Model Railways and The Scientific Method

[iL Dottore]

In various threads on this forum there have been comments made about the accuracy, completeness and objectivity of railway model reviews. I had proposed that following the methodology by which a scientific paper is written would bring much needed clarity and objectivity to reviews.

But what would such a review look like? Here, using an entirely mythical locomotive, is my “model review in the scientific styleâ€.

 

INTRODUCTION

Charles Collett's 92XX, built at Swindon in 1925, was arguably the Great Western Railway's biggest failure - bar none (Stationmaster, 2012). Two of these huge 4-10-4Ts were built to manage the ever increasing South Wales coal traffic and were, according to the GWR's own promotional literature (GWRrob et al., 2009), the result of Collett's experiences when he was seconded to the Richmond Machine Works, Richmond PA (USA) in 1920.

With an axle load of 30 tons, a total weight of 160 Long Tons and a minimum radius of 10 chains, the 92XX was a failure from the start (GWRrob, et al., 2010). Despite a tractive effort of 60,000 lbf, because of weight and radius restrictions the 92XX never fulfilled its theoretical promise - although it was able to pull coal trains of over 300 uncoupled unfitted wagons in trials. A train, incidentally, that not even the biggest GWR marshalling yard would have been able to accommodate (Stationmaster, op. Cit.),let alone small colliery yards. Furthermore the 92XX was absolutely loathed by GWR drivers and firemen due its overly complicated "American" controls and self coaling mechanism (Wintle, 2007). To the surprise of none, both examples were broken up in 1926 and recycled.

Bachby has just released the 92XX in 4mm scale with both GWR Green and the short lived GWR Pink Livery (models BB4545G and BB4545P).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two Bachby 92XXs were purchased anonymously from ScouserRail (production batch number 23987) and before testing had all bufferbeam accessories mounted. Our standard test track (Train-O-Matic Model 13c, T-O-M Corp, Scranton PA) was used together with our lab's 150gm test coaches (modified Hornimann Mk 3s: see iL Dottore et al., 2004 for details). Electronics were assessed using Trisonic's methodology (Trisonic, 2000) and a Mk IV YorkElectroTest test bed. Finish and assembly were assessed using the ChrisF Rating Scale (CRS: Chris, 2005) and robustness by a modified TDS (Chris, 2005).

RESULTS

The Bachby 92xx is exactly scaled down, wheel gauge excepting (Table 1). Both models tested were powerful, pulling 15 test coaches (2.25Kgs in total) before failing with 16 test coaches (Table 2). Despite an original bending chassis (Fig. 1) like the original, the Bachby model is restricted to large radius curves (> Radius 3. Table 3). Assembly and finish scored high on the CRS and is robust - scoring 19/20 on the TDS (Table 4) The Combined Review Rating Scale (CRRS) was 28.7 overall (Table 5).

CONCLUSIONS

Both models were well assembled and finished, although a score of 6 on the blobs and blotches section and a score of 7.5 on the wobbly section of the CRS scale on the GWR Green model (BB4545G) but not on the GWR Pink Model (BB4545P) suggests that QC may be an issue with the GWR Green model. Apart from the limitation of needing greater than radius 3 curves to run (but true to prototype), the overall CRRS score of 28.7 is one of the highest yet achieved by a Bachby model (Pennine, 2012). However, the mechanical, assembly and finish excellence of BB4545P of is let down by incorrect livery.

Stationmaster (2012) in a review of the literature concluded that the 92XX never ran in the very short lived GWR pink livery, although iL Dottore and Olddudders (2009) analysis of the Swindon paintshop's records claims that it did. As persuasive as that review is, it has, so far, not been corroborated by any photographic evidence (GWRrob et al, 2009, 2010), leading us to conclude that, this time, Bachby has erred in finishing their otherwise useful 92XX in the short lived GWR pink livery.

In all, a well constructed, accurate model, although QC may prove to be problematic for the BB4545G model. However, the uniformly excellent BB4545P is let down by an incorrect livery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thanks Mrs iD for the use of the ToddlerMk3 for the Toddler Destruction Scale Testing.

