Wright writes.....

[jrg1]

4 hours ago, Jack P said:

Thank you Tony, and also you Tony!

 

TG, Is the Olfa cutter one of the rotary disc ones, or a straight blade?

 

The piercing saw I've got appears to work, but the blade seems to wander, a lot! I wonder if it's the type of blade i'm using?

 

TW, Thank you for the advice, I wouldn't have known about the distorting of metal. 6th form Physics was 10 years ago..

 

 

Additionally, a decent pair Jeweller's tinsnips are ideal for the brass and N/S work that modellers do, plus a modeller's notching press is useful if you are doing lots of straight metal cutting-these avoid distortion.  

 

[t-b-g]

I have very mixed feelings about side control on bogies.

 

I have seen enough good running models with no side control and enough bad running models with side control to have developed an opinion that it is not a case of side control being good and no side control being bad.

 

It is more to do with the way the bogie is mounted, the position of the pivot point and the possible arc of movement of the bogie.

 

If you can get an 0-6-0 tank to push a 4 wheeled wagon in a straight line or round a curve for shunting purposes, without controlling the side play of the wagon, then doing the same on a 4-6-0 or suchlike shouldn't be too difficult. If you build in something that is, in effect, trying to keep the wagon and the loco in a straight line, rather than letting the wagon turn to go round a bend, you can create, rather than solve problems.

 

I am not saying that side control is a bad thing. Just that you have to careful about the design to make it do the job properly and that I have seen enough good running without side control to know that it is not vital to have it.

 

 

[DougN]

I will put my recommendation for straight cuts in brass is the jewelers saw and Modellers vice. Along with the Etch shears from Xuron (9180ET High Precision Scissor). The best way I can describe these is they are one of my tools if it broke tomorrow I would rush out and buy another pair! They have been invaluable building the Finney V2's as they can cut perfectly from the etch which has saved heaps of time cleaning up the edges over the last 8 Months or so!

 

[Michael Edge]

7 hours ago, Jack P said:

 

Thanks Mike, how do you grind them down, and how often do you have to replace them?

This is the one I've been using for at least 15 years.

It's ground from a No.11 blade, gets sharpened occasionally and might be nearly due for replacement.

My saw table (1/16th mild steel plate) has seen a lot more use than TBG's........

It has been on the bench since 1977 though.

I get saw blades from Shesto, 4/0 for thin sheet, 0 for thicker stuff. Sawing accurately is mostly a matter of practice, it's actually much easier to do a curve than a straight line. The blades do sometimes stat to wander one way or the other as they wear, I gradually twist the frame round to counteract this. 

TW's advice about using tinsnips is very good and also applies to nibbling up etched frets.

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

This is the one I've been using for at least 15 years.

It's ground from a No.11 blade, gets sharpened occasionally and might be nearly due for replacement.

My saw table (1/16th mild steel plate) has seen a lot more use than TBG's........

It has been on the bench since 1977 though.

I get saw blades from Shesto, 4/0 for thin sheet, 0 for thicker stuff. Sawing accurately is mostly a matter of practice, it's actually much easier to do a curve than a straight line. The blades do sometimes stat to wander one way or the other as they wear, I gradually twist the frame round to counteract this. 

TW's advice about using tinsnips is very good and also applies to nibbling up etched frets.

 

Mine is actually older than me, having been made by Malcolm Crawley in the 1950s. It gets used most modelling days but you have built far more locos than he and I put together so yours has probably had more use.

 

I don't know how you got yours in that state!

 

I was taught to position the metal so you don't cut the table underneath.

[polybear]

7 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I don't know how you got yours in that state!

 

I was taught to position the metal so you don't cut the table underneath.

 

....But Mike works so fast you can see the sparks fly....

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

....But Mike works so fast you can see the sparks fly....

 

If he didn't slow himself down by sawing the sixteenth inch thick plate he could work even faster!

