The National Model Railroad Association recommendation for all HO cars is 1 ounce of weight, plus 1/2 ounce for each inch of the car's length. So an HO car that's 6" long should weigh 4 ounces - 1 oz base weight plus another 3 ounces (1/2 oz x 6").
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-20.1.pdf
Thanks for your speedy replies. This is exactly the information I was looking for.
The formula given is correct but I like my cars a little heavier than what the NMRA recommends. A number of years ago somebody suggested one ounce for every ten scale feet of car length. A 40 foot box car is 4 oz., a fifty footer is 5 oz., and so on. By comparison using NMRA standards, a 40 foot boxcar is 5 1/2 inches which would call for a weight of 3.75 oz. A 50 foot boxcar is 7 inches which would call for a weight of 4.5 oz. I've found the added weight is especially helpful on longer passenger cars. Besides the formula I use is easier to figure out for those of us who are arithmetically challenged.
The real problem is what to do with open top cars, especially empties. It's hard to give them the correct weight no matter which standard you use and there's not a good place to put added weights. I recently built a small fleet of hopper cars and I painted the weights black and put them down as low as I could so the weights wouldn't be so conspicuous. Many tank cars are difficult to add weight to because not all of them are built so you can add weight inside the tank.
The weights of my rolling stock are, in many cases, all over the map. The worst for hiding weight are open hoppers - I can get 50 ton (2-bay) hoppers up to 8 ounces apiece when loaded ("live" loads), but many are only 2 oz. when empty, and easily popped off the track by run-in slack action within the train.
I kitbashed some Rivarossi heavyweight passenger cars and used custom cast lead weights to make them track more prototypically, with less rocking and shaking than occurred without the added weight.
However, the experiment didn't take long before the cars' weight, about 15oz. apiece, started to wear-away the inside cavities in the soft plastic of the Rivarossi journal boxes and/or the ends of the Kadee wheels' axles, which caused to wheels to drop out if the car was lifted off the layout.I'll eventually replace those trucks with ones from Walthers, then re-install the weights, as they really do make the cars roll in a very prototypical manner.
Wayne
Lastspikemike If you don't weight your cars evenly make sure you run the lighter ones further back in the train. I would avoid weighting a caboose by much.
If you don't weight your cars evenly make sure you run the lighter ones further back in the train. I would avoid weighting a caboose by much.
If you use pushers, as I often do, some extra weight in the caboose is a good idea.
Lastspikemike doctorwayne Lastspikemike If you don't weight your cars evenly make sure you run the lighter ones further back in the train. I would avoid weighting a caboose by much. If you use pushers, as I often do, some extra weight in the caboose is a good idea. Wayne In the Rockies pushers were pullers, or less often, cut in behind the mainline locomotives. Possibly out of respect for the underframes of cabooses. More than one pusher was usually added for Rogers Pass and the Big Hill at Field.
doctorwayne Lastspikemike If you don't weight your cars evenly make sure you run the lighter ones further back in the train. I would avoid weighting a caboose by much. If you use pushers, as I often do, some extra weight in the caboose is a good idea. Wayne
In the Rockies pushers were pullers, or less often, cut in behind the mainline locomotives. Possibly out of respect for the underframes of cabooses.
More than one pusher was usually added for Rogers Pass and the Big Hill at Field.
Well, I can't speak for railroad crossing the Rockies in the US or Canada becuse I simply don't know. But steam railroads crossing the Appalachian Mountains used pushers a lot.
And they upgraded caboose frames, and soon caboose bodies, to steel early on for that reason.
Cranberry Grade on the B&O is nearly 3% and nothing but curves. 100 car hopper trains typically required two 2-8-8-0's on the point, and two more on the rear.
Diesels replaced the helpers long before the primary train power was diesel, so four unit F3's or F7's would push while two 2-8-8-0's or two 2-8-8-4's pulled.
The diesels were not only better pushers, but also did not have to be turned to work both directions.
