tps
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by tps on Apr 22, 2019 2:38:19 GMT -5
Hi All,
I'm returning to model trains after a while away, and I'm looking at z scale in order to model modern intermodal operations in a small space. I figure with modern mechanisms and 3D printing, I should be able to create a unique and complete layout that will fit inside a small apartment.
Right now, we're in the midst of getting that apartment, and I want to spend some time gathering information before I go out and start building something, rather than spending money on train stuff that I then have to move along with everything else. With that in mind, could anyone tell me:
1. I can see that there are several manufacturers of containers and container wagons. Are all the containers the same size? will AZL and Rokuhan containers for instance fit on container wagons from all manufacturers?
2. Will double stack container wagons fit under Marklin catenary? I'd like to know if I can operate electric locomotives with double stacks if I ever want to.
3. Are there any standards for coupler heights, journal geometry, sideframe spacing etc for z scale? I'd like to 3D print my own designs for rollingstock using commercial couplers and wheelsets.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by dazed on Apr 22, 2019 8:55:28 GMT -5
1. In my experience, the containers from various manufacturers will generally fit, although some are pretty snug. This is referring to North American proto stuff though. I have doublestack cars from MTL, AZL, and HoboTim, and containers from AZL, Rokuhan, and MCS. The Rokuhan 40ft containers are ever-so-slightly longer than the 40ft containers from other manufacturers. Oddly, the Rokuhan 20ft containers match up with the others though. 2. No idea. 3. Micro-Trains makes a coupler height gauge. If you Google it you will see the instructions show the coupler's vertical center line to be at 4.0mm.
|
|
|
Post by markm on Apr 22, 2019 14:11:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by smr on Apr 22, 2019 14:29:39 GMT -5
Hi All, 2. Will double stack container wagons fit under Marklin catenary? I'd like to know if I can operate electric locomotives with double stacks if I ever want to. Thanks! The standard Märklin catenary comes at 38mm the mast. However, you can tweak a few millimeters by putting them on a small concrete fundament or on a little elevation (see picture). Make sure when you install your catenary to have your double stack container wagons at hand. Best, Sven
|
|
tps
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by tps on Apr 23, 2019 4:29:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the replies everybody! I'll follow up on the standards when I have a spare moment and report back with anything I find.
|
|
|
Post by domi on Apr 24, 2019 13:02:52 GMT -5
2. Will double stack container wagons fit under Marklin catenary? I'd like to know if I can operate electric locomotives with double stacks if I ever want to. In the prototype, north american railroad loading gauge is far broader and wider than its european counterpart. a Z scale loaded double-stack car is 2.52 cm high above railheads, roughly 1". I dont't know the height of Marklin catenary but I know if one tried to run a double-stack train on an european electrified railroad in the 1:1 scale life, he would tear away that's railroad catenary (as well as overhead bridges) and the top containers would crash into the upper part of tunnel portals... Not worth trying. Dom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2019 16:18:02 GMT -5
About clearance : I found this document. Since I will install my tunnel portals in a few weeks, my question is simple : does the baseline represent the top of the track ? Or, where is it ? (I won't use double stacking, in 1965 such cars didn't yet exist ... )
|
|
|
Post by markm on Apr 24, 2019 17:11:55 GMT -5
You're right, top of the rails. These gauges are meant to sit on the track. You may also want to check out the more recent RP-7 series of clearance documents: www.nmra.org/index-nmra-standards-and-recommended-practicesThey provide more detail on tunnel portal clearances and clearances on curves. Mark
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2019 22:37:07 GMT -5
On my document there are 3 eras ... I wonder if the "classic" era's data are calculated to allow a catenary ? 32 mm in height seem very much for me, I measured my rolling stock (AZL and MTL), the height over the the top of the rail is only about 22 mm. If I use the data of old time (32 mm for N, no data for Z) and multiply with 160/200 = 8/11, I get about 23.25 mm. As I am modelling the East Coast in 1965, I wonder if I should not better use this data with a margin , overall "clear" height of 26 to 27 mm over the rail ? I read that for example the P42 Genesis (which I don't use) is able to run through the "low-profile tunnels of the Northeast Corridor", and since I am modelling Massachusetts, maybe that a clearance of 27 mm would look more realistic. With higher tunnels, I think they would look "empty" when train is running through. Especially for tunnels with a half-circle profile on top, where the top of this half-circle must even be higher, the clearance being measured condidering the width of the engines and cars, increased in curves (especially for my Budd's) ? The safest way would be a cardboard jig and testing ...
|
|
|
Post by markm on Apr 24, 2019 23:49:58 GMT -5
Sounds like you're using the S-7 standard, which as been replaced by recommended practice series RP7.x. The new document has for Z a minimum height of 24mm for "old-time" and 30mm for "Classic."
I think you could use anything from 24-30mm. You need to consider that nearly all tunnels on the east coast will have been originally built to the "old-time" and sometime in the 1950s and 1960s may have been enlarged. The tallest car I can think of for your era would be autorack cars that would need 20 feet (28mm).
RP-7.2 describes the width adjustments for curves. Although there is not Z spec, it's not hard to calculate from RP-7.6.
Hope this helps,
Mark
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2019 0:09:34 GMT -5
Thanks Mark for all informations. I will use NO autoracks, only my NH-double-Budd for "commuter" service and conventional freight trains, with maximum 5 cars, boxcars and gondolas and PERHAPS one tank car, or 6 33'-hoppers (and a caboose at the end of the train).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 1:41:34 GMT -5
Could these tunnel portals be plausible for Massachusetts (Brick and concrete versions) ? I saw some concrete tunnels in Connecticut ... And those ? I need 6 tunnel portals, so I would have 3 styles ...
|
|
|
Post by markm on Apr 28, 2019 2:31:49 GMT -5
Yes, the brick & concrete from the 1st link and the z-train-things are very appropriate.
|
|
tps
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by tps on May 4, 2019 22:36:55 GMT -5
Hi all, finally had a chance to read through some of the standards linked to above. The NRMA last updated it's journal recommended practice in 1982 which looks to be before anyone saw a need for a z scale standard. The NEM standards are... not translated into English yet. I figure I can order a complete bogie rather than separate wheelsets and measure the sideframe width in order to dimension anything I want to print myself.
As smr notes I can simply elevate the catenary such that it clears any double stacks I want to run, but the problem then is whether the locomotive pantograph will still contact the catenary, or come close enough to it to look okay. So the questions is less whether the doublestacks will fit under catenary than whether a locomotive pantograph will sit higher than a loaded double stack. Only one way to find out I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 2:20:49 GMT -5
A new question about tunnel portals : now I have 3 types of portals and will build 3 tunnels. Should I put the same type of portals : 1) At both ends of each tunnel, or 2) Side by side at each end of the layout (see plan here, You must be logged in) ; tunnel on the right "lower" track will be moved backwards, nearer to the second level portal. What would be more logical, and look better ? Thanks for any answer ...
|
|