Date   

Re: model car weight

Mark
 

Good one!!! Actually the idea from another manufacturer(branchline)!
Hardware store in Bellville,Ohio is where the 3/4 inch ones, coarse thread steel.
Well at work so better get going.

Mark Morgan
Sent on the Sprint Now Network from my BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "grsjr@att.net" <GRSJr@att.net>
Sender: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:56:57
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: model car weight



--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, bnonut@... wrote:

One party, NMRA member, told us the original weight requirements were put in place for the early trucks. Guy models the B&O in the fifties. He had quite a few articles in Railroad Model Journal.
I usually use two large nuts per boxcar. Leave one truck loose and keep the other tighter.
Prefer the semiscale wheels and sergent couplers.

Mark Morgan
Mark,

Do you use walnuts or pecans?

Ray


Re: SAL XM-1 Boxcar (B4)

golden1014
 

Right, Tim--good catch and thanks for the correction. John

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


John, I know for sure in some cases the 40-ton or 50-ton capacity of
a box car was strictly a matter of the trucks, and not the car itself.
Wabash had old trucks put under some new box cars and these cars were
rated at 40 tons. So the differences in crossbearers of the B-4 and
B-5 may, or may not, have anything to do with their capacities.

Tim O'Connor


If it means anything, the B-4 was a 40-ton car, and the B-5--which used only the single heavy crossbearer--was a 50-ton car. You would think the application of the bearers would be reversed.
John Golden
Bloomington, IN


Re: model car weight

grsjr@att.net <GRSJr@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, bnonut@... wrote:

One party, NMRA member, told us the original weight requirements were put in place for the early trucks. Guy models the B&O in the fifties. He had quite a few articles in Railroad Model Journal.
I usually use two large nuts per boxcar. Leave one truck loose and keep the other tighter.
Prefer the semiscale wheels and sergent couplers.

Mark Morgan
Mark,

Do you use walnuts or pecans?

Ray


Re: April 18, 1955 Railway Age-A big Thank you!

Bill Welch
 

I wanted to thank the several people who responded to my message requesting help with Railway Age and Gary Roe who was able to send me a PDF of the 12 pages involved. I did not realize that there was actually a series of articles, all of which will be especially helpful in writing about the FGE-WFE-BRE mechanicals.

Here is something to think about: In the early 1950's it would have been possible to see FGE-WFE truss rod reefers coupled to FGE-WFE-BRE mechanical reefers.

This list that Mike Brock created has helped many of us through the years. Thank you Mike for your selfless efforts to create this network.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "lnbill" <fgexbill@...> wrote:

I am wondering if anyone on this list has a copy of the Railway Age from April 18, 1955. I believe the date is correct but the copy I have of the article I have is not sharp so I could be off in terms of the day of the month. The article in question is "Mechanical Cooling Pays Its Way" by C. B. Peck.

If you have a copy, or access to one, could you please contact me offline at fgexbill@... I would like to try to get a better copy of this article for my reseach.

Thanks!

Bill Welch


Re: model car weight

estcbq@...
 

i have for a number of years used Proto wheel sets in Accurail Bettendorf sideframes and found that combination to be more than acceptable on 3-3/4 oz cars---jim young

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jul 21, 2010 6:58 pm
Subject: [STMFC] Re: model car weight





Gary

What I meant was is that you can't draw many useful conclusions
from a test of two wheelsets in one truck -- to find the best
performance you have try many different combinations of trucks,
car weights, wheelsets, etc. If I got the results that your
friend did, my probable conclusion would be that the combination
of that particular metal wheelset in that particular truck on
that particular car wasn't any good! :-)

For the last couple of years I've been roll testing each car
as the "last step" after construction. I get all kinds of results
but I almost always find a combination that works well. I've been
surprised by how well Proto 2000 trucks and wheels roll -- and how
badly some others do. Tahoe trucks are consistently the best of
the best.