Sheldon
Lastspikemike I'm familiar with the practice in the Canadian Rockies. The biggest steam power in the country was built for pusher service until the Selkirk (Texas) came along and proved to be a versatile and powerful mainline locomotive. Canadian practice still referred to the helper locomotives as pushers even though they weren't.
I'm familiar with the practice in the Canadian Rockies. The biggest steam power in the country was built for pusher service until the Selkirk (Texas) came along and proved to be a versatile and powerful mainline locomotive.
Canadian practice still referred to the helper locomotives as pushers even though they weren't.
The B&O used their 2-10-2 Santa Fe type, known as the "Big Sixes" since the whole class was numbered in the 6000's, on their other route west thru Pittsburgh.
The curves on the MD/WV old mainline were too sharp for them - they tried one once.......layed it over on its side!
That's why smaller drivered articulated locos were so popular in the eastern mountains. The mountains here might not be as tall, but they are still pretty rugged in terms of finding rail routes thru them - again, nothing but curves, often pretty sharp ones.
There are in fact a sizeable number of east coast articulated locos that seldom or never have appeared in model form.
Remember, the single most prolific articulated wheel arrangement was the 2-6-6-2, and not all of them were the C&O/USRA design. Not to mention 2-8-8-0's, and 4-6-6-4's of completely different designs from those on the UP.
Apparently articulated locos never found any favor in Canada?
When it comes to weight in model rolling stock, I try to get my cars close to the NMRA Recommended Practice, and I prefer to do that frist by installing metal sprung/equalized trucks with all metal wheelsets to keep the weight as low as possible.
Most of my freight rolling stock has Kadee metal trucks refitted with Intermountain wheelsets. This adds weight down low, and is a very free rolling setup.
Sounds like a good excuse to use the prototype practice of putting the pusher in front of the caboose. It would require extra switching at both ends of the run. A nuisance for the prototype railroads but a plus for the modeler who likes switching.
My rule of thumb for weight is to keep them on the light side. Some of my steam locos are not the greatest pullers... If derailing happens, I try to address the issue without changing weights. I will add some weight as a last resort.
Simon
There are plenty of ways to hide the weights you add on a car. Many older cars seem lighter than newer ones. They benefit from the weight also to avoid de-railments.
Good tips about weighting our cars.
One somewhat humorous story that I can add to this discussion:
A modeler, that I painted passenger cars for, invited me to his home to check out his layout and run my trains on it. Nice sized layout that was nearly flat with no grades. As I ran my SCL passenger train, he ran a 30 car coal train, hauled by a triple headed-6 axle lashup. Well, my jaw dropped open when I saw...AND HEARD a rapid...."Grum!-Grum!-Grum!-Grum!-Grum!. His locomotives' wheels were spinning severely and those rails were getting polished! He then confessed to me that each coal hopper weighed nearly 1 pound!
I gently cautioned him that he was putting a very hard strain on his Kato, Atlas, and Genesis units and reminded him that today's locomotives cannot take the type of punishment that the 1970's production Athearn BB units (that he had been accustomed to) could endure. He laughed about it and said he would "lighten their loads" which were cut pieces of flat steel underneath the plastic coal loads.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
These photos are an O-scale model I bought 10 years ago. It weights 32-oz, more than double the 13.4-oz of NMRA RP 20.1. Was there no gradient in Lorell Joiner's Great Southern R.R.?
What's under this coal? Because he seems to have been a millionaire, is it a gold nugget? :P
A question looking for a survey of answers. Do most people remove loads from open hoppers, gondolas, and flat cars when they are supposed to be empties? Or for weight and potential damage to load issues do people leave the loads alone and just move the cars back and forth? I know this is one of those it is your railroad do what you want,but I was curious what most people do.
DRGWGJCO question looking for a survey of answers. Do most people remove loads from open hoppers, gondolas, and flat cars when they are supposed to be empties? Or for weight and potential damage to load issues do people leave the loads alone and just move the cars back and forth? I know this is one of those it is your railroad do what you want,but I was curious what most people do.
I have eight empty and eight loaded iron ore cars. Between op sessions I restage them to where they should be.
