Wright writes.....

[Compound2632]

I'm afraid you'll find that less and less linguists will agree with you these days...

[Headstock]

Evening Andrew,

 

I think you're right; there should be (all) working signals and correct lamps. 

 

'Incidentally, do people actually notice if signals work or not?' I think they do; at least those who have a knowledge of how a real railway works. They probably notice if the signals are working (or not) rather more than they notice if the (correct) lamps are carried or not. And anyway, I'd never offer that as an 'excuse' for non-working signals. 

 

No justice? Non-working signals on Tebay? When I photographed it (many years ago), none of the signals worked. I don't remember seeing them working on the DVD, either. It must have been very late in the layout's exhibition life when (all of?) the signals worked. 

 

Today (and yesterday, and last week) I've had several friends visit LB. We've operated it, both 'playing' trains and running to the sequence. Everyone (and they're all model railway builders) commented on how nice it was to have fully-working signals. Yet none noticed anything wrong with the lamps (or if they did they said nothing). Gentlemen, thank you for your splendid company, hospitality and generosity (donations to CRUK). 

 

I'm delighted the signals work on Leicester South - the icing on the (great) cake indeed. I look forward to seeing them (and your superb trains) at Spalding? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

one of the great stories of yore (that is still told around the club) is how you once stood at the bottom of Shap bank chatting away to the operators, oblivious to the signal (it even had a bounce) six inches from your elbow. No doubt there will be plenty of opportunity for you to extract your revenge for that one at Spalding.

[New Haven Neil]

So... 

 

Our language is 'live' and evolves, whether we like it or not.

 

I was wondering, Tony, how your locos without tender pick-ups are going to manage those Peco dead frog curved points on the M&GN.  They are amongst the worst dead frogs in the hobby, long and very dead.  A case of needing those extra pickups after all?

[richard i]

Guilty as charged!

 

However, I don't think anything can beat not chaining down containers SITTING on conflats! 

 

Can we collectively get together and ban 'sat' from this context? Why is it so prevalent today? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

No: I believe the statement would be correct as “sat on the “conflats” because it is in the past tense. After the first brake application the conflats would be off the wagon and somewhere in the 6 foot or cess. Therefore not at present on the wagon.

Richard

[St Enodoc]

I'm afraid you'll find that less and less linguists will agree with you these days...

Am I right to think that you did that deliberately Stephen?

[AndyID]

Thanks Archie,

 

That still doesn't make it right. I intend to rail and rail against such corruption of our wonderful native tongue for as long as I evolve.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Fear not Tony.

 

The "sat" (and similar corruptions) have not made it across the Atlantic, and probably never will. Oddly enough the US version often preserves English in its original form.

 

Now, would y'all kindly get back to talking about railroads and train stations.

 

Andy

[MarkC]

I'm afraid you'll find that less and less linguists will agree with you these days...

Ah, but are they cunning linguists?

[cctransuk]

I can only reiterate.............

 

I've built compensated chassis in OO and EM (I even tried a sprung one in EM - quickly abandoned!) and I've never experienced any benefit. Electrical pick-up has not been improved - in fact it was worsened in one case because the design of compensation allowed so much slop that the drivers touched the brakes at times, causing interference and shorting. My West Country (which Mr Duck has right now) is fully compensated, yet it slips (just like its prototype) far more than any rigid chassis locos I've got. Its haulage capacity is, in fact, less than an equivalent rigid Pacific. And, it took almost twice as long to build the chassis.  

 

As I say, I can only speak from my own experience. As mentioned in a previous post, I've entertained several dear friends over the last week, and all have operated LB. Trains have been driven quickly (very quickly!), slowly, have stopped, started, reversed, been shunted, propelled and re-marshalled. In almost every case, the locos hauling these trains were built by me, and none was compensated. None failed, none stuttered, none derailed and none failed to haul its (often long) train with ease. I admit, what I've just listed might sound arrogant, but it's a fact. I've asked before for those who've driven Little Bytham to comment on the running (unfavourably if they wish). They can be the arbiters, not me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

I second all that you say re equalisation / springing.

