Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Weights of a passenger car

8040 views
21 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Manitou, Okla
  • 1,630 posts
Weights of a passenger car
Posted by mikesmowers on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 2:54 PM
  Does the same rule for weighting a freight  car apply to passenger car? 1 oz. plus 1/2 oz. per inch of car length.           Thanks.             Mike
Modeling Trains Is Not A Matter Of Life Or Death, It Is Much More Important Than That!!
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Colorful Colorado
  • 8,639 posts
Posted by Texas Zepher on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 3:12 PM

 mikesmowers wrote:
Does the same rule for weighting a freight  car apply to passenger car? 1 oz. plus 1/2 oz. per inch of car length.
Short answer is Yes, that is the HO scale NMRA standard. 

After I weighted a few cars (20 or so) to that standard and operated them for a while (about two years) I decided it was too much and removed some of the weight.  In my opinon it proved to be a waste of lead, time, hence $$$.  The improved technology of todays track, trucks, and wheels seem to make it overkill.   I now have complete (11-17 car) Zephyrs, City ofs, Super Chiefs, El Capitans, Empire Builders, North Coast Limiteds which are all operating just fine (for about one-to-ten years) well under the standard.

One reason for that standard was so one could push long trains without making an accordian.  When was the last time you really pushed a 20+ car passenger train?!?  Me - never.  The longest one I recall backing into Union Station was a 15 car SuperChief.   That is not to mention by adding the weight it is just making it that much harder to push to begin with.   And the standard makes the RPO and baggage cars the lightest ones.  For pushing they should be the heaviest.  I won't even go into the physics of pushing long sticks vs short sticks.

Another reason for that NMRA standard was so cars would have a chance at rolling down a hump yard.  When was the last time you sent a passenger train over a hump yard?!?  Me - never.

Yet another reason for that standard was so that a train wouldn't string across a tight curve or pull a car down sideways off the track.   Running full length passenger cars one should not be using those tight curves anyway.  If such curves are bing used there are going to be all sorts of other problems that additional weight isn't going to help or hurt either way.  Besides as above the more weight in the rear of the train the greater chance of stringning the front cars and once again using this standard the baggage and RPOs are going to be the lightest of the set.

My advice is to test out the cars on the actual layout, determine if they have any operational problems, THEN if one of those problems can only be fixed with addtional weight - add enough to fix it. 

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Colorado Springs, CO
  • 3,590 posts
Posted by csmith9474 on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 3:29 PM

I am with Texas Zepher on this one. The last passenger train I modeled was a late '50s consolidated El Cap/Super Chief. I started with wanting to go with NMRA standards, but with 17 cars, the weight added up quick. I pretty much did what was suggested above by adding weight as needed and haven't encountered any trouble. The only cars that I think I will be adding weight to is the two baggages and RPO just to avoid potential problems on steep grades and tight radii.

Edit: BTW, I used body mount couplers and Train Station Products trucks (for the cars that weren't Walther's), and either Kadee or Intermountain wheels.

Smitty
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 3:40 PM
Sign - Ditto [#ditto]  I found my Bachmann and Walthers heavyweights to be plenty heavy.  I also have no interest in lighting, so I have ripped out all the related paraphernalia.  That lightened the load quite a bit. Big Smile [:D]  This was important since I wanted four cars plus a reefer, but my 3% grades made that load a struggle even for the BLI Niagara.  So, after the nip 'n tuck, things are much better. Absolutely no issues with stringlining or tracking, either.
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Manitou, Okla
  • 1,630 posts
Posted by mikesmowers on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 4:13 PM

Thanks for the quick replies.  I have four old time Roundhouse cars I have built that run pretty well considering I have several 18'' R curves, every once in a while the RPO directly behind the loco would derail in a turnout. This is the only one I have any trouble with, I weighed it and measured it and came up with the conclusion that it need another 2.5 oz. I added about 1.5 oz. to the inside of the car. I will see here in a little while if it made the problem better or worse.

