Jump to content
 

MRJ 259


Not Jeremy
 Share

Recommended Posts

It was a very eloquent, very thoughtful and very loquacious submission, but I have two problems with it.

 

Firstly, I think it a mistake to have taken the bait that Tony was dangling: he obviously has strong opinions and a desire to find every possible reason to justify his own modelling paths by denigrating others. Tony: why not simply say that you made various choices for various personal reasons, and that you have no regrets over this because of the space requirements for the scope of the layout you want. Nothing wrong with that. Heck, you could even say that you know it is possible to build a mainline layout to P4 standards, but your personal understanding of the work required was that it would take up too much of your time and energy.

 

Secondly, Iain also mentions a private P4 layout, but overlooks “Heckmondwyke” with a 42” minimum radius, and also the “Irish P4” layout Adavoyle, which apart from being an unusual subject, demonstrated that properly designed and made, Proto standards not only work, but work in such a way that the trains ran through the station (at speed) with just the right amount of movement, something which is not achievable in 00. And that the work involved to get to this level of reliability is not that great, either.

 

I think the second point refutes Tony’s opinion as being without factual basis, and as a response to the original article, is all that is needed.

 

The body of Iain’s letter is, however, a wonderful exposition of the thinking behind making an informed decision over track and wheel standards when working in 4mm scale, and should be recommended reading reading for anyone considering a thoughtful and serious approach to the hobby.

 

(I am advocating here that we take the hobby seriously, but not ourselves.)

 

I thought that Iain Rice's letter was a very penetrating and substantial contribution to a long-standing major debate, and Tony's comments were worthwhile in  that they called it forth.

 

Heckmondwyke and Adavoyle are really not counters to the problems of building a main line in P4, for the good and simple reason that both were  very atypical mainlines in one key respect. The GNR(I) owned nothing bigger than 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s because Dundalk Works could not handle anything bigger without total rebuilding - which the GNR(I) couldn't justify/afford. The Midland's "small engine policy" meant that it too was worked almost entirely by 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s until the late 1930s when Jubilees and 8Fs appeared. Heckmondwyke was set before that.

 

In other words , yes, you can build a satisfactory mainline in P4 with moderate radius curvature - just so long as you  never run any large six-coupled locos on it!

 

That rules out the vast majority of steam age main lines........

 

Obviously diesels and electrics are much more forgiving in this respect

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Heckmondwyke and Adavoyle are really not counters to the problems of building a main line in P4, for the good and simple reason that both were  very atypical mainlines in one key respect. The GNR(I) owned nothing bigger than 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s because Dundalk Works could not handle anything bigger without total rebuilding - which the GNR(I) couldn't justify/afford. The Midland's "small engine policy" meant that it too was worked almost entirely by 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s until the late 1930s when Jubilees and 8Fs appeared. Heckmondwyke was set before that.

 

I don’t accept your premise.

Firstly, 4-4-0s are usually the bane of most modeller’s, so the fact that they worked with incredible reliability on these layouts speaks volumes for the practicality of the standards.

Secondly, those 0-6-0s could be pretty large and we’re fitted with working inside valvegear which was very accurately made, but would not necessarily respond well to lots of excessive side play, and clearances and tolerances were as fine as if the motion was outside.

Thirdly, although Heckmondwyke was designed to run a full representative service with the correct stock, other things did run on the layout at speed.

In other words , yes, you can build a satisfactory mainline in P4 with moderate radius curvature - just so long as you  never run any large six-coupled locos on it!

 

Since I don’t accept your premise, I do reject your conclusions.

 

That’s an interesting point, though, that MRJ by providing Tony with the opportunity to express his prejudices against P4, has allowed Iain to provide the results of some sums which show why P4 runs better, but I still think it was worthy of more than a letter. A fully fledged article with diagrams and photos would be good, especially if the S4Soc were given permission to reprint it as a handout. Some of the drawings can be found in Greenly’s “Model Railways”.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t accept your premise.

Firstly, 4-4-0s are usually the bane of most modeller’s, so the fact that they worked with incredible reliability on these layouts speaks volumes for the practicality of the standards.

Secondly, those 0-6-0s could be pretty large and we’re fitted with working inside valvegear which was very accurately made, but would not necessarily respond well to lots of excessive side play, and clearances and tolerances were as fine as if the motion was outside.

Thirdly, although Heckmondwyke was designed to run a full representative service with the correct stock, other things did run on the layout at speed.

