Car Weighting

[pjm20]

Over on the MRH forum there is a topic on car weighting: http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/22784#new and it was so interesting that it made the latest issue. Now most of the discussion pertains to O and HO with HO guys stating the best weight for the car is to add an ounce per inch. Now I interested to see this dicussion for N, so how do you guys weight your cars?

[Kisatchie]

...Now I interested to see this dicussion for N, so how do you guys weight your cars?

I leave my Micro-Trains cars alone, since they seem weighty enough. Same with Atlas cars.

For Intermountain box cars and reefers, I add 2 A-Line 1/4 oz weights per car, one over each truck.

For everything else, I don't add weight if it can be seen (as in open hoppers). I'll take my chances running unweighted in those cases. If/when I build my dream layout, I'll see how things go and adjust accordingly. I just may have to add visible weights to some cars.


Hmm... speaking of weight,
Kiz lost 70+ pounds since
October. He's almost blowing
away...

[jmarley76]

I don't make any changes to any of the stock cars I purchase. The only time I add weight is if I have modified the car that required removing, cutting, or changing the stock weight or the car body. I usually weigh the car beforehand and try to return it to that weight.

[bbussey]

My preference is heavier.  However, I'm more concerned with keeping the center-of-gravity as low as possible, since I body-mount everything and the push-pull load travels through the carbody.  If the center-of-gravity is below the coupler plane, I've found that weight is less relevant.  That's why the 0.4oz GSC Well Car can be put anywhere in a 50-car freight consist and operate flawlessly.

But I like weight.  I don't necessarily modify existing RTR rolling stock, but I usually add weight to anything kitbashed or scratchbuilt.  Anyone who has assembled one of the Keyser Valley cabooses has noticed that it's weighty, as it checks in at a hefty 0.9oz.  Not only does it help keep the MTL couplers from oscillating, but it feels so cool to pick up a caboose with that much weight as it has some mass to it.
 

[mmagliaro]

EDIT: typo and spelling
-----------------------------
I make every car weigh the same.  For the purposes of our small model trains, there is no functional
difference between a 33' hopper, a 40' boxcar, or a 50' boxcar, for example.
All the cars are just a beam with 8 wheels under it.  So for the purposes of good behavior in a long train,
I think it is much more important that they all weigh the same.

I can't speak to what happens with 89' cars or other such things.  I really only run 33', 40', and some 50' flats.
----------------------------------------
This is all part of the gradual "upgrade program" that I am putting my cars through: all body mounts, all the same weight,
and all MT trucks, MT couplers, and Fox Valley wheels.   Same, same, same.

-----------------------------------------
As for what weight...
A nominal MT 40' boxcar weighs 24 grams, so I settled on that as my standard weight.
I add weight to anything, whether it be tanker, hopper, boxcar, to make it weigh 24g.

And I always try to add the weight as low as possible because a low center of gravity helps
things stay on the track without swaying and rocking at the top.

The NMRA formula would be 0.5 oz + 3" x 0.15 = 0.95 oz for a standard 40' car = 26.9g, so their
standard is a little heavier than my 24g.   But they would also make shorter and longer cars lighter
or heavier, which I do not agree with.

[Santa Fe Guy]

Over the past many years I have weighed all of my cars. I flatten small O size Ball fishing sinkers (available from our K Mart) and stick one on each side of the bolster pin. I flatten them to keep them as low as possible.
Over more recent times I have started to use "Deluxe Liquid Gravity" It is free flowing, very heavy and works well in tight spaces like hopper bays.
I have found heavier than the NMRA spec works for me and many of my friends on their N Scale RR as well.
Rod.

[pjm20]

Interesting, we seem to have a mix of people who like to overweight their cars and those who don't. Is this because of train length? Do those of you who weight their cars run smaller consists?

[PAL_Houston]

Surprised no one has yet brought up NMRA RP-20, "Car weight"
http://www.nmra.org/rp-201-car-weight.

For N-scale it is 0.5 ounce + 0.15 ounce per inch of length.

Personally, I do pretty much what Kiz does.

And, by the way, 70 pounds would be enough to weight 70 * 16   / (2* 1/4) ~ 2240 of those cars!!
Congratulations, Kiz!!!

[mmagliaro]

Interesting, we seem to have a mix of people who like to overweight their cars and those who don't. Is this because of train length? Do those of you who weight their cars run smaller consists?

