Project Effitt Works

[Porcy Mane]

Well, here we go with project Effitt Works. An exercise in P4 buffoonery.

 

Here's the plan. Well not an actual plan (That will come later) but a list of things I hope will slip into the box. That's a 72" (1828.8mm) x 18" (457.2mm) box.

 

4mm P4.

Prototypical loco's and stock for location & period.

Transition era. late 1950's to mid 1960's.

Based on actual location(s).(sort of)

Mainline Loco's. (well, light ingines with brake vans).

Industrial Locos.

Street Running.

DCC DC Switchable.

Everything else controlled by good old conventional electro mechanical methods.

Multi Level.

Two Turnouts (but not visible).

"Mood" lighting.

Incorporating cassettes & traverser. Oh, nearly forgot! A turntable.

Highly inefficient use of space.

 

No official entry submitted as yet as I need to try out a few things first. Depending on the success (or lack of) with these "experiments" will determine if the entry will be submitted.

 

Project Effitt  Works should produce a few bits of scrap that just may result in a second smaller cameo being spawned, the idea of which, came about as a result of a conversation about the Cameo competition down the pub.

 

So with a little over three weeks to go before deadline day, let the experiments begin.

 

Test number one...

Propelling a couple of 16 tonners round a 6 inch" (152 mm) radius curve with no transition...

 

 

Well, blow me. That worked surprisingly well.

 

Porcy

[Captain Kernow]

Sounds excellent, Porcy.

 

You did say it was to be P4, however. Are those items in the video of that gauge or OO?

 

And how heavy are those wagons?

[Edwardian]

"P4 buffoonery", not words I ever expected to read. So this project should certainly bring a smile to the face!

[Porcy Mane]

You did say it was to be P4, however. Are those items in the video of that gauge or OO?

 

I didn't think it would take long for that question to get asked.

 

I did say P4 but 00 for the first proving tests. It's that new fandangle Peco bullhead. Flexible Innit.

 

Initially 00 for a few reasons.

 

With there being much more tolerance between wheel flange and the inside face of railhead it should produce far greater potential for buffer overthrow[1] and locking when propelling.

 

Tighter tolerances of P4/S4 should lessen the overthrow BUT this doesn't take into account the interaction of the much smaller P4 flange against the rail. I have a feeling that there will be less of a tendency to buffer lock in P4. I can feel it in my water. I'm not yet decided on whether to use gauge widening.

 

I used the Hornby Sentinel for the test because of its long buffer/footplate overhang from the axle centre line as it exaggerates the geometry of how far the buffers and coupling hooks move out when encountering the curve. The buffers on the Sentinel were standard and not sprung. (yet). I used over scale Smiths three link chain to give a little more slack.

 

I like a bit of empirical as opposed to theoretical.

 

Just for the heck of it.

 

I was hoping to have some P4 track soldered up to try by last weekend but life got in the way. I did find some time to try Turbocad for the first time and produced a transition curve. It probably would take someone with a little knowledge of the programme a split second to produce a bezier curve but it took me bl**dy hours days. I just wish I could have found my French Curves.

 

P4 track initially to be laid & tested to this profile.

 

 

As I'm basically playing with what is narrow gauge track and on the planned Cameo the curves should not be visible, this publication will be my pilot.

 

[1] "Buffer overthrow". Is there such a term? Sounds good anyway.

 

And how heavy are those wagons?

 

"Those wagons" are virtually bog standard.

One is a Parkside riveted that was built when that kit was first introduced. (However many years ago that was?) It has no ballast the only deviation in the build was the fitting of PC etched 3 links and MJT sprung buffers[1]. Wheels were original Gibsons (EM) running in pin point bearings.

 

The other is an Airfix, built way back in the early 1970's. Down the years replacement MJT sprung buffers were substituted for the original plastic jobs and I fitted a sprung drawbar many moons ago. Again there is no ballast but it may be a few grams heavier than standard as at some time I changed the Airfix brake gear, levers and V's with cast white metal bits from ABS. The underside view shows how crude it is.

 

 

For the purpose of the "experiment" the original fit Gibson EM wheel sets were replaced with Kean Maygib 00 three holes.

[1] MJT sprung buffers fitted with original MJT springs which I find far too strong. I find Gibson buffer springs much weaker and give a more realistic "buffing action".