 

I hope you know I am kidding Mike. Please don't take me seriously.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I have very mixed feelings about side control on bogies.

 

I have seen enough good running models with no side control and enough bad running models with side control to have developed an opinion that it is not a case of side control being good and no side control being bad.

 

It is more to do with the way the bogie is mounted, the position of the pivot point and the possible arc of movement of the bogie.

 

If you can get an 0-6-0 tank to push a 4 wheeled wagon in a straight line or round a curve for shunting purposes, without controlling the side play of the wagon, then doing the same on a 4-6-0 or suchlike shouldn't be too difficult. If you build in something that is, in effect, trying to keep the wagon and the loco in a straight line, rather than letting the wagon turn to go round a bend, you can create, rather than solve problems.

 

I am not saying that side control is a bad thing. Just that you have to careful about the design to make it do the job properly and that I have seen enough good running without side control to know that it is not vital to have it.

 

 

I entirely agree, Tony.

 

A very well-argued case.

 

My take on such things (and there are well over 150 kit-built/scratch-built locos with bogies/ponies on LB) is the simpler the better, and side control/springing/compensation on such items is too complicated. None derail, and all have no more than as much lead as possible added to them, always biased towards the leading axle of a bogie or ahead and on top of the axle of a pony. 

 

I do actually restrict a bogey's swing to some extent - I hate picking up a loco to then see the pony/bogey point straight at the floor - and, as mentioned before, I'll often spring the bogie on a cast-metal 4-4-0 to balance the body, but no more. I've also got my Schools to go round tight curves, yet still retain the rear bogie splashers by actually preventing the bogie from swinging too much from side to side, making the whole chassis, effectively, a sort of 0-8-0, with considerable sideplay on the rear coupled axle. 

 

As for removing metal from the insides of cylinders, has anyone not done this on a model of a B16/1, and then asked it to negotiate curves of around 2' 6"?  A couple of Bytham's kick-back sidings go down to this, though the minimum running radius is 3'.

 

Which brings me down to the necessity of asking our creations to go around curves which one would only see on the real thing in a colliery or dockyard. What does, say, 2' 6" equate to in scale? Even 3' is ridiculously tight. 

 

I recall seeing the two Kings at Barry Docks a few years ago, where the centre driving wheels had been flame-cut through so that the dead locos could be shunted into position, over curves far more generous than on many model equivalents. Not only that, there were deep grooves in the frames where the backs of the drivers had gouged out metal and, particularly, where the rear bogie wheels had. These had been done in general service, not in the last few days of the locos' operating lives. If such things occurred on our models, the results would mean disastrous running, including numerous short circuits. Metal on our models in such 'intimate' situations, has to be removed surely?

 

No, being of simple mind, the less-complicated the better, and any locos I've had through my hands built by others which I've offered for sale on behalf of others, which have 'complicated' bogies (the locos, not the 'others') where riding has been poor, I've simplified them. Then they work! Even if it means removing some metal from the rears of cylinders, which can't be seen, anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[Tony Wright]

Some wonderful tools/gadgets shown...........

 

Many thanks.

 

Here's my cutting 'V'.

 

 

At least 45 years old, and counting.....................

[Michael Edge]

22 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

 

I was taught to position the metal so you don't cut the table underneath.

That's a fine theory but I like to keep the work as close to the support as possible which leads to the saw running against the table and also I deliberately run it there to more accurately start a cut in thin material. I don't use the method of taping it to a piece of wood.

I couldn't begin to think how much has been cut out on this in the last 43 years - not just by me, my son and daughter both learned to use a piercing saw on here from a very early age. Current use is often sawing lengths of brass tube to go in Judith's kits and I am considering actually making a new one..... It will have graduated scale at one side though for measuring said lengths - just visible at the right are some scratches  for commonly used ones.

[Northmoor]

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Which brings me down to the necessity of asking our creations to go around curves which one would only see on the real thing in a colliery or dockyard. What does, say, 2' 6" equate to in scale? Even 3' is ridiculously tight. 