Tim O'Connor

In his rollability testing, Brian used the same box car with the same
trucks, swapping out the wheelsets for the tests. So the only variable was
the wheelsets themselves.

gary roe
quincy, illinois

_____

Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:48 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: model car weight

Gary

A lot of factors influence performance - metal or plastic, sintered or
machined metal, machined brass or machined nickel silver, dirt or oil on
the track, pointed or shoulder journals, fat taper or narrow taper, metal
or abs or delrin sideframes, equalized vs nonequalized, sprung or
unsprung...
But all else being equal, my experience is that metal wheels outlast and
outperform plastic wheels by a huge margin in HO scale. If you think about
the physics of wheels on rails, the weight of an N scale car per square
centimeter of rail contact is far less than it is for HO scale cars, so
direct performance comparisons are not meaningful between N and HO scales
(or between HO and O, or O scale and 1:1)








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Rails by the River ~ PAC NOR WEST ~ Prototype Modelers Meet

Greg Martin
 

Rails by the River ~ PAC NOR WEST ~ Prototype Modelers Meet

Date: August 20th and 21st, 2010 Mark you Calendar!

Location: Center 50+ Salem Senior Center
3615 Portland Road NE
Salem, OR 97301

Friday from 3 PM until 9 PM
Saturday from 8 AM until 5 PM

We Welcome All Scales All Eras All Model Railroad Interest

* Clinics and Prototype Presentations scheduled for Friday evening
and all Day Saturday
* There will be vendors /manufacturers representing their products
* Operating FREE-MO Layout ~ Freight cars ~ Locomotives ~ Passenger
Cars
* Dioramas ~Historical Societies Structures ~Standard and Narrow
Gauge
* All Railroads from all Eras are Welcome and all Skill levels are
encouraged
Pre registration for both days is $25.00 or $30.00 at the door

Saturday only registration $20.00 Registration at the door begins Friday
at 3 PM

Contact : __http://railsbytheriver.com/__ (http://railsbytheriver.com/_)
(_http://railsbytheriver.com/_ (http://railsbytheriver.com/) )
(_http://railsbyttheriver.com_ (http://railsbyttheriver.com/) )

Phone: (503) 581-4758 (503) 930-4916 cell

email: _tgregmrtn@aol.com_ (_mailto:tgregmrtn@aol.com_
(mailto:tgregmrtn@aol.com) )


Re: model car weight

Tim O'Connor
 

Gary

What I meant was is that you can't draw many useful conclusions
from a test of two wheelsets in one truck -- to find the best
performance you have try many different combinations of trucks,
car weights, wheelsets, etc. If I got the results that your
friend did, my probable conclusion would be that the combination
of that particular metal wheelset in that particular truck on
that particular car wasn't any good! :-)

For the last couple of years I've been roll testing each car
as the "last step" after construction. I get all kinds of results
but I almost always find a combination that works well. I've been
surprised by how well Proto 2000 trucks and wheels roll -- and how
badly some others do. Tahoe trucks are consistently the best of
the best.

Tim O'Connor

In his rollability testing, Brian used the same box car with the same
trucks, swapping out the wheelsets for the tests. So the only variable was
the wheelsets themselves.

gary roe
quincy, illinois

_____

Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:48 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: model car weight

Gary

A lot of factors influence performance - metal or plastic, sintered or
machined metal, machined brass or machined nickel silver, dirt or oil on
the track, pointed or shoulder journals, fat taper or narrow taper, metal
or abs or delrin sideframes, equalized vs nonequalized, sprung or
unsprung...
But all else being equal, my experience is that metal wheels outlast and
outperform plastic wheels by a huge margin in HO scale. If you think about
the physics of wheels on rails, the weight of an N scale car per square
centimeter of rail contact is far less than it is for HO scale cars, so
direct performance comparisons are not meaningful between N and HO scales
(or between HO and O, or O scale and 1:1)


Re: model car weight

Mark
 

Work great. I have a layout at home. Put a sergent on the rear FTb and another on a RibSide Milwaukee boxcar. The Boxcar had a #58 on the other end. Ran this set for around a month. Went to change engines and forgot about the Sergent. No problems and hope to replace all with these. They look and act like the real thing.