   Thanks again.                     Mike
 

Modeling Trains Is Not A Matter Of Life Or Death, It Is Much More Important Than That!!
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 6:47 PM
 Texas Zepher wrote:

Short answer is Yes, that is the HO scale NMRA standard. 

Car weight is based on a Recommended Practice (RP-20.1), not a Standard.  The NMRA makes a distinction between "Standard" and "Recommended Practice." Standards are required for interchange, just like the real railroads. Items such as rail and wheel gauge, coupler height, critical switch dimensions, etc. A Recommended Practice is just as the name implies, recommended, but not required. More detail here:

http://www.nmra.org/standards/

 

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 13,375 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:20 PM

I used to ballast all of my passenger cars to about 14 ounces:  they rolled and tracked beautifully.  However, I was worried that some of the cars with softer plastic sideframes would develop hotboxes (or just plain worn-out sideframes) Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg], so I lightened everything to about 10 ounces maximum.  I have a friend who ballasts all of his passenger cars to about 15 ounces and he runs long (15-20 cars) passenger trains with plenty of motive power on the headend, but no grades.  Most of my passenger trains are 4 or 5 cars or less, and most of the layout has a maximum speed limit for passenger trains of 35 mph or less, so the weight isn't a problem

Wayne

 

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: SE Minnesota
  • 6,847 posts
Posted by jrbernier on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:24 PM

  I have to agree with Tom D. - It is an RP, and the idea of it was not for making cars roll down hump yards - But to have a common weight over the length of a train.  That way one would not have 'light' cars in the middle of the train 'string lining'.  Is the RP a little 'over-kill' - In the case of passenger cars, and with the improvements to trucks; I would say yes.  However, all of my freight cars are weighted as close to possible to the RP and I do see improved performance.  Coupling is a lot more 'solid' and with free rolling trucks with metal wheels - I really have not seen a 'pulling' penalty. 

  As far as 'real' railroads running super long passenger trains - Yes.  I worked on the CB&Q in the late 60's and was called as a fireman on a passenger train.  A combined TCZ/EB/NCL with 32 cars and 6 E units left SPUD that last day of May morning.  The next day, the 'summer' schedule was started and seperate trains were run.  But 15-16 car EB and NCL trains were very typical all summer, and these trains backed uphill into the SPUD around the wye.  A lot of folks do not realize how big/heavy some of the 'transcon' trains were.  Unless you were by the big mainlines, most remaining  passenger trains were 3-4 car shadows of their former self.  Even a day train like the Hiawatha could be 10 cars in size.  I am building a 10 car 'Hi' with the new Walthers cars, and I suspect I will need an ABA set of FP7's(all powered) to pull it up the 33" radius helix at the club.

Jim

Modeling BNSF  and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Good ol' USA
  • 9,642 posts
Posted by AntonioFP45 on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 10:45 AM
Good info here as I've had the challenge of making certain that my Rivorossi cars weigh about the same as my Walthers Budds.  In my case, before adding the interiors, filling every floor pockets on the "Rivs" with BB pellets and smothering them with glue has worked at really well as far as weight and tracking.   

"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"

 


  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Kansas
  • 808 posts
Posted by jamnest on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 11:22 AM

I have a eight car (Rivirossi) Southern Belle pasenger consist with all cars weighted (A-Line lead weights) as recommended by NMRA.  I also found that metal wheel sets help too.  I also replaced the truck mounted couplers with body mounted couplers.

Pulling this set is not a problem on the layout with 2% grades, but 42" minimum main line radius and #8 turnouts on the main as well.  I have used one PK2 E8; PK2 E6;  PK2 Eire Built; and Stewart F7 to pull this consist.  I run this consist for nostalgia as it does not fit into my operating era of 1981. 

While I have good track work, 80' passenger cars will quickly find problems.  I have a crest of a grade with a vertical curve that needs to be extended as the 80' cars will sometimes uncouple at the crest.  This is not a problem with the 50' freight cars I usually run.  The layout is still a "plywood pacific" so I will be making some adjustments to the track to correct this problem.

Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.

  • Member since
    March 2006
  • From: Visalia, California
  • 308 posts
Posted by dcfixer on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 11:32 AM

I agree with Texas Zepher.  I have weighted my Rivarossi cars about the same as the Walthers cars. I have 9 passenger cars (with 2 heavy brass Sohos), 2 powered locos, 22R curves ( 1 at 4% up and 1 at 5% down) and the train is doing fine at 15-20mph on the grades.  The Waltharossi extended body couplers and Kaydees helped a lot, also.  The rigid TSP type talco truck set up gave me problems on the down grade, except for the baggage car up front.  The Rivarossi talcos with the snap in, free swinging bolster did just fine, when I was using them.

DC

  • Member since
    August 2002
  • From: Womelsdorf
  • 756 posts
Posted by HEdward on Friday, May 9, 2008 9:19 AM

I'll meet you guys halfway.  My five passenger cars will only get added weight if they have issues.  Until then, only my freight cars are visiting the scales.  I don't foresee any backing of passener trains in the op's of my layout anyway. 

A 20 car train backing into a terminal on a model railroad.  Now that would be something to watch.

Proud to be DD-2itized! 1:1 scale is too unrealistic. Twins are twice as nice!
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
  • 3,864 posts
Posted by Don Gibson on Friday, May 9, 2008 2:03 PM

THE IDEA is to get something close to uniform - whether all light, or all heavy.

With brass cars weighing almost a pound (14 oz)and IHC (passenger) about 3 oz. each, mixing them becomes a problem.

Two schools of thought emerged: WEIGHT EVERY CAR THE SAME, and PROPORTION WEIGHT BY LENGTH.

Our NMRA RP is a compromise: 1 oz per car and 1/2 oz per inch.

With all 'empties' our models still outpull the prototype.

Don Gibson .............. ________ _______ I I__()____||__| ||||| I / I ((|__|----------| | |||||||||| I ______ I // o--O O O O-----o o OO-------OO ###########################
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Germany
  • 1,951 posts
Posted by wedudler on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 3:17 PM

You must not make your passenger cars more heavy.

The Recommended Practice are useful if you have different weights of freight cars. A too light car in the train and heavy cars at the rear end will cause problems. Therefore the RPs! If you have a passenger train with simiiar cars with similiar weight there's no need to make them more heavy.

Wolfgang 

Pueblo & Salt Lake RR

Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de          my videos        my blog

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Oregon
  • 509 posts
Posted by Mr. SP on Sunday, August 17, 2008 11:19 AM

In one word "Yes" I use a modified NMRA formula for car weight. My standard is one ounce per ten feet of car length. a 40' car would weigh 4 ounces a 50' car 5 and so on. A minimum of 3.5 ounces is used for cars under 35 scale feet and a maximum of 7.5 ounced for cars over 75 scale feet. Be sure to add any weight as low in the car as is possible.

I use used tape weights from the local tire shop. The weights come in sections of 1/4 ounce or 1/2 ounce and can be attache with contact cement or Walthers Goo.

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 13,375 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Sunday, August 17, 2008 11:46 AM

Unless you're running your trains at rocket sled speeds, you can add the weight anywhere it'll fit: back when my cars were weighted to about 14 oz., most of that was fastened to the undersides of the roofs - they tracked just fine. Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]

For cars with interiors, weights can be placed in the washrooms, or low, beneath the windows in the vestibules.  For compartmented cars, a centre corridor is also a good place to hide extra weight.  You could also have a couple of windows with the blinds drawn, then replace the seats there with a block of lead.  I cast my own weights, using melted-down used wheel balancing weights.  The simple moulds are easy to make from .015" sheet aluminum, using a utility knife and a pair of pliers.  You can also use sheet lead, cut to size with a utility knife, then placed between the floor and the car's interior.

Wayne 

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Good ol' USA
  • 9,642 posts
Posted by AntonioFP45 on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:36 PM

I understand the point of some modelers not wanting to add weight to their passenger cars if they generally weigh the same out of the box, even if they're rather light.  The view seems to be that it's less wear and tear on the locomotive.

