I do not understand why, if there is an NMRA, and the NMRA develops standards for the hobby. And then manufacturers go ahead and, presumably, ignore the standards. Specifically, in this case, the rolling stock weight standards.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
bearman,There is no NMRA weight Standard. There is an NMRA Recommended Practice (RP20.1):
https://nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-20.1.pdfIf you read the above link, you'll see that lighter cars can work just fine provided that you have better trackwork. The RP20.1 weight tends to allow cars to traverse not-so-good track.
As for manufacturers, sometimes it's not so easy. For example, hopper, flat car or double stack well car usually has to be cast out of metal to meet the NMRA weight when empty. OTOH, an all-brass Superliner car can weigh in at 16 oz. because it's a large car made of a heavier material vs. plastic.
Manufacturers have the choice whether to apply for the NMRA C&I "football" or not. But as I have told people for years, Bachmann trains have the C&I football, but Kato does not. Which is the better product?
Personally, I'd prefer if manufacturers would stick to the NMRA Standard for coupler height (NMRA Standard S-2). I spend an awful lot of time fixing coupler heights in this hobby.
Ok, Paul that is a good answer, but after reading the link it does appear to recommend the wgt even though you might have bullet proof track. As for the coupler height standard and the manufacturers, don't get me started on that one.
Background for this is the typical difference between "standard" and "recommended practice". These are typical in many industries, sometimes national, sometimes international. In many cases the partipants (say, in the American Petroleum Institute" members) have a commitment on signing up to adhere to the standards and consider the recommended practices when addressing those items. It seems the NMRA approach is generally similar:
https://www.nmra.org/standards
Thus, items like track gauge are a standard. But items like rolling stock weight are part of recommended practice. What gets interesting there is the "conformance" aspect for these "beneficial" items. As I read the Conformance paragraph, a manufacturer could not display the NMRA Confrmance / Inspection seal when an item was outside the tolerance of the RP. I have no idea which manufacturers are actually NMRA members in the first place.
With that background, you make a great point. My guess is the main driver is the market. As someone notes, we buyers tend to buy rolling stock primarily based on aspects such as detail, quality construction, components quality (e.g., trucks). So the reality is that car underweight is way down on the typical buyers list. If overweight, that would be pretty high on the list.
The manufacturers have nil incentive to change their approach. Now if Accurail and Bowser made equivalent kits, for instance, and I found one had recommended weight and I knew it, I might go that way as a preference. If I found a car with the NMRA conformance seal and another that lacked it, I would not be affected by the seal as I would not know what the other car might lack, or if it was equivalent and the manufacturer just did not bother to have it certified.
On target with your point, I do wish that someone offered (kits, preferred by me) freight cars that were recommended weight for open cars (flats, gondolas) as well as tank cars. I usually add a load to the flats and gondolas, partly for looks and partly to help the weight. I imagine cost would be an issue for the manufacturer unless cheap weight can be included in a way nt visible.
On enclosed cars, I am most sympathic to your point for assembled rolling stock. No one wants to disassemble a nice new car to add weight. I haven't noted if MR reviews note the weight vs. recommended. I don't mind adding pennies to a box car kit as that is little trouble.
I doubt the manufacturers will move fast in the improvement direction on existing car designs that they re-release. Perhaps they will get closer on new designs if the issue gets enough attention. Maybe folks can comment on whether certain brands seem to adhere more to the recommended weight. I have no idea, other than most of the kits I have built start as lightweights. I add some weight but not necessarily up to recommended.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
An RP is an RP in part because there may be good reason to deviate from it. First, a little more background.
The RP on weighting cars was developed during a time when cast metal and sometimes brass cars were common. It tends to run somewhat heavy in an age when plastic has largely replaced the use of cast metal, etc. Thus the perception that weight needs to be added more, because that's the only way to get enough weight in the cars to reach the RP recommendations.
