Wright writes.....

[St Enodoc]

Looks a lot neater buried though dunnit? I s'pose burying cables also puts off the wretched cable thieves, at least we don't have that problem in 4mm? Whatever happened to "Mercontrol" point operation (25g steel wire in copper tubing, also with cranks and lever frames), it used to be all the rage in the 1960s and 70s, for remote hand or motor operation, did it disappear with Gem?     BK

Look at modratec.com for modern wire-in-tube technology (usual disclaimer).

[billbedford]

Thanks Bill,

 

I too remember the Deputy Chairman's Cup. If my memory serves, part of the competition involved a loco negotiating an obstacle course consisting of out-of-gauge track, out-of alignment track, inconsistent radii and other such impediments. I seem to recall it was 0-4-0s which did best at that. One year there seemed to be a prize for how slowly a loco could travel without stalling, the winner being the one which took the longest to travel, say, a yard of straight track. 

 

Slow running is really a test of the friction in the drive train, and by extension how controllable the loco is. There are some people, myself included, who believe that how a model moves, i.e. accelerates and decelerates is at least as important for realism as the colours the locos are painted.

[billbedford]

 

May I ask this question, please? Why does my fully-compensated WC not pull as much or slip far more readily than the rigid chassis one I built using exactly the same kit, weighted to exactly the same amount, with exactly the same motor? 

 

That's a bit of a 'how long is a bit of string' question. I can have a good guess at what is wrong, but think I need some more information to be able to suggest solutions, for instance;

 

What exactly do you mean by 'fully-compensated'? I'm guessing it has one fixed driving axle and the other two linked by a compensating beam, but there are other more complicated arrangements which would need different approaches.

 

How heavy is the loco?

 

What are the compensation beam(s) and cross-shaft supporting them made form?

 

Where is the centre of gravity? just a rough idea of this in relation to the centre driver would be good enough.

[Mallard60022]

I think you are in need of a good plumber Tony.

 

On a serious note, assuming your compensated water closet has one rigid axle (for the gearbox), the chassis will require more weight at that end. I assume you are not pulling our chains, whilst flushed with such success?    BK

Nice one Brian K.    I am sorry to post this so early and I promise not to do any more.

Compensated WC.........when I were but a lad I used to observe original (air smoothed) WCs (and B of Bs) from the footbridge across the east Yards at Devonport King's Road. We never called them 'Spams', but Cisterns (well, toilets was also used by naughty boys....not me)  as their injectors, on activation, sounded like those old high level lavatory cisterns (that posh people had in their outside lavs) filling after a flush had been activated.

The serious point in this post is that, despite the schoolboy 'humour' in those far off days, this watching is why I probably now yearn after a model of the LSWR/BRSR.

I believe that many of us were influenced by what we 'spotted' when young and especially when we went to somewhere away from our local ("scrap it") haunts.

I think Tony has hinted at that in the past. Am I correct?

Phil 

[MPR]

  Steam locomotives with coupling rods don't allow any differential action

Not quite - it's certainly true that the angular velocity of one axle to another is locked, but as the wheels are coned, the point of contact on the outside wheel will increase the effective diameter (and reduce it on the inside wheel)as the vehicle enters a curve...

[Focalplane]

Tony

 

I have been successfully struggling the past 24 hours with the renovation of my 47 year old Wills Finecast King.  It is progressing nicely but slowly.  The motor, gearbox and motion are all in place and working.  Next came the fitting of the front bogie, a real space problem if ever there was one, in real life as well as on the model.  I had already made up the bogie but had not thought to check on the rear fixing under the boiler.

 

There isn't one!  I should explain that I replaced the old cast frame with a new SE Finecast nickel silver frame.  Where the hole for the bogie should be there was nothing!  Worse, I had chosen that space for installing plunger pickups on the front driver (the rear drivers will have conventional pickups).

 

So out came the brass bits and bobs and I fashioned up something last night and in the early hours of this morning with hacksaw, files and drill.  It is now in place though I expect to have the usual teething problems with shorts, etc. due to the tight fit.

 

In a rash mood a few months back I bought a SE Finecast Castle kit to complement the King (my racehorse and plough horse duo) and I note in the instructions it does without the front brake fitting altogether whereas on the King the brake shoes are supposed to fit.  Perhaps I need to remove the King's front brake shoes?  I also note that the Castle frame does have a brass spacer fitted in order to attach the front bogie!

