# Car Inspection Station



## johnfl68 (Feb 1, 2015)

I built a Car Inspection Station (Model Railroader - February 2015 page 28):










It's a 1" x 3" x 48" piece of Red Oak (from box store), Midwest products cork roadbed, and Peco Code 83 track.

It has a rerailer in the center, and Kadee #206 Coupler Height Gauge on the end (I have another one on order for the other end). This is so you can check the height of the coupler's easily.

I made a label for the recommended weight, so you can quickly see what each piece of rolling stock should weigh as per NMRA standards. The numbers are weight in ounces.

This will also be a programming/test track. I'll probably put a Anderson Power Pole connector on the end to quickly connect and disconnect track/programming power leads.

After reading the article, it just seemed like a good way to have many things all in the same place, to inspect and check out your rolling stock from time to time.

Just thought I would share with others.

John


----------



## rkenney (Aug 10, 2013)

Great Idea, great execution. Keep us updated for future enhancements.

This idea could be readily adapted to other gauges.:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## lajrmdlr (Apr 25, 2014)

Good that you're using the Kadee #206 height gauges being plastic so no shorts when the track is powered. Mine will be part of the layout w/ a DPDT switch to isolate it from the layout. It wont have any roadbed because the LAJ Ry only has it to cross small topographic changes. Even their ballast looks like an after thought. Probably because their parent company Santa Fe had a ballast car load they wanted to empty. LOL


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

lajmdlr -- I think you're confusing roadbed with fill. Most railroads have something of an elevated roadbed profile because it greatly improves drainage and therefore the life of the ballast, track, and ties. Fill, on the other hand, is material used to elevate an area of low topography to eliminate or reduce a potential grade.

EVERY railroad has roadbed -- even if it's just a bulldozed flat spot to lay the ties. I understand you not wanting to create the elevated profile, although I would encourage you to look closely and make sure it's not there (or filled in over the years). Even the Valley Railroad, which was never more than a busy branch line and barely used for two decades in the 50's thru the early 70's, still has a somewhat elevated profile.

I am reliably informed by the Valley RR's VP of Maintenance, that "ballast" is defined as "anything between the ties".


----------



## lajrmdlr (Apr 25, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> lajmdlr -- I think you're confusing roadbed with fill. Most railroads have something of an elevated roadbed profile because it greatly improves drainage and therefore the life of the ballast, track, and ties. Fill, on the other hand, is material used to elevate an area of low topography to eliminate or reduce a potential grade.
> 
> EVERY railroad has roadbed -- even if it's just a bulldozed flat spot to lay the ties. I understand you not wanting to create the elevated profile, although I would encourage you to look closely and make sure it's not there (or filled in over the years). Even the Valley Railroad, which was never more than a busy branch line and barely used for two decades in the 50's thru the early 70's, still has a somewhat elevated profile.


Having had several RR clients over a 14 year period & being a conductor 7 years know what you have said all too well. One RR was the Santa Fe & worked w/ their civil engineering department on a 150 coal haul spurline. To wit learned a few things about cuts & fills, grading, ballast, etc. The LAJ being only an industrial switching RR never went to that much trouble w/ roadbed. Their "mainlines" are just tracks going from 3 yards to 22 switching areas. The 64 miles tracks are compressed in a 2 mile by 5 mile area SE of downtown LA. As said before the LAJ has very little roadbed. So "EVERY railroad has roadbed" is not true in all cases. Besides max. authorized speed on the LAJ has always been only *10 MPH*!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

lajrmdlr said:


> Having had several RR clients over a 14 year period & being a conductor 7 years know what you have said all too well. One RR was the Santa Fe & worked w/ their civil engineering department on a 150 coal haul spurline. To wit learned a few things about cuts & fills, grading, ballast, etc. The LAJ being only an industrial switching RR never went to that much trouble w/ roadbed. Their "mainlines" are just tracks going from 3 yards to 22 switching areas. The 64 miles tracks are compressed in a 2 mile by 5 mile area SE of downtown LA. As said before the LAJ has very little roadbed. So "EVERY railroad has roadbed" is not true in all cases. Besides max. authorized speed on the LAJ has always been only *10 MPH*!


Read what you wrote, and what I wrote. "EVERY railroad has roadbed" is a definition. The ties are sitting on SOMETHING. That something is a roadbed. Period. It doesn't have to be anything more than leveled dirt, but it's there, and it's roadbed.

