Just a thought that has been bugging me for a while now.
With the NMRA having such input into Mfg standards which we all appreciate, I wonder why the Manufacturers are not held accountable for the correct weight of their rolling stock. I know this seems like a minor thing, but, now when they are pushing their prices up into the $40.00+ range and we still have to figure out a way to get that car up to standard, it really seems inappropriate to me. It is quite different than buying a $7.00 blue box kit.
The NMRA weight table is a “Recommended Practice” (RP20.1), not a standard. Even if it were a standard, manufacturers are not bound to abide by it unless they are applying for a Conformance Warrant, which very few of them really care to have.
When I shop for locomotives or rolling stock, I pay no attention at all as to whether a NMRA Conformance Warrant symbol is on the product. If you were determined to purchase only those products with the NMRA Conformance Warrant, you’d have very little to choose from.
Even with today’s higher quality and expensive models, I don’t recall ever seeing a NMRA Conformance Warrant symbol on any locomotives or rolling stock.
It seems to me that there was a question concerning the NMRA in a recent MR and in the reply a photo of an Athearn loco box was shown which had the conformance symbol on it.
The purpose of the standards is so that each manufacturer’s HO equipment will work with everyone else’s (or whatever your scale is). Your Bachmann locomotive runs on Atlas track with an MRC power pack.
Things like weight aren’t needed for that so it is a recommended practice. Some manufacturer’s follow it, others don’t. Some modelers like lighter cars because they can have longer trains. Some like more weight for better tracking. What can be tough sometimes with an RTR model, is figuring how to add or remove weight. My kit built cars are easy, just add weight as part of the construction process.
I believe Paul hits it directly. In most cases, it is far easier to add weight, than to subtract from what the mfg may otherwise provide.
In many cases, done right, it’s built into the structure, and can’t be easily altered in terms of subtraction, but there are nooks where it can be added. Usually, designers are attentive to the weight of cars that need to run empty half the time to look right, like intermodal and hoppers. People do watch such things, but generally that’s taken into account.
For other cars, sure easy to be heavy, like boxcars. But if you need to be less heavy, those weights can painful to deal with.
Lots of people are cautious about extra weight because of curves and grades. In narrowgauge, because of equipment limitations even more severe than SG because they don’t scale weight down well, you lightweight your cars. You need to be consistent and have good track, but it works well and allows an extra car or two on the local.
So having cars underweight facilitates everyone’s option, while having then at RP forecloses options for many people. So long as your cars are consistent in terms of ounces per inch, you can get away with some variance in weighting cars.
Having not thought much out of my nitche, I completely missed those facts. (call me selfish, I guess) But you are so right and now it makes sense to me. Thanks for clueing in an old Phart.
Some people don’t agree with the NMRA weight standards, and I suppose a case can be made that using length as a basis for weight might sometimes result in very long cars weighing more than they need to, and very short cars such as certain tank cars, might be underweighted if you follow the NMRA RP.
I do try to follow NMRA standards when I can, but I don’t go ape if a car is close, either over or under, but not spot on. Reasonably consistent and logical weight is to me the important thing. And of course the rolling qualities of the trucks, and the ability of the truck to swing freely under the car, as well as the sideswing of the couplers, play huge roles in whether a mis-weighted car is going to result in a derailment or other tracking problem.
At one time the NMRA conformance symbol was pretty common on packaging - much less so now inspite of the fervent pleading of NMRA higher-ups (who routinely claimed that they joined the NMRA becsuse the conformance warrant gave them such confidence when purchasing their first model trains - typically referring to Kadee rolling stock which in fact is rather limited in scope). Even in the NMRA Magazine, equipment reviews often give glowing recommendations to car for which a conformance warrant was denied.
I think that’s an oversimplification. All my rolling stock that is near the RP weight runs fine. The really light stuff has tracking problems. Call it bad track if you like. I prefer the option to add weight to cars that behave badly.
Back in the Jurassic age wooden car kits was the norm and those came with no weigh then enter the ultralight plastic cars that had little weight with oversize flanges thus RP20.1 was born.
With todays freight cars RP20.1 should be recalculated since modern cars comes in various lengths then comes the stacks,front runners and 89’ piggybacks,Autoracks and 89’ autopart boxcar…
True,but,with cars in the 8" -12" range weight will be all over the chart in a normal train consist-exceptions being intermodal like stacks versus 89’ trailers versus front runners or all autopart trains.
This was a topic of a clinic I attended back in May and some very serious questions was asked and was openly discussed.
To be sure normal 40’ and 50’ cars would not be affected like modern cars…