MRJ 259

[figworthy]

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

 

This, many times over.

 

Could I expand that to include subject/era as well ?

 

 

Adrian

[Poggy1165]

I find gauge wars rather tedious. Having said that I work in 7mm scale where bog standard finescale (including RTR) is roughly = EM. 

 

There are reasons why people choose 00/EM/P4, and these reasons are perfectly valid for the people making the choice. However, no one will ever persuade me that "anyone" could work in P4 if they chose. It definitely requires more skill, especially if you are building a large layout. The same goes for S7, by the way. 

 

I suspect that if some of those currently working in P4 chose to work in 00, their 00 layout would be pretty special too, Because what makes a "great" P4 layout goes way beyond the distance between the rails.

[Captain Kernow]

Watering down? Is that different to dumbing down?

I would say so, indeed. The former would be intended to reduce the potential to cause offence, and I simply don't subscribe to the latter practice.

 

 

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

You are indeed a most perceptive and wise individual, dear heart. Less is more.

[Captain Kernow]

I suspect that if some of those currently working in P4 chose to work in 00, their 00 layout would be pretty special too, Because what makes a "great" P4 layout goes way beyond the distance between the rails.

That's an interesting comment. It works the other way as well. I've seen several pretty awful P4 layouts, well, they certainly don't look too good and on some the stock falls off for a past time (which it can also do on OO and EM, if tolerances aren't right, of course).

 

What makes MRJ so good, in my view, is that modelling excellence isn't limited to any given scale/gauge combination. I used to be selective and focus on articles in 4mm scale, but I now derive inspiration from all good modelling.

[Poggy1165]

That's an interesting comment. It works the other way as well. I've seen several pretty awful P4 layouts, well, they certainly don't look too good and on some the stock falls off for a past time (which it can also do on OO and EM, if tolerances aren't right, of course).

 

What makes MRJ so good, in my view, is that modelling excellence isn't limited to any given scale/gauge combination. I used to be selective and focus on articles in 4mm scale, but I now derive inspiration from all good modelling.

 

I suspect that to get any given layout to work well, more skill is needed in P4. Though possibly, the space thing is a factor too. To get a P4 mainline working in the space which would be needed for an 00 equivalent needs even more skill.

 

I find that many P4 modellers are actually quite modest and tend to underplay their ability; hence the quite common assumption that "anyone" could do what they do. I dare say that Goya would have said that "anyone" could paint a portrait.

[Regularity]

If you follow the Eastwood Town thread, you will be aware of my comments about the effect of distance and long lead turnouts helping to disguise the gauge: it’s 00 but could be EM.

 

I wonder though, if we can sometimes confuse scale with proportion, and taking the latter as the starting point, I wonder if British outline 00 track would not look better in itself if modelled to H0 scale in terms of sleeper size and spacing? I certainly think that 32mm long sleepers look better on 00 track. I may be wrong, but I think SMP did this back in the 70s?

[Regularity]

Less is more.

Except when it comes to sausages (technically fewer are more) and cake?

[Regularity]

There are reasons why people choose 00/EM/P4, and these reasons are perfectly valid for the people making the choice. However, no one will ever persuade me that "anyone" could work in P4 if they chose. It definitely requires more skill, especially if you are building a large layout. The same goes for S7, by the way. 

 

I think the skill comes with time and practice, and I would say that P4/S7 requires more perseverance and patience, and for most of us more time, too. I am trying really hard to avoid saying anything pejorative, to avoid anything discriminatory. Working to finer tolerances requires more work, but it is not harder work: anyone wanting good running needs to pay attention to “top and line” with baseboard construction and tracklaying, and to ensure that “chassis” are square and true.

I suspect that if some of those currently working in P4 chose to work in 00, their 00 layout would be pretty special too, Because what makes a "great" P4 layout goes way beyond the distance between the rails.

 

Yes, and unfortunately the early articles on P4 and S7, in an understandable desire to de-mystify* things, positioned things as little more than a re-wheeling exercise. I have seen the articles:

Step 1. Build replacement track and turnouts for your layout.

Step 2. Re-wheel a coach and a wagon, to test the new track.

Step 3. Remove the existing track.

Step 4. Lay the P4 track.

Step 5. Test it again.

Step 6. Convert a loco.

Step 7. Wire up the track and test it under power.

Step 8. Convert the rest of the stock.

(I may have the order slightly out of kilter, but you get the idea.)

 

As you say, the more important thing is the minset of the modeller: a desire for greater accuracy generally would, one hopes, lead at least to a consideration of the potential benefits of changing gauge/standards, but this has to balanced against available resources of time, money and space. Anyone capable of assembling an etched loco chassis kit to run well can also build their own track: not too difficult a proposition, but if you have 100 engines, and 30” radius curves, then even if you can afford it, P4 isn’t going to be viable.

