Brakie
While some may think RP20.1 is outdated, it is the only stated weight standard out there. Many clubs and organizations use the NMRA Standards and RPs and won't allow equipment that doesn't meet them onto the layouts.
Ricky
----------------------------
Well RP20.1 is the only thing we have for a guide line outdated as it is..It was good in its day but,with today's cars its not really needed.
Anywhoo,RP20.1 should be reviewed and updated to fit modern era cars since cars vary from 50' to 89'.
Time was you couldn't even join a club without being a member of the NMRA and a lot of clubs changed that ruling...To bad..That was a good requirement that kept many divisions active.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE Ricky,With today's fragile RTR cars the last thing I would worry about is following RP20.1..RP20.1 is outdated anyway since that was done back in the days of wooden car kits and light plastic cars from Varney,Hobbyline and others.Athearn was IIRC the only kit builder to include a sheet metal weight.
Ricky,With today's fragile RTR cars the last thing I would worry about is following RP20.1..RP20.1 is outdated anyway since that was done back in the days of wooden car kits and light plastic cars from Varney,Hobbyline and others.Athearn was IIRC the only kit builder to include a sheet metal weight.
If we don't go with the established standards, the only other method is put it on the track and if a car fails a certain number of times, it gets removed until whatever is causing the problem is fixed (which may happen anyway!)
I agree that the RP was designed for an age when horn hook, truck mounted couplers were much more common AND it is an Recommended Practice, not a Standard (again, unless a club/organization so states).
maxmanSorry, but I don't quite agree with this. Based on my observations both at the Club and at various layouts of others, I believe that some consistant weight standard between cars helps in the operability of the railroad. Having light cars next to heavy cars, especially at the front end of trains, leads to derailments and frustration.
The string lining of cars on curves because of light weight has been proven wrong with good track and easements. Even an over weight car can string line as much as a light car. As an experiment at the club proved. We put 4 box cars with all the metal weights removed even using plastic wheels behind 2 locomotives and in front of 20 other cars of various weight. Up the 2 percent grade going into a 30 inch radius curve went through at different speeds with no derailments. During a rear collision from an distracted engineer the 4 light cars remained on the track while the rear 3 cars were derailed. The clubs layout is going on 40 years old with mostly hand laid track. If everything else is good, light weight becomes a non issue.
maxmanBut under-weight cars can be a problem too, especially with the "free-rolling" trucks you mention. When you try to couple to one of those free-rolling cars in a prototypical manner (which is hopefully not at a scale 15 mph), a too-light car will roll away from you before the knuckles open. Coupling to a car with a little more mass is a more satisfying experience.
I concur on this. But I have had heavy cars roll away while trying to couple also. I have been experimenting with the KD couplers by removing the centering springs and shimming the boxes to give them a little friction. This has had mixed results so far. The best alternative is the paint brush bristle weeds growing in the yards being just tall enough to cause drag on the axles or side frames.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
maxman locoi1sa Adding weight to cars is outdated and an excuse to have bad performing track. Sorry, but I don't quite agree with this. Based on my observations both at the Club and at various layouts of others, I believe that some consistant weight standard between cars helps in the operability of the railroad. Having light cars next to heavy cars, especially at the front end of trains, leads to derailments and frustration. I do agree that over-weighting cars is unnecessary, especially if side-frame damage is occuring. But under-weight cars can be a problem too, especially with the "free-rolling" trucks you mention. When you try to couple to one of those free-rolling cars in a prototypical manner (which is hopefully not at a scale 15 mph), a too-light car will roll away from you before the knuckles open. Coupling to a car with a little more mass is a more satisfying experience.
locoi1sa Adding weight to cars is outdated and an excuse to have bad performing track.
Sorry, but I don't quite agree with this. Based on my observations both at the Club and at various layouts of others, I believe that some consistant weight standard between cars helps in the operability of the railroad. Having light cars next to heavy cars, especially at the front end of trains, leads to derailments and frustration. I do agree that over-weighting cars is unnecessary, especially if side-frame damage is occuring.
But under-weight cars can be a problem too, especially with the "free-rolling" trucks you mention. When you try to couple to one of those free-rolling cars in a prototypical manner (which is hopefully not at a scale 15 mph), a too-light car will roll away from you before the knuckles open. Coupling to a car with a little more mass is a more satisfying experience.
Sorry,but I must disagree..I have switch hundreds of stock weight cars over the years at various clubs and never had one to roll away..
RP20.1 is outdated..It was meant for wooden car kits and light plastic cars from Varney,Hobbyline and other like brands equipped with trucks that had stiff rolling wheels with thick pizza cutter flanges....RP20.1 should be reviewed for upgrading or completely removed.
I can mixed/match my newer heavier RTR cars with my BB cars and have no problems..
One of the ways to add weight to closed cars is to drill a small hole in an inconspicuous place and pour fine sand in. Plug the hole and you're done.
Enjoy
Paul
Adding weight to cars is outdated and an excuse to have bad performing track. Most importantly is free rolling trucks and the three point suspension with properly gauged wheel sets. Add to that good reliable track work that performs as it should with little or no deviations from specifications. The taper of the wheels will keep the flanges away from the rail heads. This has been proven many times. Other considerations are easements into and out of curves and divergences. Cramming a massive amount of track in a small area is conducive to very tight radius curves and very sharp turnouts. I have seen too many worn out truck side frames from heavy cars. The needle point axles just carve out grooves after awhile. Adding weight just adds to the wear and tear of locomotives and trucks and wheels.
grizlump9 it is just another indication of what happens when the people who design and make the product are not model railroaders themselves. by now you have figured out that RTR usually means ready to repair. in China, i don't think they let prisoners and small children play with the trains they are assembling. grizlump (grouchy german)
it is just another indication of what happens when the people who design and make the product are not model railroaders themselves. by now you have figured out that RTR usually means ready to repair. in China, i don't think they let prisoners and small children play with the trains they are assembling.
grizlump (grouchy german)
Griz,Usually your "RTR usually means ready to repair" is for those that feel the need to do more to a RTR engine or car then change out couplers.
I haven't had any problems since all I do is change out couplers on my RTR cars since most are weigh enough.
Not sure how the fact that they are made in China has to do with this or any of the other post on similar lines. The folks in China are given designs, specifications and such, they simply produce the end product. Do the front end folks (ExactRail, Tanget, etc) give them the right designs in the first place or do the Chinese not use quite as much steel as they should therefore saving some extra cost over the long run?
Either way, it doesn't matter much except when it becomes difficult to do any work on the car without possibly damaging it beyond repair.
I have no problem with this but I am not into Ranting, only model railroading. I just make it work. Don't need the attention.
What do you expect?
Most of the stuff comes form China. Be glad there is no Melamine in it.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Yes, be forewarned, it is a rant, however I'm hoping some manufacturers get the word. With many of the recent posts concerning accuracy, I could not let this slip by without a comment.
I'm prepping rolling stock and doing the normal check of coupler heights and weight. I found many were low some even quite low on the proper weighting according the NMRA RP. Okay, open them up and add weight, right? Not so easy, Atlas, Tangent (which were the lightest) and ExactRail had no exploded diagrams with them. While it is possible that they fell out somewhere, I doubt if I lost them from all the boxes. At least Athearn still includes the diagrams so you know whether the roof is separate or the body. I couldn't even get into the Atlas cars (ACF Cylindrical Covered Hoppers) but luckily they were very close to the proper weight. As said before, if a car is going to fetch a premium price, it would be nice if it at least met the minimum NMRA Standards and Recommended Practices.