50 foot boxcar

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby CSD » Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:16 am

In terms of following a standard for the construction of model equipment, there is no obligation on the part of the manufacturer to conform. Labeling your product as NMRA compliant, however; will answer a lot of questions about the functionality and quality of your product that, otherwise, you would have to answer on your own. So, believe me when I tell you, from a practical sales perspective it becomes exponentially more difficult to make a sale if you are doing something "weird". In a group where a single rivet counting armchair modeler can torpedo an entire project, I would recommend using the established NMRA standards and recommended practices. For the wider model railroading community, already accustomed to these standards and sophisticated in their expectations, to which you need to appeal, I, again, recommend following these conventions. Besides, people with more experience and knowledge than any of us have spent decades developing them. The work is done for you.
User avatar
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: St. Albert, Alberta, Canada

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby areibel » Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:38 am

Well said CSD!
Posts: 1665
Images: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:12 am
Location: Cambridge Springs PA

Re: Truck mounting interface

Postby gerhard_k » Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:42 pm

CSD wrote:I would recommend using the established NMRA standards and recommended practices.

I have already expressed my agreement with this principle, and am glad to see some consensus developing.
In the particular case of the truck mounting interface that we have been talking about, we do have a l-i-t-t-l-e problem: While the NMRA has a clear RP (Recommended Practice) -23, looking across the pond at NEM/MOROP, I don't find any corresponding standard. This may be a reflection of the fact that every manufacturer was doing their own thing long before NEM got organized, and NEM chose not to try for a standard that would likely be ignored; also, I think the hobby in Europe has always been more run-out-of-the-box than kit-building and customization as here in the US, so truck interchangeability was not as important.

So I think we need to answer a question, and I don't have the background and models-in-hand to do it: How do the existing manufacturers (GoldCoast/Lok-n-Roll, MTB, Art&Detail, Peresvet, Tillig ...) compare to the NMRA RP? How about all the existing HP trucks? The single most important parameter is the height-above-rail-head, and as j_p has pointed out, it is easier to add a washer between the truck and the underframe than to have to machine-off material to adjust for excessive truck height. Perhaps the best course would be to adopt the most accommodating dimension, given what's out there already, even if it does not follow the NMRA numbers; that way, we could optimize the options for interchanging. "Living in the Real World", as Alex and Bernd might say.
Sometimes you win... sometimes you learn.
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Location: Annapolis MD USA

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby j p » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:54 pm

I can measure many trucks, incl. some of unknown origin. The relevant measures for the standard would be "Bc", center bolster bearing above top of the rail and "E" truck bolster hole. Anything else?

I can measure:
MTB Barber S2
GoldCoast ASF Ride Control
(I know that the E value is not according to the standard because I have to increase the diameter of the hole for each of the Joma cars)
Art&Detail ASF roller bearing 70 tons
Peresvet Archbar
PVM Roller Bearing (I am not sure if those were made by PVM, but they came with the kits)
PVM Bettendorf (I am not sure if those were made by PVM, but they came with the kits)
Kemtron Bettendorf (brass)
Joma (brass), probably Bettendorf too
2-3 other types of cast trucks of unknown origin
brass tender/caboose archbar trucks with leaf springs (possibly regauged from H0n3)
brass trucks with functional springs - Bc would be tricky with those because it depends on the load...

H.P. Products stamped trucks can be measured too, but those are obviously not according to the standard, they were manufactured before the standard was introduced.
Tillig does not make any trucks relevant for NA-TT.
j p
Posts: 1167
Images: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby Tom Dempsey » Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:39 pm

Well RP stands for "Recommended Practice" not Standard. The purpose of both the Standards and the Recommended Practices is to encourage interoperability for the modeler. From a Manufacturer's standpoint, interoperability would be a bad thing, if you purchase one manufacturer's "starter set" without interoperability standards and recommended practices being observed, you can't easily use anyone else's equipment because they won't necessarily play well together so you tend to get locked into only purchasing one manufacturers products. That is why the NMRA was originally established. They've done such a good job with manufacturers that not many folks even realize it anymore, you just go to the hobby shop and "know" that every different brand on the shelf will work well on your layout regardless of who manufactured it because all the manufacturers are sort of adhering to the standards and RP's (let's not discussed RTR turnouts, none of which actually comply across the board but all of which seem to work to an acceptable minimum standard). Also, this is TT, it's a builders scale. A reasonably proficient craftsman should be able to make the stuff work. If one doesn't want to fix/adjust/modify one's equipment, one might want to be highly in favor of supporting standards and recommended practices.
Tom Dempsey
Posts: 230
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby ConducTTor » Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:53 pm

Are standards good? Absolutely.