 

*Not saying that they succeeded at this, merely that is what they were trying to do.

 

That's an interesting comment. It works the other way as well. I've seen several pretty awful P4 layouts, well, they certainly don't look too good and on some the stock falls off for a past time (which it can also do on OO and EM, if tolerances aren't right, of course).

 

Poor construction is poor construction regardless of standards, but finer tolerances do require finer construction.

 

I am more amused when someone re-wheels a Bachmann class 24, and calls it P4.

Put it next to an SLW 00 class 24 standing on Peco’s New bullhead track, and tell me which one looks more like the prototype!

 

Back to Poggy’s comment again: the distance between the rails is only part of a great model railway.

 

What makes MRJ so good, in my view, is that modelling excellence isn't limited to any given scale/gauge combination. I used to be selective and focus on articles in 4mm scale, but I now derive inspiration from all good modelling.

An adult way to treat the most adult magazine in what increasingly is an adult hobby.

(Sadly, one of my neighbours still snickers at me for having a “big boy’s” hobby. And I don’t have a Union Pacific 4-8-8-4...)

[corneliuslundie]

Thanks, Regularity.

What I didn't say about that M&SWJR layout was that my wife thought the grass was modelled superbly, and then looked askance at the grass on most other layouts there. So I shall have to up my game there.

And it is possible that I noticed the problem whereas I didn't notice problems on others (OO or other) because they didn't retain my attention for so long. As I said, exhibitions are tough on layouts, whatever the scale and gauge, especially when it gets hot in the afternoon.

But each their own. There was one VERY simple layout representing a small modern diesel depot. The builder stated that it had been built mainly as a way to display his large collection of modern image diesels. But I am afraid that it did not keep my attention. However, if that is what he enjoys I have no problem at all with it. And that layout seemed no less popular than several others.

I am sure that what catches my eye is simply good, convincing modelling of whatever scale and gauge, and that is what MRJ regularly offers. And convincing may mean the allotments modelled so that you can tell the strain of cabbages being grown, but it is more likely to be the scene which is effective overall even if not of quite the same standard in the details.

I am just rereading the two volume history of the Buckingham branch and am realising that in technology and in getting the fine detail correct we have advanced enormously but in producing a convincing ambience we have not really advanced that much in 65 years.

Jonathan

[Regularity]

Thanks, Regularity.

 

I am just rereading the two volume history of the Buckingham branch and am realising that in technology and in getting the fine detail correct we have advanced enormously but in producing a convincing ambience we have not really advanced that much in 65 years.

Jonathan

You are welcome.

 

On your last point, I think the very best achieve a combination of technical brilliance and ambience: Trerice, Pempoule, East Lynn to name but three - and none of these are recent creations, as I think all started in the 90s.

[Poggy1165]

Was it ice skating where the judges used to give marks for technical ability and artistic impression?

 

It is possible to build to build a superb model railway that lacks any "feel". In fact, you will see such layouts at practically any exhibition. That "feel" thing is very hard to get. I wouldn't even like to suggest what ingredients go into it. Custom-built buildings that fit the location are but part of it. It's very subtle. But a hallmark of almost all the layouts people would regard as "classic".

[Regularity]

I always think that it is down to a genuine love of the subject, rather than a simple technical appreciation. Someone who is truly immersed in what they are trying to create will outshine a technical perfectionist when it comes down to generate a warmth from within the modelling.

 

Good grief, waxing pretentious or what?

[Captain Kernow]

I think the skill comes with time and practice, and I would say that P4/S7 requires more perseverance and patience, and for most of us more time, too.

 

Working to finer tolerances requires more work, but it is not harder work: anyone wanting good running needs to pay attention to “top and line” with baseboard construction and tracklaying, and to ensure that “chassis” are square and true.

I do agree with the above. It has certainly been my experience.

 

I would almost go so far as to say, however, that in the case of building P4 pointwork, I personally almost find it easier than in OO, purely because of the good quality gauges available in P4 and the fact that there is no 'interpretation' on clearances as there is in OO (by that I mean, do I go 'OO finescale' or 'OO-SF', for example). In P4, the clearances have to be what they have to be, and the gauges are a major help in getting this right. The former P4 Track Co. point kits, now marketed by C&L, also help the modeller who is just starting in P4, because much of the difficult stuff is done for you, ie. getting the relationship between the wing rails and crossing nose correct, and also that between the point blades and stock rails. It certainly helped me when I first started doing P4.