 

 

"P4 buffoonery", not words I ever expected to read.

 

I hear the words "Porcy" & "buffoon" used in the same sentence quite regularly.

 

 

So this project should certainly bring a smile to the face!

 

If the experiments are successful, I hope so.

 

To reflect what I expect during the testing, the secondary project as mentioned earlier has been christened, "Anticipation/Frustration".

 

P 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Porcy Mane

[Captain Kernow]

I recall that LisaP4 in the earlier years of this forum, demonstrated that she had managed to convert a Bachmann BR Standard 2-6-4T to P4 and that it ran round curves of 2 feet radius, or something like that.

[Regularity]

According to the BR diagram book (http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/Prototype.html), the "traditional" 9' and 10' wheelbase wagons would all go round a curve of 1 chain (22 yards or 66', approximately 20m) radius, and the standard BR brake van 1.5 chains.

 

The Yorkshire Engine Co small 4 wheel shutters, later class 02 under TOPS, were intended - like the LYR pugs they replaced - to go anywhere a wagon could go.

 

Not quite as tight as you are trying, but it is certain that 1 chain was probably quite generous and they could manage tighter.

 

If there was a groan button available for Layout names, I would have clicked on it...

[Porcy Mane]

Project Effitt Works Twoo-Woo

 

So with the cameo entry form submitted at the last minute, onto test number two.

 

Track knocked up in P4 with a small amount of transition and no gauge widening.

Due to the transition it means that the radius at the apogee of the curve will be a good bit tighter than the planned  six inch radius but it moved the high risk position for buffer lock away from the area where the point/turnout will be located. It also proved that gauge widening will be a necessity. A substantial increase in rolling resistance could be felt when finger propelling a couple of wagons around the curve and there was a distinct rise in wheel flange squeal .(more of a grind in actuality). Surprisingly I could not detect any of the wheels trying to climb up onto the railhead

 

 

I had to remove  a buffer from the inside drawbeam of the test chassis to prevent occasional buffer lock but springing the buffer should see that sorted.

 

So, what next? A relaying of the track with some gauge widening along with tightening the transition, then another test.

 

You'll have to excuse the occasional bit of poor focusing in the vid. The focus puller has received a severe reprimand and will be fed Chicken & Mushroom pot noodles for the next fortnight as punishment. His luncheon voucher allocation has also been withdrawn.

 

 

P

Edited September 25, 2017 by Porcy Mane

[Porcy Mane]

The Yorkshire Engine Co small 4 wheel shutters, later class 02 under TOPS, were intended - like the LYR pugs they replaced - to go anywhere a wagon could go.

Funny you should say that. The industrial version of the class 02 0-4-0 is one of the planned loco's.

 

This very loco in fact but modelled in it's condition when it was resident at a quarry close to me.

 

syks - ye 0-4-0d steetleys middleton works cadeby c67 JL by John Law, on Flickr

 

P

[Kylestrome]

From watching that last video I can see that your biggest problem will be the couplings – they may need to be a wee bit longer.

 

David

 

PS. The curve you had difficulty in drawing is only half of an ellipse, so not really that difficult (or is Turbocad not the right program for such things? ).

Edited September 25, 2017 by Kylestrome

[Porcy Mane]

From watching that last video I can see that your biggest problem will be the couplings – they may need to be a wee bit longer.

 

Thanks for the observation. 

 

As in the first vid above and 16 ton mineral pic, all couplings will be lightly sprung. Hopefully a bit more playing about with the transition curve will slightly reduce coupling hook overthrow. One thing working in my favour is that the planned "prime movers" that will be required to run round the oval have far less drawbeam overhang that the test chassis with one loco having dumb buffers. I do acknowledge that longer links will probably be required but fortunately that just mirrors industrial prototype practice. 

 

 

 

PS. The curve you had difficulty in drawing is only half of an ellipse, so not really that difficult (or is Turbocad not the right program for such things? ).

 

The difficulty was all mine and basically down to pure ignorance due to absolutely no experience of Tubocad. It would have been far quicker for me to plot the ellipse manually going back to what I learnt in my school days but as I would like to learn the basics with turbocad my time wasn't wasted.

 

P