 

I recall seeing the two Kings at Barry Docks a few years ago, where the centre driving wheels had been flame-cut through so that the dead locos could be shunted into position, over curves far more generous than on many model equivalents.

 

3' radius is about scale 3.5 chains, so yes, "small yard" radii.

 

The King (and 92245, Galatea etc.) had their wheels cut at Barry not to enable them to move at all but after derailment, probably in some cases because they couldn't negotiate the curves and this was easier than re-railing.  It was also because certain non-ferrous metals had already been pinched from the loco's bearings, so the wheels didn't track properly.

[Michael Edge]

16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

I recall seeing the two Kings at Barry Docks a few years ago, where the centre driving wheels had been flame-cut through so that the dead locos could be shunted into position, over curves far more generous than on many model equivalents. Not only that, there were deep grooves in the frames where the backs of the drivers had gouged out metal and, particularly, where the rear bogie wheels had. These had been done in general service, not in the last few days of the locos' operating lives. If such things occurred on our models, the results would mean disastrous running, including numerous short circuits. Metal on our models in such 'intimate' situations, has to be removed surely?

 

 

 

Alan Smith of Leeds MRS was involved with moving the locos from the old museum in York to the current one, in those far off days this was done the obvious way along the rails connecting them, nowadays it would no doubt be done by road. He was amazed at how much the bogie wheels ground into the frames while doing this, not a problem for full size locos which don't use two rail electrification.

[t-b-g]

7 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

That's a fine theory but I like to keep the work as close to the support as possible which leads to the saw running against the table and also I deliberately run it there to more accurately start a cut in thin material. I don't use the method of taping it to a piece of wood.

I couldn't begin to think how much has been cut out on this in the last 43 years - not just by me, my son and daughter both learned to use a piercing saw on here from a very early age. Current use is often sawing lengths of brass tube to go in Judith's kits and I am considering actually making a new one..... It will have graduated scale at one side though for measuring said lengths - just visible at the right are some scratches  for commonly used ones.

 

I am just imagining what Malcolm would have said if he had seen me deliberately cutting into his saw table to help start a cut in thin metal. I used to borrow it when I spent time working with him.

 

I have genuinely never had a problem making cuts in thin metal as long as the blade is fine enough. The Bergeon blades go down to 8/0 size, which has teeth fine enough to cut metal 0.16mm thick, between 6 and 7 thou. They must be so fragile as to break if you breathe on them. The smallest I use is a 5/0 which will cut 0.2mm metal (8 thou). They are a bit more durable and I can often make them blunt before they break which is usually through me putting extra pressure on because they are not cutting as well as they did when new.

 

I know Peter Denny and probably many others used to pin his metal to wood to allow him to use coarser blades on thin metal but I have never found it necessary.

 

It probably sounds quite sad but I really enjoy cutting metal with a saw, more than just about any single other thing in the hobby. Marking out and cutting a complex shape is just about as satisfying as it gets! 

[Michael Edge]

I do have 5/0 blades but don't use them very often, never used anything finer. The table is just a bit of sacrificial kit, nothing precious and easily replaced when I eventually get round to it.

[t-b-g]

21 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I do have 5/0 blades but don't use them very often, never used anything finer. The table is just a bit of sacrificial kit, nothing precious and easily replaced when I eventually get round to it.

 

Once I was pointed in the direction of those Swiss blades, I use a 5/0 or a 4/0 for almost everything. The transformation from using the blades previously obtained from model railway traders to the Swiss ones was a real eye opener. The old blades used to hack through the metal and I had to fight to keep them on a line, the Swiss ones glide along a line with little or no effort.

 

If anybody hasn't tried them, they should.

 

Commercial over! 

[Chas Levin]

Re. Bogie side control: thank you Andrew for posting notes on this question, and thank you both Tonys for your comments and further thoughts.