 

Other than my one question this post is really an observation.  I really like the Finecast kits though they can be a challenge at times!

[LNER4479]

Slow running is really a test of the friction in the drive train, and by extension how controllable the loco is. There are some people, myself included, who believe that how a model moves, i.e. accelerates and decelerates is at least as important for realism as the colours the locos are painted.

I would agree that this is a worthwhile test of how a model locomotive has been put together and hence worth competing for. Can I make a related observation however?

 

I observe a propensity, on some (note - only some!) layouts at exhibitions for all locomotive / train movements to be performed at no more than a crawl, regardless of distance to be travelled, length of train, mainline or yard siding (etc). I am left wondering therefore whether the operators have ever observed the full size railway or somehow assume that default slow speed running is what everyone wishes to see? (because it's impressive?!)

 

Railways were / are commercial enterprises that traded / trade on the ability to get merchandise / people from their origination point to their destination point quicker than other competing forms of transport. A train would / will therefore proceed on its way as fast as the prevailing conditions allow. When starting away therefore, all things being equal it will accelerate up to its maximum permitted running speed (for the stretch of line concerned) as quickly as possible.

 

Even in a supposedly slow speed situation like a yard or depot, movements would not typically be performed at a sedentary pace. I have had the privilege (I think that's what you call it) of working in live railway depot / shed yards and here's the thing - movements are generally made at or above the maximum allowable speed (generally 5mph) not because the shunters and drivers are all company men and want to do of their very best for their boss. No! They go a bit faster than they should because there's a brew on in the messroom! When it's damp and raining, what would you rather do? Spend hours outside in the wet and cold - or get back to the nice warm messroom as quickly as possible!! Not for nothing did most shunting yards contain a cripple siding for vehicles that had suffered due to being knocked about during an excessive shunting move to be placed out of the way pending C&W attention...

 

Generally, things would follow a cycle. Depot movements would be performed at speed, with corners cut here and there until one day there was a 'crump!', shunt loco 'in the four foot'. Job stopped, breakdown gang called, somebody 'form1'd. Thereafter a notice would go up from 'the management', reminding all of the maximum speed of movements. There would then be two or three days of a sort of unofficial 'work to rule' with everything done more or less to the book - until everyone got a bit fed up of it and back to normal shunting speeds....

[Focalplane]

A comment about slow running capability.  It is certainly true that no CME got knighted for producing slow running steam locomotives.  But in the real world there are lots of situations where slow running is required, even mandated.  My MPD layout absolutely requires precision slow running.  A 2 hour London to Birmingham Jubilee may have cruised at 80mph at times but coming on shed it would be at a crawl, particularly when approaching the turntable or the coal hole.

 

And starting a stopping an express also requires a bit more finesse than simple rotation of the rheostat up and down.  I think rapid starts and stops are one of the least attractive sights at on an exhibition layout.  In the States the worst perpetrators of this are Lionel train operators!

 

In the recent DC/DCC discussion someone mentioned pulse power.  I had such a device which ran off a 15v AC transformer and had options for full wave and half wave rectification as well as a limited degree of "cruise control" when stopping.  The speed controls were sliders as used in recording studios.  I don't know what happened to it (I rarely throw things away but it may have gone missing in a country-to-country move) otherwise I would take a photo for the TW museum!

 

EDIT:  while composing this the post above appeared and the post therefore does not respond to it.  Yes, corners were often cut, derailments on shed happened due to excessive speed on poorly maintained track, etc.  And the point about acceleration is one I absolutely agree with, but not when done with a Lionel train set!

Edited October 27, 2015 by Focalplane

[unclebobkt]

       ... .

 

  The second is several ex GPO engineers who swear by numbering everything and won't touch colour coding because their experience is of the multiple twisted pairs in GPO cables which have the colours repeated frequently. My problem with those little plastic numbers is that they seem to have a habit of dropping off the wire as soon as you turn your back and disappearing down a crack in the floor. Is there a better way?

  ... .       Jonathan

 

        Back in the late 50's./early 60s., when I was attached to the RAE. F'borough. and worked on 'Black Knight.', (Brtiain's research vehicle,  to give us experience on such things before moving-up to the larger ICBM. 'Blue Streak.'.),  we used 'Hellerman sleeves.',  wch. are small, numbered & coloured sleeves, (colour-coded same as resistors' colur-coding.), to identify cables.

