NMRA Recommended Practice 20.1 sets out the proper weight by scale and length of car for model railroad rolling stock. My club tests every item of equipment proposed to be operated on the club layout for conformance to the applicable standards and RP’s to ensure good operation. OK, I’m fine with that. But I have a problem with car weights. I was just reading a review in MR and the car is almost dead on in its dimensions, has RP 25 contour wheels on needle point axles in easily swiveling trucks, the couplers are mounted at proper height, it operates through common turnout numbers and curve radii and has smooth paint work and seperate grab irons and is properly lettered to the point you need to use a magnifying glass to read the fine print. Truly, we are blessed to have such quality products at reasonable (not inexpensive, but not too many years ago, this would have been a contest quality model) prices. Then why oh why, ye Deities Above, does the car not meet RP 20.1…Yes, I know, “Just and some washers, lead fishing weights, etc”, but why should we have to. Fortunately, the roof of this boxcar came off easily for the reviwer to bring it up to snuff but I’ve encountered plenty of equipment where getting inside and adding weight was a problem. So from now on, I’m writing to the manufacturer and letting him know that I have a problem with his products and requesting he change his ways. Your opinions, please.
A recommended practice is not a standard, so there’s no requirement to meet it.
There’s a degree of personal taste in the weight of rolling stock in the first place. We’re not talking about the track gauge, which is a standard because otherwise the whole things doesn’t work in the first place. An overweight or underweight car can still work perfectly fine.
Manufacturers are all over the place on car weights. Some are over, many are under, and some are meet the RP. I would say the most likely is underweight.
But some people like them light because they can run longer trains.
Others like them heavy because they track better and behave better during switching.
Personally, I try to have all of mine meet the RP.
Paul
Ironically the greater respect for prototype accuracy in detailing, including frames and underbody detail, puts the modern day manufacturer in something of a tough spot – the usual places for weight have been “already occupied” by brake and other details. And more people seem to yell about missing or incorrect detail than do about inadequate weight.
The second irony is that some of today’s super wonderful freight cars are so delicately detailed that modifications of almost any sort come at a heavy price. I just tried to add the required cushion underframe extended coupler pocket to one of these expensively detailed RTR cars and really did a number on the delicate sill/stirrup steps, the corner grabs on the running board laterals, and the air hose. I’m afraid I’ll do more damage when I add the Plano etched metal “trombone” style lift lever. I’d probably destroy the whole thing if I tried to pry off the roof to add weight.
On the positive side we just had some roof work done and this involved replacing the two “vent pipes” on the roof which turned out to be more or less solid sheet lead. I often replace the sheet steel weights in freight car kits with lead to get up to NMRA standards (and yes I take precautions including painting the lead thoroghly and washing my hands thoroughly).
Dave Nelson
My opinion is you’re
just pissing and moaning.
Mainly fishing.
Find a hobby that fits your expectations.
The post before mine is gonna to get deleted. [:D]
I watch a lot of youtube video reviews and my take is that weight is less in error than coupler height. Weight is a guideline, but Kadee set a standard with coupler height. Even more so on a locomotive that costs a couple hundred dollars.
You don’t have to; you choose to.
The only piece of rolling stock I’ve found that generally needs weighted are flat cars. Otherwise, they derail at the blink of an eye. All other rolling stock in my fleet is good enough as is.
But…whatever boats your float.
I have never followed the NMRA RP for weight.
Mine is very simple:
-
40 feet and less: 4 ounces
-
50 feet: 5 ounces
-
60 feet and longer: 6 ounces
Everything works just fine, and I do not need to do any math.
Since I build 90% of my freight cars from kits, this is just part of the process of assembly.
-Kevin
As far as I’m concerned if a freight car doesn’t have a problem I don’t even check the weight. If it has problems I dig into it. Rarely is there a problem with weight. I’m a firm believer in “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”.
I don’t have many cars freight or passenger. I have a small layout and not enough track to run long trains, 120’ of mainline in a twice-around. My freight consist of about 50 cars and passengers have 22 cars.
Because I’m really into passenger car detail I do add weight to them, normally 2oz over the NMRA standard. I power the lighting from the baggage car and all cars have jumper wires hidden in the diaphragms. The extra weight helps keep the cars from uncoupling and derailing do to the diaphragms and wiring.