With due note that I'm a very inexperienced loco builder, but with some experience of wider engineering work, I think it's an interesting conundrum. Andrew's theory seems very solid and very appealing as it offers reliability and repeatability and it makes sense to me (particularly the parent-child image!), but the practical findings concerning the un-side-controlled models that run beautifully and the side-controlled ones that don't would seem to offer a contrary point of view that must surely have an explanation which I struggle to understand.

This seems to echo aspects of the debate about rigid versus suspension chassis (in whichever form - sprung, compensated) and as has been pointed out by Tony above and is often pointed it in that debate too, there are so many variables that affect the running (amongst the most notable being the design and build quality of both model and track) that it appears difficult to arrive at a conclusive answer.

Short of building four of exactly the same kit, one rigid and with no bogie side control, one rigid and with bogie side control, one with suspension in whichever way and with bogie side control, one with similar suspension but without bogie side control and then testing them exhaustively on the same layout (and with the condition that both track and locos all be built to a suitably high standard of construction), I'm not sure how we can get closer to some definitive findings.

Has anyone ever run such tests? I know there are people on here who have built multiple examples of the same kit (Tony W being an example of course) but do those who've built such multiples also experiment between rigid and suspension chassis, side-control and no side-control?

Edited July 30, 2020 by Chas Levin

[Headstock]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I have very mixed feelings about side control on bogies.

 

I have seen enough good running models with no side control and enough bad running models with side control to have developed an opinion that it is not a case of side control being good and no side control being bad.

 

It is more to do with the way the bogie is mounted, the position of the pivot point and the possible arc of movement of the bogie.

 

If you can get an 0-6-0 tank to push a 4 wheeled wagon in a straight line or round a curve for shunting purposes, without controlling the side play of the wagon, then doing the same on a 4-6-0 or suchlike shouldn't be too difficult. If you build in something that is, in effect, trying to keep the wagon and the loco in a straight line, rather than letting the wagon turn to go round a bend, you can create, rather than solve problems.

 

I am not saying that side control is a bad thing. Just that you have to careful about the design to make it do the job properly and that I have seen enough good running without side control to know that it is not vital to have it.

 

 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

I have seen enough good running models with no side control and enough bad running models with side control to have developed an opinion that it is not a case of side control being good and no side control being bad.

 

Bad running models, are bad running models, it has nothing to do with the addition of bogie side control and everything to do with bad modeling.

 

it's more to do with the way the bogie is mounted, the position of the pivot point and the possible arc of movement of the bogie. 

 

Yes I agree, It's called bogie side control.

 

If you can get an 0-6-0 tank to push a 4 wheeled wagon in a straight line or round a curve for shunting purposes, without controlling the side play of the wagon, then doing the same on a 4-6-0 or suchlike shouldn't be too difficult.

 

The 0-6-0 that you mention, lacks the overhang of the 4-6-0 running as an 0-6-0, thus not an applicable example. 

 

If you build in something that is, in effect, trying to keep the wagon and the loco in a straight line, rather than letting the wagon turn to go round a bend, you can create, rather than solve problems.

 

It's not about keeping the anything locked in a straight line, that is a deliberate misinterpretation. It is about returning the boogie to the centre line after it has done its job of guiding the chassis.

 

 I have seen enough good running without side control to know that it is not vital to have it.

 

I could say the same about paint or solder. On the other hand, I've seen enough bad running were it would have been vital to have it.

 

Despite your ambiguity on the subject, you seem to be indicating that you are considering using it on your B7.

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, Chas Levin said:

Re. Bogie side control: thank you Andrew for posting notes on this question, and thank you both Tonys for your comments and further thoughts.

With due note that I'm a very inexperienced loco builder, but with some experience of wider engineering work, I think it's an interesting conundrum. Andrew's theory seems very solid and very appealing as it offers reliability and repeatability, but the practical findings concerning the un-side-controlled models that run beautifully and the side-controlled ones that don't would seem to offer a contrary point of view.