  Possibly still obtinable through specialist & electrical/electronics shops?

 

      

Edited October 27, 2015 by unclebobkt

[unclebobkt]

       ... . 

  However, there's a better case for steam with chips, if you want working sound, lots of modern RTR is now designed to accept it, but kit conversion is tricky, just where do i put that speaker.        Cheers, Brian.

 

        One question, if I may?

  Is it possible now to synchronise the steam-locomotives' 'chuffs.' with the driving wheels' rotation and with the actual work that the loco. is doing, (cut-off.),?

 

       

[Tony Wright]

That's a bit of a 'how long is a bit of string' question. I can have a good guess at what is wrong, but think I need some more information to be able to suggest solutions, for instance;

 

What exactly do you mean by 'fully-compensated'? I'm guessing it has one fixed driving axle and the other two linked by a compensating beam, but there are other more complicated arrangements which would need different approaches.

 

How heavy is the loco?

 

What are the compensation beam(s) and cross-shaft supporting them made form?

 

Where is the centre of gravity? just a rough idea of this in relation to the centre driver would be good enough.

Sorry Bill,

 

My comment about the 'fully-compensated' WC was ambiguous. The driven axle is fixed (the rear one) and the leading and middle axles have two compensation beams (one each side) through which the axles pass. The frames have elongated slots, allowing both axles up and down movement. I built it as designed by Crownline, so if it's 'wrong' it's down to four reasons. 1. The design is wrong at source, or. 2. The design is right but I didn't make it correctly or, 3. The design is wrong and I didn't make it correctly, anyway, or. 4. Though I made it correctly, the design wasn't right. 

 

Now, and here is where practical experience trumps any advanced theories. The next Crownline WC I made (and several MNs), because I was unhappy with the original's performance, I soldered everything up solid, making a rigid 0-6-0. I also drove off the centre axle (far better in my view). The result? Almost no slipping, much greater pulling power and a much better overall runner(s). Several of these locos have appeared in the model press and at many, many shows. 

 

What they weigh is enough to pull whatever load is asked of them. All weigh much the same (the internals being stuffed with lead sheet), but the compensated one is by far the worst runner in every way.

[great central]

Can I echo 4479's observations. I stood watching an exhibition layout a while back. It looked good but it was run so slooowly!

Supposedly a main line approaching a station in recent times. Trains emerged onto the scene under a bridge but instead of slowing on approach to the station, they just crawled the length of the layout.

I work on the railway and all trains run close to the upper speed limits most of the time. Most drivers have years of experience and can judge their braking almost to the inch, regardless of conditions.

So after watching said layout for a few minutes I quickly lost interest.

For the reason that it looks to be operated how I remember, Grantham is a firm favourite.

Another club member is a civil engineer and he gets put off by impossible bridges!

We all have our particular bugbears but as Grahame says above we can all go out and look how things are done.

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

I have been successfully struggling the past 24 hours with the renovation of my 47 year old Wills Finecast King.  It is progressing nicely but slowly.  The motor, gearbox and motion are all in place and working.  Next came the fitting of the front bogie, a real space problem if ever there was one, in real life as well as on the model.  I had already made up the bogie but had not thought to check on the rear fixing under the boiler.

 

There isn't one!  I should explain that I replaced the old cast frame with a new SE Finecast nickel silver frame.  Where the hole for the bogie should be there was nothing!  Worse, I had chosen that space for installing plunger pickups on the front driver (the rear drivers will have conventional pickups).

 

So out came the brass bits and bobs and I fashioned up something last night and in the early hours of this morning with hacksaw, files and drill.  It is now in place though I expect to have the usual teething problems with shorts, etc. due to the tight fit.

 

In a rash mood a few months back I bought a SE Finecast Castle kit to complement the King (my racehorse and plough horse duo) and I note in the instructions it does without the front brake fitting altogether whereas on the King the brake shoes are supposed to fit.  Perhaps I need to remove the King's front brake shoes?  I also note that the Castle frame does have a brass spacer fitted in order to attach the front bogie!

 

Other than my one question this post is really an observation.  I really like the Finecast kits though they can be a challenge at times!