 

I accept, though, that this may not be representative of other people's experience.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Captain Kernow

[Regularity]

I think you strike an important point(sorry!) there: because of the finer tolerances, jigs and gauges become essential, and ironically they can (when properly used) make construction a lot easier and most importantly, consistent. But everything else needs to be built to the same tolerances, which is why springing/beam compensation needs to be considered: it actually increases the ability of the rolling stock to cope with imperfect track and track bed, effectively creating a dynamic extension of the tolerances. I think of that as “carefully controlled slop” rather than “a bit of slop never hurt”.

6

It’s ultimately about a trade-off between the extra time in construction and maintenance versus what you want to do with the models and the space available for them.

 

Trevor Marshall, over in Ontario, is building an S Scale Model of a rural Canadian National Railway branch. His trackwork uses various construction jigs from Fast Tracks and what may be described as “P4 gauge with EM clearances”, as the track gauge is correct (as it always is for S, even for the tinplate stuff) but he is using the NASG/NMRA “Scale” standards for track with “code 88” wheels - a slightly bigger flange than Scale. He aims for, and usually gets, zero derailments. Jigs and gauges help with this, and it looks great, too.

 

And it doesn’t matter how many thousandths of an inch, or decimal places of a millimetre on works to. It is all about a balanced set of tolerances, and the gauges to assist this.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Regularity

[5050]

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

At the recent Leeds show I was watching a 00 layout where stock had parted company with the rails when the guy next to me said something like " It must be a P4 layout".  I tried to point out to him the error of his ways but it literally fell on deaf ears.  Stuff falls off on a 00 layout and all that can be said is that it is performing like P4!!!   I did tell him that there was a very good P4 layout in the next hall with impeccable running (Halifax King Cross) but the responding silence was deafening.

 

How, why and where do people get these ideas?  Stuff falls off on 00, no or very little reaction, even sympathy sometimes.  Same happens on a P4 layout, total condemnation.

[grahame]

Stuff falls off on 00, no or very little reaction, even sympathy sometimes.  Same happens on a P4 layout, total condemnation.

 

I'm not so sure it was total condemnation, maybe a throwaway ironic comment. Or perhaps such people think that with P4 being built to finer standards, with stringent engineering tolerances by highly skilled modellers that it should consistently perform better than OO. 

 

But heyho, I guess it doesn't really matter - each to their own modelling preferences and opinions.

 

G

[Regularity]

How, why and where do people get these ideas? Stuff falls off on 00, no or very little reaction, even sympathy sometimes. Same happens on a P4 layout, total condemnation.

It’s called an “illusory correlation”.

Like all animals, we have to process enormous quantities of information, and the only way to prevent overload and meltdown is to learn the patterns of the typical, and to then pay attention to the atypical.

 

Even on poorly constructed model railways, derailments are rarer than trains staying on the rails (I hope!) and on most, they are relatively infrequent, and therefore atypical.

 

P4 layouts are by their nature atypical, so more attention will be paid to them and even if the rate of derailments is the same as for 00, the derailments on the P4 layout will atypical for two different reasons, and the combination of double-atypical gets logged in the mind as a distinctive event.

 

Bummer, but there you go. This is also, by the way, how poor racial stereotypes develop, but that’s a separate issue.

 

You can deal with this by a certain amount of re-thinking matters: “Gosh, I saw a derailment on the P4 layout. That was a very rare event,” but you need to make a bit of a conscious effort, and if someone adds a preconception (or a prejudice!) to the mix, well, you have no hope as they are merely looking for instances to refute generalities, which is a no-no.

 

But also, some elements in finescale and particularly P4 are wont to proselytise that their solution is the only way to reliable rule, and as Greek tragedies were showing us more than 2,000 years ago, hubris usually leads to nemesis. (”Finescale English” for pride comes before a fall.)

 

I realise that such people are a minority of P4 modellers, who generally are the same as everyone else and simply have their own personal preferences for how they wish to enjoy themselves, but again we are back to a minority group performing atypical behaviour, not helped by the self-styled MRSG’s rather simplified and strident preaching in early articles on P4.

 

In short: do something different and imply that you are better, and everyone else will be forming a queue to spot the first mistake and turn it into a storm in a teacup. And that’s what the originators did - with the sad result that some have been gunning for them ever since. And a small number still insist on this.

 

The simple truth is that care in construction provides for better performance, as does a properly balanced set of standards. Anyone exercising this care will reap the benefits, but the finer the tolerances, the less-well a system will cope with events falling outside its parameters.

 

René Gourley has put it rather nicely on his blog, even if he was talking about details, the same point applies: https://pembroke87.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/details-theyre-personal/

Edited December 14, 2017 by Regularity

[5050]

 not helped by the self-styled MRSG’s rather simplified and strident preaching in early articles on P4.

 

In short: do something different and imply that you are better, and everyone else will be forming a queue to spot the first mistake and turn it into a storm in a teacup. And that’s what the originators did - with the sad result that some have been gunning for them ever since. And a small number still insist on this.

