How come many locomotives and rolling stock come with little weight? Adding weight to locomotives increases tracktion power, and even adding weight to passenger coaches or freight cars make them more sturdy.
Well, over the decades locomotives have gained a substantial amount of weight and pulling power, and most rolling stock is at or heading in the direction of their NMRA-recommended weight. I’m know there are exceptions, but your wholesale condemnation is quite exaggerated. I’m speaking from knowledge of HO scale. If you are speaking of another scale, I’m clueless. Please provide specifics.
Mark
I’m an N scaler, and all of my locos (engines) and cars (rolling stock) seem to be weighted just fine. As a matte of fact I sometimes have to remove some of the weight out of them if I can because they’re too heavy…
Like Mark said, it would help a lot if you would be a little more specific about the brands and so forth that you’re having a problem with.
Tracklayer
Weight costs $$$.
Until a few years ago, manufacturers often put as much weight as possible into their locomotives. This gives them better traction, particularly going up hills. As a result, little space inside the shell was left open.
Now, the demands of modern electronics are making this more difficult. The decoders themselves need space, plus some additonal “breathing room” so they don’t overheat. Then, speakers require quite a bit of space for themselves and a baffle box. To make room, the basic engines come with less inside weight. Most engine makers don’t want a separate process for their sound and non-sound engines, so a lot of locos are made with space for decoders and speakers, even if those components are not included.
My P2K SW-8, which came with sound, is a lot lighter than my S1 which is more “old school” and has no room for a speaker. The SW-8 needs its traction tires to make it up a grade with only a few cars in tow, while the S1 never has a problem.
My Kato locomotives weigh a ton! The N scale and pull anything and I just got my HO model (SD70Mac) and it is real heavy! Haven’t run it yet.
Kato has done a fine job with its locomotives in my opinion. I have seven of them and all run great.
Peter
Because with today’s excellent models and free rolling cars the extra weight isn’t needed…
What is needed is realistic grades instead of the roller coaster 4-5% grades found on small layouts…
Ever think of the negative effects of added weight?
Information to back up your beef?
By far most of the HO loco’s and rolling stock I have are sufficiently weighted. Rolling stock weight is not a “wide spread” problem as you might lead readers to believe. Of course there are a few that need a some extra weight but they are the exception, and tend to be freight cars which are hard to hide weight in the first place.
I dont see the relation between “quality” (in his title) and “weight” (in his body).
David B
Actually, I haven’t noticed insufficient weight in most of the newer steamers I’ve purchased. But if you want to complain about ‘light’ locos, the early Korean brass steamers in the 1970’s and '80’s would certainly fit the description–underpowered early can motors and little bitty boiler weights that usually called for a complete re-motoring and weighting by the purchaser. Now brass is NEVER ‘out of the box’ running without a little tinkering, but some of these puppies had to be re-motored, re-weighted and re-balanced before they would pull anything heavier than their tender. I know–I’ve worked on my share of them. Luckily, for we brass runners, the newer ones are much better weighted–in fact my new PSC 2-10-2 literally jumped out of the box onto my track and said “Couple me up, I’m ready,” LOL! And she WAS!
If any newer RTR steamers are a little light-footed, I’d say that Proto 2000 qualifies–at least the one that I’ve got. But other than that, I’ve found contemporary steam models to be pretty hefty and powerful.
Just my thoughts.
Tom
B:
I honestly can’t think of too many negatives for weighted cars, as long as the loco power keeps up. Greater weight - better tracking - better contact. Light cars might work fine if everything is just so. Heavy cars are more forgiving of small deficiences. Give me the robust solution any day.
“Today’s excellent, light, free-rolling freight cars” are too often used to sneakily justify today’s excellent cost-cutting in motors and loco weight, maybe. 
(Not that I know, since most of my roster is not “today’s” at all) I to notice a lot of traction rings being used now. May I say “Ugh”?
And where locos are concerned, give me power and give me weight and give me grade-climbing ability without traction rings. Sometimes we small layout prop’s need those grades to do what we need to do. Scaling down prototype grades and weight is all well and good if you can get it, but when will they scale down fluid mechanics so I can have HO scale superheater tubes and water glasses?
My Bowser H9 has lots of weight. It could actually take 2x as much with no trouble. I piled an English 2-8-2 hulk on it to check. I have to figure out how to bring my MDC Mogul closer to that territory.
Too me that’s kind of strange, considering their diesels are some of the heaviest around.
My Proto 2000 U28B that has sound actually weighs more (and thus pulls better) than the one with out sound. The reason is the non-sound one you can see through all the grilles, the sound one you can’t. ((I have bot, so I know what I’m talking about)
Packer–
I’ve heard that about the Proto diesels, that they are VERY sturdy. I’ve got the Proto USRA 2-8-8-2, and for its size, it’s not a very good puller at all, and no room for additional weight in the boiler. In fact, my Spectrum 2-6-6-2 will outpull it very handily. Weird, huh?[:)]
Tom
tw:
I think what your P2K 2-8-8-2 needs is some depleted uranium boiler weighting.
EVIL RMR THREAD FROM HELL SMILEY
Autobus:
Wow, a “Glow in the Dark” Mallet! I’ll have to think about that. [:P]
Tom