REFERENCES

Stationmaster, T. (2012). Collett's 92XX in the popular media and the specialised press. Int. J. Meticulousness. 5: 212 - 232

GWRrob, R. Et al. (2009) Swindon Locomotives and Swindon Self Promotion. Ann. Railways & Railroading. 25: 24 -26

Wintle, A (2007). Inside Brunel's Top Hat: uncensored insider's views of the GWR. Proceedings of the Brit Railway Soc. 275: 32-44.

Dottore, i. (2004). Modifying the Hornimann Mk 3 into a standardised test unit. Int J Scien Mod Rail. 14:200 – 230.

Trisonic, P. (2000). Accuracy in assessing train electronics. A new era?. Int. Elect. Train Rev. 45:21-27

Chris, F (2005). An objective points based method for assessing assembly and finish with notes on improving the Toddler Destruction Scale. Int J Scien Mod Rail. 15:20: 25.

Pennine, MC (2012). Editorial: Bachby and Hornimann Locomotive CRRS Scores 2006 -2011, A Review. Ann. Railways & Railroading. 28: 124 -126.

Dottore, i. and Olddudders, I. (2009). Chapter 5: Swindon's Pink Livery in 1925. In: Stationmaster, T. (ed). Swindon's Paintshop Complete Records and Accounts Incl. Oddities & Various Sundries. Obscure Press, Neasden.

 

I think that the conclusions reviews made following this sort of approach would be hard to argue against (either negative OR positive reviews)

 

My thanks, also, to all those who quite involuntarily have provided their nom-du-web as authors.

 

Now, over to YOU for comments, suggestions, etc.

F

[Physicsman]

I think reviews following this sort of approach would be hard to argue against (pro OR con)

 

My thanks, also, to all those who quite involuntarily have provided their nom-du-web as authors.

 

Now, over to YOU for comments, suggestions, etc.

F

 

With a Scientific background, I would have no qualms about this type of review. It is specific, objective and provides relevant data and plenty of reference material, which can be used in conjunction.

 

I think that it would take a while for many to get used to the style, but after that, the benefits would be evident.

 

Providing that some of the data could be given in graphical or tabular form, and the usual "enticing" multi-angle photos were provided, I think the non-subjectivity would be appreciated.

 

BUT... many modellers want to know about the aesthetic qualities of the model - those properties that cannot be quantified eg. beauty, finesse etc and I'm sure they would find this approach far too dry.

 

It will be interesting to see what the reaction is!!

 

Jeff

[The Stationmaster]

Having seen that I wonder if my daughter still has any paperwork from her A Level physics practical experiment? She carried out a number of comparative haulage and power consumption tests on a variety of locos and several different gradients (she has denied all knowledge of anything remaining from that experiment - apart from the locos, the length of test track itself, and my borrowed H&M Powermaster - which was of course considerably older than her as I had bought it secondhand a year before I took my A Levels ).

[Welly]

I thought that there is also a periodical called "Annals of Model Railway Rivetcounting and Nitpicking" which is published quarterly and comes about 300 pages per issue?

[petethemole]

M le Comte de Rivet has identified what he feels is a major omission from this review; however I have pointed out, backed by a line of redcoats, that the locomotives in question, following American practice, was of all welded construction. He has retired to his cardboard chateau to eat 4mm scale snails.

[Kelly]

This made me smile and remember A Level Physics/Biology/Chemistry I'd be happy reading a review like this!

[The Fatadder]

Sounds a much better approach to me

Much more consistent and easier to verify

[Mikkel]

But does it look right?

[Physicsman]

But does it look right?

 

That is a subjective question and goes to the heart of what we, as consumers, want from a review system.

 

With the increasing cost of models it is essential that we have as much information available to us as possible. It is entirely acceptable for people to ignore all the dimensions, performance data - if they so choose. They can make their judgement based on the "shape of the chimney", the angle of the buffer beam etc, as shown in photos - or viewed in a model shop/internet-mag advert. However, as iL dottore has been saying, in this and parallel threads, the addition of objective reference data can only enhance our decision-making.

 

And, maybe, take away some of the sniping that has appeared in letters pages in certain magazines (we won't start that again).

