Guys,
Just got my idler flats and open gon sets today.
Everything is the usual Accu quality until you put them to prototypical use.
The flats set higher than the gons, thus defeating the purpose unless you put something under your pipes or long loads.
The regular run of the mill Accu flats sit lower and would work better for idlers.
The only difference they have smoothed up the sides on the idlers by removing the stack pockets.
The gons have the brake staff and wheel moved to one side.
Somebody missed the boat on that one John.
Interesting John. It would seem to make these cars incompatible with each other, even though they are designed to be sets.
In the prototype, did the pipe sit directly on the floor of the gondola, or were there cradles that effectively raised the pipe?
Happy RRing,
Jerry
I don’t know for sure, Jerry.
I’m trying to research it, but so far nothing.
Perhaps the pipes did sit on pallets or something.
It’s funny that the idlers sit higher than the regular Accu flats.
According to some, the idlers were cut down from used cattle, box, and gons.
They were not factory orders.
If so, then yes, they might sit higher than the open ended gons. (Except the ones built from the same gons.)
Pipes were typically raised up on a 4x4 or 6x6 block. Not knowing how the Accu cars sit, I cant tell what the issue is, though.
The friends of the C&TS have restored one set and are working on a second set so they may be able to tell you how they should aligh.
Stan Ames
A 6x6 cribbing in 1:20.3 would raise the pipe just enough to clear the flat. (I think)
I’ll build some and check it out and report back.
Looks like a deck mismatch was the least of the problem with some of these…
http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00401115+RR-1115
Went looking for photos in the Denver library… that was the only one I found (so far) with both types of car in it… 
Matthew (OV)
An Idler flat ® and a regular Accu flat (L).
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/jebouck/idler1.jpg)
An open end gon and an idler flat.
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/jebouck/idler2.jpg)
With 1/4" x 1/4" cribbing.
That looks incredibly wrong to me. Here’s a photo of idler 6708 I took several years ago in Chama (and made a model of it for CJ, btw).
(http://zbd.com/photos/Prototype%20Trains/6708_Idler_Flatcar/CATS%20001.jpg)
Thats VERY low.
According to “A Century Plus Ten of D&RGW Narrow Gauge Freight Cars” book they should be the same height, as they were all originally high side gondolas. The ends were taken off some, all sides from others. An excerpt from p. 127 (2000 edition):
(http://www.jbrr.com/Pics/RollingStock/Gondolas/PipeGons.jpg)
Went to the friends site and looked for photos in their work sessions.
(http://www.cumbrestoltec.org/ws2006C.php?image=img004.jpg)
(http://www.cumbrestoltec.org/ws2005F.php?image=IMG_6501.jpg)
The second shows them together. Note while the gon is the same height the flat is much lower, the coupler height on the gon is a dead givaway. The following shows the idler under restoration. Again looki at the coupler to judge the correct height.
(http://www.cumbrestoltec.org/ws2005F.php?image=IMG_6532.jpg)
Stan
And the OTHER half of the story…(p95)
(http://www.jbrr.com/Pics/RollingStock/Gondolas/IdlerFlats.jpg)
Bruce,
Not all were cut down from gons.
Some were stock cars. (According to various websites I visited, anyway.)
I don’t have any Accu stocks (yet) to compare to.
It looks like Accu made their models to represent cut down gons. But they didn’t add the rail stiffeners underneath.
I’ll just use the cribbing and run 'em…
Whoops, we both posted at the same time…
Hehe…it took me too long! There’s a wealth of information in that book. It’s pretty cool…you can really use what ever you want. 
Howdy there, I wonder what the correct size rail would be to make that detail look right on the flats? Any ideas out there?
DUH! Do I feel stupid! The correct answer is; the car is that high so code 332 rail will work underneath it …doh! =D
Hi John,
Not sure what you are asking, but any rail size (115, 250, etc) wouldn’t change the height off the rail one bit. Just the height below the wheel.
The rail was used for reinforcement. To be reasonably in scale, code 200 or 215 are equivalent to 55 & 65 lb. rail in 1:20.3, and would look good. Code 332 is equivalent to ~130 lb. rail in 1:20.3, and would seriously overwhelm the cars.
Just my opinion, your mileage may vary!!
Happy RRing,
Jerry