This seems to echo aspects of the debate about rigid versus suspension chassis (in whichever form) and as has been pointed out by Tony above and is often pointed it in that debate too, there are so many variables that affect the running (amongst the most notable being the design and build quality of both model and track) that it appears difficult to arrive at a conclusive answer.

Short of building four of exactly the same kit, one rigid and with no bogie side control, one rigid and with bogie side control, one with suspension in whichever way and with bogie side control, one with similar suspension but without bogie side control and then testing them exhaustively on the same layout (and with the condition that both track and locos all be built to a suitably high standard of construction), I'm not sure how we can get closer to some definitive findings.

Has anyone ever run such tests? I know there are people on here who have built multiple examples of the same kit (Tony W being an example of course) but do those who've built such multiples also experiment between rigid and suspension chassis, side-control and no side-control?

Good morning Chas,

 

I'm not saying that all side-control bogies/ponies don't run as well as ones which offer no guidance, but they're certainly not the panacea for all running ills by their guiding the locos into curves. As I've mentioned, I have none, and all the 'unrestricted' ones ride perfectly, don't derail and probably don't contribute anything to loco-guidance. They don't need to - those same locos ride beautifully just as 0-6-0s. 

 

As for 'running tests'.............. In my professional loco-building days, a popular one (prior to a decent RTR version) was an original Bulleid Pacific, of all three types. I always used Crownline kits to make these (Ian Rathbone painting them), and the chassis on those was compensated at source, including a recommendation that the bogie be sprung. I built the first one as prescribed, and it ran 'all right'. However, what a fiddle to get it to run to my satisfaction. The drive was on the rear axle, with jointed rods. It limped, wobbled, swayed from side to side and slipped excessively when starting a train (just like the prototype!). I did eventually get it to ride 'properly' (with its sprung bogie), but never again. The others I made had everything soldered rigid (rods included), driven off the centre axle and the bogie packed with lead. All done in probably a third of the time, and 'perfect' running every time. 

 

I know Roy Jackson built two identical A3s, one solid, one compensated. Tony Gee knows more of this than I do, but Roy told me (in his unique way) that he found no advantage in compensation/spring (in EM), and that the 'floppy' one took at least three times longer to build. He was going to write about his experiences, but I never saw anything.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

21 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Re. Bogie side control: thank you Andrew for posting notes on this question, and thank you both Tonys for your comments and further thoughts.

With due note that I'm a very inexperienced loco builder, but with some experience of wider engineering work, I think it's an interesting conundrum. Andrew's theory seems very solid and very appealing as it offers reliability and repeatability and it makes sense to me, but the practical findings concerning the un-side-controlled models that run beautifully and the side-controlled ones that don't would seem to offer a contrary point of view that must surely have an explanation.

This seems to echo aspects of the debate about rigid versus suspension chassis (in whichever form - sprung, compensated) and as has been pointed out by Tony above and is often pointed it in that debate too, there are so many variables that affect the running (amongst the most notable being the design and build quality of both model and track) that it appears difficult to arrive at a conclusive answer.

Short of building four of exactly the same kit, one rigid and with no bogie side control, one rigid and with bogie side control, one with suspension in whichever way and with bogie side control, one with similar suspension but without bogie side control and then testing them exhaustively on the same layout (and with the condition that both track and locos all be built to a suitably high standard of construction), I'm not sure how we can get closer to some definitive findings.

Has anyone ever run such tests? I know there are people on here who have built multiple examples of the same kit (Tony W being an example of course) but do those who've built such multiples also experiment between rigid and suspension chassis, side-control and no side-control?

 

Good morning Chas,

 

I should have sent you a PM. This is not a sympathetic place to discuss such things. Your are slightly missing the point though, you fit it as required, especially if there is, or likely to be an issue with a bogie, not as an overarching solution, though it can be if you so wish. For example, look at those who try and put it down, yet they grudgingly admit to using it when required. Beware of those who celebrate of ludditism and think it is clever.