Mark Morgan

--- On Wed, 7/21/10, Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] model car weight
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 7:30 PM







 









Mark,

 

          May I ask how the use of Sargent couplers is working out for your operating sessions?

 

Fred Freitas



--- On Wed, 7/21/10, bnonut@yahoo.com <bnonut@yahoo.com> wrote:



From: bnonut@yahoo.com <bnonut@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: [STMFC] model car weight

To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com

Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 5:48 PM



One party, NMRA member, told us the original weight requirements were put in place for the early trucks. Guy models the B&O in the fifties. He had quite a few articles in Railroad Model Journal.

I usually use two large nuts per boxcar. Leave one truck loose and keep the other tighter.

Prefer the semiscale wheels and sergent couplers.



Mark Morgan

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®



-----Original Message-----

From: "Pierre" <pierre.oliver@start.ca>

Sender: STMFC@yahoogroups.com

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:38:06

To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>

Reply-To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [STMFC] model car weight



With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the suggested weight of model freight cars?

I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.

Thanks,

Pierre Oliver



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------



Yahoo! Groups Links





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: model car weight

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Gary Roe wrote:
In his rollability testing, Brian used the same box car with the same trucks, swapping out the wheelsets for the tests. So the only variable was the wheelsets themselves.
And the degree of wear . . .

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: model car weight

Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...>
 

Mark,
 
          May I ask how the use of Sargent couplers is working out for your operating sessions?
 
Fred Freitas

--- On Wed, 7/21/10, bnonut@yahoo.com <bnonut@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: bnonut@yahoo.com <bnonut@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] model car weight
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 5:48 PM


One party, NMRA member, told us the original weight requirements were put in place for the early trucks. Guy models the B&O in the fifties. He had quite a few articles in Railroad Model Journal.
I usually use two large nuts per boxcar. Leave one truck loose and keep the other tighter.
Prefer the semiscale wheels and sergent couplers.

Mark Morgan
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Pierre" <pierre.oliver@start.ca>
Sender: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:38:06
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] model car weight

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: model car weight

Gary Roe
 

Tim,

I agree. I prefer metal wheels for various reasons; but was really
surprised at the findings.

In his rollability testing, Brian used the same box car with the same
trucks, swapping out the wheelsets for the tests. So the only variable was
the wheelsets themselves.

gary roe
quincy, illinois

_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:48 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: model car weight




Gary

A lot of factors influence performance - metal or plastic, sintered or
machined metal, machined brass or machined nickel silver, dirt or oil on
the track, pointed or shoulder journals, fat taper or narrow taper, metal
or abs or delrin sideframes, equalized vs nonequalized, sprung or
unsprung...
But all else being equal, my experience is that metal wheels outlast and
outperform plastic wheels by a huge margin in HO scale. If you think about
the physics of wheels on rails, the weight of an N scale car per square
centimeter of rail contact is far less than it is for HO scale cars, so
direct performance comparisons are not meaningful between N and HO scales
(or between HO and O, or O scale and 1:1)

Then add car weight variability to all that to really confuddle things!

Tim O'Connor

On a related note, the Jul/Aug issue of N Scale Railroading magazine had an
article about a test performed by Brian Morgan on all the different wheel
sets for N Scale equipment. I expected to see that metal wheelsets rolled
better than plastic ones, and his test bore this out......on new wheels.
Once he had run them for 1000 scale miles (he said he had a lot of time),
the metal wheelsets rollability dropped off quite a bit, while the
Micro-Trains plastic low profile wheelsets hardly dropped off at all.

gary roe
quincy, illinois


Re: model car weight

Tim O'Connor
 

Gary

A lot of factors influence performance - metal or plastic, sintered or
machined metal, machined brass or machined nickel silver, dirt or oil on
the track, pointed or shoulder journals, fat taper or narrow taper, metal
or abs or delrin sideframes, equalized vs nonequalized, sprung or unsprung...
But all else being equal, my experience is that metal wheels outlast and
outperform plastic wheels by a huge margin in HO scale. If you think about
the physics of wheels on rails, the weight of an N scale car per square
centimeter of rail contact is far less than it is for HO scale cars, so
direct performance comparisons are not meaningful between N and HO scales
(or between HO and O, or O scale and 1:1)

Then add car weight variability to all that to really confuddle things!