At the club, the coal cars are unloaded at their destination, and the load place back at the mine. The same with pulp and paper log loads, scrap loads from the scrap yard, etc.
You can run most weight cars but if you got cars of differnt weights, then you have to place them as the real railroads do. I have some light as can be cars (no place to add weight) and some extreamly hevey cars that I bought as a lot one.
kasskabooseThere are plenty of ways to hide the weights you add on a car.
The weathering on this interior turned out so well that I could not put the intended load in the gondola. I managed to put a 1/16" thick sheet of roofer's lead underneath the floor, and the car comes in at 4 ounces! Success.
BN7150These photos are an O-scale model I bought 10 years ago. It weights 32-oz, more than double the 13.4-oz of NMRA RP 20.1. Was there no gradient in Lorell Joiner's Great Southern R.R.?
The GREAT SOUTHERN, at least as originally built, was completely flat. It was double track mainline that ran point-to-point in a purpose-built outbuilding.
Lorell Joiner was one of my early inspirations in model railroading. In my innocent youth, I had no idea he was wealthy, and everything he did was beyond normal means.
I need to add a GREAT SOUTHERN freight car to my fleet. I saved your picture to my "ideas" file.
DRGWGJCO Do most people remove loads from open hoppers, gondolas, and flat cars when they are supposed to be empties?
All of my hopper cars have permanent loads in them. I do not like the look of empty hoppers. I can suspend belief long enough to remove the still-filled hopper car from the coal dealer.
Gondolas and flat cars... it depends on the load.
I have some that have heavy loads, and the car and the load are permanently mated. This cast resin load by Chooch is permanent in this gondola. The load casting weighs almost 2 ounces, so it is part of the total running car weight.
For some others, the load is very light, and the car can be weighted to full weight, and the load can be removeable.
These two electric motors weigh less than 1/4 ounce, so they are removeable from the CASCADE NORTHERN gondola, and it can run with the load or empty.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Alyth Yard said: "Pushing cabooses up mountain grades just wasn't the practice. The underframes of cabooses couldn't take the loads." It depends on the era, location, and equipment. Steel-framed cabooses on some roads could be used ahead of helper engines.
Graham LineAlyth Yard said: "Pushing cabooses up mountain grades just wasn't the practice. The underframes of cabooses couldn't take the loads." It depends on the era, location, and equipment. Steel-framed cabooses on some roads could be used ahead of helper engines.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Yes, most steel cabooses, if not all, could be pushed against.
Some cabooses had "do not push" instructions stencilled stating the caboose would need to be cut in behind the pushers. I have seen one wooden caboose that was built on a steel boxcar frame that had "OK To Push" stencilled on the carside.
I do not think pushing against cabooses was an unusual practice.
PruittScared the crew half to death. And the noise!
I can only imagine... I would not want to be in that caboose.
Pruitt Graham Line Alyth Yard said: "Pushing cabooses up mountain grades just wasn't the practice. The underframes of cabooses couldn't take the loads." It depends on the era, location, and equipment. Steel-framed cabooses on some roads could be used ahead of helper engines. From the stories I've read, the crews in the cabooses really hated that. The caboose would slam left and right on the rails from the force of the pushing locomotive. Scared the crew half to death. And the noise!
Graham Line Alyth Yard said: "Pushing cabooses up mountain grades just wasn't the practice. The underframes of cabooses couldn't take the loads." It depends on the era, location, and equipment. Steel-framed cabooses on some roads could be used ahead of helper engines.
From the stories I've read, the crews in the cabooses really hated that. The caboose would slam left and right on the rails from the force of the pushing locomotive. Scared the crew half to death. And the noise!
The B&O adopted steel cabooses early on and always pushed them so that helpers could be cut off on the fly.
It typically took four big Mallets to get 100 cars over Cranberry Grade, stopping at the top was not something anybody really wanted to do.
I have lots of pictures, just not in digital form.........
A caboose with a steel underframe was at least as strong as any other car in the train, so if a railroad chose to put the pusher ahead of the caboose, that was up to them.
