CMSLUSS - I think you have been given enough (abet conflicting) information on your original question; to pursue this topic any further is just an exercise in redundancy. Additionally, I see a negative 'turn' in the discussion that has diverted from the original post. Would you please 'lock' this thread?

My thanks to the usual 'cast of characters' who have taken their time to put forth some very useful information...you are what this forum is all about. To those of you who seem to be using this as a political forum...please take that discussion elsewhere.

We (my wife and I) are active pistol shooters (range...not hopefully another human ever) and have our own opinions on the nation's gun laws. [WARNING: Pistol range shooting is addictive!] The Bachmann forum is not the place to voice them. Honestly, I hope I haven't offended anyone by my remarks and am not attempting to start a 'firestorm' (as so often happens on forums). Personally, I will not open this thread again; so any response you may have will remain unread.

Peace,
Ray

PS: To be honest, I am really getting tired of the whole 'forum experience'.

It isn't that I haven't much faith in PVC (white glue), it's just that all glues are designed to adhere to certain substances...and not others. PVC is really designed to cause adhesion between objects composed of wood fibers (ie. paper, wood, cardboard). PVC works with ballast because of the irregular nature of the ballast 'grains'. In a way, ballast is almost 'clumped' together as opposed to adhered. [As an aside: PVC will glue ballast to Styrofoam...but not as well as, say, Homesote or plywood.]

The inside of a styrene car is exceptionally smooth. Additionally styrene usually has some mold release material on it - from the molding process. The mold release 'stuff' can be washed off with soap, water and some type of mechanical abrasion (like an old toothbrush). So, the inside of a completed, sealed, tank car may be contaminated or will be very slick (because there is no definite way of cleaning the plastic and no way to 'roughen' it)...not good for PVC.

As far as epoxy goes, I guess I would go with one of those 5 minute (or longer) brands that are dispensed in a 'mixing' tube ('looks like 2 syringes joined together at the opening). A problem I see with this method is the size of the hole one would need to drill to allow the dispenser opening to protrude into the tank. [Some of these products come with a smaller nozzle.]

I guess if I had to 'weight' a completed tank car today, I would use BBs and PVC. The only caveat would be that the PVC/BB mix would extend slightly over half the diameter of the tank...if the PVC didn't 'hold' the mass couldn't go anywhere. There are many other epoxies out there; but I don't have any experience in their use.

Ray

I adhere to the KISS principle as much as possible; but I'm not convinced Len's idea of using white glue and BBs will work for the long run. BBs and pennies are roughly the same price - that that part seems plausible. I'm am most concerned with the use of 'white glue' [PVC]. 'White glue' does not readily adhere to styrene. Unless one completely fills the tank with a mixture of BBs and 'white glue', one ends up with the glue/BB mixture (which hereafter I will call a 'plug') - hardened on the bottom of the tank. Should the car be turned upside down (or dropped...and don't tell me you have never dropped a car), the resulting 'plug' will rattle around. Having said that, a possible fix is to make sure the tank is filled with glue/BBs to a little over half ('same number of BBs...but more 'white glue'). The tank cylinder arc begins to get smaller and the 'plug' would have nowhere to go.

This is a good idea though and one I will try in the future.

Ray

jbrock - You da' Man...let's hope the spell checker becomes more popular.

Regarding weighing a completed tank car body: I think the best solution would be some sort of liquid that eventually hardens and can take the handling (mis-handling?) of normal model railroad operations. Epoxy comes to mind. There are many epoxies on the market that have longer curing times. One could inject the epoxy into the car via a rather small hole in one end (on the bottom surface); another hole (would be much smaller) would be required as a 'vent'.

The tricky part would be getting the weight just right (or within NMRA standards for that length car). I have no idea how much cured epoxy weighs. Assuming the epoxy 'filler' wasn't heavy enough, one could add BBs or shotgun pellets (which come in various sizes/weights and are available at many gun shops) before 'plugging' both injection and vent holes. By quickly turning the car over (AFTER sealing the aforementioned holes) the epoxy would 'settle' to the bottom of the tank and thereby keep the center of gravity lower (the BBs, shot would already be on the bottom surface anyway).

After that dissertation, it becomes readily apparent that either buying a RTR car - or a kit is much easier. For those of you with lots of spare time on your hands (and a source of epoxy and BBs/shot), give it a try and get back to us.

Regards,
Ray

PS: 'Have done the "adding solder to the frame" operation years ago; but found that you really can't add much weight without a significant amount of solder.

See Don?..great minds think alike.

Viewing all the posts in this thread, perhaps you can see the wisdom of looking at those 'cheapy' cars under the vendor's table at train shows. I have picked up some really nice cars for $1 that (with a little 'tweaking' and maintenance) became great additions to the 'fleet'. As Don said, the older cars don't have the detail of the newer 'crop'...but they can be just as reliable.

