proper weight for a 42 ft flatcar

ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.


N

new2nscale

Member
Hey: I have a Red Caboose 42 ft. flatcar, & put MT trucks/couplers on it, but it has no load, and is VERY light. What is the proper weight for a car like this ? What should I do to make it weigh better ? Simply place a load on it ?? And are the MT 50 ft flats with a load of some sort better weighted ?? Any advice appreciated....
 
Loads on a flat car always look great. You might want to consider a GHQ kit like the road grader it makes a cool looking load. Other cast metal kits of various items will also work.
attachment.php


Do not get to hung up in NMRA standards, don't get me wrong they are good for the rivet counters, but I like good looking models and sometimes that means pushing someone else's rule aside.
 


Add some metal wheelsets. A load would help, that's what flatcars are made for :)

Ignore anything the NMRA says regarding N scale. They only care about HO scale. Always have, always will.
 
pepi said:
Do not get to hung up in NMRA standards, don't get me wrong they are good for the rivet counters, but I like good looking models and sometimes that means pushing someone else's rule aside.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree. Weight in a car is not about "rivet counting", it's about smoother operation.

Most of the NMRA Recommended Practices and Standards have nothing to do with fine scale modeling or "rivet counting".
 
cuyama said:
Strongly disagree. Weight in a car is not about "rivet counting", it's about smoother operation.

Most of the NMRA Recommended Practices and Standards have nothing to do with fine scale modeling or "rivet counting".
Click to expand...

NMRA's N-scale standards have nothing to do with rivet counting and everything to do with being an oversimplified translation of HO-scale standards.

To make things worse, N scale trains are VASTLY different today than they were when the NMRA created such standards for N-scale. For instance, N scale rolling stock today tend to run with metal, low-profile wheels that are far more free-running than they were back in the 1960s, when the NMRA last developed standards for N-scale. I think N scale locos ran on rubber bands back then, LOL.

As far as the NMRA is concerned, N-scale locomotives still run on rubber bands...What do they care.
 
Metro Red Line said:
NMRA's N-scale standards have nothing to do with rivet counting and everything to do with being an oversimplified translation of HO-scale standards.
Click to expand...

Again, strongly disagree. While there are more HO scalers than N scalers in the NMRA (as in the hobby in general), there are N scalers active in many areas in the NMRA.

The NMRA N scale weight standards, again, in my opinion, are a good place to start.

If you'd care to suggest an alternative set of published weight standards that you feel are superior, that might be helpful.

From making sure that all DC locomotives go in the same direction when voltage is applied to the rail, to standardizing DCC with Bernard Lenz, to wheel contours, to the NMRA turnout standards that were the basis of FastTracks, the NMRA has done a lot over the years to make hobby equipment from nearly all manufacturers interchangeable. Much of that work is unrecognized -- folks just assume it all magically happened by itself.

If you don't want to be part of the NMRA and contribute to making things better, no problem, that's your choice. You get the benefits anyway.

But just bashing the NMRA is a tired rap, dawg.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cuyama said:
Again, strongly disagree. While there are more HO scalers than N scalers in the NMRA (as in the hobby in general), there are N scalers active in many areas in the NMRA.

...

If you'd care to suggest an alternative set of published weight standards that you feel are superior, that might be helpful.

... Much of that work is unrecognized -- folks just assume it all magically happened by itself.

If you don't want to be part of the NMRA and contribute to making things better, no problem, that's your choice. You get the benefits anyway.

But just bashing the NMRA is a tired rap, dawg.
Click to expand...

Byron, I couldn't agree more with everything you said about the NMRA. They have really done a lot over the years developing standards and Recommended Practices of which the car weights are a part. This means that while they recommend this, you don't have to do it. The RP's were also all updated in the 90's, and sooner, not the 60's. If MRL had of bothered to read them, he would have seen that they have taken in consideration all of his points. These are notes at the bottom of the RP-20.1 RP on car weights.

Many factors besides car weight affect car performance:a. Track Railhead should be smooth and without obstructions. and should conform to STANDARD S-3 (Use the GAGE of RP-2).
b. Wheels should run freely and truly in free-swivelling trucks. should be of good contour (See RP-25) and conform to STANDARD S-4 (See RP-2). Weight on each wheel should be approximately equal - springing, if used, should permit free equalization of the trucks for the car weight used. Coupler and diaphragm bind due to uneased and reverse curves should be eliminated.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that the RP-20.1 also covers, O, On3, S, Sn3, HO, HOn3, TT, & N. The NMRA is anything but HO-centric.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.




Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)

Back
Top