I prefer the pusher(s) behind the caboose, as it's easier for the conductor to simply pull the pin after the grade has been conquered, allowing the pushers to return to their regular spot, waiting for the next train that needs some help.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The B&O used their 2-10-2 Santa Fe type, known as the "Big Sixes" since the whole class was numbered in the 6000's, on their other route west thru Pittsburgh. The curves on the MD/WV old mainline were too sharp for them - they tried one once.......layed it over on its side! That's why smaller drivered articulated locos were so popular in the eastern mountains. The mountains here might not be as tall, but they are still pretty rugged in terms of finding rail routes thru them - again, nothing but curves, often pretty sharp ones. Sheldon
I learned an interesting fact watching the History Channel. While the Rockies are he tallest mountains in the US, the Appalachians are the steepest. They would have the most difficult grades.
Somebody explained this to me a long time ago but I've forgotten the answer. What was the advantage of using pushers and mid-train helpers as opposed to double or triple heading a long, heavy train?
John-NYBW ATLANTIC CENTRAL The B&O used their 2-10-2 Santa Fe type, known as the "Big Sixes" since the whole class was numbered in the 6000's, on their other route west thru Pittsburgh. The curves on the MD/WV old mainline were too sharp for them - they tried one once.......layed it over on its side! That's why smaller drivered articulated locos were so popular in the eastern mountains. The mountains here might not be as tall, but they are still pretty rugged in terms of finding rail routes thru them - again, nothing but curves, often pretty sharp ones. Sheldon I learned an interesting fact watching the History Channel. While the Rockies are he tallest mountains in the US, the Appalachians are the steepest. They would have the most difficult grades. Somebody explained this to me a long time ago but I've forgotten the answer. What was the advantage of using pushers and mid-train helpers as opposed to double or triple heading a long, heavy train?
Yes, the Appalachians are "steeper" in general than the Rockies, making it harder to survey reasonable grade rail routes thru them. The grades are steeper and the curves sharper.
Like Mike said, coupler drawbar forces. As curves get sharper and grades increase, coupler drawbar stress and force increase.
A rear train helper pushes the back "half" of the train while the front loco pulls the front half, reducing these increased drawbar forces. Clearly this is similar with mid train helpers.
People tend to ask why they did not just run more smaller trains - time, money and safety. It actually takes just as many or more people and locomotives, and much more time "per freight car" to run lots of short trains rather than "help" the one big train over the hill.
Understand that motive power was selected to handle most of the grades over the whole sub division, and helpers would only be needed for one or two grades in that 80 or 100 mile trip.
Classic example - B&O train of 70 cars leaves Baltimore for Cincinnati - two Q4 Mikados on the point from Balt to Brunswick MD, ruling grade .9%
At Brunswick Mikados replaced with two EM-1 2-8-8-4's for the trip over the Apalachians. These locos can handle the train to the Ohio River, except for Cranberry Grade at 2.5% on a curve, and maybe one or two others.
So at the bottom of the grade rear helpers, two EL class 2-8-8-0's, or in later years a set of ABBA F units, attaches to the rear and up the hill they go.
At the top, the caboose crew cuts off the helpers on the fly, they are only going 20 or 25 mph at best, but stoping in not really desired.
The helper engines return to the bottom of the hill for the next train.........
Or follow the train down the hill to be a helper in the other direction.
The B&O quickly figured out that diesels were better helpers and did not need to be turned to help in both directions. So for years steam powered trains thru the Apalachians had diesel helpers on the big grades. Until ALCO and GM could build enough diesels to replace all that steam power.
This difference in operating conditions is why east coast steam was so different from west coast steam.
West coast steam could be built for speed, large drivers, large rigid locos, to drag long trains quickly arross the deserts and plains. Climbing the Rockies was secondary to covering lots of distance.
In the east, even east of the Appalachians proper, most of the terrian in the Piedmont region is also a lot of rolling hills, "steep" in railroad terms.