In practice, many operators have found that what's more important than an absolute observance of the RP is keeping things consistent. You probably don't wnat to go to 50% of the RP numbers, but is your fleet was consistently around 80% of the RP, it would probably run fine.
Narrowgaugers in particular are known to "cut corners" on weight. That's because the smaller boiler diamter we usually have to work with on steam limits the size of motors (originally) and the size of space in whcih more weight could be stuffed (more recently). Few NGers observe the RP. Instead, we tend to go for consistency. Depending on the grades you have, you might be able to achieve prototype length trains, otherwise the RP will mean your trains will be very short with anything close to prototype grades.
That this practice, as opposed to the RP, is common is attested to by the fact that Blackstone decided to adopt it when it brought RTR to the HOn3 scene. It's just a few grams per car, but it means more realism in our train length.
Finally, if you do choose to deviate lower from the RP, no matter what the scale or gauge, it's much easier to do that with cars that weigh less than the RP. It's far easier to add weight to a car than to subtract it. Thus a mfg who offers car that weigh less than RP is actually going to have more sales by leaving the exact final weighting to the modeler.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Well, I don't know anyone who buys based on NMRA requirements. Personally, I'm not a big Enemary fan and I have never had my rolling stock meet their weight RP. I can't recall in recent years any manufacturer with that sticker on the box or even mentioned. I believe some of the stuff I bought in the late 1950's or early 1960's may have had it.
One reason manufacturers may not conform to the higher weights in the RP is the shipping cost. I don't know for sure but everyone P&M's about the high cost of shipping and recently even moreso. Since most folks don't seem to stress over a kit or RTR car being up to the RP then why should they bother adding weight to their products to raise costs for the product and the shipping? I wouldn't if I were producing a car.
Some open cars like flats, gons and hoppers also may take into consideration that many modelers like to add loads. A flat car with RP weight may become overly heavy when the modeler adds his load. Same with hoppers & gons. I used some cast plaster coal and lumber loads in a few cars and with their factory weights and the plaster loads they were quite heavy. A train of 20 loaded hoppers was a lot for some engines to deal with.
I have pretty much always been into coal trains and railroading therefore haved used tons of hoppers. Even my old Varney featherweights track well empty with my Stewarts/Boswers and Athearn cars. I always replace the wheelsets and often trucks with KD products and use KD couplers too. My track is far from perfect but I don't have derailments or the famous "stringlining" or whatever everyone complains about.
I see no need to worry about the Enemaray's weight RP.
My 2¢,
oldline1
I think a person should tinker a bit with rolling stock that has trouble playing along in a consist. However, even the prototype has to consider weight distribution in their consists. They don't put a string of empties halfway through a mile-long consist comprising 9000 tons; they will probably not stay in the rails on sharp curves, especially with undistributed power on rolling profiles.
I wonder if the lighter rolling stock is offered to modelers who enjoy crafting their own 'loads' which would generally make up the difference from the RP.
On the other hand, full-size standard guage HO tends to pull fa rmore than the real thing (excpet small switchers), so EXTRA weight reduces train sizes to somethign more prototypical. Excess weight seems to almost alwyas be better than too light - we run a 100+ car cola train periodically ont eh club layout (even with a 27x160+ layout, 100 cars really clogs it up). These hooper cars all have lead shot glued in teh bottom to get the wight up, PLUS they have loads, which puts them defintiely over the RP for the size car. Hoever even if some of the lighter ones en up near the front of the train, it never causes a problem. Even on my shorter train, I have a coupel of flat cars which are well underweight, the rest of my cars are about as close to the RP as I could get them. I can put those flat cars on the front of the train and even if the power just dies (someoen shorts or something) and then comes back on, I have NEVER had it stringline. SUddenly stopping and then instantly restarting at the previous speed is abou as harsh a train handling as you can get, yet no problems even with the lighter than recommended cars in front of heavier ones - though being flat cars what weight they DO have is down low, and a good chunk of it comes from having metal wheels.