But it really isn't worth getting all lathered up about.


----------



## lajrmdlr (Apr 25, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> Read what you wrote, and what I wrote. "EVERY railroad has roadbed" is a definition. The ties are sitting on SOMETHING. That something is a roadbed. Period. It doesn't have to be anything more than leveled dirt, but it's there, and it's roadbed.
> 
> But it really isn't worth getting all lathered up about.


All you're doing is being VERY semantic to prove your own definition of roadbed. The LAJ is on a very flat river terrace. It didn't even require much leveling to make it flat. If you want to call flat ground a roadbed fine. But most people think of it as a raised place to put ballast, ties & rails.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

No argument. Most people do think of it that way. 

For all I knew, you were completely ignorant of prototype railroading, and wanted to make sure you really meant what you said.

Let's move on.


----------



## JNXT 7707 (May 5, 2013)

That's a cool inspection station John. I have a crudely similar one, set up on a long truss bridge (the truss being under the track). So it's elevated on my workbench and I can eyeball the coupler as it matches up to the coupler height gauge.
I like yours better though, with the center rerailer and the two coupler gauges, where all you have to do is roll the car to the other end. I like the printed scale too. 
Going to have to make one of those.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Nice inspection track John. Forgive my ignorance but conformity to weights is important for what reason?


----------



## JNXT 7707 (May 5, 2013)

Cycleops said:


> Nice inspection track John. Forgive my ignorance but conformity to weights is important for what reason?


Properly weighted cars track better?


----------



## johnfl68 (Feb 1, 2015)

Yes, properly weighted cars track better, and are less likely to derail.

For a little more on this, please read from the NMRA:
http://www.nmra.org/beginner/weight


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

What am I missing?

Except for the coupler Height Gauge, it looks like a piece of track with a rerailer? :dunno:


----------



## JNXT 7707 (May 5, 2013)

big ed said:


> What am I missing?
> 
> Except for the coupler Height Gauge, it looks like a piece of track with a rerailer? :dunno:


Well Big Ed I guess one man's inspection track is another's "piece of track with a rerailer" 

You did read the description, right?


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

JNXT 7707 said:


> Well Big Ed I guess one man's inspection track is another's "piece of track with a rerailer"
> 
> You did read the description, right?


Maybe not?
Yes, and forgive my ignorance too.

Here is what the post #1 says, (in blue)


It's a 1" x 3" x 48" piece of Red Oak (from box store), Midwest products cork roadbed, and Peco Code 83 track.
I understand this.
It has a rerailer in the center, and Kadee #206 Coupler Height Gauge on the end (I have another one on order for the other end). This is so you can check the height of the coupler's easily.
Rerailer and coupler height gauge, check, understand.

I made a label for the recommended weight, so you can quickly see what each piece of rolling stock should weigh as per NMRA standards. The numbers are weight in ounces.
I see the labels, is the inspection track sitting on some sort of electronic scale? So you know the weight of each car?

This will also be a programming/test track. I'll probably put a Anderson Power Pole connector on the end to quickly connect and disconnect track/programming power leads.
Programming/test track, I know nothing about this, I guess it is for locomotives only? Anderson Power Pole connector, I can google this I guess it is just some kind of quick connect, this doesn't matter, and needs no explanation. Does it have those rollers setups on it, so that you can actually run a locomotive on it to test?

After reading the article, it just seemed like a good way to have many things all in the same place, to inspect and check out your rolling stock from time to time.
I guess reading the article would explain this better to me?
If I had the magazine or maybe an online link to read it might explain what I am missing.

Just thought I would share with others.

I thought the OP might explain better, but I guess not.
Anyway........Thanks for sharing.:smokin:

If you don't ask you can't learn.hwell:

JNXT 7707, thanks for explaining it to me.
Your reply explained nothing.
But at least you tried.:dunno:


----------



## JNXT 7707 (May 5, 2013)

big ed said:


> JNXT 7707, thanks for explaining it to me.
> Your reply explained nothing.
> But at least you tried.:dunno:


LOL
I dunno Big Ed, maybe overthinking it a little? 
With the one I have, it just kind of evolved when I had a couple of bridge sections that weren't doing anything sitting on my workbench. I put them together, sat a car on it and put a coupler gauge on one end to test a car I was working on at the time. 
Turned out handier than sliced bread, it was easy to eyeball the coupler gauge and also to put the car on the track, being at eye level. I kept thinking I should put another gauge on the other end so I wouldn't have to flip the car around to check both couplers (Never did). 
Anyway, not really all that much to it - just a handy little "inspection station" I use when working on coupler conversions/adjustments. The OP took the concept a few steps further with the rerailer (assuming for ease in putting the loco/car on the tracks) and wiring it for power as a programming track, along with the car weight/length scale (too bad there's not some kind of actual scale built in to it :laugh.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You could manage this in a much simpler way. I have a similar device made of a piece of flextrack nailed to a length of #2 pine. My weight marks are hand written, but otherwise identical. To weigh cars, I put the assembly (less car) on a postal scale and tare out the weight. Then just add the car and compare it to the length marks (the recommended weight of 1 oz + 1/2 oz per 1" of car length doesn't apply to locos).

My program track outputs from the DCC unit have short, 1" leads with bare ends fastened to them. To use my test bed as a programming track, I simply connect those wires to the rails using test leads with alligator clips at each end.

I put my coupler gauge on this track as well, but since it's metal, it causes a short when the programming leads are attached, so it's not permanently mounted.

Same idea, just not as pretty or as complicated.


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

CTValleyRR said:


> You could manage this in a much simpler way. I have a similar device made of a piece of flextrack nailed to a length of #2 pine. My weight marks are hand written, but otherwise identical. To weigh cars, I put the assembly (less car) on a postal scale and tare out the weight. Then just add the car and compare it to the length marks (the recommended weight of 1 oz + 1/2 oz per 1" of car length doesn't apply to locos).
> 
> My program track outputs from the DCC unit have short, 1" leads with bare ends fastened to them. To use my test bed as a programming track, I simply connect those wires to the rails using test leads with alligator clips at each end.
> 
> ...


Thanks for explaining.:smokin::thumbsup:
Not too complicated at all.hwell:

I never got into NMRA standards, I will google the standards, I guess they have them for O trains?
By the looks of the length you would never need all the weights that are marked?
Or is there a car that long?
The programming is for something I never had either. Mine are all old school, nothing to program.

Couldn't you add tape or something for the height gauge so it doesn't short out while programming?
They make those height gauges for O too? I guess there are standards for all the scales of trains?
I will have to google further on the standards for O and height gauges if there is such a thing, I never got into it NMRA standards for the weights in any scale of trains.
It says,
Standards can be changed from time to time but ONLY by the vote of the NMRA membership after proper policy procedures have been followed and the membership has been fully informed.
Anyone here a member? If so have you ever voted to change something?
My modem is screwing up as I type this, I am googling in between the modem resetting. Got to figure out what it's problem is.:thumbsdown:
Heaven forbid if you add an extra oz, huh? 
You might get barred from the NMRA membership for life!

I do have a postal scale, it wouldn't be that hard to build one onto the track permanent?
But it is just as easy to do what you do, weigh them on the inspection track on the scale.
That way you could use the scale for mail. 

Thanks for taking the time to explain.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You have to be careful about putting things UNDER your height gauge, because that will change the height of the gauge and hence the accuracy of the measurement. Someday, I may get around to gapping the rails and inserting small pieces of styrene, but that's not very high on my to-do list.

Car weights are an RP (recommended practice) so no one has to follow it. That said, at least in HO scale, it does represent a good balance between cars that are too light to track properly and those too heavy to pull. The standrd applies to all scales, and although I've never checked, I would assume that there are height guages for scales other than HO or N.


----------



## JNXT 7707 (May 5, 2013)

big ed said:


> Standards can be changed from time to time but ONLY by the vote of the NMRA membership after proper policy procedures have been followed and the membership has been fully informed.
> Anyone here a member? If so have you ever voted to change something?
> My modem is screwing up as I type this, I am googling in between the modem resetting. Got to figure out what it's problem is.:thumbsdown:
> Heaven forbid if you add an extra oz, huh?
> You might get barred from the NMRA membership for life!


Never joined the NMRA Big Ed, but their weight standards are a good starting point to use for weighting cars so I use them. If they vote to change them I'll just call them 'JNXT standards' and keep them the same :laugh:
And yes the postal scale does double duty for weighing mail. Pretty handy


----------



## johnfl68 (Feb 1, 2015)

It's funny people are complaining about getting free access to Standards from 80 years of experience in the hobby as an Association and the combined experience of it's members. All that experience in model railroading must be wrong.

John


----------