Since I don’t accept your premise, I do reject your conclusions.

 

That’s an interesting point, though, that MRJ by providing Tony with the opportunity to express his prejudices against P4, has allowed Iain to provide the results of some sums which show why P4 runs better, but I still think it was worthy of more than a letter. A fully fledged article with diagrams and photos would be good, especially if the S4Soc were given permission to reprint it as a handout. Some of the drawings can be found in Greenly’s “Model Railways”.

 

4-4-0s  are the bane of modellers for reasons of weight balance not curvature - different issues (0-4-4Ts have related issues).

 

0-6-0s with inside valve gear only have it fitted to one axle... Which can be the fixed one. And in 5'3" gauge you've got an extra 2mm between the frames to fit it in compared with P4 - and an extra 4.5mm compared with OO

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Heckmondwyke ... The Midland's "small engine policy" meant that it too was worked almost entirely by 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s until the late 1930s when Jubilees and 8Fs appeared. Heckmondwyke was set before that.

 

There is photographic evidence of an 8F on Heckmondwyke. Where there really no Jubilees?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I often think of the gulf between the various 4mm gauge standards in terms of The Frost Report "Class sketch".

 

Cleese is, of course P4, Barker EM and Corbett OO.

 

post-21933-0-96008200-1512082961.jpg

 

Says it all, really.....

 

H,C & O (as rapidly as poss)

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I often think of the gulf between the various 4mm gauge standards in terms of The Frost Report "Class sketch".

 

Cleese is, of course P4, Barker EM and Corbett OO.

 

attachicon.gifFrostReportClassSketch.jpg

 

Says it all, really.....

 

H,C & O (as rapidly as poss)

I don't share that view, although I think the sketch is brilliant.

 

Sadly, the implication is that those who model in P4 consider themselves to be of a better class than those that model in the other two gauges. None of those that I know who model in P4 look down on those that model in EM or 00, although they do usually have a view on those who tend to take the "easy route", taking whatever the RTR manufacturers produce to create a un-researched, ill thought out model. One 00 modeller I know quite well and who has produced a very nice layout and stock tends to look down on P4 modellers. In fact I think that many 00 modellers tend to disparage P4 and EM, seeing it as unnecessary and irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I had actually been pondering this previously. My last few layouts have all been EM and in recent years have been of prototypes for which virtually nothing comes in boxes anyway. But i have been vaguely thinking of a bigger model when I have finished the one which sits hardly started (so decisions are not exactly urgent). And my thoughts have been moving increasingly towards a switch back to 16.5 mm because I would for that prototype and line be able to buy quite a few things off the shelf, and I am not getting any younger so it would need to be completed rather quicker than recent efforts (see my Sarn and Nantcwmdu thread in the Railways of Wales section if you want to see progress at a snail's pace).

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Surely regauging modern RTR to EM is not that difficult?

Depends, of course.

 

A Bachmann Bo Bo diesel is easier than a pannier.

 

A pannier is easier than a Hall.

 

A Hall is easier than a BR Standard Class 5

 

A BR Standard Class 5 is easier than a Heljan Garratt.

 

A Heljan Garratt is easier than doing two of 'em.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

In fact I think that many 00 modellers tend to disparage P4 and EM, seeing it as unnecessary and irrelevant.

A bit like the kind of 'inverted snobbery' that seems to be prevalent in parts of British society these days, where 'having an education' and 'knowing stuff' is sometimes looked down upon by those for whom this isn't important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

A bit like the kind of 'inverted snobbery' that seems to be prevalent in parts of British society these days, where 'having an education' and 'knowing stuff' is sometimes looked down upon by those for whom this isn't important.

I would like to take the opportunity to correct you here, my good Captain.

You say “prevalent”, but might “endemic” not be better, and you could add, “wanting to find out” to things that get looked down on...

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if you model in OO, then you're at least letting the side down by not going the extra 1.5/1.8 mm, if not actually lacking in moral fibre. 

 

However, because some people have that itch that drives them to go the extra distance, the models they produce are well worth examining. As someone who plays at OO modelling I can appreciate the effort they put in and the results they achieve.  I just don't need to put in their level of commitment to enjoy MY railway modelling.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry chaps but this is the first edition of MRJ that I have ever parted my hard earned cash on. This was solely on the promise of the cover picture of a Terrier. Glad I did...Plumpton Green is an inspiration to me as a keen but not very talented modeller of the LBSCR in the Victorian/Edwardian period. I also find for my efforts that 00 is ok...obviously not as good on the eye as P4 etc. but a combination of eyesight,lack of talent and money means I can bodge and hack around with things and still get a tremendous amount of satisfaction and fun which for some of us is enough from this great hobby.To the Barry Lucks of this world please keep up the great work which is a kick up the backside for people like me to get on with it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I would like to take the opportunity to correct you here, my good Captain.

