Need Advice: Couplers for Track Inspection Cars

[Caveman]

I saw one those acrylic slab inspection cars (example here) and thought they looked useful as I have a hard time seeing under my N-scale cars. However, I didn't like the ones I saw. After some thought I came up with my own ideas.

I want to make several of them:

• A 40-foot car length with truck-mounted couplers
• A 40-foot car length with body-mounted couplers
• An 89-foot car length with truck-mounted couplers
• An 89-foot car length with body-mounted couplers

and I wanted to be able to adjust the weight from light to NMRA standard to heavy, etc. I want to be able to push them around by hand as well as put them in various positions in a train to be able to test as many variables as possible. I enjoy making my own custom tools, so I'm not worried about the work involved, but I have a bad habit of over-thinking things and I can't decide if this is one of those times.

So my questions to the group are:

• First, does this even sound like a realistic idea? Or is it overkill?
• Which couplers should I use—long, medium, or short? Or do you think this won't matter much?
• Should I use plastic wheels or metal wheels and what size? Or do you think this won't matter much?
• If you think this is a good idea, are there any other combinations or configurations you think would be useful?
• Would this actually be useful or just a waste of time?

[MK]

Thanks for reminding me to do one myself! 

Why not?  Micromark sells them so obviously there is a demand for them and if you have spare parts lying around, it'll be a good small project for you for next to nothing.  As for wheels, trucks, length, etc., I would build them based on the rolling stock that you have and mimic their sizes and wheels/trucks.  The idea is to simulate what you run so you can check out trackage for those problem areas.

[nkalanaga]

For truck-mounted couplers, I'd buy a variety of trucks, whatever you normally use, and swap them.  That way one car could test every combination.

[peteski]

Thanks for reminding me to do one myself! 

Why not?  Micromark sells them so obviously there is a demand for them

Just because they are in stock doesn't mean that they are selling well. 

The way I see it is that if Caveman has a layout and he has problems with his trains derailing repeatedly (and he fruitlessly did some basic track checks) then it might make sense to buy or make such test cars to do some additional troubleshooting.   But if his trains run fine then to me this exercise is a waste of time. Especially building all those different versions.   Unless he likes to watch a train of clear acrylic flat cars running around his layout, they will all just sit on his workbench collecting dust.

In my experience most (um, all) track problems can be tracked down without a fancy see-through flat car. To me it seems more like a gimmick - a tool which is not really needed.  But that's just my opinion.   Cavemen asked, so I'm giving it.

[djconway]

Been in model railroading for over 45 years -- Never used a see through inspection car. 
A good eye ball, a small square and level and 99% of the track defects can be seen.

[narrowminded]

Mount a piece of 2-3" or better scrap wire, the lighter the better, on the rolling stock of your choice using blue tack or some sticky, non-permanent glue.  Let it stick up in the air.  Any irregularities on the rolling, dipping, dropping, etc will be visibly amplified in the action at the end of that wire.  I discovered that by accident but it really works checking out track work.   Easier yet, put another wire on an adjacent car or two and as they get friendly, waving at each other, you will quickly pinpoint trouble areas.

[SandyEggoJake]

a tool which is not really needed.

+1 re the Micromark version.  But....

What might we add to make the ultimate test car? 

I like @narrowminded 's vertical flopping wire idea... needs a catchy name.  Deflector Detector? 

But what if instead of a vertical wire, one mounted an acrylic plate with the profile of the NMRA clearance gauge for your layout's era, say in line with the leading sill.  Then centered top, a short horizontal bar over the centerline of the car, squared to the plate.  At the end of the bar, an eyehook directly over the kningpin.  From that hang a limp wire hanging down to the deck terminating with a miniature plumb bob with an inclinometer etched on the acrylic? 

Perhaps one could rig a track gauge too.  Maybe such would be a special wheelset, properly gauged, but perhaps with a slightly oversided flange (to the max NMRA spec) flange and narrow tread (to the NMRA min)?  The goal would be to create a very sensitive car, that found every snag. 

