C&L Finescale

[Re6/6]

...... perhaps deeper flanges should be seen as a compensatory factor .... 

Oh dear Tim, don't open that particular can of worms........  .....it has been endlessly discussed on S4 web! I'm most assuredly in the Martin Goodall camp regarding deeper flanges. A P87 modeller of some renown does just that with any troublesome wagon. A set of wheels with slightly deeper flanges are turned. Springing is not used. Near on perfect running over some impossibly tight curves is the norm....but hey.....each to their own....!

Edited June 16, 2018 by Re6/6

[gismorail]

I thought this thread was about C&L ...not about the 'gauge debate'    some people can't help them selves ...it's worst than BREXIT......    

[Lecorbusier]

Oh dear Tim, don't open that particular can of worms........  .....it has been endlessly discussed on S4 web! I'm most assuredly in the Martin Goodall camp regarding deeper flanges. A P87 modeller of some renown does just that with any troublesome wagon. A set of wheels with slightly deeper flanges are turned. Springing is not used. Near on perfect running over some impossibly tight curves is near perfect.....but hey.....each to their own....!

Hi John,

 

Certainly don't want to open any cans. Martin just seemed to have suggested that what I had always understood to be an integral part of track holding on the real thing had no effect when scaled down and Andy suggested it might even be detrimental (as far as I understand C&L/Exacto scale chairs incline the rail and the P4 profile has coning on it). Ergo the track holding at 4mm would therefore be worse? I had also been led to believe that springing/compensation was required because the flex in the frames and the flex in the rail just don't happen at 4mm scale ... so to keep wheel in contact with rail the wheels need movement. Maybe springing will compensate for both aspects?

[Lecorbusier]

I thought this thread was about C&L ...not about the 'gauge debate'    some people can't help them selves ...it's worst than BREXIT......    

Apologies for any offence caused. In a way my question is related to the C&L chairs and the implications of their use. Also I kind of thought the current C&L supply issues had been done to death. Happy for my question to be ignored. 

[martin_wynne]

Is that an argument for deeper than prototypical flanges at 4mm scale?

 

That depends on the quality of the track. Certainly P4 flanges wouldn't work for a train-set on the carpet. But given track laid to full P4 quality of flatness and alignment, deeper flanges wouldn't make any difference, and depending on the profile of them may make matters worse. Getting P4 to work reliably is mostly about carpentry skills in building the baseboards.

 

You can't just make the flange deeper. In order to roll properly without friction the side of the flange needs to be angled. Consequently if you make the flange deeper, it must also be thicker. So it then no longer fits the flangeway gaps in the track in the intended way, meaning a re-design of the track standard is called for. P4 would then no longer be P4.

 

This has been discussed endlessly on the Scalefour forum over the years. Some folks definitely claim better running by using thinned-down EM wheels. My argument would be that if that's the case it means their track isn't up to P4 quality and they might have been better building EM in the first place.

 

If anyone is minded to try it, do be aware that if you use thinned-down EM wheels, the flanges will still be thicker than the P4 flanges, and in consequence you must reduce the back-to-back accordingly if you expect to get good running through pointwork. This point has also been discussed endlessly on the Scalefour forum. In fact arguments about the P4 back-to-back dimension have been going on for generations.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Jol Wilkinson]

 

"I thought this thread was about C&L ...not about the 'gauge debate'    some people can't help them selves ...it's worst than BREXIT......     :triniti:"

 

 

It hasn't developed into a gauge debate, but  a discussion about canted rails, coning, etc. 

 

Now this is probably totally irrelevant to most modellers but for those that build their own track with C&L or Exactoscale chairs it is something you can't avoid because the rail inclination is built in. It has also raised the question of whether the track gauges being sold by C&L and others are compatible. I've just, for the first time, had a good look at the P4 gauges I have amassed over many years to see how firmly they hold the rail upright. Of these, the DD Wheelrights triangular gauge(available from the S4 Society) does allow the rail to cant. The same applies to some very old sprung loaded roller gauges (early Exactoscale, IIRC). The others I have don't, but they too are all fairly old and probably designed/introduced when ply and rivet was the only option.

 

So I suggest checking the gauges you have. It shouldn't be too difficult to remove a little metal with a file if necessary so that the outer "flange" is reduced to clear the foot of the rail and allow it to tilt inwards.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Jol Wilkinson

[Stanley Melrose]

Oh dear - common sense rearing its head . . .

 

Stan

 

 

I thought this thread was about C&L ...not about the 'gauge debate'    some people can't help them selves ...it's worst than BREXIT......    

It hasn't developed into a gauge debate, but  a discussion about canted rails, coning, etc. 

 

Now this is probably totally irrelevant to most modellers but for those that build their own track with C&L or Exactoscale chairs it is something you can't avoid because the rail inclination is built in. It has also raised the question of whether the track gauges being sold by C&L and others are compatible. I've just, for the first time, had a good look at the P4 gauges I have amassed over many years to see how firmly they hold the rail upright. Of these, the DD Wheelrights triangular gauge(available from the S4 Society) does allow the rail to cant. The same applies to some very old sprung loaded roller gauges (early Exactoscale, IIRC). The others I have don't, but they too are all fairly old and probably designed/introduced when ply and rivet was the only option.

 

So I suggest checking the gauges you have. It shouldn't be too difficult to remove a little metal with a file if necessary so that the outer "flange" is reduced to clear the foot of the rail and allow it to tilt inwards.

 

[Guy Rixon]

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?

 

 

I've heard "dynamics doesn't scale" and similar statements for decades. I'd dearly love to see the physics of this laid out as I find it hard to think of forces that don't scale with the mass of the vehicle: i.e. the mass cancels out when balancing forces. (The exception is deflection of the rail, where the model rail is relatively stiffer by the scale factor compared to the full-size rail, but I don't think this is critical in track-holding.) Perhaps it's a matter of turning moments, where the distance from centre of mass scales is linear with the scale and the forces vary as the cube of the scale? 

 

P4 locos use springing to get better electrical contact. This has been shown to be advantageous in all scales and is quite common even in 2FS. P4 hauled stock needs springs or some other flexible suspension to deal with track twist.

 

A wheel that is without vertical load will climb off the track, and the equation (Nadal's)  that governs this is independent of scale: full-size rolling-stock does this if the suspension is out of adjustment. In a model with rigid suspension, on track that is not perfectly flat, at least one wheel does not touch the rail and has no vertical load: it will start to climb off when its flange touches the rail. However, in a rigid suspension, the flange climbing over the rail head lifts that corner of the vehicle and transfers weight onto the climbing wheel, forcing it back down again. If that wheel gains enough vertical load before the flange clears the rail head, then the vehicle stays on; otherwise off it comes. Therefore, for rigid suspensions to work, we need the track to be flat to less than a flange depth over the length of the longest rigid wheelbase. This is hard to achieve with scale flanges; springing is overall less bother.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Guy Rixon

[Ravenser]

I've heard "dynamics doesn't scale" and similar statements for decades. I'd dearly love to see the physics of this laid out as I find it hard to think of forces that don't scale with the mass of the vehicle: i.e. the mass cancels out when balancing forces. (The exception is deflection of the rail, where the model rail is relatively stiffer by the scale factor compared to the full-size rail, but I don't think this is critical in track-holding.) Perhaps it's a matter of turning moments, where the distance from centre of mass scales is linear with the scale and the forces vary as the cube of the scale? 

 

P4 locos use springing to get better electrical contact. This has been shown to be advantageous in all scales and is quite common even in 2FS. P4 hauled stock needs springs or some other flexible suspension to deal with track twist.

