Model Rail 151

[chris_irl]

Very good issue this month, lots of interesting stuff.

 

Why was the N scale cl 14 given a x/10 for performance? were you unable to test it for some reason?

 

is this the correct url for the competition, doesn't seem to work for me: www.greatcompetitions.co.uk/mr, also nothing here: http://www.greatcompetitions.co.uk/model/

 

 

Can I ask have you ever done a "review" of your office test track at all? Seen as its mentioned a lot and seem fairly comprehensive it could make a good article on what you do to test locos and why the track has its various design elements

[dibber25]

Why was the N scale cl 14 given a x/10 for performance? (quote)

 

Haven't got a copy here to check but an 'x' is usually put in before someone does the test and enters the actual figure. I guess this one got overlooked in proof-reading. We were very busy preparing for Warley in press week this time and we do sometimes make mistakes, for which I apologise.

I understand there was a technical fault with the link to the on-line competition - I apologise for that, too, but it should be OK now, I believe.

Our office test track is currently under construction as it has been for about 2 years. It is usable but not up to being featured in public. We are planning to lay more tracks with code 75 rail and wider curves but we seldom have the time to work on it and some testing is therefore done away from the office.

Comments such as the one above make one reluctant to go public with too much background to how things are done as there's always some self-appointed expert who'll tell you that you should be doing it differently. We've moved on from the basic string attached to a spring-balance that I used at Model Railway Constructor - we even have a dynamometer car - but it reads KMH in 1:87 scale and converting that to MPH in 1:76 was an interesting exercise for my (low grade pass!) 'O' level maths!

Back to painting the railway room - third coat of Dulux.

CHRIS LEIGH

[shortliner]

Chris - maybe you need one of these for those who pick nits

http://www.micromark.com/DIGITAL-PULL-METER,9577.html

[chris_irl]

Haven't got a copy here to check but an 'x' is usually put in before someone does the test and enters the actual figure. I guess this one got overlooked in proof-reading. We were very busy preparing for Warley in press week this time and we do sometimes make mistakes, for which I apologise.

I understand there was a technical fault with the link to the on-line competition - I apologise for that, too, but it should be OK now, I believe.

Our office test track is currently under construction as it has been for about 2 years. It is usable but not up to being featured in public. We are planning to lay more tracks with code 75 rail and wider curves but we seldom have the time to work on it and some testing is therefore done away from the office.

Comments such as the one above make one reluctant to go public with too much background to how things are done as there's always some self-appointed expert who'll tell you that you should be doing it differently. We've moved on from the basic string attached to a spring-balance that I used at Model Railway Constructor - we even have a dynamometer car - but it reads KMH in 1:87 scale and converting that to MPH in 1:76 was an interesting exercise for my (low grade pass!) 'O' level maths!

Back to painting the railway room - third coat of Dulux.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

thanks for the explanations Chris

[Penlan]

Chris - maybe you need one of these for those who pick nits http://www.micromark...METER,9577.html

This page tells us it's in oz's, being American, but the instructions tells us :-

 

'…….Press the UNIT button to select between oz, kg and lb. Now, gently run the

locomotive away from the meter until the locomotive starts to slip its wheels. When the

torque on the drawbar stabilizes, the meter will beep and the reading will HOLD.

This is the amount of tractive pulling force your locomotive is capable of developing.

Note: The meter is capable of reading increments of .005 kg. This is equivalent to 0.17 oz. or 0.01 Ib.

When set to UNITS other than kg, the display will round off the reading to the nearest 0.1 oz or 0.01 Ib.

The capacity of the meter is about 10 kg (22 Ibs or 352oz) while pulling on the hitch,

or 6 kg (13 Ibs or 208 oz) white pushing on the hitch (pushing will indicate a negative value)…….

Interestingly, the main page advert states the capacity is around 176 oz's

whilst above, in the instructions, it states 352 oz's. perhaps there's some

confusion with kg's, as this (kg's) seems to be the base line unit's for the meter.

[Barry Ten]

Really enjoyed the article on Warm Turn - yes, maybe there's a crossing missing from the track diagram (I couldn't work out how the coal trains were able to work the branch) but it didn't detract from a cracking read. The Valleys atmosphere has been captured to perfection.