 

Subject to review space - ah, yes, that rears its head, I think a hybrid conventional-scientific review could work well.

 

If it never happens - so be it. Life is too short to get TOO worked up about this!

 

Jeff

['CHARD]

But does it look right?

Width between margins is too narrow. As always. Until you correct that there's no point.

[cary hill]

That approach would be way too dry and soulless for me - but I accept I will probably be in a minority of one in this

[Physicsman]

That approach would be way too dry and soulless for me - but I accept I will probably be in a minority of one in this

 

I don't think you will be in a minority of one. Although I don't mind a bit of data chucked in, I think the majority of modellers are quite happy, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, with the status quo (cue some remark along the lines "Whatever you want"!).

 

Jeff

[Kelly]

I think a balanced compromise between both would work well. The background info can be useful, but sometimes it might be better to put an article on the subject seperate to the review (space restrictions aside).

 

Some information would be superflurous though I think.

[Baby Deltic]

The Helmann class 17 managed to accelerate a trailing load of 2kg from a standing start on a level gradient before smoke was seen issuing from the chassis.........

[Physicsman]

The Helmann class 17 managed to accelerate a trailing load of 2kg from a standing start on a level gradient before smoke was seen issuing from the chassis.........

 

I didn't know it came with a smoke-generator as standard... now I must consult the data!!

 

And btw, is it true the Helmann class M used to pull salad cream trucks? Oops.

 

Jeff

[Metr0Land]

I think you have to leave some area for 'judgmental' issues like 'does it look right'? IIRC some model cars used to be made slightly underscale in width because they just didn't look right when being viewed from above, as cars are mostly viewed from pedestrian level.

 

We don't necessarily have the same issues with trains but we're all adult enough to realise makers may have to make compromises to give us more or less what we want at prices we can more or less afford.

 

The other thing I want to know is whether there are any problems with running the model on proprietary track. OO isn't scale and therefore outside of a true scientific appraisal but for example there were problems with the Hornby L1 front pony truck derailing on pointwork that I'd want to know about.

[10800]

I thought that there is also a periodical called "Annals of Model Railway Rivetcounting and Nitpicking" which is published quarterly and comes about 300 pages per issue?

 

To be really pedantic it's called "The Review of Model Railway Rivet Counting and Nit-picking" (check out the punctuation), is bi-monthly and is usually 304 pages.

[newbryford]

I thought that there is also a periodical called "Annals of Model Railway Rivetcounting and Nitpicking" which is published quarterly and comes about 300 pages per issue?

 

To be really pedantic it's called "The Review of Model Railway Rivet Counting and Nit-picking" (check out the punctuation), is bi-monthly and is usually 304 pages.

 

Nah - it's continually being updated and runs to 1000's of pages - it's called RMWeb.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[The Stationmaster]

I think you have to leave some area for 'judgmental' issues like 'does it look right'? IIRC some model cars used to be made slightly underscale in width because they just didn't look right when being viewed from above, as cars are mostly viewed from pedestrian level.

 

We don't necessarily have the same issues with trains but we're all adult enough to realise makers may have to make compromises to give us more or less what we want at prices we can more or less afford.

 

The other thing I want to know is whether there are any problems with running the model on proprietary track. OO isn't scale and therefore outside of a true scientific appraisal but for example there were problems with the Hornby L1 front pony truck derailing on pointwork that I'd want to know about.

There is a ready list of things which can be reported objectively - for example 'Model Railroader' always seems to report about flange depth etc compliance with NMRA standards. So although - for example - we're befuddled with a mix of standards, let alone gauges, in 4mm scale it is probably still realistic to report on flange depth, back-to-back (and consistency thereof), and minimum reliably usable radius, and possibly things like buffer and coupler/coupler pocket height as well as the usual comparison with scaled down prototype dimensions or 'a drawing' as well as quoting the source used for the latter two sets of information.