If a car is easy to fix - like building a kit - I will adjust the weight. Most of the limited amount of RTR stuff I buy is close enough to work fine. The things I can't do anythign about - I don;t worry about, it still runs fine. Flat cars for example are tough ones to add weight to, and you can;t just run it 100% of the time loaded. My hoppers unloaded are a little light, loaded they are over weight, the loads I have for most of them are cast hydrocal which makes for a heavy load.
Ast stated, it's a recommendation, not a requirement or standard, because real world, it tends to not be as big a deal as it might sound. Different weight cars play together just fine, especially if you handle the train in anything like a reasonable fashion and don't just yank the throttle from 0 to 100 and back instantly. The sharper the curves, the more critical it can become, too.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
oldline1Well, I don't know anyone who buys based on NMRA requirements.
When I bought my DCC system, I only considered systems that were compliant.
I also use an NMRA/NASG gauge to check rolling stock and track. I also look for RP25 compliant wheels.
I use RP20 for weight. But I have seen discussions/arguemnts for using less weight. And others for using more weight. But I haven't seen a good study on the subject.
IRONROOSTERoldline1 Well, I don't know anyone who buys based on NMRA requirements. When I bought my DCC system, I only considered systems that were compliant.
Got me there! lol I HAVE seen the sticker on DCC stuff but since we were mostly talking about RP's in reference to car weights it didn't come to mind. Paul, do you know of any car makers who have the sticker? I just can't think of any. I'm only familiar with HO so maybe some other scales may.
oldline1Paul, do you know of any car makers who have the sticker? I just can't think of any. I'm only familiar with HO so maybe some other scales may.
I can't recall any off hand. But I do have S scale cars and diesel locomotives which state on the box that RP-25 wheels sets are included. This was on the S Helper Line of S scale freight cars and diesels that came with AF compatible wheels installed, but included RP-25 wheelsets for those of us on the scale side.
The top two DCC systems in the US don't have footballs. Doesn't seem to matter since both fully work with all decoders.
rrinker The top two DCC systems in the US don't have footballs. Doesn't seem to matter since both fully work with all decoders. --Randy
Looking over the list on NMRA's website, it appears that most of the major DCC manufacturers have at some point in time gotten a conformance warrant.
IRONROOSTER rrinker The top two DCC systems in the US don't have footballs. Doesn't seem to matter since both fully work with all decoders. --Randy Looking over the list on NMRA's website, it appears that most of the major DCC manufacturers have at some point in time gotten a conformance warrant. Paul
The major manufactures have all agreed to follow NMRA guidelines to ensure compatability. Any controller brand will operate any DCC receiver.
The one exception I know of is Mikes Train House which uses their proprietary DSC system instead of DCC. Their DSC locos will operate on DCC, but not all the DSC functions will be available.
Apparently DSC controller can operate a DCC loco only if a DCC controller is connected to it. http://mthtrains.com/news/068
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
At one point in the hobby RP20.1 was sorely needed because wooden car kits and some plastic car kits came without weight,trucks rolled like the brakes was set and was subject to derailments on straight track.
Then came RP25 wheels,Athearn and Roundhouse added metal weight to their car kits.
Today RP20.1 is obsolete for modern cars since cars can vary between 6-12" not including well cars.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
At some point - but the most recent system I see on the list (the PDF is much more up to date) is from 2008, the Bachmann Dynamis which was a dead end before it even came out - a feature stripped version of ESU's entry level system, which they no longer manufacturer. The otherwise identical ESU system therefore should have easily obtained a warrant, but they must not have submitted it. There have been some decoders since then, but no command stations or systems, and contrary to what might get posted elsewhere, there have been many changes in most manufacturer's systems in the past 9 years.
