ben
Apparently we remember our high school physics class, lol.
Actually I seem to remember mass as being independent from gravity. In zero G where something weighs nothing its still there to raise its ugly and (potentially deadly) head. Weight changes based on gravitational attraction. Mass is fixed based on the amount of material in the package (something to do with increasingly esoteric sub-atomic physics).
Gravity gets confusing in that it drops off as an inverse square law. Double your distance from the center of a planet and gravity is reduced by 1/4. On the other hand the smaller the diameter of a really heavy object gravity can get insanly high. A white dwarf star (Sirius B for example) weighs tons per spoonfull. A neutron star (all the mass of our sun in a sphere 15 miles in diameter) weighs in the gigatons per spoonfull (don't drop one on your foot, lol).
I've always been interested in astronomy and physics.
Ben
Ben
Over in Cambridge, England I think, ha ha. At his level of explanation just about everyone would be saying "HUH"?
The ultimate is of course a black hole. Infinate (in theory) gravity. If the earth were somehow converted to a black hole it would be the size of a BB (or therebouts). Darn small for sure.
Only 3 things can be determined about a black hole:
1. Its mass (based on the velocity of starts revolving about it).
2. Its radius (event horizon) calculated from its mass.
3. Does it have a positive or negative charge.
Everything else is a big fat question mark. The laws of physics go out the window inside the event horizon. Some folks think the interior is no longer part of our universe.
So Ish should make his locos out of neutronium, lol. Maximum tractive effort at minimum size.
Ben
The ultimate is of course a black hole. Infinate (in theory) gravity. If the earth were somehow converted to a black hole it would be the size of a BB (or therebouts). Darn small for sure.
Only 3 things can be determined about a black hole:
1. Its mass (based on the velocity of starts revolving about it).
2. Its radius (event horizon) calculated from its mass.
3. Does it have a positive or negative charge.
Everything else is a big fat question mark. The laws of physics go out the window inside the event horizon. Some folks think the interior is no longer part of our universe.
So Ish should make his locos out of neutronium, lol. Maximum tractive effort at minimum size.
Ben