 

The subjective stuff should always, I think be qualified by an 'in the reviewer's opinion' and some initials, a name, or a consistent nom de plume, would enable the reader to gradually decide if his/her subjective tastes align with those of Reviewer A or Reviewer B and so on.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

INTRODUCTION

Charles Collett’s 92XX, built at Swindon in 1925, was arguably the Great Western Railway’s biggest failure – bar none (Stationmaster, 2012). Two of these huge 4-10-4Ts were built to manage the ever increasing South Wales coal traffic and were, according to the GWR’s own promotional literature (GWRrob et al., 2009), the result of Collett’s experiences when he was seconded to the Richmond Machine Works, Richmond PA (USA) in 1920.

With an axle load of 30 tons, a total weight of 160 Long Tons and a minimum radius of 10 chains, the 92XX was a failure from the start (GWRrob, et al., 2010). Despite a tractive effort of 60,000 lbf, because of weight and radius restrictions the 92XX never fulfilled its’ theoretical promise – although it was able to pull coal trains of over 300 uncoupled wagons in trials. A train, incidentally, that not even the biggest GWR marshalling would have been able to accommodate (Stationmaster, op. Cit.),let alone small colliery yards. Furthermore the 92XX was absolutely loathed by GWR drivers and firemen due its overly complicated "American" controls and self coaling mechanism (Wintle, 2007). To the surprise of none, both examples were broken up in 1926 and recycled.

Bachby has just released the 92XX in 4mm scale with both GWR Green and the short lived GWR Pink Livery (models BB4545G and BB4545P).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two Bachby 92XXs were purchased anonymously from ScouserRail (production batch number 23987) and before testing had all bufferbeam accessories mounted. Our standard test track (Train-O-Matic Model 13c, T-O-M Corp, Scranton PA) was used together with our lab’s 150gm test coaches (modified Hornimann Mk 3s – see iL Dottore et al., 2004 for details). Electronics were assessed using Trisonic’s methodology (Trisonic, 2000) and a Mk IV YorkElectroTest test bed. Finish and assembly were assessed using the ChrisF Rating Scale (CRS: Chris, 20005) and robustness by a modified TDS (Chris, 2005).

RESULTS

The Bachby 92xx is exactly scaled down, wheel gauge excepting (Table 1). Both models tested were powerful, pulling 15 test coaches (2.25Kgs in total) before failing with 16 test coaches (Table 2). Despite an original bending chassis (Fig. 1) like the original, the Bachby model is restricted to large radius curves (> Radius 3. Table 3). Assembly and finish scored high on the CRS and is robust – scoring 19/20 on the TDS (Table 4) The Combined Review Rating Scale (CRRS) was 28.7 overall (Table 5).

CONCLUSIONS

Both models were well assembled and finished, although a score of 6 on the blobs and blotches section and a score of 7.5 on the wobbly section of the CRS scale on the GWR Green model (BB4545G) but not on the GWR Pink Model (BB4545P) suggests that QC may be an issue with the GWR Green model. Apart from the limitation of needing greater than radius 3 curves to run (but true to prototype), the overall CRRS score of 28.7 is one of the highest yet achieved by a Bachby model (Pennine, 2012). However, the mechanical, assembly and finish excellence of BB4545P of is let down by incorrect livery.

Stationmaster (2012) in a review of the literature concluded that the 92XX never ran in the very short lived GWR pink livery, although iL Dottore and Olddudders (2009) analysis of the Swindon paintshop's records claims that it did. As persuasive as that review is, it has, so far, not been corroborated by any photographic evidence (GWRrob et al, 2009, 2010), leading us to conclude that, this time, Bachby has erred in finishing their otherwise useful 92XX in the short lived GWR pink livery.

In all, a well constructed, accurate model, although QC may prove to be problematic for the BB4545G model. However, the uniformly excellent BB4545P is let down by an incorrect livery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thanks Mrs iD for the use of the ToddlerMk3 for the Toddler Destruction Scale Testing.

REFERENCES

Stationmaster, T. (2012). Collett’s 92XX in the popular media and the specialised press. Int. J. Meticulousness. 5: 212 - 232

GWRrob, R. Et al. (2009) Swindon Locomotives and Swindon Self Promotion. Ann. Railways & Railroading. 25: 24 -26

Wintle, A (2007). Inside Brunel’s Top Hat: uncensored insider’s views of the GWR. Proceedings of the Brit Railway Soc. 275: 32-44.