 

P.S. It's not a theory, It is tried as tested methodology. Though it is a simplification, It's how real locomotives work.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Headstock

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

I have seen enough good running models with no side control and enough bad running models with side control to have developed an opinion that it is not a case of side control being good and no side control being bad.

 

Bad running models, are bad running models, it has nothing to do with the addition of bogie side control and everything to do with bad modeling.

 

it's more to do with the way the bogie is mounted, the position of the pivot point and the possible arc of movement of the bogie. 

 

Yes I agree, It's called bogie side control.

 

If you can get an 0-6-0 tank to push a 4 wheeled wagon in a straight line or round a curve for shunting purposes, without controlling the side play of the wagon, then doing the same on a 4-6-0 or suchlike shouldn't be too difficult.

 

The 0-6-0 that you mention, lacks the overhang of the 4-6-0 running as an 0-6-0, thus not an applicable example. 

 

If you build in something that is, in effect, trying to keep the wagon and the loco in a straight line, rather than letting the wagon turn to go round a bend, you can create, rather than solve problems.

 

It's not about keeping the anything locked in a straight line, that is a deliberate misinterpretation. It is about returning the boogie to the centre line after it has done its job of guiding the chassis.

 

 I have seen enough good running without side control to know that it is not vital to have it.

 

I could say the same about paint or solder. On the other hand, I've seen enough bad running were it would have been vital to have it.

 

Despite your ambiguity on the subject, you seem to be indicating that you are considering using it on your B7.

Good morning Andrew,

 

'Bad running models, are bad running models, it has nothing to do with the addition of bogie side control and everything to do with bad modeling.'

 

I have to disagree with this statement, at least in part. 

 

I can only speak from personal experience (I hope you'll concede, a fair bit), but not long ago I had a loco through my hands which was an example of 'very good modelling'. It was for sale on behalf of a bereaved family (builder unknown; not the deceased owner). I'll never offer anything for sale unless I've made sure it runs well. This loco's bogie had a spring, with restricted sideplay; what you call bogie 'side-control'. When I tested it on LB, the bogie derailed on tighter curves. I removed it, and ran the loco as an 0-6-0. It behaved impeccably. I thus discarded the bogie's spring, increased the sideplay, effectively decreasing the side-control. The bogie then had as much lead packed into it as possible. The result - perfect riding and road-holding. 

 

I state again, we are asking our models to negotiate 'ridiculous' curves and, in my case that means decreasing the amount of side-control. In case you think this is just 'theory', perhaps those who've operated Little Bytham might like to comment on how my locos' bogies behave.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Chas,

 

I should have sent you a PM. This is not a sympathetic place to discuss such things. Your are slightly missing the point though, you fit it as required, especially if there is, or likely to be an issue with a bogie, not as an overarching solution, though it can be if you so wish. For example, look at those who try and put it down, yet they grudgingly admit to using it when required. Beware of those who celebrate of ludditism and think it is clever.

 

P.S. It's not a theory, It is tried as tested methodology. Though it is a simplification, It's how real locomotives work.

Hmm, 

 

Pretty strong stuff (though it's actually Luddism; after the celebrated Ned Ludd). Some might even take exception to your suggestion, Andrew. 

 

I don't, and I don't think it's clever, either. In fact, I celebrate being a Luddite. Anyway, none of my locos work like real ones - they're full of things like lead and great big electric motors.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Headstock]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

'Bad running models, are bad running models, it has nothing to do with the addition of bogie side control and everything to do with bad modeling.'

 

I have to disagree with this statement, at least in part. 