If any of you can convince MTB, Lok-n-Roll, Art & Detail, Norkin, Peresvet, Rail TT and, whoever else I'm missing that makes US stuff to follow a single standard, I will personally pay for your next $500 in train purchases.

It's simply not realistic. I prefer spending my energy on convincing them to make new models period.

If any one of the above or someone else actually starts producing enough models to matter, then there is a case for convincing them to adopt a standard. And THEN the others will have to follow. Until then, it's a exercise in futility. Like it or not.
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the powerful know: divide and conquer
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 8291
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby sacto-tt » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:26 pm

One need look no farther than couplers to see that even among major manufacturers there are many different interpretations of "standards". Coupler pockets on HO rolling stock are as varied as clouds. While the couplers may interoperate, sometimes poorly, the methodology for attaching the couplers to the cars leaves a lot to be desired. Kadee invented their own standard and people flocked to it because it worked better. Yet even today some manufactures make it virtually impossible to install Kadee couplers without major surgery.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for standards but trying to enforce them on a manufacturer is a fool's errand. I say anything that gets them to produce NA-TT style cars is a good thing. I'll do what I need to change/convert/rework it myself. I can't do that if it is never made.

<off soapbox> :crazy:
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:23 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA USA

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby rdikken » Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:52 am

Let us try to get first a 50 foot AAR boxcar with a Barber S2 friction bearing truck which is able to couple according to the standard with the GC boxcars and of course the tank cars.

This evening a bit more about the boxcar.

Till later,
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:10 pm
Location: Smilde, The Netherlands

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby rdikken » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:22 pm

The SP B-50-30, first picture below.

It is 50 feet boxcar, 10 ft, 6 inches high, with a improved 3/4 dreadnought end, a diagonal panel roof with a apex steel roof walk. The sides have 8 feet youngstown doors, with 6 side panels besites the door and with a double row of rivets. The trucks we have already mentioned.

A question to you, what is the diference with the B-50-22? It had a panel roof, I thought, but further . . .

Further below you see the picture of a roof of a 40 feet boxcar. Same roof structure and walk.

I need about 20 different railroad companies and versions based on the B-50-30. (I do not see a different car number as a different version.) From the B-50-30 I have hundreds of car numbers. Source: "Southern Pacific Freight Cars. Volume 4." Marquette mentioned already other railroad companies. If I look to the SP cars there is also the B-50-35. This car looks very similar to the B-50-30, it is more specialised, see the pictures.

I am allowed to make 2 versions, meaning a 50 foot boxcar with a 8 feet door and a car with a double door, such as perhaps the plugin and the yougstown door. But it could also be a 50 feet boxcar and a 40 feet boxcar. The dreadnought ends has to be same in that case!

Any thoughts about this? The problem is, when I take the B-50-30 as starting base, I do not know which 40 feet boxcar has the same dreadnought ends.

I would also like to have a list in the sence, that the dreadnought end of the B-50-30 would fit to car A, B and D, The roof would fit to ...., etc. Of course limited to the more bigger companies, such as PRR, NYC, CN, CP, UP, etc.


PS, you have still to wait a bit longer on the project documentation.
diagonal panel roof
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:10 pm
Location: Smilde, The Netherlands

Re: 50 foot boxcar

Postby areibel » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:33 pm

Hi Rob,
I don't know any of the technical answers you seek, but I do think it would be a great choice!
Posts: 1665
Images: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:12 am
Location: Cambridge Springs PA


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests