C&L Finescale

[Ravenser]

I think you will find posting "banned content" under a nom-de-net will still be a violation of such company policies.

 

 

Technically, no doubt.

 

But in practice no company is going to pursue such content from an anonymous user-name unless the content is plainly detrimental .

 

On the other hand if an actual name is given it is very easy to monitor what an employee is saying - even if it isn't "banned content" - and that could have consequences for the employee. Imagine an ardent trade-unionist expressing strong support for industrial action in another TOC  - how would that go down with his own HR dept??  Do you really want your HR dept and manager monitoring every political or social attitude you display? (whether your politics are UKIP, Corbynist, or any point between...)  I've known managers - including HR managers - who've made it abundantly clear what their personal political views are, and just what they think of views/people on the other side.... 

 

Any posting on a topic - even if the comment isn't harmful in anyway - could be the basis of disciplinary action if your real name is given, and HR  type it into Google. 

 

Basically , under a user-name , nobody will react unless there's a genuine issue. Under your real name they can go for you if there's a hint of you straying into a grey area

 

And this goes for any other organisation you are involved with too

[2ManySpams]

And the first thing HR and recruitment folk do these days is screen candidates from their on-line profiles. I recently changed jobs and my new employer works extensively in a major UK rail project. Unfortunately having an interest in trains is frowned upon in the industry and therefore it's a very good idea for me and others in similar work places to keep social and work web presences completely separate.

[jjb1970]

I think you will find posting "banned content" under a nom-de-net will still be a violation of such company policies.

In addition to what has already been said, it isn't just about violating company policies and disciplinary action. Some people are required to promote things and conform to a position they don't especially agree with in public. If you share your honest opinion at home and with friends that's one thing, being open and candid on a public forum which is directly linked to your position at work is something else entirely. Even if it doesn't violate any company policies it would be embarrassing for everybody and most people appreciate that if they're happy to take the money from their employer then they can't really publicly undermine what they're being paid to do. They may not risk immediate dismissal but their future would be tarnished and more importantly perhaps their potential employability with other employers may well end up ruined (would you employ somebody edged out of a job for telling the world their employer was useless and spilling the dirt in a way that identified them with that employer?). There are certain topics on RMWeb I hugely enjoy that I wouldn't go near with a ten foot pole if I thought it could end up embarrassing myself and my employers at work.

[hayfield]

I bet Phil is pleased that people have been sidetracked and not complaining about something or other.

[AndyID]

In my view canted rail is an utter no-no in 4mm scale. Nobody can actually see it, and it makes it all but impossible to make proper conical set bends and knuckle bends without serious press equipment. Even the prototype had difficulty, hence the vertical flat-bottom rail used in pointwork renewals from about 1970 to 2001.

 

And as long as the wheel treads are coned the differential effect still works with flat-top rail . (Not that the differential effect actually does much of anything at 1/76.)

[irishmail]

And the first thing HR and recruitment folk do these days is screen candidates from their on-line profiles. I recently changed jobs and my new employer works extensively in a major UK rail project. Unfortunately having an interest in trains is frowned upon in the industry and therefore it's a very good idea for me and others in similar work places to keep social and work web presences completely separate.

What would be the point of working for company if you do not have any interest in the job?

[hayfield]

What would be the point of working for company if you do not have any interest in the job?

 

 

I think you would be surprised at the number of folk who dislike their work and would prefer doing something different, some are stuck in jobs because there is nothing else about, others put up with the work simply because it pays so well

 

On the other hand the companies may have had poor experience employing enthusiasts, just because someone likes trains does not make them the ideal employee for a railway 

[LBRJ]

What would be the point of working for company if you do not have any interest in the job?

 

IF you have your nose pressed against the proverbial office window looking at all the trains and stuff all day long, then productivity, and safety, may start to suffer.

Edited June 15, 2018 by LBRJ

[Siberian Snooper]

What would be the point of working for company if you do not have any interest in the job?

The pay packet at the end of the week. I did that for 18 years, whilst looking a job with a similar rate of pay, but in my sphere of expertise, I was a Boilermaker.

[RichardS]

There are perfectly good reasons which are entirely explicable. Many members here work for 1:1 railway companies, if they were clearly identifiable with their RMWeb presence then they would be unable to engage in discussions about 1:1 railway subjects as candidly as they do in case they violated company policies and put their employment in jeopardy. Plenty of others engage in candid discussions on a wide range of subjects in the OT section which they wouldn't feel comfortable about if they risked having it thrown in their face at work. Vistiaen could walk past me in a corridor and I'd have no idea who he was but I've seen enough of his posts to appreciate him as a genuine enthusiast who has contributed enough to RMWeb posts that I really don't consider that he needs to justify himself in any way. I read his posts on this thread and they struck me as eminently reasonable, to be honest he isn't the ego on a soapbox in this thread.

 

Obviously others have commented since you posted this earlier today mentioning aspects of corporate duty and responsibility. But there are one or two aspects I should like to add to.

 

Firstly, I interpret your last sentence as being aimed at me which is fine. But I reiterate my opinion that everybody who expresses a view about anything in a public place is effectively guilty of thinking that those 'listening'  will be better informed, educated or whatever by the experience. If we believe that our views have value to others that is our ego speaking to us. The forum is the soapbox in the style of speakers' corner or political hustings.

 

If we don't think our contribution has any value then we are self deprecating and inevitably stay silent - which is just as bad, as (almost) everybody has something to add, something to share, and if everybody is involved life is richer for all.

 

I can understand the concern about employers monitoring their staff. Whether they do so with such gusto as folk believe I don't know. I expect some do I and others allow the legend to create uncertainty as a sort of fake news.

 

My own view is that it is inappropriate to discuss an employer's business in a public place. If the subject matter is damaging or critical it matters not whether the commentator does this under a nom-de-plume - the damage is done and cannot benefit anybody - any damage to a business hurts all the stakeholders including the muttering employees and not just the employers and owners. If the mutterer thinks they are getting one over the employer it is a rather sad predicament for all.

 

If the subject matter is complimentary - why the need for anonymity?

 

To discuss 'other matters' anonymously is just not my style. If a person has a view, it's their view. The only advantage of anonymity is the protection it affords should a commentator wish to be untruthful, unkind, vulgar, discriminatory, or any other of the more anti-social aspects of social media. The use of 'anonymous bots' and fake news accounts in other spheres has shown the dangers of unverified accounts. I certainly don't follow any 'anonymous' accounts on Twitter, Facebook etc.

 

If the anonymity saves having matters 'thrown in your face at work' by other people perhaps some of the subjects and views are inappropriate for a public place and such discussions should be held privately. If people cannot have a rational conversation or debate without accepting accountability for their words I'm not sure there is any point in having the dialogue - it seems to be just a time or space filler.  Personally, I have far more respect for people and their views if they post under their own names. They seem more real. But that's probably just one of my foibles. 

 

I can understand why 'Too Many Spams' suggests that an interest in trains is frowned upon by some employers. This would be the case with any 'interest' associated with employment that could be emotive. Should an employee have an 'emotional attachment' which precludes them behaving objectively in the interest of their employer's business this can be detrimental to their performance and the fortunes of the company - in the worst case scenario they might even sabotage (not necessarily intentionally) the company's activities. Far better for employees to remain detached and objective. As we know railways (and railway modelling) can stir the emotions.

 

And lastly, as this is really a thread about track building - I noticed in the similar thread on the 'other forum' (S4) that Andrew Jukes suggested that OO Fasttrack would be dropped from the Exactoscale range - what a shame, I found it rather good.

[Crosland]

But in practice no company is going to pursue such content from an anonymous user-name unless the content is plainly detrimental .

It doesn't have to detrimental, if you mean derogatory. It could be as simple as letting slip a confidential project code name or some insider financial information. Either could trigger an investigation and possibly lead to very severe sanctions.

[hayfield]

I am in agreement with Richard, by all means if you have knowledge on a subject, with the exception of criticizing your employer ,do share it, that's the way we all learn/be informed

 

However with your employer you are in a privileged position, there are ways internally you can express your dissatisfaction or routes to whistle blow.  

 

We are in a country of free speech, but with this privilege comes responsibilities.

 

As for being anonymous I beg to differ with Richard, nothing at all wrong providing you are not trying to decieve others  

[Oldddudders]

What would be the point of working for company if you do not have any interest in the job?

Plenty of people working hard in insurance and the financial sector. I hardly think they have any interest in the job, in the way that people in our hobby could claim. But that doesn’t stop them from being excellent and dedicated employees or colleagues.

[Lecorbusier]

Strangely, one of the things I find most useful about forums is the opportunity afforded to ask questions and to learn .... and then in turn pass on knowledge and hopefully help others. So primarily for the sharing of information ....over ego.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[RichardS]

 

As for being anonymous I beg to differ with Richard, nothing at all wrong providing you are not trying to decieve others  

 

Fair comment 'Hayfield'   - but what I don't understand is what advantage, what benefit, accrues to the decent, constructive, honest commentator? 

[sharris]

Fair comment 'Hayfield'   - but what I don't understand is what advantage, what benefit, accrues to the decent, constructive, honest commentator? 

One thing that occurs to me is that some modellers or collectors may have built up a rather expensive collection, and while they may want to discuss their models on here may not want to associate their names (which by cross referencing with other sources may reveal the location) with their expensive toys.

[Paul Cram]

How would you remove them from the track after it is soldered canted?

 

In my view canted rail is an utter no-no in 4mm scale. Nobody can actually see it, and it makes it all but impossible to make proper conical set bends and knuckle bends without serious press equipment. Even the prototype had difficulty, hence the vertical flat-bottom rail used in pointwork renewals from about 1970 to 2001.

 

Martin.

I have to disagree with you. By using rail canted to the correct 1:20 you have a greater area of contsct with the whell tread thereby improving pickup on locos. It also allows the wheels to centre correctly reducing the chance of derailments.

[martin_wynne]

I have to disagree with you. By using rail canted to the correct 1:20 you have a greater area of contsct with the whell tread thereby improving pickup on locos.

 

Hi Paul,

 

I don't agree. A greater contact area reduces contact pressure and the ability to break through dirt. In any event the top of the rail is radiused, and the wheel tread isn't, and the likelihood of the coning angle on the wheel exactly matching the rail cant is nil. So it makes no difference to the pickup in practice.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

It also allows the wheels to centre correctly reducing the chance of derailments.

 

Hi Paul,

 

Actually, it doesn't. The centering effect only depends on the coning on the wheel treads. They will tend to center even if the rail head is horizontal.

 

On full size equipment the rail heads are angled to match the coning angle on the wheels to reduce wear by spreading the load over a greater area. Wear is not (usually) a problem on small scale models.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

The centering effect only depends on the coning on the wheel treads. They will tend to center even if the rail head is horizontal.

 

Hi Andy,

 

Various experiments over the years have indicated that wheel coning has no centering effect at all on small scale modes. Even on the prototype it works only on straight track and very gentle curves. Otherwise there would be no need for wheel flanges.

 

On a model the wheels are very definitely guided by the flanges, and one or other of them is almost always running against the rail head. Especially on typical model curves. Anyone disbelieving this should try running their layout with flangeless wheels, and observing the result.

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

Hi Andy,

 

Various experiments over the years have indicated that wheel coning has no centering effect at all on small scale modes. Even on the prototype it works only on straight track and very gentle curves. Otherwise there would be no need for wheel flanges.