 

A wheel that is without vertical load will climb off the track, and the equation (Nadal's)  that governs this is independent of scale: full-size rolling-stock does this if the suspension is out of adjustment. In a model with rigid suspension, on track that is not perfectly flat, at least one wheel does not touch the rail and has no vertical load: it will start to climb off when its flange touches the rail. However, in a rigid suspension, the flange climbing over the rail head lifts that corner of the vehicle and transfers weight onto the climbing wheel, forcing it back down again. If that wheel gains enough vertical load before the flange clears the rail head, then the vehicle stays on; otherwise off it comes. Therefore, for rigid suspensions to work, we need the track to be flat to less than a flange depth over the length of the longest rigid wheelbase. This is hard to achieve with scale flanges; springing is overall less bother.

 

A very useful and enlightening statement - laying out exactly why compensation in the form of etched W-irons may be well worth considering on any long wheelbase 4 wheeler

[Sheffield]

Following what an employee does in his private life pre-dates the internet age. I was surprised to find the 1970s that my employer not only knew that my wife worked with the boy scout movement, but had cuttings from local newspapers on the subject in my personal file (which I should not have seen but did). I agree that this is an other case of least said the better. What the eye does not see the heart does not grieve over.

[sharris]

Following what an employee does in his private life pre-dates the internet age. I was surprised to find the 1970s that my employer not only knew that my wife worked with the boy scout movement, but had cuttings from local newspapers on the subject in my personal file (which I should not have seen but did). I agree that this is an other case of least said the better. What the eye does not see the heart does not grieve over.

I wonder how many other employees' wives he had on file!

[AndyID]

I've heard "dynamics doesn't scale" and similar statements for decades. I'd dearly love to see the physics of this laid out as I find it hard to think of forces that don't scale with the mass of the vehicle:

You could start with friction. If everything scaled it wouldn't be difficult to make model wagons that could be fly shunted just like the real thing.

[RBAGE]

How thick are 4mm scale thick timbers?

[martin_wynne]

How thick are 4mm scale thick timbers?

 

Hi,

 

Timbers (12" wide, used for pointwork) are 6" thick (2mm).

 

Sleepers (10" wide, used for plain track) are 5" thick (1.7mm)

 

Because of the difference between them, it is not very practical to use scale thicknesses on models. The prototype buries them in ballast, rather than laying them on a flat baseboard. So the difference has no effect.

 

Martin.

[RBAGE]

I apologise for not being precise enough. I assumed that this being a topic on C and L it might be obvious that I was asking about their product. Especially as I referred to "thick" timbers (as opposed to "thin" timbers).

 

So, I'll rephrase my question.

 

How thick are 4TT101B.

Edited June 17, 2018 by RBAGE

[sharris]

I apologise for not being precise enough. I assumed that this being a topic on C and L it might be obvious that I was asking about their product. Especially as I referred to "thick" timbers (as opposed to "thin" timbers).

 

So, I'll rephrase my question.

 

How thick are 4TT101B.

I'll refer you to John Hayfield's post of 2013.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/59330-cl-timber-tracks-and-template/?p=997153

 

They supply plastic sleepers and copperclad strip, both in 2 thicknesses, 4 & 3.3mm wide

Plastic sleepers, turnout fret, 00 (32mm) 8'6" & 9' lengths. Thicknesses 0.84mm & 1.7mm. They also do Dowmac but at a guess for EM & P4 gauges

Copperclad strip 1.06mm & 1.6mm thick 10" & 12" wide and 17" long, packs of 10 strips

 

[AndyID]

I apologise for not being precise enough. I assumed that this being a topic on C and L it might be obvious that I was asking about their product. Especially as I referred to "thick" timbers (as opposed to "thin" timbers).

 

So, I'll rephrase my question.

 

How thick are 4TT101B.

 

Martin was being quite generous   I was about to clobber you for "4mm scale". (It's just one of my many hot buttons.)

[hayfield]

I apologise for not being precise enough. I assumed that this being a topic on C and L it might be obvious that I was asking about their product. Especially as I referred to "thick" timbers (as opposed to "thin" timbers).

 

So, I'll rephrase my question.

 

How thick are 4TT101B.

