Re: Scale Weight
Jim,toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Well,...some of the formula manipulation results and posted information in this thread, apparently turn out to yield that the scale-weight calculations ARE very close to the NMRA figures for weighing cars? Therefore, it appears that, by accident or deliberation, the NMRA method is close to scale-reduction anyway. (with, for model operation considerations, additional weight for typically lighter cars like flat cars, etc.)
Since the STMFC topics pretty well break down EVERY scale & prototypical facet, the wild idea came to my mind about how actual scale-weight factors in. Guess it's kinda been done already. I have long been curious about the subject, just never got around to trying to "compute" it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Betz<mailto:email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:07 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Scale Weight
I'm going to 'weigh in' on an -entirely- different scale ...
Modeling "scale weight" serves no purpose. It sounds good on
the surface but you have to ask your self the question "why"?
I suggest you weight your freight cars for excellent operation
and forget -entirely- about whther or not the weight is 'scale'.
That said the NMRA is a good starting point - because it
addresses the 'weight per unit of length' of the train and
improves the operations. For my own trains (HO) I usually run
them at something around "NMRA plus one ounce per car" because
I have found that the extra weight translates into improved
operation without greatly affecting the number of cars you
can pull up a typical model RR grade.
And let's not forget that the relative locomotive weight on
drivers, materials used in constructing the cars, whether or
not the cars have truly functional springs in them, whether or
not you have draft gear that cushions the slack action, etc.,
etc., etc. ... all directly affect what you should/shouldn't
use as a standard for your cars in order to achieve better
- YMMV ... Jim in San Jose
Yahoo! Groups Links