All in all it's interesting for what's NOT on the list (across all products) as opposed to what's on it. Some of the locos and cars I have are on the list, but most are not - they still run fine. There's a good bit of effort involved in getting the conformance warrant and a lot of companies decide that it is not worth the cost and effort - and even those that do don't submit their entire product line.
Finally - I find it a bit like Consumer Reports where two different make cars that are built on the exact same assembly line, just have different nameplates stuck on, can get different recommendations, or have different reliability scores - when it's the exact same engine, transmission - everything identical except cosmetics. Of course, the difference here is that just because something ISN'T on the list doesn't mean it isn;t conforming - it that were true, then we'd still be in the early days when nothing ran together. Clearly MOST things not on the list still are conforming, at least enough to reliably operate with those that are on the list.
The question is what influence does it have that manufacturers can't use lead anymore? Regards, Volker
rrinker All in all it's interesting for what's NOT on the list (across all products) as opposed to what's on it. Some of the locos and cars I have are on the list, but most are not - they still run fine. There's a good bit of effort involved in getting the conformance warrant and a lot of companies decide that it is not worth the cost and effort... Of course, the difference here is that just because something ISN'T on the list doesn't mean it isn;t conforming - it that were true, then we'd still be in the early days when nothing ran together. Clearly MOST things not on the list still are conforming, at least enough to reliably operate with those that are on the list. --Randy
While I'm sure that the NMRA would like to see the football on more products, the bottom line is that its influence on standards remains important. A mfg might skip the process of conformance, but not the actual conformance.
To do otherwise would be to invite trouble as word of the issue would get around fast. An example is Mike's DCS. Almost no one buys the DCS decoder for anything except repairing MTH products. Who wnats the hassle of an oddball decoder? Or out of gauge wheelsets? Or track that is gauged narrow, _not_ narrowgauge?
The point here is that conformance shouldn't be measured in terms of how often the football is seen, but in its ubiquitous influence in persuading mfgs to pay close attention to the important details that are outlined in the NMRA's standards and RPs.
Weren't the old "horn hook" couplers a NMRA standard?
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
carl425 Weren't the old "horn hook" couplers a NMRA standard?
No. They were developed by the NMRA, but rejected by the membership.
They became a default for manufacturers because they were cheap and easy to include (instead of the more expensive KD's which were protected by patents). So pretty quick, almost all of the HO trains that came with couplers used hornhooks.
Once the KD patents expired and cheap clones could be made, the manufacturer's switched over quickly.
True. But even though it never was adopted, it was commonly called (mistakenly) the "NMRA Coupler". To be fair, the original version of it actually worked quite well. Many of the early ones used seperate metal springs. It was later when corners were cut and they were made of all plastic which eventually stopped being springy, were poorly molded with burrs and so forth on mating surfaces, and worst of all, all became truck mounted, that they really were bad.
As for the rest, I totally agree it is the following of the standards that is important, not the obtaining of the footballs.
IRONROOSTERNo. They were developed by the NMRA, but rejected by the membership.
And above all the X2F solved a major coupler compatibility problem. Now and as you noted the manufacturers had a "standard" coupler design to use.
By the mid 60s the push was on to accept the KD coupler as the defacto standard coupler to replace the so called NMRA X2F coupler.. This push was lead by Linn Westcott and not the NMRA. This should not come as surprise seeing Linn made many innovative contributions to nearly every aspect of the hobby.
All my freight cars meet standards.
.
Weight must be +/- 1/4 ounce of NMRA RP. Coupler height must match Kadee gauge. Trip pin height must be between 0.020" and 0.040" above the rails. Trucks and wheels must be Kadee. Couplers must be Kadee; must be 20 series on brass freight cars, anything that works on plastic/resin cars. Ladders and grab irons must be free standing. Railroads/paint schemes must all be fictitious.
NMRA standards/RPs, except for weight, mean nothing to me. Kadee is the standard for trucks and couplers, my demands dictate everything else.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
oldline1 I can't recall in recent years any manufacturer with that sticker on the box or even mentioned.
Also the NMRA isnt using the football sticker anymore. The emblem on the right hand side of the page here:
https://nmra.org/nmra-conformance-warrants
is the current form of the "football".
Here is a .pdf from the NMRA that lists everything that has received a conformance warrant since 1996.
https://nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/CandI_Documents/nmra_warrants_2017.05.27.pdf
SeeYou190NMRA standards/RPs, except for weight, mean nothing to me.
You are using RP-25 wheels, just a specific brand (kadee).
SeeYou190NMRA standards/RPs, except for weight, mean nothing to me. Kadee is the standard for trucks and couplers, my demands dictate everything else.
Isn't it nice that those KD trucks roll on your track?
Many don't think about it because the standards are so well followed. We expect the KD trucks or others will run on the Atlas track or others. And so forth.
SeeYou190 All my freight cars meet standards. . Weight must be +/- 1/4 ounce of NMRA RP. Coupler height must match Kadee gauge. Trip pin height must be between 0.020" and 0.040" above the rails. Trucks and wheels must be Kadee. Couplers must be Kadee; must be 20 series on brass freight cars, anything that works on plastic/resin cars. Ladders and grab irons must be free standing. Railroads/paint schemes must all be fictitious. . NMRA standards/RPs, except for weight, mean nothing to me. Kadee is the standard for trucks and couplers, my demands dictate everything else. . -Kevin .
You're confusing measurement standards with brand standards. NMRA Standards have nothing to do with whose wheels and couplers you use, just that the track gauge is within a set tolerance, wheel widths must be within a set tolerance, flangeways, etc. so that the wheels will run reliable on the track. Kadee wheels meet those measurement standards, as does the track you use, therefore it all works.
Hmmm... I gues I was not clear.
I was not saying either I, or the manufacturers listed, did not follow NMRA standards or RPs. I was stating that I have very specific standards that all my freight cars need to meet before they are "finished" or "layout ready".
My standards are very strict. Coupler/weight/wheel/truck/track is the most important list to take into account. If you are not serious about anything else, take these seriously.
I am sure you have personal standards for your fleets too.
SeeYou190Hmmm... I gues I was not clear.
You were very clear.
"NMRA standards/RPs, except for weight mean nothing to me"....Except.
Those trucks, wheels and track all follow NMRA standards. Those standards are what allow your track and wheels to be compatable. If not for the NMRA standards, you would have to handlay all of your track to work with your Kadee wheels (they dont make track). You are in fact using RP-25 profile wheels. You may exclusively use Kadee products, but those products fall within the NMRA standards. Note that the X2f coupler is not required to obtain a conformance warrant.
Yes you have standardized on a brand (which is more stringent than the NMRA standard), but the items in said brand meet NMRA standards.
I guess what myself and others are trying to point out is that you do care about NMRA standards and RPs, even if you dont realize it.
SeeYou190I am sure you have personal standards for your fleets too.
Everyone should. I use intermountain wheels, with some Kadees thrown in. Ive noticed that my Kadee wheels all have a bright wear mark where the wheels ride on the rail. I plan to put these under a microscope to see if the tread profile is changing (because Im curious like that). For the most part I dont replace the physical truck unless there is something wrong with it. I typically dont use sprung trucks because the springs look too flimsy to my eye. And I have had the springs pop out of the frame before due to shock (during transport, not operation). Sprung trucks are the only immediate replacement. And ususally the replacement is Kadee non-sprung truck, or Accurail, which ever is more convienient at the moment.
Oh, and whatever ring engineering uses for their powered FRED. I use those on a couple of cars.
As far as couplers, I use Sergent Engineering. They look better and hold up as well as Kadees (same number of coupler failures over time after being subjected to same test conditions). Also they don't uncouple as often on uneven track or when you have a short car near a long car with a slight rise or dip in the track.
I think the topic is sufficiently derailed at this point.