So moderate constant speed thru moderate grades and curves was important in the east with steam power. Compare the C&O 2-6-6-6 and the N&W Class A 2-6-6-4 to the Big Boy - which ones do think can go faster thru a moderately sharp curve?
Northerns (4-8-4's) in the east almost all had 70"/72" drivers, out west much taller drivers - 78" - 80" range. There are exceptions, but the trend is clear.
Likely more than you wanted to know.....
ATLANTIC CENTRAL John-NYBW ATLANTIC CENTRAL The B&O used their 2-10-2 Santa Fe type, known as the "Big Sixes" since the whole class was numbered in the 6000's, on their other route west thru Pittsburgh. The curves on the MD/WV old mainline were too sharp for them - they tried one once.......layed it over on its side! That's why smaller drivered articulated locos were so popular in the eastern mountains. The mountains here might not be as tall, but they are still pretty rugged in terms of finding rail routes thru them - again, nothing but curves, often pretty sharp ones. Sheldon I learned an interesting fact watching the History Channel. While the Rockies are he tallest mountains in the US, the Appalachians are the steepest. They would have the most difficult grades. Somebody explained this to me a long time ago but I've forgotten the answer. What was the advantage of using pushers and mid-train helpers as opposed to double or triple heading a long, heavy train? Yes, the Appalachians are "steeper" in general than the Rockies, making it harder to survey reasonable grade rail routes thru them. The grades are steeper and the curves sharper. Like Mike said, coupler drawbar forces. As curves get sharper and grades increase, coupler drawbar stress and force increase. A rear train helper pushes the back "half" of the train while the front loco pulls the front half, reducing these increased drawbar forces. Clearly this is similar with mid train helpers. People tend to ask why they did not just run more smaller trains - time, money and safety. It actually takes just as many or more people and locomotives, and much more time "per freight car" to run lots of short trains rather than "help" the one big train over the hill. Understand that motive power was selected to handle most of the grades over the whole sub division, and helpers would only be needed for one or two grades in that 80 or 100 mile trip. Classic example - B&O train of 70 cars leaves Baltimore for Cincinnati - two Q4 Mikados on the point from Balt to Brunswick MD, ruling grade .9% At Brunswick Mikados replaced with two EM-1 2-8-8-4's for the trip over the Apalachians. These locos can handle the train to the Ohio River, except for Cranberry Grade at 2.5% on a curve, and maybe one or two others. So at the bottom of the grade rear helpers, two EL class 2-8-8-0's, or in later years a set of ABBA F units, attaches to the rear and up the hill they go. At the top, the caboose crew cuts off the helpers on the fly, they are only going 20 or 25 mph at best, but stoping in not really desired. The helper engines return to the bottom of the hill for the next train......... Or follow the train down the hill to be a helper in the other direction. The B&O quickly figured out that diesels were better helpers and did not need to be turned to help in both directions. So for years steam powered trains thru the Apalachians had diesel helpers on the big grades. Until ALCO and GM could build enough diesels to replace all that steam power. This difference in operating conditions is why east coast steam was so different from west coast steam. West coast steam could be built for speed, large drivers, large rigid locos, to drag long trains quickly arross the deserts and plains. Climbing the Rockies was secondary to covering lots of distance. In the east, even east of the Appalachians proper, most of the terrian in the Piedmont region is also a lot of rolling hills, "steep" in railroad terms. So moderate constant speed thru moderate grades and curves was important in the east with steam power. Compare the C&O 2-6-6-6 and the N&W Class A 2-6-6-4 to the Big Boy - which ones do think can go faster thru a moderately sharp curve? Northerns (4-8-4's) in the east almost all had 70"/72" drivers, out west much taller drivers - 78" - 80" range. There are exceptions, but the trend is clear. Likely more than you wanted to know..... Sheldon
More than I asked for but not more than I wanted to know. All of that was interesting. Thank you.
I use the NMRA standards as a starting point. When a car derails more than a couple times and I can find nothing wrong, wheels in gauge, etc, I start adding weight. This usually fixes the problem. And they do run better.