Another suggestion on adding weight to rolling stock concerns tank cars: If (and I say 'if' because you usually can't get the tank ends open without causing damage) you can get one end off a tank car, pennies make a great weight source. They are round and can easily be glued together - as well as glued into the tank cylinder. With your complete car on the scale, start adding pennies until the recommended NMRA car weigh is achieved (slightly below the recommended car weight as the glue will add some weight). [If this is an uncompleted kit, do this step BEFORE gluing on the tank ends.] If you can't get the tank ends off without causing damage, you are probably out of luck as there is nowhere to add weight out of sight on this particular type of car.

Happy model railroading,
Ray

I have one or two Ulrich cars from the late 1950s that run well. Length of successful ownership is a function of maintenance and not age.

Not a car appears on my layout until I use my trusty Micro Mark Wheel Tuner (assuming the bolsters are plastic), the plastic wheelsets are replaced by metal units, coupler/pin height is checked with a Kadee gauge, wheel gauge is checked by an appropriate NMRA gauge AND the car is weighed. The NMRA publishes a chart for proper car weights (check their website).  [I use automobile wheel weights (available in several 'weights') from Harbor Freight...these are adhesive backed for easy placement.] As far as the weighing is concerned, I purchased a very inexpensive, battery operated kitchen scale at Harbor Freight...which is plenty good enough for our purposes. This sounds like a long procedure; but it isn't and will result in 'trouble-free' running.

I also keep a 3" x 5" card on each car which lists: car type, car ID number, railroad name, AAR car class ID, specifics regarding that particular car (type/brand of couplers, type of wheelsets, weathering...whatever) and (at the bottom of the card front) date acquired, manufacturer, item number, where acquired and price. On the reverse of the card I keep any pertinent maintenance records (car weight/date, when I checked the coupler/pin height and anyother items. An inexpensive card catalog box keeps everything in order: I have a separate divider for each car type (refrigerated, box, flat, etc.) and file the aforementioned cards accordingly.

Just a suggestion,
Ray

How did the English run so many tank locomotives in the age of steam if they only had a short range? As a regular reader of Railway Modelling magazine, I marvel at the size of some of these 'tank' locomotives (ie. Class 4575, Class 3MT, Class L1 to name a few). I guess the distances traveled weren't all that great in the UK.

I just did a quick scan of E. Hatton's latest ad and it looks like the 'tank type' was confined to smaller locomotives. Larger units all seem to be equipped with tenders (Class 5, Class A1, Class 6P etc.)...'guess I answered my own question.

Ray
[The guy who has a 'thing' for Pugs and Terriers.]

What an absolutely beautiful locomotive. I don't think there is any locomotive as 'esthetically pleasing' as an American 4-4-0 from the mid to the late 19th century. By the length of the smokebox, I see this jewel was a coal burner.

Thanks for sharing,
Ray

Woody, Your post is absolutely priceless! I, too, have been amused by the 'slaughter' of the English language (both spelling and useage...let's not get into punctuation). My wife's theory is that 'texting' has degraded common language useage. Personally I think it is an indictment of our educational system. [Don't believe me? Try reading one of the modeling magazines from the U.K.]

Thanks for the pome...eyel pass it on to othrs.

Regards,
Ra, Rae, Rai....Ray

While On30 is gaining somewhat in popularity (thanks in large part to Bachmann), it is still a very minor 'player' on model railroad's 'stage'. I really don't think the extensive investment in design, and fabrication machinery, would be warranted by the sales of a proposed On30 EZ-track.

On30 is largely the domain of the craftsman (as the pages of the Gazette will attest). This is not to say there is no place for the beginner/casual 'runner'. The 'runner' will use standard HO track and leave it at that...the craftsman will want track that exemplifies narrow gauge operation (wider tie spacing, larger tie size, etc.). My point is that On30 modeling can be approached in many different ways...however the bar is definitely raised.

I became interested (to a degree) in On30 because: 1) the availability of small industrial locomotives such as Bachmann's Davenport or Whitcombe, 2) the availability of kitbashing 'kits' to convert readily obtainable HO locomotives to On30 critters (an example is Boulder Valley Models 'kit' to 'bash' a Bachmann GE 44-Ton into an On30 critter), 3) the opportunity to scratchbuild rolling stock that us senior citizens can actually see (which does raise the level of completion standard), 4) the notion that narrow gauge railroading (with few exceptions) were 'one off' - allowing the modeler license to "do their own thing".

In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that the modeler gets less 'railroading' per area as one progresses into larger and larger scales. On30 is for all intensity O-scale in size. While the rolling stock is somewhat undersized - compared to true (standard) O-scale, the structures, figures, vehicles and scenery are not. This is something to consider before 'jumping into the On30 pool".