 

 

At the risk of getting my wrist slapped by Phil, I find the Exactoscale Point & Crossing Timbers E4XX PCTO @ £10.20 than £7.80 both better value and easier to use

 

Main reason is you can get about 2.5 turnouts from the pack, instead of 1.5, secondly the longer timbers on the C&L are too short for the radii turnouts and crossings (A5 and below) with the longer Exactoscale ones being more versatile. Both are 1.6 mm thick. Also with the Exactoscale there is 1 14" wide timber per pack (as used in some crossings under the Vee nose

[Stephen Freeman]

At the risk of getting my wrist slapped by Phil, I find the Exactoscale Point & Crossing Timbers E4XX PCTO @ £10.20 than £7.80 both better value and easier to use

 

Main reason is you can get about 2.5 turnouts from the pack, instead of 1.5, secondly the longer timbers on the C&L are too short for the radii turnouts and crossings (A5 and below) with the longer Exactoscale ones being more versatile. Both are 1.6 mm thick. Also with the Exactoscale there is 1 14" wide timber per pack (as used in some crossings under the Vee nose

True, I do have a few but I find the grey colour and lack of texture let them down.

[Lecorbusier]

At the risk of getting my wrist slapped by Phil, I find the Exactoscale Point & Crossing Timbers E4XX PCTO @ £10.20 than £7.80 both better value and easier to use

 

Main reason is you can get about 2.5 turnouts from the pack, instead of 1.5, secondly the longer timbers on the C&L are too short for the radii turnouts and crossings (A5 and below) with the longer Exactoscale ones being more versatile. Both are 1.6 mm thick. Also with the Exactoscale there is 1 14" wide timber per pack (as used in some crossings under the Vee nose

How easy is it to remove a chair from the plastic sleepers? I currently use ply sleepers with the chairs bonded to the ply with Butanone. The bond is relatively strong and collectively gives a good hold. However, by sliding a scalpel blade between timber and chair it is possible to break the bond and so reposition. Is there a way of doing this with the plastic sleepers?

[hayfield]

How easy is it to remove a chair from the plastic sleepers? I currently use ply sleepers with the chairs bonded to the ply with Butanone. The bond is relatively strong and collectively gives a good hold. However, by sliding a scalpel blade between timber and chair it is possible to break the bond and so reposition. Is there a way of doing this with the plastic sleepers?

 

 

You are quite right that  with plastic to ply the bond can be broken easily, but that can be a fault waiting to happen.

 

With the plastic to plastic it is a bonded joint, I find on the odd occasions I need to remove a chair a number 10 (round) scalpel blade is best, cut the chair off leaving a stub on the timber and carefully par level

[hayfield]

True, I do have a few but I find the grey colour and lack of texture let them down.

 

 

Stephen

 

Agree they are flat, but if you want grain then stained ply is the way to go, with paint on and from normal viewing distances no difference is noticeable, to be quite honest most builders ignore the finer aspects of turnout and crossing modelling by not using the correct chairs and chopping up standard chairs to fit than a bit of grain missing, and you can create the grain isth a quick wipe of sand paper if you wish

[sharris]

How easy is it to remove a chair from the plastic sleepers?

I think Iain Rice suggested Semtex.

[Lecorbusier]

 

With the plastic to plastic it is a bonded joint, I find on the odd occasions I need to remove a chair a number 10 (round) scalpel blade is best, cut the chair off leaving a stub on the timber and carefully par level

Presumably you would then have to replace with a cosmetic chair (cut in half and bonded from either side? Or is there a nifty way to add a new chair?

 

I am thinking of a situation where gauge narrowing has occurred and you need to reposition the chairs.

[Guy Rixon]

Presumably you would then have to replace with a cosmetic chair (cut in half and bonded from either side? Or is there a nifty way to add a new chair?

 

I am thinking of a situation where gauge narrowing has occurred and you need to reposition the chairs.

 

Would it be possible to carve the key from a chair moulding, fit the chair and then insert a key made from scrap?