Coupler setup on Bachmann On30 cars completely wrong!

[Hamish K]

I think I should qualify things a bit--there are in fact track and wheel standards for On30--they are the same as for HO.  For clearances in general, the On3 standards should be considered.  However, as with most narrow gauge modeling, you have some discretion depending on your particular prototype. 

To elaborate a little - the NMRA does indicate using HO track and wheel standards for ON30 and the scale (1:48), but covers little else I think. (The track and wheel standrds are what I was referring to when I said the NMRA had issued some On30 standards.)

On clearances, ON3 standards are designed to suit the largest North American 3 foot prototypes. This is fine if that is what you a running, D&RGW K series mikados and the like. However if you are running small prototypes, says Porters, small geared locomoives (e.g. the Bachmann ones) and small rolling stock, such as that available from BVM and others, the ON3 clearances, to my mind, look wrong. Real narrow gauge railroads were often built as cheaply as possible, over generous clearances for cuttings, tunnels etc. would have cost money and thus are unlikely (I know some-one will come up with a long list of exceptions,  I am generalising)

To the Kid

I like your approach. But I would point out, to return to the point of the original post on this thread, that both the height and size of the Bachmann couplers are prototypical for some prototypes.

The bottom line is, as always, it's your railroad, do what you like.

Hamish

[ginzokid]

If anyone is looking for an On30 Gauge, Model Tech Inc. makes an On30 Clearance Gauge on the order of those from the NMRA. It is smaller than On3 clearances and mine has come in handy many times. Just go to the Model Tech Inc. web site and get yourself one.

As for the coupler problem, anyone use link and pin? That was common on the prototype.

[ginzokid]

PS: The gauge is not on the web site but it is available by phone for $5 plus $2 s/h. The number is 800-264-9845. Just trying to help.

[railtwister]

To the guys discussing why the NMRA hasn't endorsed standards for On30, here's an unofficial reply. First, when posed to many On30 modelers, the standards question frequently evokes the paraphrase from the Humphrey Bogart movie (Treasure of the Sierra Madre), "Standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards!". Great line, bad attitude. The truth is, many of the standards are already there, whether they want to admit it or not. For track and wheel standards, just look up the NMRA HO track & wheel standards, and note that the existing HO NMRA standards gauge works just fine for On30 track & wheels. For track centers and clearance standards, refer to the NMRA's  On3 clearance standards, since most of the currently available On30 items are actually 3' prototypes using On30 trucks. Please remember that prototype narrow gauge line standards varied slightly from each prototype railroad, since they all had different sized equipment. Also, keep in mind that most On30 modelers like to use very sharp radius curves (in some cases sharper than those used in HO - go figure!), so track centers and clearances may need to be adjusted slightly to suit the individual modeler's needs & equipment. Also, remember that two foot gauge cars tended to be as long or longer than a lot of three foot gauge equipment, so there's likley to be more overhang to the inside at center and more swing-out of the ends on curves with scale two foot equipment. As for coupler height and size, since there were so many variations of the prototype, it's impossible to declare a "standard" without nullifying someone's favorite road. The Kadee HO coupler is pretty accurate for those modeling two foot gauge prototypes, or three foot gauge prototypes that used smaller couplers. For those modeling three foot gauge prototypes that interchanged via dual gauged yards with standard gauge, the Kadee On3 or S gauge couplers are popular. Some modelers are using the Sargent S scale couplers on their On30 models, even though it isn't fully automatic, because they feel the HO couplers are too small, the On3 couplers are too large, but the Sargent is just right.

Now, if you really want to start a flame war, try referring to On30 as On2-1/2 as Model Railroader frequently does!

Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL
Member Florida On30 Renegades
NMRA S scale Standards Committee

[David(UK)]

Bill,
Great answer that goes a long way to calming waters.
Can I post your reply in the files section of one of my 0n30 Yahoo groups of which I am a Co-Moderator - I'm willing to accept any caveats you may wish to impose to protect the innocent
regards
David Butler

[railtwister]

Bill,
Great answer that goes a long way to calming waters.
Can I post your reply in the files section of one of my 0n30 Yahoo groups of which I am a Co-Moderator - I'm willing to accept any caveats you may wish to impose to protect the innocent
regards
David Butler

David,
Sure thing, go right ahead. I'm a member of most of the Yahoo On30 groups myself, but am active on just a few, and am a moderator on the FloridaOn30 yhaoo group. Drop in and visit us if you get a chance (you don't need to be from Florida!).

Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL
Member Florida On30 Renegades

[ginzokid]

Just being Devilish here.....

Shouldn't On3 then be renamed On36?

It is interesting to note the even the Bachmann On30 equipment in down-sized from O scale equipment. I live in a country where there was a narrow gauge line and all their equipment was undersized from the standard mainland equipment.  I'm talking Newfoundland here, where the gauge was 3'6" or 42" gauge. The standard gauge cars cam across the waters by ferry. When they arrived here, they were physically lifted off their standard gauge trucks and lowered on to 42" gauge trucks. These cars were huge compared to the narrow gauge cars of the home road. Quite a funny looking mix actually. Not all standard cars could be refitted with the smallers gauge trucks however. Clearances were a big concern of course. Most cargo was off loaded and transferred to the smaller cars.

I guess this supports the theory of no real "standard". You use what works and make do with equipment on hand.
The Kid

[Ken]

 To add to the devilment.

Prior to regauging from 2½ft to 1Meter, the FCAB in Chile swapped trucks   on the meter gauge cars to allow operation on  their lines, from the coast to Boliva. In Peru, saw a few x Canadian National 40ft cars operating
on the 3ft line from Cuszco to Manchu Pichu. Not a big deal to use 3ft
gauge cars for On2½ modelling.

  Ken
   GWN

[railtwister]

More about standard gauge cars on narrow gauge trucks - the East Broad Top narrow gauge RR had the "Timber Transfer" crane in their Mount Union, PA yard, which was used to lift standard gauge cars received from the PRR while narrow gauge trucks were installed under them so that they could then be moved to delivery points on the narrow gauge line. There were several published photos in magazines like "Trains" of the truck transfer in progress. I have often wondered how or if they kept track of which trucks came from which cars when they put the standard gauge trucks back on, so that the repack data stenciled on the cars would remain accurate.

Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL

[railtwister]

Most of the standards were set over 30+ years ago. The only new standards are the DCC standards, thank goodness for that work done by those VOLUNTEERS. The fact that the NMRA is a volunteer organization means the On30 standards will probably never come to be.

The On30 Yahoo groups have ridiculed the NMRA unmercifully so I doubt if anyone in the NMRA really will come forth with anything in the future. When I was attending the 2004 National Narrow Gauge Convention in Santa Clara, California there was an NMRA representative asking about standards. I suggested a combo coupler box as a standard, a pad at On30 height and an HO height coupler box to mount to that pad. The mounting pad would only need the Kadee #5 coupler box footprint to mount all the available couplers.

The HO height is probably a defacto standard because the major player in On30, Bachmann, has use it on their equipment.

There are also no decent module standards just a hodgepodge of bad ideas. Seems no on in On30 has ever seen N-trak. Every other scale's module system is based on the N-trak model.

Just a thought
Harold

Hi Harold,

Yes the module standards issue is a real "can of worms", however, please don't label them all bad ideas. Many fine modelers consider the N-Trak standards themselves to be the hodge-podge full of bad ideas that you describe. Reasons cited are the 3 mainlines, the too-wide track spacing, the end profile boards, and the lack of provision for more free-formed modules. Some of these issues were addressed by the N-trak offspring such as "oNe-trak". Just because a set of module standards doesn't "rubber-stamp" the N-trak standards doesn't mean they are unworthy of consideration. The biggest problem is the NIH attitude ("not-invented-here" therefore no-good) that is prevalent in most module groups, including N-trak. Fact is, most all of the many On30 modular group standards can be made to interconnect with a little co-operative "fudging".

By the way, I LOVE your website, it is an outstanding service to the entire hobby of model railroading, not just On30. Thanks for sharing it with us all.

Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL

[hminky]

I will repeat, On30 modules are usually a bunch of bad ideas. Most are more sectional railroad than modules. No one seems to look at what works in the Ntrak modules. Even the NMRA module "standards" took what works in Ntrak.

The 3 too widely spaced mainlines of Ntrak are a neccesity for N-scale. That has been solved with various off shoots that still have an interface set up for joining with the originals.