All of my locomotives have a lot of drawbar so the extra weigh isn’t a problem even on my 3½% grades.
Mel
My Model Railroad
http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/
Bakersfield, California
I’m beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
I have never followed RP20.1 and never will. When RP20.1 was introduce it was surely needed because a lot of plastic cars like Hobbyline and Varney didn’t come with any weight or was built from wood kits that was light.
As a side note if you wanted to use those Hobbyline cars you had to buy trucks that would roll like Central Valley.
The majority of today’s cars come weigh close to or matches RP20.1.
I think you make a great point Mel. I adjust my weights because I build my freight cars from kits, but if I was buying Ready-To-Run models, I certainly would not re-kit them to adjust weight if there was no problem.
I doubt there has been many occassions where a freight car did not run correctly, and ALL it needed was a weight adjustment.
I would bet fair money that any 40 foot boxcar would run OK if it had Kadee wheels, trucks, and couplers, and weighed anywhere from 1.5 ounces to 8 ounces.
As others mentioned, people that run long trains or steep grades might want to adjust low.
-Kevin
I run close to the RP weight, in most cases… A lot of mine run in the 2 1/2 per cent grade area, and it’s all smaller stuff [1890 era] so no long cars …
All have Kadees, Intermountain metal wheels, and mostly Tichy archbar trucks …
Kevin, For around 20 years I used stock Athearn trucks on my Roundhouse 40’ boxcars… Both BB and Roundhouse cars was stock weight and I had zero detailments.
After changing eras around 2000 I still used BB and Roundhouse stock wheelsets.
I started a slow change over to metal wheels starting in 2012 after returning to HO from N Scale…
And some Walthers tank cars.
I had been following Joe Fugate’s rule which is 1 oz per each 10 scale feet of car length. I like yours better.
George
Manufactures don’t follow NMRA rules nor should we neccisarily. As was said there used to be a time when just getting good trucks was an issue. Even the old Ertl cars run great if you change out the wheels and they had a few issues. I have gone through different weighting in my years, from NMRA standards to heavy (so the sprung trucks would move up and down on rough track) to anything that rolls well. Real railroad cars weigh varring amounts which changes with if they are loaded or not and what loaded with. Clubs set up standards because they want uniformity so that you can pick up any car which will work with any other car. On a home layout you can go with say light cars on the back or whatever works, it is part of the switching puzzle, if you just run trains then maybe you want a standard weight but even then it dose not have to be exact and some cars if unloaded will never make it to the proper weight even if rebuilt.
I only add weight to my locomotives. I have flats with no added weight except for trucks and couplers. The RP was introduced when track and wheels were so bad cars needed to be heavy to stay on the track. Also sharp curves, bad turnout frogs and sectional trackwork that would not allow easements would stringline trains. Better to fix lousy trackwork than to add a ton of drag.
Just my opinion.
My former club had an S curve that would derail most trains. Some guys would add weight and still have problems. I spent a weekend and fixed the track and also removed a dip that would uncouple cars. From then on there were 0 derailments. I could run empty unweighted flats on the tender coupler followed by 48 to 50 hoppers behind at speed.
Think of your trackwork as the foundation of a building. No matter what you do above it, it’s still may collapse without a good foundation.
Pete.
Many have commented that I overbuild benchwork and roadbed, but it IS THE foundation of everything.
I agree 100%. Skimp elsewhere.
-Kevin
I rarely add any weight to my rolling stock. If I find that stringlining has become a problem in a consist, I’ll take a closer look at the two or three cars where the derailment took place. As the previous two posters have agreed, get the trackwork right and you’ll eliminate several limiting factors for the reliability and fun of operations.
But, each of us has to come to terms with our designs and with our trains’ ability to haul some trailing tonnage over the pike. If our locomotives can’t manage, you back off on the tonnage. Just like the prototype. Or, you add motive power, again like the prototype. If you’re getting stringlining, arrange the cars differently or take the trouble to add more weight.
I think we have a Nothing burger here.
Back to the OP’s question about whether or not the manufacturers should try to meet the NMRA RP weight, I would say no.
They might satisfy some, but aggravate others.
I rarely hear any complaints about modern manufactured rolling stock, and like Larry said, Athearn and Roundhouse were always great runners with very little work.
-Kevin