 

I can only speak from personal experience (I hope you'll concede, a fair bit), but not long ago I had a loco through my hands which was an example of 'very good modelling'. It was for sale on behalf of a bereaved family (builder unknown; not the deceased owner). I'll never offer anything for sale unless I've made sure it runs well. This loco's bogie had a spring, with restricted sideplay; what you call bogie 'side-control'. When I tested it on LB, the bogie derailed on tighter curves. I removed it, and ran the loco as an 0-6-0. It behaved impeccably. I thus discarded the bogey's spring, increased the sideplay, effectively decreasing the side-control. The bogie then had as much lead packed into it as possible. The result - perfect riding and road-holding. 

 

I state again, we are asking our models to negotiate 'ridiculous' curves and, in my case that means decreasing the amount of side-control. In case you think this is just 'theory', perhaps those who've operated Little Bytham might like to comment on how my locos' bogies behave.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Horses for Courses Tony,

 

it may be that the locomotive ran perfectly fine under the conditions it was designed for, alternatively, it seems likely that the side control was just bad design, that's everything to do with bad modeling.

 

Your locomotives run and operate just fine but they do contain compromises that I don't wish to except in my locomotives. For example, cutting away the cylinders and removing the chassis springs and hangers, I don't want to do that. Thus I employ other methods, different to yours, to achieve the same running result. The understanding and application of such methods is all part of the fun of modeling for me, there should always be new things to learn and the chance for development.

[Chuffer Davies]

13 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Re. Bogie side control: thank you Andrew for posting notes on this question, and thank you both Tonys for your comments and further thoughts.

With due note that I'm a very inexperienced loco builder, but with some experience of wider engineering work, I think it's an interesting conundrum. Andrew's theory seems very solid and very appealing as it offers reliability and repeatability and it makes sense to me (particularly the parent-child image!), but the practical findings concerning the un-side-controlled models that run beautifully and the side-controlled ones that don't would seem to offer a contrary point of view that must surely have an explanation which I struggle to understand.

This seems to echo aspects of the debate about rigid versus suspension chassis (in whichever form - sprung, compensated) and as has been pointed out by Tony above and is often pointed it in that debate too, there are so many variables that affect the running (amongst the most notable being the design and build quality of both model and track) that it appears difficult to arrive at a conclusive answer.

Short of building four of exactly the same kit, one rigid and with no bogie side control, one rigid and with bogie side control, one with suspension in whichever way and with bogie side control, one with similar suspension but without bogie side control and then testing them exhaustively on the same layout (and with the condition that both track and locos all be built to a suitably high standard of construction), I'm not sure how we can get closer to some definitive findings.

Has anyone ever run such tests? I know there are people on here who have built multiple examples of the same kit (Tony W being an example of course) but do those who've built such multiples also experiment between rigid and suspension chassis, side-control and no side-control?

Hi Chas,

As soon as I read Andrew's explanation of the benefits of side control I knew this age old argument would kick off again.  There are definitely two opposing camps here with only a few modellers taking the middle ground.  As those who have read my postings previously will know my approach to chassis building is definitely at the opposite end of the spectrum to that of Sir, although there is common ground even here when it comes to the importance of building the chassis square and making sure that the coupling rod centres are exactly aligned with the axle centres in the frames.  

 

When it comes to side control it is not incorrect for Tony to say that it is un-necessary  but I cannot agree that it offers no benefit.  A particular case in point for me where side control proved highly beneficial was for loco's shunting the yard on our Hungerford exhibition layout.  Initially I could not shunt into the rear siding in the goods yard using a small prairie's front buffers without buffer locking occurring.  As soon as I fitted side control to the front pony truck the problem was solved.  Before anyone suggests I could have restricted the side play on the front driven axle to achieve the same outcome, I'd already tried that. 

 

I can also say with confidence that side control on a bogie does definitely improve the passage of a locomotive through point work.  It is only a small incremental improvement, but an improvement none the less and I am very happy to spend an extra hour fitting side control for this small benefit.  It can also be the difference between needing to remove material from the back of the cylinders or not.  Tony says he is happy to do this as it can't be seen.  I personally hate doing this if I can avoid it.   