Several of the outdoors type stores have bins full of lead fishing sinkers of various sizes, sold by the pound. These can be hammered or squeezed in a vise into whatever size or shape you need. Many can be glued into the underframe of various cars.
The issue is perhaps less coupler loading than draft-gear loading -- not to disagree with the point. In the era we're talking about, cars were smaller and draft gear more primitive, and this was a notable problem with a number of attempts to build larger articulated power or electric locomotives -- the Triplexes and the PRR 2-8-8-0 and "Big Liz" FF1 being notable cases in point.
Therefore train lengths became significant as well as loads, and using midtrain helpers would keep 'sections' of cars from exceeding critical slack shock loads that might snatch a drawbar rather than just a knuckle... or from being pushed out of alignment severely, or even lifted, or in some cases popped right out of line or damaged, when in buff.
I'm sorely tempted to tease the previous poster by asking 'how do you have pushers at the head of a train?' but we understand what he meant. Note that there is different behavior between 'helping' (where the train won't make it without the additional engine power) and 'snapping' (where the train runs at higher speed or lower time thanks to the increased power, as on PRR passenger trains over Horse Shoe). The latter is always, in my experience, done from the head end even though it would be more difficult to drop the helper at the end of the ascending grade, for good reasons.
I did some experiments with a 71 car train (most cars somewhere near the NMRA weight recommendations), using four Athearn switchers, like these...
...and four Bachmann Consolidations...
...with all 8 locomotives having added weight.
I ran the train using the four diesels in various configurations: four on the head end, then two on the front and two on the rear, and all four distributed fairly equal throughout the train. I then repeated the process using the Consolidations, and again using a four-engine mix of steam and diesels.
The grade is 2.8%, laid out over two horseshoe curves, followed by a series of "S"-bends, and is about 45' in length.....some of it is shown in the photo below...
...when the track ended at the top of the grade (the partial upper level hadn't yet been built)
(the train shown is not the test train)
What I found was that the train was moved successfully, regardless of where the locos were placed within the train, or which combination of locos was used.
I also noticed, when running the same train on other parts of the layout, with two locos leading and two pushing on the rear, and also with all four on the front (most of the layout has a varying up-and-down profile) the run-in and run-out of the slack, when first noticed, verged on terrifying to see. Different parts of the train were moving almost like an accordian, although there were no derailments.All-in-all, I was both surprised and pleased with what I learned. I don't normally run trains of that length, although I have run ones much heavier (using much heavier locomotives). Unless a train is very short (or especially light) I usually use two locomotives on the front, and only add a rear-end helper if it's warranted.
Lastspikemike I'm sure that in prototype practice care was taken to try to ensure that the lead locomotives pulled the "entire train" to some degree, including the mid train or end train pushers. In other words, the pushers mid or end train would power up enough to reduce coupler loading but not actually push the couplers ..... If so, then that would explain why the CPR preferred to "push" from the front. A broken coupler mid train would not be good...on 4% grades especially.
I'm sure that in prototype practice care was taken to try to ensure that the lead locomotives pulled the "entire train" to some degree, including the mid train or end train pushers. In other words, the pushers mid or end train would power up enough to reduce coupler loading but not actually push the couplers .....
If so, then that would explain why the CPR preferred to "push" from the front. A broken coupler mid train would not be good...on 4% grades especially.
Well, in the known example I explained above, the rear helpers would indeed be putting as much of the train as possible in compression and pushing it, while the lead locos would be doing their best to run away from the pushers.
Remember, the examples I gave are from the 30's thru the late 50's with steam or steam and diesel combined. And as explained there would be two locos on the front. The first one trying to drag the second and that one trying to drag the train, or at least the first half.
Same on the rear, maybe a set of diesels with one engineer, or again two, or even three steam locos.
No radios, no GPS, no computers, just whistles and the seat of your pants feel. Crews at the rear could only go by feel, brake air pressure readings, and whistle signals.
Trust me the couplers moved in and out from tension to compression the whole time.
But the whole idea is that the weight of the whole train was never fully on one coupler while they were on the grade.
Those guys were engineers.