For me, I think HO modeling fits my basic needs. My On30 layout will suffice to be used as an exhibition layout (2' x 6'...able to be separated in the middle for transportation), and as a venue to 'show off' my latest 'creations'.

Yep, 'did see the Forney and marveled at the exquisite modeling evident in the Smugglers' Cove article.

Regards,
Ray

I checked with La Belle Woodworking to see if they produced a double-door baggage car...they do not. I am not familiar with this particular car; would it be possible to kitbash a La Belle kit as a double door-ed car?

Probably mentioned above but: Narrow gauge cars are somewhat narrower (and lower) than standard gauge units. While, at first blush, it would seem logical that one could simply substitute HO trucks for O-gauge ones...the resulting car would look rather strange (you could always try it and prove me wrong). Having said that, everything outside of track gauge is in O-scale (1:48). Ideally that should include the ties and rail (although HO rail could be considered very light On30 code).

If you are going to simply run On30 stock on an HO layout, check the clearances carefully. Sadly in model railroading, as in life, there are no free lunches. O-scale structures, for example, take up several times the volume of their HO variants. [O-scale is ~ double the scale of HO. If an HO structure measured 2"x 2"x 2" that would be 8 cu. inches in volume. The same structure in O-scale would measure 4"x 4"x 4" resulting in a volume of 64 cu ins. This is a primary (and paramount) consideration for any On30 layout vis-a-vie space available.]

Ray

What an incredible model...'makes me wonder why I am starting a kitbashing project using a Bachmann GE 44-Ton and a BVM kit. Well...one reason is the price I guess. After spending ~ $525 (MSRP) on a locomotive (Whitcombe + sound module), I would be beside myself if there were gear problems.

Would I like to own one of these jewels?..you betcha! The problem I have is a decision to leave HO for On30. After some 50+ years in the hobby, I have amassed an extensive collection of HO items. [As a vendor at train shows, I know how little HO items bring from the public.] Secondly, I don't think I have the space to do an On30 layout justice. [My current layout is ~ 10' x 15"...with little room for expansion.]

My On30 collection is limited (currently) to a couple BVM models, one Bachmann boxcar, and the Bachmann gas mechanical locomotive. The plan is to add several more BVM kits...all of which would look great being moved by the new Whitcombe 50-Tonner. Ah decisions, decisions...

I think if I had to do it again, I would have made the Monks Island Railway with larger clearances (it is a minimal HO shelf layout as was mentioned above) - such that, with a change in structures, I could run some On30 'stuff'. As always: "A day late and a dollar short." Then again, I may have 'plunged' into unknown territory and gone UK and OO (damn you Railway Modeller).

Regards,
Ray

I checked my usual Peco suppliers and didn't find their excellent inspection pit listed in any. Going further afield, I checked with E. Hatton's (UK - Liverpool) and found that they have them in stock (in multiple rail codes). You can see for yourself at: http://www.ehattons.com/stocklist/results.aspx?searchfield=inspection%20pit

BTW: I have dealt with Hatton's before and they are excellent...fast shipping to the U.S. and they deduct the VAT amount automatically if the item is shipped out of the UK.

Hope this helps,
Ray

As usual Don, well said. I have found Bachmann EZmate II couplers to work very well on my Monks Island Railway. The longest train my [Bachmann] GE 45-Ton locomotive has to pull is usually not more than 5 cars. If I had a larger layout, I probably would consider going the Kadee route. I should mention that EZmate I is a very poor copy of the excellent EZmate II couplers...be sure to research what you are buying.

While I haven't had to return any Bachmann product to Service, I can say that today's Bachmann products are a far cry from those of yesteryear (less expensive train sets excepted). I currently own four Bachmann locomotives (2, 4-4-0s/a GE 45-Ton/a GE 44-Ton being kitbashed into an On30 'critter') - all of them perform flawlessly after a good run in. As a point of comparison, I also have a 1960s Athearn Little Hustler (with Hi-F drive) which runs like a guided missile and is basically useless. We have come a long way in the hobby since the days of Hi-F drive and X2F (hook-horn) couplers.

Keep 'em rolling,
Ray

I remember watching "Casey Jones" on TV back in the 1950s...never missed an episode. About 3 or 4 years ago I bought the first 18 episodes of the show on eBay. My wife and I watched all 18 (she never knew the existence of the show before) and thoroughly enjoyed each one. This was good television...where has it gone?

We finally got the opportunity to watch "Runaway Train" (we aren't movie 'goers') and were absolutely enthralled by the movie. Both of us were on the edges of our seats until the very end. The various subplots were well done; and I thought the characters well developed. I highly recommend this movie.

Ray