How wide is that wagon?


A

anubis

New Member
Hi You Blokes,

Thanks for your prompt assistance with my previous question.

I am just starting to get into On30, and am finding it a real buzz. The only thing missing is more TIME! (But what modeller has all that he needs?)

My poser is this.

Assuming an On30 gauge of 2' 6", what then, would be the maximun permissable width of rolling stock that could be safely run, without the (obvious) risks of loads toppling cars sideways?

Even if the load was centred accurately, there would still be extreme G-forces in cornering........especially on sharp radii, and in 1/4" scale....

The reason I ask, is because I have recently kitbashed an open wagon which looks pretty good, but in my ignorance, I built the bloody thing at 7' wide! :eek:

It sits nicely on it's Bachmann Arch Bar bogies, and looks groovy from the sides, but when seen end-on, it looks a little bit precarious, due to its side overhang.

I imagine that this would be an engineering problem in 1:1 scale as well as 1:48, so there any sort of formula used for calculating the ratio of rolling stock width, to track gauge?

Any assistance will be appreciated.

Many thanks.
 
Well, a standard gauge car in the US has a nominal standard loading gauge of 10' 8" wide. If we just cut that number in half for On30 and add a four iches back on for the gauge difference, you come out with 5' 8" standard loading gauge. 7' is way too wide for both loading and clearance. If you can cut six inches off each side, you'd probably be close enough.
 
From AMERICAN NARROW GAUGE RAILROADS by George W. Hilton:

"Fleming treated as the first narrow gauge passenger car the Denver, one of the two first-class cars Jackson & Sharp built as part of the D&RG's same order. The car was 35' 0" in body length (about 40' 0" overall) by 7' 0" wide and 10' 6" high above the rail. It seated 36 passengers and weighed 15,000 pounds, a deadweight of 416 pounds per passenger. Fleming thought this very favorable relative to standard gauge coaches, which his estimated at 722 pounds per passenger. The cars had 24-inch wheels and the side sills were 27 inches from the rails."

Narrow gauge roads had "compatibility" devices to transfer loads from narrow gauge cars to standard gauge cars, such as a rotary dumper on the D&RG at Salida (pictured pg. 451). There was also the Ramsey Transfer, where the roads swapped out narrow gauge trucks for standard gauge trucks, where the roads switched out the trucks via a set of pits, meaning that std. gauge cars rode on narrow gauge trucks (not very well; "Transfer at its [Ulster & Delaware] interchange in Phoenicia, bought a dozen sets of 3' 0" trucks with braces and equalizers to prevent excessive swaying." P. 258), and vice-versa. You might model a transfer standard to narrow gauge cars and use std. gauge cars with narrow gauge trucks? Maybe an army of shovelers moving bulk commodities, too....
 
I think passenger cars were wider because they had special trucks and underframes to suppport the load. I presume that the clearance gauge, at least on the mainline, would accommodate passenger cars, but I doubt that branchlines and spurs had this type of clearance. So, are we talking freight or passenger car width here? It seems unlikely that a track gauge less than half of standard guage is going to support a loading gauge required by a seven foot wide flat car. Bachmann may very well exceed this in model form but it seems doubtful to me from an engineering point of view that a 7'6" wide freight car would have regularly run on 2' 6" tracks. Since there were almost no 2' 6" gauge lines in the US, we have to extrapolate. It seems unlikely that most railroads would have built to standard gauge unless there was a considerable increase in the loading gauge as well.
 
A 30 inch gauge Mexican boxcar, from the September 1977 Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette

fcm_boxcar.jpg


It is 7'-6" wide.

Harold
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top