However, due to their light weight out of the box, I've noticed that some HO Rivorossi, AHM, etc., passenger car bodies exhibit an annoying tendency to "wobble" whenever the trucks roll over turnout frogs and rail joints (even with metal wheels).  Adding weight greatly helps to eliminate that problem. IMHO, the wear on the locomotive, unless it's going up steep inclines, is not so much more that the motors are going to "burn up" within a short time.  Today's HO and N locomotive motors, even the open frame units, can tolerate heavier loads more than we give  them credit for.

Wink [;)]

 

"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"

 


  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 13,375 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:11 PM
 AntonioFP45 wrote:

I understand the point of some modelers not wanting to add weight to their passenger cars if they generally weigh the same out of the box, even if they're rather light.  The view seems to be that it's less wear and tear on the locomotive.

However, due to their light weight out of the box, I've noticed that some HO Rivorossi, AHM, etc., passenger car bodies exhibit an annoying tendency to "wobble" whenever the trucks roll over turnout frogs and rail joints (even with metal wheels).  Adding weight greatly helps to eliminate that problem. IMHO, the wear on the locomotive, unless it's going up steep inclines, is not so much more that the motors are going to "burn up" within a short time.  Today's HO and N locomotive motors, even the open frame units, can tolerate heavier loads more than we give  them credit for.

I regularly run 100 oz. coal trains behind a pair of Bachmann Consolidations or Athearn Mikes, and even on stiff 2.5%/2.8% grades, there's no undue motor heating.  The heaviest train that I've had on my layout, just to see if it was possible, was also a coal train (with "live" loads) and it weighed-in at over 22 lbs., behind a pair of modified Athearn U-Boats. Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]  I almost ran out of hoppers, and I did run out of "coal".

Wayne 

  • Member since
    August 2002
  • From: Womelsdorf
  • 756 posts
Posted by HEdward on Friday, August 22, 2008 6:49 AM
How about lead castings instead of plastic for your passengers?
Proud to be DD-2itized! 1:1 scale is too unrealistic. Twins are twice as nice!
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
  • 3,864 posts
Posted by Don Gibson on Monday, August 25, 2008 1:13 PM

 mikesmowers wrote:
  Does the same rule for weighting a freight  car apply to passenger car? 1 oz. plus 1/2 oz. per inch of car length.           Thanks.             Mike

THE IDEA was to achieve some uniformity since 85' brass cars run 12oz.-14oz. and IHC 3 oz. Obviously they won't mix well.

The 'RP' standard was an attempt to achieve 'sameness' when trucks  had metal sideframes and added more friction to a train.

I think a NEW RP is due for todays freeer rolling trucks - and there lies the 'rub'. Trucks vary today from 'stodgy' to 'greased lightning'. Just adding wipers for lighting - alone - changes the pulling dynamics, dramatically.

SINCE uniformity is difficult to achieve with different products, It's left to to the individual - and since it's dififficult to lighten heavy cars, the alternative is to increase weight in the light. The current nmra RP is as good as any

OR sort, and don't mix.

Don Gibson .............. ________ _______ I I__()____||__| ||||| I / I ((|__|----------| | |||||||||| I ______ I // o--O O O O-----o o OO-------OO ###########################
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
  • 3,864 posts
Posted by Don Gibson on Monday, August 25, 2008 3:16 PM

... "the RPO directly behind the loco would derail in a turnout. This is the only one I have any trouble with ... "

Mike: TWO things:

Add weight and a longer coupler that matches your engine.

(2). DON'T mix 'Talgo' (truck mount) with body mounts.

I had an Athearn PA with Talgo coupling. I used a Talgo coupler on the lead car, until I converted the engine. 

Don Gibson .............. ________ _______ I I__()____||__| ||||| I / I ((|__|----------| | |||||||||| I ______ I // o--O O O O-----o o OO-------OO ###########################

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!