Paul,

 

I can't remember how I configured the SE Finecast King's set of frames. I built it years ago, and it was reported on in BRM some years later. I seem to recall there were no brakes supplied, and I fitted plastic shoes. 

 

The front bogie was pivoted in the usual manner - a strip of metal with two pivot points, attached to the centre of the bogie and to a spacer between the cylinders.

 

The owner ran it (every day?) for a decade and then I got phone call saying it had conked out. With his living in Hove, it was lucky I was on cricket tour of the South Coast a week or two later, so I took a replacement motor/gearbox. The motor had just died, and was replaced. As far as I know it's still going strong. 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Focalplane]

        One question, if I may?

  Is it possible now to synchronise the steam-locomotives' 'chuffs.' with the driving wheels' rotation and with the actual work that the loco. is doing, (cut-off.),?

 

       

Synchronisation is possible and is often done on high end American HO models.  Essentially a disk sensor is attached to a driving wheel axle with either an electrical pickup or an optical sensor.  For four chuffs per revolution the disk would have four strip(e)s at 90º, for six chuffs, six at 60º and so on.  The sensor then feeds the on/off information to a suitable decoder which then overrides the CV setting.

 

Alternatively the CV setting can be calibrated (I don't remember which setting it is, but I do know it is achieved by trial and error).

 

As to simulating the work being done by the loco, there is that capability built in using the back EMF of the motor.  However, in my experience this does not always come across as it should.  I think it takes a real expert to calibrate motor to decoder, etc.  Perhaps a real expert could answer this?

 

I spent some time researching the chuffs needed for a Midland Compound.  The high pressure inside cylinder doesn't actually "chuff" so the sound is simply that of a two cylinder locomotive.  My research for this was posted on trainorders.com, of which I am no longer a member and therefore cannot access the results.  But it did involve communication with the NRM and a diagram that showed the two low pressure cylinder cranks to be at 90º with the high pressure crank at 120º/60º to them.

[Horsetan]

....I spent some time researching the chuffs needed for a Midland Compound.  The high pressure inside cylinder doesn't actually "chuff" so the sound is simply that of a two cylinder locomotive.  My research for this was posted on trainorders.com, of which I am no longer a member and therefore cannot access the results.  But it did involve communication with the NRM and a diagram that showed the two low pressure cylinder cranks to be at 90º with the high pressure crank at 120º/60º to them.

I think the GNR(I) V class Compound has a similar arrangement.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Sorry Bill,

 

My comment about the 'fully-compensated' WC was ambiguous. The driven axle is fixed (the rear one) and the leading and middle axles have two compensation beams (one each side) through which the axles pass. The frames have elongated slots, allowing both axles up and down movement. I built it as designed by Crownline, so if it's 'wrong' it's down to four reasons. 1. The design is wrong at source, or. 2. The design is right but I didn't make it correctly or, 3. The design is wrong and I didn't make it correctly, anyway, or. 4. Though I made it correctly, the design wasn't right. 

 

Now, and here is where practical experience trumps any advanced theories. The next Crownline WC I made (and several MNs), because I was unhappy with the original's performance, I soldered everything up solid, making a rigid 0-6-0. I also drove off the centre axle (far better in my view). The result? Almost no slipping, much greater pulling power and a much better overall runner(s). Several of these locos have appeared in the model press and at many, many shows. 

 

What they weigh is enough to pull whatever load is asked of them. All weigh much the same (the internals being stuffed with lead sheet), but the compensated one is by far the worst runner in every way.

Tony,

 

from your description, if the beams are towards the outer ends of the axles and can move independently of each other, then there isn't any compensation as the other axle is fixed in the frames.! The two compensated axles need to be able to rotate vertically about a single centre beam, which itself can rotate about its mounting.

 

Two side beams as described need the other axle (driven in this case) to be able to rotate vertically. In that way, vertical movement of any one or more wheels in relation to the frames becomes possible. If this isn't clear, then I apologise. Mike Sharman needed to write a book about it to cover all the options.

 

On the subject of compensated versus rigid axle loco chassis, it would need two otherwise identical locomotives built by someone with experience of building both to enable any comparison to be made. Even then followers of each approach would still claim that their's is the best way, but that's just the way of things.

 

All my locos are built compensated, with steel tyred wheels running on n/s track. They aren't required to haul heavy loads over long distances on London Road  but perform well under exhibition conditions - which usually means track and wheels that gets dirty quite quickly. They have Mashima motors driving through straightforward LRM or Branchlines gears/motor mounts. Two four coupled locos pickup on the driving wheels only but will still run all day without cleaning. 