And while at it, we could toss on an amp meter with the leads being the last wheelset of the trailing truck.  Clearance, deflection, gauge and current?   

And hey ... we could toss on a Bachmann doodlebug shell, paint it yellow and black and stuff in it a REEEALLLY small ultrasonic rail test rig.  What?  Too far?

[peteski]

Jake, you would have loads of  fun if this car was available in N scale.    forward the video to 1:11 for the fun stuff.

[narrowminded]

I like @narrowminded 's vertical flopping wire idea... needs a catchy name.  Deflector Detector? 

How about Weeble Wobble Willie?  Too technical?

A simple truck with integral coupler and a wire up from the bolster pin hole would really work due to the extremely short wheelbase, amplifying in all planes.  A piece of 28 gauge or finer.  The beauty is in the simplicity.

[nkalanaga]

"A simple truck with integral coupler and a wire up from the bolster pin hole"

Start with a MT scale test car?  It's basically a truck with couplers on both ends, but the body gives more options for mounting stuff.  For one thing, it's more likely to be glueable than a standard truck frame.

[robert3985]

...In my experience most (um, all) track problems can be tracked down without a fancy see-through flat car. To me it seems more like a gimmick - a tool which is not really needed.  But that's just my opinion.   Cavemen asked, so I'm giving it.

+1

I used to use my worst running car as a test car, reasoning that if it'd go through, then anything else would.  It was an 89' Bachmann (Hong Kong) auto carrier with the stock Bachmann metal wheelsets and Rapido couplers...and it weighed less than a MTL 40' boxcar.

However, I quit doing that since now I have standardized my wheelsets, only run engines that have as near perfectly gauged wheelsets as I can make 'em, and all my cars are at least properly weighted. 

I just use whatever car or cars are going to travel that portion of my layout as "test" cars.

Since I am the "track-nazi" I make sure that my railheads are all even vertically and horizontally, that all my track is in proper gauge, and since I hand-build every blinkin' turnout on my layout/modules/sections, I use a couple of different kinds of gauges while building them...so they don't surprise me when I lay 'em permanently on the layout.  I already know they're gonna work perfectly because I've closely checked their gauge and clearances way before I put 'em on the roadbed.

I gotta think that if you're careful, with a list of things you watch for while laying track, and gauges and methods to check and confirm the veracity of your trackwork, a dedicated test car is unnecessary.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[glakedylan]

Jake, you would have loads of  fun if this car was available in N scale.    forward the video to 1:11 for the fun stuff.
<<<video deleted for obvious reasons>>>

Dang! who needs a track testing car when one can run those eyeglasses around the layout on a flat car!
 

[Caveman]

Thanks everyone. My lady friend had a death in the family so I've been preoccupied the last few days.

I think the acrylic test cars are overkill and I was overthinking things. I rarely have track problems. Among other things, I have OCPD—the mental illness type that effects your daily functioning, not the I-posted-a-funny-OCD-meme-on-Facebook type—and I become obsessed with perfection. (It has its good points as well as its bad points.)

I like the spring wire idea. It would be interesting to see how much it wobbles even with no track problems.

[SandyEggoJake]

Was browsing MoW cars and found what might be a cool prototype for a true rail clearance car.   Seems of increased value as more go over to bodymount MTL True scale couplers.  Just saying...mind the gap!

http://digital.hagley.org/PRR_18581

[nkalanaga]

Quite a few railroads used to have similar cars.  I've never seen one, so they apparently were uncommon by the late 1960s, probably because it was cheaper to make the clearances oversized than to measure everything and restrict cars to routes they fit.  Modern earth moving machinery made a lot of difference...

Also, most of the Northwest railroads were built before the cities grew, so they could decide what would be built near the tracks, instead of having to fit between existing structures.