 

Not all layouts are suitable for models built with side control.  I anticipate that it is only suitable for, and you will get benefits with, models that are built to run on fine scale track, if you are using Peco points then the incremental benefit will be lost.  If your layout has curves tighter than 3ft here again I think you are expecting too much for a model with side control to work. Whilst I always ensure that the models I build will go round 2ft 6in radius I never run them in anger around anything under 3ft.

 

Fitting side control is not complicated but it does require the modeller to take the time to understand the mechanics of it.  If its not thought through it is unlikely to work (i.e. derailments will occur).  Here again I'm more than happy to take the time to think it through and it gets easier to get it right the more I do it. 

 

If you have a personal dislike of side control then don't do it, for me I see the benefit and I will continue to employ it for as long as I model.

 

Back to you Sir....

 

Frank  

[Headstock]

17 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Hmm, 

 

Pretty strong stuff (though it's actually Luddism; after the celebrated Ned Ludd). Some might even take exception to your suggestion, Andrew. 

 

I don't, and I don't think it's clever, either. In fact, I celebrate being a Luddite. Anyway, none of my locos work like real ones - they're full of things like lead and great big electric motors.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Morning Tony,

 

I have to confess, it's not actually my suggestion.

[Chas Levin]

47 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

"...Your are slightly missing the point though, you fit it as required, especially if there is, or likely to be an issue with a bogie, not as an overarching solution, though it can be if you so wish...

 

P.S. It's not a theory, It is tried as tested methodology. Though it is a simplification, It's how real locomotives work."

Yes, good point: you're right that I was leaping on it as a one-size-fits-all solution. And also a nice point that this is how full size locos work.

 

I didn't meant to start a hoo-hah of course, it's just that the wider subject of chassis suspension systems in all their forms does interest me. I fully realise that I say that as someone who hasn't yet built a loco with any kind of suspension (or even one with a bogie for that matter) and that once I find out how much extra work is involved to balance against how much improvement in running on my particular layout, I too may come around to feeling that simple is better in this case.

Part of the reason it interests me is the challenge of successfully building the more complicated chassis, and the anticipated pleasure of seeing a more intricate and complex machine working well and smoothly (hey - aim at the stars and you might hit a chimney pot, as my old French teacher used to say!).

 

With respect though (the last thing I'd want to do here is offend anyone - we're here for enjoyment, but we're also quite passionate at times!) I feel the word 'Luddite' is a little harsh in this context. A Luddite is one who rejects all modern technologies on principle, whereas here I think there is surely more thought behind the choices... If we assume that the object - below the footplate anyway - is to produce something that runs well, and if I build an entirely rigid loco that runs well on my layout (taking into account my particular competency levels in both loco and layout) then I think I would simply be using one of a number of currently available technologies to achieve the same aim as others do.

 

As it happens however, this is not (yet) the case! My current small layout was originally built by my father in the 1970s. When I inherited it, I wanted to preserve as much as possible (for obvious nostalgic reasons) and build on what was there (in terms of scenics, electrics, signalling etc, none of which were much of a feature). I am also in the process of building an extension to it using contemporary permanent way materials which will (I hope) offer very smooth running, but this does mean that anything I build has to negotiate something of an obstacle course! I have a test track in my workshop using modern track (otherwise despair would take over!) but once they hit the layout as it exists currently, it's a tough world . I quite like the additional challenge of building to cope with these conditions, and while I'm also in the process of improving the trackwork with extra shims, guide rails etc, I'll probably leave the basic way in place.

 

My first loco was a DJH J9/10, built entirely rigid and it runs very nicely round the layout... but at the cost of very un-prototypical driver side-play, extra weight and Romford wheels, plus some additional time spent 'honing' one or two layout curves and points! None of which is a problem for me, because the fun and satisfaction I get from seeing it on the move is more than ample compensation (no pun intended!).

But it does make me curious about whether other systems might deal better with what I'm asking them to do...

Edited July 30, 2020 by Chas Levin