Tim O'Connor

On a related note, the Jul/Aug issue of N Scale Railroading magazine had an
article about a test performed by Brian Morgan on all the different wheel
sets for N Scale equipment. I expected to see that metal wheelsets rolled
better than plastic ones, and his test bore this out......on new wheels.
Once he had run them for 1000 scale miles (he said he had a lot of time),
the metal wheelsets rollability dropped off quite a bit, while the
Micro-Trains plastic low profile wheelsets hardly dropped off at all.

gary roe
quincy, illinois


Re: model car weight

Gary Roe
 

Pierre,

I agree with Steve on the uniformity being the key. The HO Scale club I
belong to does not weigh to NMRA Specs, rather something a bit lighter, due
to our grades. We very seldom have any trouble due to weight issues.

On a related note, the Jul/Aug issue of N Scale Railroading magazine had an
article about a test performed by Brian Morgan on all the different wheel
sets for N Scale equipment. I expected to see that metal wheelsets rolled
better than plastic ones, and his test bore this out......on new wheels.
Once he had run them for 1000 scale miles (he said he had a lot of time),
the metal wheelsets rollability dropped off quite a bit, while the
Micro-Trains plastic low profile wheelsets hardly dropped off at all.

gary roe
quincy, illinois

_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Steve Lucas
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:59 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: model car weight




Pierre--

The semi-scale wheels are still to NMRA RP-25 specs, so their treads still
occupy the same surface area on the rails as Code 110 wheelsets. I think
that what we're seeing is better rolling wheelsets because of the
near-universal use of metal wheelsets by STMFC modellers, and the improved
quality of the needlepoint axle ends on them.

As for car weight, I've read from several sources that opine that
consistency in weight is important, not slavish adherance to NMRA specs.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "Pierre"
<pierre.oliver@...> wrote:

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling
characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the
suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are
somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver


Re: Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Ed--

Thank you. I guess that I can justify exactly ONE ULTX tank car from the HO Atlas ICC-105. One of lot 3748 is most likely, with fifty numbers to choose from. :(

Now to see what other uses there can be for this otherwise nicely-done car!

Thanks again,

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:


On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:19 PM, Steve Lucas wrote:

In Hamilton, Ontario, in January, 1991, I took a photo of UTLX 91624,
shown as "BLT 5 71". But a stencil under the car number says "UTC 7
51". Capacity stencilled on the end of the tank is given as "10 987
GAL US". This car seems very similar to the Atlas HO ICC-105 tank car.

This car number shows as part of series 91000 to 93999 in the
January, 1953 ORER.
Steve,
The 91000-series UTLX tank cars were nearly 4' longer than the
equivalent 11,000-gallon ICC 105A cars built by AC&F beginning in 1947.
The tank diameter was correspondingly smaller than on the cars built by
AC&F.

There was a relatively low number of 11,000-gallon 105A tank cars built
by AC&F and sold to the Union Tank Line that could possibly "match" the
Atlas model. Four orders were very small quantities. Given the large
quantities of UTLX cars that were often built in a given order, these
small quantities make no sense to me unless UTLX bought cars that were
originally ordered by someone else and then the orders were cancelled
after the cars were already in production. Perhaps UTLX got a "good
deal" price from AC&F that was too good to pass up. Each of the
following 5 orders were ACF-design cars having 38'-5" long underframes
(measured to end sills).