 

Getting the mechanicals right in the first place provides the basis of good running locos (as well as the other rolling stock). It appears that some modellers see DCC as an easy solution for poor running. While no doubt it provides advantages by enabling the controller (chip) to be matched to the motor/mechanism, I don't thing it's the answer for locos that aren't already properly set up.

 

Jol

[Horsetan]

Sorry Bill,

 

My comment about the 'fully-compensated' WC was ambiguous. The driven axle is fixed (the rear one) and the leading and middle axles have two compensation beams (one each side) through which the axles pass. The frames have elongated slots, allowing both axles up and down movement. I built it as designed by Crownline.....

 

The compensation system - linked axles forming a swivelling cradle - used in the Crownline kit (and repeated in many of today's PDK kits) is not actually their design, but Kemilway's - used in almost all of their chassis kits. It was also adopted by Peter K in the Adams Radial kit.

[polybear]

Back in the late 50's./early 60s., when I was attached to the RAE. F'borough. and worked on 'Black Knight.', (Brtiain's research vehicle,  to give us experience on such things before moving-up to the larger ICBM. 'Blue Streak.'.),  we used 'Hellerman sleeves.',  wch. are small, numbered & coloured sleeves, (colour-coded same as resistors' colur-coding.), to identify cables.

  Possibly still obtinable through specialist & electrical/electronics shops?

 

      

Yes - most definitely; the wiring shop at work has thousands of 'em. A real pain when you drop the tray and they all get mixed up. Not sure if they're made by Hellerman though; as an apprentice we all had a pair of Hellerman pliers plus Hellerman oil - I've still got both somewhere.

 

Incidentally, my first "proper" boss used to work at Spadeadam on Blue Streak, then went onto Polaris subs at Vickers, Barrow-In-Furness.

 

Brian

[Brian Kirby]

The compensation system - linked axles forming a swivelling cradle - used in the Crownline kit (and repeated in many of today's PDK kits) is not actually their design, but Kemilway's - used in almost all of their chassis kits. It was also adopted by Peter K in the Adams Radial kit.

Not quite, the first Kemilway loco chassis (the 76xxx) was rigid, the following Bulleid Light Pacific chassis used bars on two axles, but had four-point suspension, it was referred to at the time as an "equalised" chassis. The next step after this was the LMS 4F chassis which was "compensated" using three-point suspension, they also provided a 6'6"+6'6" compensated tender chassis. By the time the 82xxx complete kit arrived, they had re-worked the 76xxx chassis (same wheelbase,etc.) to include compensation and a loco-mounted motor (the original 76xxx kit had the motor in the tender, with a flexible drive to the loco chassis).

    The description "compensated" seems to be loosely used to distinguish any non-rigid chassis, but there are plenty of variations. In summary i'd say chassis comprise of: Rigid, Rigid with the odd sprung axle, Equalised, Compensated, Fully Compensated (involving bogies as well), and Fully Sprung. Have i missed any out?           BK

[Horsetan]

Not quite, the first Kemilway loco chassis (the 76xxx) was rigid, the following Bulleid Light Pacific chassis used bars on two axles, but had four-point suspension, it was referred to at the time as an "equalised" chassis. The next step after this was the LMS 4F chassis which was "compensated" using three-point suspension, they also provided a 6'6"+6'6" compensated tender chassis. By the time the 82xxx complete kit arrived, they had re-worked the 76xxx chassis (same wheelbase,etc.) to include compensation and a loco-mounted motor (the original 76xxx kit had the motor in the tender, with a flexible drive to the loco chassis).....

 

That apart, Crownline still cribbed the idea from Kemilway. Indeed, their first Light Pacific chassis was near-identical to the Kemilway one, with the only obvious difference being the use of single, rather than dual, brake pull rods.

[billbedford]

My comment about the 'fully-compensated' WC was ambiguous. The driven axle is fixed (the rear one) and the leading and middle axles have two compensation beams (one each side) through which the axles pass. The frames have elongated slots, allowing both axles up and down movement. I built it as designed by Crownline, so if it's 'wrong' it's down to four reasons. 1. The design is wrong at source, or. 2. The design is right but I didn't make it correctly or, 3. The design is wrong and I didn't make it correctly, anyway, or. 4. Though I made it correctly, the design wasn't right. 