Dottore, i. (2004). Modifying the Hornimann Mk 3 into a standardised test unit. Int J Scien Mod Rail. 14:200 – 230.

Trisonic, P. (2000). Accuracy in assessing train electronics. A new era?. Int. Elect. Train Rev. 45:21-27

Chris, F (2005). An objective points based method for assessing assembly and finish with notes on improving the Toddler Destruction Scale. Int J Scien Mod Rail. 15:20 – 25.

Pennine, MC (2012). Editorial: Bachby and Hornimann Locomotive CRRS Scores 2006 -2011, A Review. Ann. Railways & Railroading. 28: 124 -126.

Dottore, i. and Olddudders, I. (2009). Chapter 5: Swindon’s Pink Livery in 1925. In: Stationmaster, T. (ed). Swindon’s Paintshop Complete Records and Accounts Incl. Oddities & Various Sundries. Obscure Press, Neasden.

 

Peer Review.

 

Highlighted in text. "although it was able to pull coal trains of over 300 uncoupled wagons in trials"

 

Once again this reviewer must call attention to an unarguable fabrication, so much in vogue among those of the green wet and rusty party. There is no reliable cited source indicating the successful haulage of any train of uncoupled wagons. It is my recommendation that this paper be withdrawn until the factual content has been checked by at least two suitably qualified external adjudicators.

[Allegheny1600]

Presumably the reviewing magazine would possess a 'test layout' that has at least four radii of curves, several (parellel) gradients of say 6'+ length, each one along the lines of 1/100, 1/75, 1/50, 1/45, 1/40, 1/35 etc, etc.

This mythical layout would also posess everything from loops and sidings to complex junctions of three way points, curved points, double slips etc, ranging from Puko set-track and steam-line to Horback rtr stuff.

The models concerned would have to be able to handle a standard set of Helpol Mk6 coaches and also a standard set of Daljan mixed freight wagons - at all different speeds, forward and reverse!

When the reporter has recorded these trials, he can then provide a "standardised" report on the models running qualities and abilities.

Cheers,

John E.

[Physicsman]

Peer Review.

 

Highlighted in text. "although it was able to pull coal trains of over 300 uncoupled wagons in trials"

 

Once again this reviewer must call attention to an unarguable fabrication, so much in vogue among those of the green wet and rusty party. There is no reliable cited source indicating the successful haulage of any train of uncoupled wagons. It is my recommendation that this paper be withdrawn until the factual content has been checked by at least two suitably qualified external adjudicators.

 

Well spotted sir!!

 

Just goes to show how too much data can cloud the issue! (That's my excuse as I clearly didn't read iD's posting closely enough).

 

Jeff

[chrisf]

Scientists should not mix business with pleasure!

 

Seriously though, there are dangers in citing authorities. Ron White, founder of Colour-Rail, would often tell a tale asserting that footplate work was beneficial to those suffering from piles. One day a member of the audience asked Ron for medical evidence. Quick as a flash Ron stated that there was a piece in a particular issue of The Lancet. Now you know and I know that this cannot be true but the guy who asked the question went away happy. Silly bu99er!

 

Chris

[Physicsman]

Scientists should not mix business with pleasure!

 

Chris

 

Believe it or not, for those outside the cauldron of Science, Science can be a pleasure in itself. However, many of us find ourselves turning to the "black arts" of modelling and the subjective nature of preception and artistry! Side-effects can probably include piles!

 

Seriously, I sympathise with both camps - the subjective and objective. If we only described a locomotive by its tonnage, boiler pressure and number of wheels, how boring would that be? Similarly, to wax lyrical about its colour, shape and whistle-tone would be equally ephemeral. For the purpose of making sensible decisions when spending (often rather a lot of) money, both are needed. I think we all know this. It's how we go about it that is the issue.

 

Jeff

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... Just goes to show how too much data can cloud the issue! ...

There is another extreme unlikelihood in the introduction, on mechanical engineering grounds, if you care to examine the text closely.