96263-96272, 10 cars, lot 3169, 2-48
96291-96297, 7 cars, lot 3225, 7-48
99273-99274, 2 cars, lot 3384, 11-48
96275-96276, 2 cars, lot 3356, 11-48
96412-96461, 50 cars, lot 3748, 6-52

Incidentally, the lot 3748 order was the final UTLX order from AC&F
during the 1950s. Subsequent UTLX tank cars built during the 1950s were
by by the company at their own shops.

In 1947-1949 UTLX received 2,400 cars built by AC&F to UTLX design with
underframe length of 42'-3" between end sills.

92000-93199, 1,200 cars, lot 3263, 5-48
93800-93999, 200 cars, lot 3263B, ca. 1949
98195-98899, 705 cars, lot 3085, 5-47
99223-99322, 100 cars, lot 3263A, ca. 1948 or 1949
99400-99499, 100 cars, lot 3103, 7-47
99905-99999, 95 cars, lot 3085, 5-47

A photo from the Charles Winters collection of UTLX 94751 shows an
11,000-gallon, ICC 105A300W, 42'-3"-long, propane car built 9-54 and
lettered for Anchorgas. The car displays similar graphics to the Atlas
model of URTX 94614 shown on their web site. However, the Atlas model
is a bogus representation of the prototype UTLX-design cars of this
type. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: model car weight

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Pierre--

The semi-scale wheels are still to NMRA RP-25 specs, so their treads still occupy the same surface area on the rails as Code 110 wheelsets. I think that what we're seeing is better rolling wheelsets because of the near-universal use of metal wheelsets by STMFC modellers, and the improved quality of the needlepoint axle ends on them.

As for car weight, I've read from several sources that opine that consistency in weight is important, not slavish adherance to NMRA specs.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre" <pierre.oliver@...> wrote:

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver


Re: model car weight

William Keene <wakeene@...>
 

Hello Group,

I continue to weight my cars per the NMRA recommendations. And like Mark, my freight cars are equipped with semi-scale wheel sets and Sergent couplers. I do not really worry about rolling qualities very much as my trains "never" exceed twelve cars. And for most operations maybe no more than eight cars.

My recommendation is to stick with what we know works. This should, or could, result in less hassles later.

Happy Modeling
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA

On Jul 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, bnonut@yahoo.com wrote:

One party, NMRA member, told us the original weight requirements were put in place for the early trucks. Guy models the B&O in the fifties. He had quite a few articles in Railroad Model Journal.
I usually use two large nuts per boxcar. Leave one truck loose and keep the other tighter.
Prefer the semiscale wheels and sergent couplers.

Mark Morgan
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Pierre" <pierre.oliver@start.ca>
Sender: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:38:06
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] model car weight

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: model car weight

Mark
 

One party, NMRA member, told us the original weight requirements were put in place for the early trucks. Guy models the B&O in the fifties. He had quite a few articles in Railroad Model Journal.
I usually use two large nuts per boxcar. Leave one truck loose and keep the other tighter.
Prefer the semiscale wheels and sergent couplers.

Mark Morgan
Sent on the Sprint Now Network from my BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Pierre" <pierre.oliver@start.ca>
Sender: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:38:06
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] model car weight

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver


model car weight

Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
 

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver


acf type21 trucks

Mark
 

I mentioned a harbor tank line car and forgot to ask what would be the best trucks for these. Modeling around 1957.
Once again thanks in advance. Mark Morgan


Re: SAL XM-1 Boxcar (B4)

Tim O'Connor
 

John, I know for sure in some cases the 40-ton or 50-ton capacity of
a box car was strictly a matter of the trucks, and not the car itself.
Wabash had old trucks put under some new box cars and these cars were
rated at 40 tons. So the differences in crossbearers of the B-4 and
B-5 may, or may not, have anything to do with their capacities.

Tim O'Connor

If it means anything, the B-4 was a 40-ton car, and the B-5--which used only the single heavy crossbearer--was a 50-ton car. You would think the application of the bearers would be reversed.
John Golden
Bloomington, IN

93361 - 93380 of 185191