Free form modules abound in Ntrak look a their site. You just need the common interface at the ends.

If you look at the S-mods S Scale standards they are an example of Ntrak derived module system that works.

Harold

[ebtbob]

Good Afternoon All,

      Sometimes I forget that - at least in my opinion - this hobby is supposed to be fun.   Now fun,  I guess,  can take on many forms and I would not be so "rightous" as to expect some, all,  many,  few, etc to except my definition of the word.
       Well,  that goes for standards too.  Now....be clear,  I am not against standards,  but just because one group of modelers does not feel the need for a stated set of standards,  put forth with the blessings of a national organization,  that does not make them quilty of poor choices.
        Listen,  just the statement that most On30 guys like tight radii could become incorrect,  if more people getting into On30 do what I do,  which is to use it as a cheap man's On3(or On36 as was suggested earlier).
        I guess what I am trying to say is - To each his own.   If I have several friends and we want to do a modular On30 railroad,   yes,  we would have to have standards just so our individual parts could be assembled into a display,   but they do not,  in any way,  have to meet current practices in place at this time.
        So flame away.....I am going back to the basement and fire up my MMI K27 and my Bachmann 2-8-0s,  run my trains on my railroad with 26 inch minimum radius,  and HAVE FUN!!

Respectfully,

Bob

[hminky]

I guess what I am trying to say is - To each his own.   If I have several friends and we want to do a modular On30 railroad,   yes,  we would have to have standards just so our individual parts could be assembled into a display,   but they do not,  in any way,  have to meet current practices in place at this time.

That is the problem. It would have been nice to have a "true" On30 modular meet. My first time going to the On30 "modular" meet in New Palz, New York, I asked what were the standards. "What ever you want" was the reply. On30 module railroading is an assemblage of sectional layouts, unfortunately.

I built S scale modules in the mid-1980's and it was fun to get together and run trains on a large layout with people from all over. That is what a national standard for modules creates. If saying that On30 modules are an assemblage of bad ideas is flaming. Maybe they need to be cooked.

By the way San Juan is making On3 turnouts for $24.95, so much for On30 being a cheap man's On3.

Flamethrower at the ready
Harold

[Hamish K]

More about standard gauge cars on narrow gauge trucks - the East Broad Top narrow gauge RR had the "Timber Transfer" crane in their Mount Union, PA yard, which was used to lift standard gauge cars received from the PRR while narrow gauge trucks were installed under them so that they could then be moved to delivery points on the narrow gauge line. Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL

In europe standard gauge wagons (cars) were sometimes transported over narrow gauge lines, both metre and 750/760mm (about 30 inches) by putting them on narrow gauge transporter wagons or by using narrow gauge trucks that the fitted under the standard gauge wheels. This obviously required fairly wide clearances as you have standard gauge cars sitting on top of the narrow gauge.

This emphasises that the different sizes and types of operation makes one set of standards, guidelines or practices difficult. Narrow gauge size varies greatly, even on the same gauge. For example while Maine 2 foot cars were often as long, or longer than 3 foot cars, the Gilpin tramway (2 foot) had 17 foot freight cars and 21 foot excursion (passenger) cars.  Curves vary a lot, industrial concerns such as quarries could have very tight curves that well might, in O scale, be less than normal HO curves. Indistrial layouts (logging, mining, sugar etc. are quite common in ON30.

With ON30 where the prototype gauge modelled also varies covering  2 foot, 30 inches (don't forget some people do model this gauge), and 3 foot the differences are even greater. Available models also vary greatly, as well as those based on 3 foot prototypes there are the small rolling stock kits available from BVM and others. I am happy to leave standards to cover track and wheel  requirements only as the rest depends on the prototype and type of layout. And remember, narrow gauge is not just Colorado, EBT or Maine.

I am not into modules so I will not buy into that one!

Hamish

[terry2foot]

Also, remember that two foot gauge cars tended to be as long or longer than a lot of three foot gauge equipment, so there's likley to be more overhang to the inside at center and more swing-out of the ends on curves with scale two foot equipment.


Example of true scale 2 foot passenger car on very sharp radius track illustrating above shown at http://maineon2faq.fotopic.net/p27032763.html

Enjoy!

Terry2foot