[dibber25]

The tractive effort measurement whether by pulling against a spring balance or some other more sophisticated method, seemed to be a good way of comparing one loco against another but I always wondered whether it was entirely fair. If you set the equipment up slightly differently, that could make a difference and what about the speed of acceleration? Would a sudden application of full power produce a different result from a slow, gradual acceleration (much like weightlifters doing a snatch lift). It did favour locomotives with traction tyres, and of all the locomotives we tested, Fleischmann ones generally pulled the spring balance out almost to the stops, while the worst performer was the original Mainline 4MT 4-6-0.

Inevitably, after we started to do our haulage tests by this more 'professional' method, we had readers asking "but I just want to know how many coaches it will pull." !!! I tell you, you just can't win.

CHRIS LEIGH

[dibber25]

Chris/Dibber25, I can understand your preference for the OT discussion on Julie as it distracts from criticism, but nevertheless the reviews are manifestly inaccurate and for the A4s portray an expensive model in a poor light which is neither true nor justifiable.

This is simply sloppy journalism, but if it happens and gets noticed, would prefer to see rectified with a simple apology that it is unusual and a statement that things will be tightened up in future will suffice.

 

I understand that the above statement that the review is 'manifestly inaccurate' is based largely on the table of 1:76 dimensions. As a result of the above, now I'm back in the office, I have checked Richard's arithmetic by the standard method that we use:

Prototype dimension in Ft/in times 305 (number of mm in a foot) divided by 76.

Only one dimension shown is incorrect, that of the trailing wheel diameter shown as 14mm when (with decimal rounded to one place) it should be 14.7mm.

The accusation of sloppy journalism is therefore untrue and unfair and it is, in fact, Mr. Dunkley's post which is 'manifestly inaccurate'.

CHRIS LEIGH

[AndyB]

Just saw on the MR facebook page mention of an N gauge competition.

Some suggestion that the web links offered were incorrect.

Anyone got any info?

 

Andy

 

ps Wibdenshaw + Felicity K.

[gordon s]

Works fine for me......

 

http://www.greatcompetitions.co.uk/model/

[craigwelsh]

I understand that the above statement that the review is 'manifestly inaccurate' is based largely on the table of 1:76 dimensions. As a result of the above, now I'm back in the office, I have checked Richard's arithmetic by the standard method that we use:

Prototype dimension in Ft/in times 305 (number of mm in a foot) divided by 76.

Only one dimension shown is incorrect, that of the trailing wheel diameter shown as 14mm when (with decimal rounded to one place) it should be 14.7mm.

The accusation of sloppy journalism is therefore untrue and unfair and it is, in fact, Mr. Dunkley's post which is 'manifestly inaccurate'.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

Surely its easier to do

a = feet

b = inches

 

(a+(b/12))*4 = scale mm

Stick it in a spreadsheet to 1dp and you can quickly compare it with the micrometer reading.

 

 

Introducing two earlier rounding's in your sum doesn't really make any sense.

 

I can see Simon's point if you go to one decimal place on your measurement but round the calculation.

 

Driving wheels for example:

((6 + 8/12) *305)/76 = 26.754385965

(6 + 8/12) * 4 = 26.666666667

 

If the tables are to be published it does make sense to make the calculation you use as accurate a comparison as possible.

 

I do hope i've not got this completely wrong now or my kits are a bit off with a wheelbase of 36mm instead of 36.118421053 etc!

[dibber25]

That looks like algebra to me - and I never could understand that. I have to do maths my own way. Spreadsheets are WAY beyond me and in any case, we're not trained on spreadsheet programs (because we don't normally need to use them) and when we do have to use them they don't seem to work properly on Macs.

CHRIS LEIGH

[orcadian]

Dibber, don't worry about this! I know that I'm going to continue reading, enjoying and being well-informed by the excellent journalism and writing standards in 'MR', in its articles, features and reviews. I don't think I'll be alone in reaching this conclusion! However, I wonder if Mr. Dunkley would be more comfortable reading ' Model Engineer'?

[Mod5]

Perhaps we could continue to discuss the magazine now please and move on from this.

[Morphaniel]

I thought the large number of posts was about the Graham Farish 'insert' but readers seem to have got hung up on actresses and numbers instead!

 

It's a bit tricky criticising the insert when Peco and Hornby are not shy in their associations with the other majors of the model rail press but I did think the Scenecraft article fell the wrong side of the 'editorial/advertorial' line. The coffee table layout article was very interesting, since the techniques of the Woodland Scenics landscape kits are not often discussed and the N scale article was fascinating so overall I think it was well judged on this occasion but I hope that sponsored articles are not the way of the future - a breathing space might have been a good idea before running George Dent's Hattons piece