 

You most certainly may, my good man.

 

 

You say “prevalent”, but might “endemic” not be better

Oddly enough, my dear fellow, I nearly used that term, but decided to water my comments down slightly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I went to the Manchester show today. Some good layouts, though possibly not quite up to last year's standard. There was a very nice looking S4 layout representing the M&SWJR during the First World War. However, while, as someone with a good deal of experience of taking club layouts of various kinds to exhibitions, I am only too aware of what can go wrong at a show which has never previously shown up in the clubroom, unfortunately on this layout stock seemed to find it impossible to traverse the crossover at the station entrance without falling off. I just hope it does not, in the eyes of some people, reinforce the view that S4 "doesn't work". In fact it was just the one turnout which was causing problems, and that can happen just as easily in OO when one takes a layout out of its normal environment.

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the Manchester show today. Some good layouts, though possibly not quite up to last year's standard. There was a very nice looking S4 layout representing the M&SWJR during the First World War. However, while, as someone with a good deal of experience of taking club layouts of various kinds to exhibitions, I am only too aware of what can go wrong at a show which has never previously shown up in the clubroom, unfortunately on this layout stock seemed to find it impossible to traverse the crossover at the station entrance without falling off. I just hope it does not, in the eyes of some people, reinforce the view that S4 "doesn't work". In fact it was just the one turnout which was causing problems, and that can happen just as easily in OO when one takes a layout out of its normal environment.

Jonathan

But would you have bothered to inform us in detail if the same had happened on a 00 gauge layout?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if you model in OO, then you're at least letting the side down by not going the extra 1.5/1.8 mm, if not actually lacking in moral fibre. 

 

 What a strange statement.

 

Good modelling in any 4mm gauge is still good modelling. Choosing to model a gauge 1.7mm or 2.33mm wider than 00's 16.5mm, with specific pointwork and wheel standards makes no difference to how well you research or make your locos, stock, infrastructure, buildings, scenery, etc. Are Little Bytham, Gresley Beat and a myriad of other well researched and modelled  00 layouts built by modellers lacking in moral fibre?

 

Or have I missed the humorous intent of your post?  :scratchhead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

But would you have bothered to inform us in detail if the same had happened on a 00 gauge layout?

Isn’t that the point of Jonathan’s post, that people only ever comment of this sort of thing when it isn’t 00, and that he hoped people weren’t going to jump up and down claiming that this provided definitive proof that P4 doesn’t work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Oddly enough, my dear fellow, I nearly used that term, but decided to water my comments down slightly.

Watering down? Is that different to dumbing down?

Or were you, as ever, providing a masterclass in understatement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 One 00 modeller I know quite well and who has produced a very nice layout and stock tends to look down on P4 modellers.

 

[snip]

 

In fact I think that many 00 modellers tend to disparage P4 and EM, seeing it as unnecessary and irrelevant.

 On the first sentence I can easily swap the gauges thinking of a couple of people. They are of course very much in the minority.

 

The second point is likely true for the majority of the OO 'market' though I'm not sure disparage may be the right word, unnecessary/irrelevant covering it. Like the first sentence it is also transposable, particularly if the wider gauge involves pre grouping era's being an easy example. Products for OO gauge for pre group eras are far and few between with the core EM/P4 skills being used on kits and scratch building to make things not available in 'OO' which could be adapted. Change the era's to D&E prototypes then the EM/P4 grouping significantly benefits from OO stock for conversion and detailing, as do we OO modellers!  

 

As primarily a OO modeller P4 and EM are largely irrelevant for me in terms of gauge, however I certainly use equipment and kits developed by practitioners in the wider gauges and are pleased to have them available. If EM and P4 items weren't available I'm not sure it'd have a significant impact on what I do, or a very large part of the 4mm modelling community. 

 

For me good modelling and good equipment is 'good' regardless of scale or gauge. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know....

lets argue about track gauge; its not been done for a long time - probably at least a couple of days or so.

 

As Iain Rice says it is horses for curses (sic) - nothing more, nothing less.....there is no "better" but there is "more suitable"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...