 

On a model the wheels are very definitely guided by the flanges, and one or other of them is almost always running against the rail head. Especially on typical model curves. Anyone disbelieving this should try running their layout with flangeless wheels, and observing the result.

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin,

 

I was about to point that out but thought it best to start with the basic explanation.

 

If anyone is in doubt, get a set of Lima coaches, reduce the flanges if you have to and try running them. Lima wheels are not coned but they run just as well (perhaps better?) as wheels that are.

 

I will now put on my tin helmet and retire to my underground bunker

 

Andy

[Lecorbusier]

Hi Andy,

 

Various experiments over the years have indicated that wheel coning has no centering effect at all on small scale modes. Even on the prototype it works only on straight track and very gentle curves. Otherwise there would be no need for wheel flanges.

 

On a model the wheels are very definitely guided by the flanges, and one or other of them is almost always running against the rail head. Especially on typical model curves. Anyone disbelieving this should try running their layout with flangeless wheels, and observing the result.

 

Martin.

Martin,

 

Is that an argument for deeper than prototypical flanges at 4mm scale? Presumably if there is no discernible coning effect then the danger of derailment becomes greater at 4mm scale than is prototypical and so an increase in flange depth might be advisable (would have been done on the real thing?). I believe that Martin Goodall runs EM wheels on his P4 layout (not sure how that works on the flange ways etc) and I am sure I read somewhere about a chap using a lathe to reduce the flange thickness of EM wheels to also run them on P4? Both stating running reliability as there justification?

[AndyID]

Martin,

 

Is that an argument for deeper than prototypical flanges at 4mm scale? Presumably if there is no discernible coning effect then the danger of derailment becomes greater at 4mm scale than is prototypical and so an increase in flange depth might be advisable (would have been done on the real thing?). I believe that Martin Goodall runs EM wheels on his P4 layout (not sure how that works on the flange ways etc) and I am sure I read somewhere about a chap using a lathe to reduce the flange thickness of EM wheels to also run them on P4? Both stating running reliability as there justification?

 

Unfortunately dynamics just don't scale. What works well on full-sized equipment doesn't necessarily work well on equipment that's almost two orders of magnitude smaller in scale.

 

There's a valid argument that, at model scales, coning makes derailment more likely. Anything that tends to make a four wheel vehicle or bogie "crab" results in unequal loading on the wheels, even when the track is perfectly flat. That's much less likely to happen when the wheel treads are "flat".

 

I know rolling P4 equipment is usually sprung or equalized, but I'm wondering if that's required more by irregularities in the track surface rather than the coning of the wheels themselves. Has that ever been investigated?

[hayfield]

I am guessing that the cant was built into the chairs as it was prototypical and could be done, a bit like building a loco and including a part(s) which cannot normally be seen.

 

As for the reasons to put a cant in the track and coneing the wheels, the forces in action do not scale down but there are some forces on a model which do not affect the real thing

[Lecorbusier]

Unfortunately dynamics just don't scale. What works well on full-sized equipment doesn't necessarily work well on equipment that's almost two orders of magnitude smaller in scale.

 

There's a valid argument that, at model scales, coning makes derailment more likely. Anything that tends to make a four wheel vehicle or bogie "crab" results in unequal loading on the wheels, even when the track is perfectly flat. That's much less likely to happen when the wheel treads are "flat".

 

I know rolling P4 equipment is usually sprung or equalized, but I'm wondering if that's required more by irregularities in the track surface rather than the coning of the wheels themselves. Has that ever been investigated?

A bit above my pay grade as far as knowledge and experience is concerned I'm afraid. I always assumed that springing etc was primarily about keeping wheels fully in contact with the rails at all times as P4 didn't have the luxury of deeper flanges. I just thought that if coning had no effect (or as you suggest maybe even a detrimental effect) then that suggests that the track holding might actually be worse than prototypical and perhaps deeper flanges should be seen as a compensatory factor .... or perhaps the springing replaces the coning?

Edited June 16, 2018 by Lecorbusier