 

OK - but a lot of the P4 knockers weren't even born when the MRSG were around and, along with most of the others, probably haven't even heard of them.  Some admit they haven't even SEEN a P4 layout - but they're still happy to denegrate P4 modelling.

[Regularity]

Fair point, but sometimes people just don’t like what’s outside their own experience.

[corneliuslundie]

Sorry that I started a hare running.

Thinking back, i think different gauges tend to have different problems. With OO it is often simply poor running - often dirty wheels and track and reliance on contacts within proprietary pointwork. With EM it often seems to be coupling issues. With the P4 layouts there are often very few problems, although the effects of the hall - heat and dirt - are the same for them as for any gauge or scale.

To put it simply, what works at home or in the clubroom will often fail at an exhibition.

In the early days of S4/P4 I used to joke that I could never take up that gauge because i didn't like wearing a suit and tie when modelling! Now there is a real generalisation for you! However, it is noticeable that the gauge has now been adopted by a very wide range of people and few ties are in evidence at shows.

We have a lot to thank these people for whatever scale or gauge we use as once discussion of P4/S4 got beyond the gauge and track/wheel tolerances it became clear that finescale modelling is about the whole scene, not just the wheels. This has had a trickle down effect throughout the hobby in all sorts of ways. and MRJ has had a big influence.

What i have realised over the past ten years is that railway modelling embraces so many facets of the world that it is almost impossible to know enough about all one needs to know. Trees, which used to be bottle brushes, are now often recognisable species (and there are books to help us), sheep and cows also differ over time and place - though i am not sure about the Hornby cows I saw on sale recently! Local geology affects building materials and styles of building, as well as local crops. It goes on and on. I feel that an awareness of this kind of thing, for me at least, came out of the discussions engendered by the "scale wars".

Mind you, it means that one can spend all one's life on background research and never get all the information one feels that one needs to build a layout.

Or on posting on RMWeb!

Jonathan

[Donw]

I think we can dismiss the gauge as somewhat irrelevant I defy anyone to consistantly recognise the difference between 18mm and 18.83mm . It is not easy to spot the difference between 16.5 and 18mm. The difference is much easier to see with a vehicle on it but surely what shows most is the width of the wheel treads, the profile and depth of the flanges, and the flangeways in the track.  I think anyone with experience in engineering would agree that working to finer tolerances requires greater care and discipline inculding a reduction in the 'that's near enough' attitude. Adding compensation, working valve gear both require extra work but I suspect the time difference between scratchbuilding a 00 or P4 loco is not a major factor especiallly as compromises will be required in 00 which are not needed in P4.

What really makes the difference is being able to buy something at a reasonable price and just run it on your track. When I first became interested in fine scale modelling some 40 years ago most commercial stuff needed attention to get it to run well (particularly running slowly)  so rewheeling things was advantageous so changing gauge was not much extra work. These days a lot of the commercial stuff is much better in fact some much so that people are able to tighten the gauge to improve the look of the flangeways. 

Back in the early 1980s what came across to me was a rather holier than thou attitude from some P4 modellers, a strange commercial attitude of a major P4 supplier and a lot of silly squabbling so I changed to 2mm and the 7mm scales. I did consider S7 but being short of a space normal 0 gauge allowed me to run my stuff on others layouts.

Personally I think we all try to get along if someone wants to ue particular standards it i up to them and if viewing a layout look at the good points a nice 00 layout can be a pleasure to watch more so than a badly done P4 one. When I was editor of the Gauge 0 guild I would cut out of articles any sniping remarks about other peoples gauges because they added nothing and I always felt that reading a good article on say S7 might encourage you to think about it whereas a remark disparaging 0F might stop you reading it.

Don

[Regularity]

If you look at the crossings, then the difference is obvious to anyone who has made a proper study of prototype track.

 

However, it is in the consistent application of balanced standards that good running is born.

 

Craftsmanship is craftsmanship, and that is really what we should encourage.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Based on my limited experience of helping man my local area group's stand at a couple of non-specialist local shows, a large chunk of people with model railways, possibly a majority, have no idea that P4 even exists. 

[Regularity]

Based on my limited experience of helping man my local area group's stand at a couple of non-specialist local shows, a large chunk of people with model railways, possibly a majority, have no idea that P4 even exists.

 

You should try S Scale, then...

 

What I love are the modellers who claim to have never heard of it, yet have been to the same local show every year for the past couple of decades, during which many S Scale layouts have been at the show - sometimes even the same layout. If something falls outside their interest, then it doesn’t exist, or at least, not for long.

[5050]

You should try S Scale, then...

 

Actually, I rather fancy it.  If I were to try something a bit larger than P4 then S would be my scale of choice.

 

I should have done it years ago before I had amassed such a large P4 'stud'.