I certainly don't run long trains on my relatively small layout.  20 cars is about the limit before I think they start looking ridiculous.  But as folks here know from my videos, I always push my loco builds so that the engines can pull
enormous amounts of cars, even though I don't *need* that, just so that I never have any troubles with
pulling or grades.
I really only add weight to my cars because things run a LOT better when they are all close to the same weight, rather
than having some really light and some really heavy.  And since MT boxcars are about 24g, and I have a number of them,
it was easier to just gravitate all the other to that same weight.   Tankers and hoppers are especially notorious
for being too light, especially when pushing a train.  Body mount couplers and good wheels help a LOT, but a
standard weight helps too.
So it's not so much "heavy" vs "light" for me.  Rather it's that I want them the same.

[peteski]

Interesting, we seem to have a mix of people who like to overweight their cars and those who don't. Is this because of train length? Do those of you who weight their cars run smaller consists?

We also have members here who remove as much weight as possible (but they haven't chimed in yet).

[Bob Horn]

I'll chime in. I had 26 E&C hoppers that I could not control on a downgrade on an old layout. I took out 13 oz of weight from the end sheets and added 2 pieces of lead solder in the lower troughs. No more problems. The cars weigh in at about .55 oz. Bob.

[Bob Horn]

My current layout is flat, I have run 74 intermodal cars with 2 6 axel Kato ES44AC units. Much more fun without the grades. Bob.

[bbussey]

Interesting, we seem to have a mix of people who like to overweight their cars and those who don't. Is this because of train length? Do those of you who weight their cars run smaller consists?

Why run smaller consists?  Just add more units on the point, as the prototype does. I've never understood the aversion to adding motive power, whether on the point or in helper or pusher service. And it's easier in DCC with speed-matching and consisting.

[Cajonpassfan]

A VERY interesting topic!
I'm still experimenting, and I hope to learn something here. Forgive me if I ramble a bit...

I don't have much use for the NMRA recommended standard; it's simply a reduction of what may work in HO.
N is not just a reduced version of HO (my favorite peeve); the track and wheel sets are different, as are our tolerances, and so are the physics and dynamics.

Agree that consistent weights within a consist is key. Agree that low center of gravity may compensate for somewhat less weight. Not sure a 33' hopper should weigh the same as a 52' flat, but will ponder that... help me here Max...Agree that body mounts are superior (but it may take me years, is ever, to convert the entire fleet).

In my view, it's the operating environment that matters the most and the car weights that will work the best should be designed around their world. Short branch line with a lot of switching? 100 car trains on flatlands like N-trak? Substantial grades? Minimum radii? Modern era with 86' cars, or mostly forty footers?

I have continuous 2.2% uphill grades with 18" min. curves. I also have a long section of 3% downhill grade, with 18" radius. The layout is transition era, ie mostly 40' cars, some more, some less, and plenty of steam. I also use rearend helpers, which need to be just powerful enough to push say a third to half of the train, but not too powerful to derail the train should the head end stall. It's a fine dance, and I'm still learning. My freights run 24 to 30 40' cars. Heavier cars would help the overly powerful helper phenomenon.

Of course, heavy trains on grades are the bane and attraction of railroading to me, and modeling it is a challenge. More weight means more stress on couplers and locomotives, but maybe more stability and fewer derailments? But heavy runaways when a coupler fails? I now use springs in caboose axles to put an extra drag on the tail end of freights, with (hopefully) enough "braking power" to stop a runaway (without pushers) should a coupler fail.

The idea of a super heavy caboose to minimize the dreaded SLINKY is interesting; got to try that out. In theory, it should stretch the train on flats or uphill, and compress it on the downhill ( rather than stretching if both ways, as with spring "brakes")?

Fun stuff, to be continued, I'm sure...
Regards, Otto K.

[Cajonpassfan]

Over the past many years I have weighed all of my cars. I flatten small O size Ball fishing sinkers (available from our K Mart) and stick one on each side of the bolster pin. I flatten them to keep them as low as possible.
Over more recent times I have started to use "Deluxe Liquid Gravity" It is free flowing, very heavy and works well in tight spaces like hopper bays.
I have found heavier than the NMRA spec works for me and many of my friends on their N Scale RR as well.
Rod.

Rod my friend, what in the world is "Deluxe Liquid Gravity" and where does one get it?
Is that what keeps you guys "down under" down under?
Otto