 

 

It is easy to see what what is happening. The 'compensation' is transferring weight from the two leading driving axles to the bogie, hence no traction.

 

As of a solution, I would suggest you try something like this:

 

 

A 'T' shaped beam is put in above the present crossbeam so as to support the centre of the crossbeam. This will produce a three point suspension and should then even up the weights on the driving axles and give much better traction. There are a few thing you should think about with this arrangement.

 

The new beam is going to take 2/3 the adhesive weight of the loco so it may be a good idea to use bolts or pins as well as solder to fix it to the frame.

 

If you were to replace the pointed dropper I've drawn, with a nut and screw you will be able to adjust he height of the crossbeam and the amount of weight it carries.

 

Three point suspensions like this one are sensitive to the position of the centre gravity. If it is too close to the forward suspension point the loco can become unstable. This is likely to be a particular problem with bulleid pacifies as there will be lots of empty inside to fill with lead. Ideally some weight should be in the firebox so that the centre of gravity ends up slightly behind the centre drivers.

[billbedford]

Now, and here is where practical experience trumps any advanced theories. 

 

 

 

The trouble with practical experience is that is only as good as a person's understanding. For instance for most people their experience will tell them the best use of a hammer is to knock nails into wood, but some more knowledgeable people will know that hammers are just what is needed to make teapots.  

[billbedford]

    The description "compensated" seems to be loosely used to distinguish any non-rigid chassis, but there are plenty of variations. In summary i'd say chassis comprise of: Rigid, Rigid with the odd sprung axle, Equalised, Compensated, Fully Compensated (involving bogies as well), and Fully Sprung. Have i missed any out?      

 

Spring assisted -- as in the early Alan Gibson plastic hornguides.

[Izzy]

Tony,

 

From the description your Crownline WC compensated chassis would appear to be what is often termed as 4-point compensation rather than the normal 3-point compensation which uses a single central beam. The drawback with the latter design is that it can be inherently unstable if too much weight is placed outside the 3 points in a similar fashion to how a 3-leg stool would be. These points are the two axle bearings of the rear/fixed axle and the pivot point of the central beam. Best practice is to try and ensure that most weight is contained within these boundries otherwise it can be counter-productive to both balance and traction.

 

The twin beam design is a bit more stable as the pivot runs across the width of the chassis at the cost of not being 'true' 3-point compensation, i.e theorectically there could be instances when all wheels would not be in contact with the rail with non-flat/un-even/twisty track. It can become 'true' compensation if the rear fixed axle isn't, and is allowed some downward movement. It doesn't have to be spring assisted - i.e. sprung hornblocks -  simple mechanical advantage is enough for the principle to work if it is felt it is needed for better electrical current collection. This of course then requires a moving gearbox design of some kind, which are common today but rare when such chassis designs first arrived.

 

However, as with 3-point compensation, it is still neccesary to ensure that the majority of the weight of the loco is placed within the boundries of the 4 points or it will again be counter-productive to traction/balance, and I wonder if this is the issue with your loco. That there is as much - more perhaps? - weight forward of the beam pivot than rear of it. This would lead to loss of traction on the rear drivers. Too much and they could be lifited off the rails if the front bogie is sprung and doesn't carry any of the loco's front weight. i.e. the chassis pivots forwards around the beam pivot. In this instance removing weight from the front of the loco could actually make haulage capacity/rear driving wheel traction better. It's a thought anyway.

 

Talk of the S4 deputy chairmans cup brings back memories of the first time it was run (Scalefour 1983, Commonwealth Institute) and a 0-4-4T of mine nicked off my layout  - simply to make up the numbers - won it. What a fluke! The tests were then changed/developed to make sure that didn't happen again! After all, how could you have a silly little 0-4-4T beat big 4-6-0's etc! Great fun for all concerned, which is how it all should be.

 

Izzy

[Stanley Melrose]

I think you'll find, if you ask the right person, that the original Scalefour Society Deputy Chairman's Cup was to be awarded for the producer of most original benefit (product/mechanism/tool/fixture) to P4 modellers . . .

 

It was a later idea to award it to the "winner" of the obstacle course - and this was definitely NOT endorsed by the guy who donated the cup and the award!

 

Stan