WOT SP 53'6" Welded Flats.

[sd45elect2000]

The answer is yes. Train marshalling is very important especially with dynamic brakes.

 Did you know that the buffer cars that accompany unit oil and ethanol trains are actually loaded with gravel or pebbles so they are not so light?

I think in the days of steam it was less of a concern because heavy in train forces due to buff force was minimum, the trains were mostly run stretched. Still the possibility of string lining the empty cars was a risk.

Randy

[Iain]

Just out of curiosity, what were the dates on these cars?

[Cajonpassfan]

Exactly right.  Even the NMRA admits that their weight RP is "controversial."

The most recent TRW thread I recall about this featured a full spectrum of opinions, so I think this will always be a case of do what works best for your railroad.  Flat cars pose a special challenge because we'd like to be able to run them empty or loaded -- in some cases with heavy loads, so there is no perfect solution. Maybe removable weights?

Oh yea, duh, I forgot about that, I even contributed to it...
Well, I still have the same questions, but ultimately it's got to be what works on my railroad, and with pushers, light cars and fine flanges are not it....
Otto K.

[sd45elect2000]

Just out of curiosity, what were the dates on these cars?

The Milwaukee cars I got were shops built in 1943. They models have a re-weigh date of 1956. I removed the re-weigh date on my cars making them usable for 1949. (it's not like you could really see the date anyhow) The other road names are all newer cars.

Here's the listing of the cars.

http://www.wheelsotime.com/53-6-general-service-flats

In my RR career I have seen many of these cars in service.





Randy

[peteski]

The answer is yes. Train marshalling is very important especially with dynamic brakes.

 Did you know that the buffer cars that accompany unit oil and ethanol trains are actually loaded with gravel or pebbles so they are not so light?

I think in the days of steam it was less of a concern because heavy in train forces due to buff force was minimum, the trains were mostly run stretched. Still the possibility of string lining the empty cars was a risk.

Randy

So, we should also apply train marshaling in N scale. I know that we have steeper grades and sharper curves than 1:1 trains, but using some common sense rules should eliminate or minimize derailment of flat cars traveling light.

[James Costello]

So where do we sign the petition for a replacement laser cut deck?

@bbussey would ESM consider doing something again?

[jagged ben]

So, we should also apply train marshaling in N scale. I know that we have steeper grades and sharper curves than 1:1 trains, but using some common sense rules should eliminate or minimize derailment of flat cars traveling light.

Okay, so you do you marshal the train according to the models' actual weights, ending up with a train that doesn't look prototypical because these empty flats which WoT made really heavy end up at the front of the train?    Or do you take the cars that are loaded according to your operating session scheme, and marshal those to the front of the train?     

You talk like it's simple but it's not.   

[nkalanaga]

Gary:  That Kato unit is what I think of as Big Sky Blue, and very close to the color chart from the GNRHS.  So we know it CAN Be done right!  Big Sky Blue seemed to fade fairly quickly on freight cars, not so much on passenger cars and locomotives.  I've seen some truly strange variations on the prototype, but none that were bluer than when new.

And, I agree that weight is a very subjective issue, and has been since before N scale came along.  I can run very light Nn3 cars with no problems, as long as none of the cars are well weighted.  Most of my wooden prototypes are styrene, with little or no added weight, and they work fine.  If I try to run them with my more modern cars, most of which ARE weighted, car placement is critical.

Jagged_Ben:  Like you, I like the weight of these.  I don't run long trains, and my railroad is almost entirely curves, so heavy cars work better for me.  For an Ntrak modeler, I can see where lighter might be better, as they like to run long trains.  Also, I have some heavy loads, and a heavy load on a light car often doesn't work well on curves.  Most of my scratchbuilt flatcars have brass frames, and are as heavy as the WOT cars.

Peteski:  You're right on car placement.  Empty cars, especially longer empty cars, are usually at the rear, especially when curves and/or grades are involved.  At least on the BN, that was written into the Special Instructions on mountain divisions.  Another problem with models, besides top-heavy loads, is that, in some cases, the loads don't add much weight, so even a loaded car is too light for the front.

[bbussey]

So where do we sign the petition for a replacement laser cut deck?

@bbussey would ESM consider doing something again?

Sure.  But there are two types of decks to worry about this time.  So it would cost twice the usual amount, since it makes sense to combine the two deck types on one sheet rather than have two separate limited runs of similar items.

[James Costello]

Sure.  But there are two types of decks to worry about this time.  So it would cost twice the usual amount, since it makes sense to combine the two deck types on one sheet rather than have two separate limited runs of similar items.

Cool - works for me, I have a fleet of each so I'm in for a fistful either way.

[bbussey]

Cool - works for me, I have a fleet of each so I'm in for a fistful either way.

I don't though, just one SP general service car arriving some time this week.  I will speak with Matt at WOT to see if he has any samples of the three deck components he's willing to send to me and then we'll see.

[James Costello]

I don't though, just one SP general service car arriving some time this week.  I will speak with Matt at WOT to see if he has any samples of the three deck components he's willing to send to me and then we'll see.

OK. I'm happy to help out if not.

[sp org div]

Sure.  But there are two types of decks to worry about this time.  So it would cost twice the usual amount, since it makes sense to combine the two deck types on one sheet rather than have two separate limited runs of similar items.

Im all over that, as I bought a dozen of each style flat.

Jeff

[sp org div]

 but ultimately it's got to be what works on my railroad, and with pushers, light cars and fine flanges are not it....
Otto K.

Somebody has a body-mount coupler project to put on their to-do list... 

Jeff

[sp org div]

I'm certainly not going to begrudge a preference towards heavier cars.  I do wish it could be up to the modeler to add whatever extra weight they want.  My preference is toward pulling prototypical length train with a single locomotive.  My NW-2 and SW9 aren't going to be able to pull 15-20 cars of this weight especially when you add about 80 JD tractors as loads.


Jason

Granted you lose 6 car lengths pulling a solid set of empty WOT flats as compared to 20 Athearn cars, but maybe you can find a way to squeeze in some xtra weight into those switchers to get a few more car lengths...  One ounce can almost double the pulling power in those little switchers, or at least it did for an SW1200 that my friend modified for my layout.  That yard goat pulls over 50 cars on the flats!

Jeff