 

The loco that has been longest in my 'project suspended' list is a Brassmasters Black 5 - why? Because I cannot get the flimsy chassis with hornlocks, springing and plunger pick-ups to anywhere near approaching acceptable running.

 

In the meantime, I have built dozens of rigid chassis - mostly Comet - which purr along. The secret seems to be a reasonably substantial chassis which will not distort under the influence of body fixing screws, and pick-ups on all loco driving wheels plus all tender wheels.

 

The Black Five WILL eventually be finished, but almost certainly on substitute Comet loco and tender chassis. However, it's more than likely that I'll build another Black 5 - Hornby body on Comet chassis - first.

 

I have today finished fitting three ancient Airfix 4Fs with Comet loco and tender chassis; the former incorporating Mashima motors with flywheels and Highlevel gearboxes, with Markits wheels. Suffice to say they run perfectly, and I long for the day when they can arrive in the centre road at Evercreech Junction in convoy, to await piloting duties on a summer Saturday in the time of my childhood.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited October 25, 2018 by cctransuk

[Tony Wright]

I'm afraid you'll find that less and less linguists will agree with you these days...

Shouldn't that be fewer and fewer linguists? 

 

Or, am I missing the irony?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

I have had an involvement with around a dozen EM gauge layouts of various shapes and sizes. I have tried springing, compensation, a combination of the two and when running, any benefit over a well made rigid mechanism is not detectable.

 

Decent track, with no humps and bumps and no badly aligned joints plus a square and level loco mechanism takes some beating.

Edited October 25, 2018 by t-b-g

[Tony Wright]

So... 

 

Our language is 'live' and evolves, whether we like it or not.

 

I was wondering, Tony, how your locos without tender pick-ups are going to manage those Peco dead frog curved points on the M&GN.  They are amongst the worst dead frogs in the hobby, long and very dead.  A case of needing those extra pickups after all?

Oddly enough, Neil, they don't stall. 

 

I think it's because the loco tenders are 'live', at least to one side. As with almost all of my main line locos, those which run on the MR/M&GNR bit have live chassis - which also means live bogie/pony wheels (where fitted) and live tender wheels. Thus, there's at least a 50% chance of the locos not stalling. 

 

Yesterday, the smaller bit of my railway was run all day by a friend who much prefers it to the big bit. I left him to it entirely, and he reported no running problems.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

one of the great stories of yore (that is still told around the club) is how you once stood at the bottom of Shap bank chatting away to the operators, oblivious to the signal (it even had a bounce) six inches from your elbow. No doubt there will be plenty of opportunity for you to extract your revenge for that one at Spalding.

A great story, Andrew, and one which should be reiterated time after time. 

 

I did miss it. However, how many of the other (more complex?) signals worked on Tebay?

 

Regards again,

 

Tony. 

[Andy Hayter]

"less and less linguists" - I do hope that was irony.

 

As to sat rather than sitting - if a model depicts things say 50 years ago.  Clearly the model container is sitting on the model conflat but is depicting a container sat on a conflat.

 

Confused??

[Headstock]

A great story, Andrew, and one which should be reiterated time after time. 

 

I did miss it. However, how many of the other (more complex?) signals worked on Tebay?

 

Regards again,

 

Tony. 

 

Apologies for the late reply,

 

I'm busy cleaning wheels while simultaneously trying to glaze two carriages at the moment.

 

From memory, I think there would have been three, possibly four fully operational signals before the plug was pulled and it was anounced the layout had been sold. That was the end of that. It can be stated, despite the best efforts of SMRS, that Tebay did have operational signals. The funny thing is, I don't remember the signals being that complicated on Tebay, I'm sure there are more individual types, more signals overall and more complicated designs on LSGC.

[Headstock]

Seeing Wright writes full of everybody's Gaurds vans has been rather wonderfull. A contribution from myself ( having just cleaned the wheels) before the thread is engulfed in Sitting Bulls, or is that Bull sits.

 

Ancient Parkside, 0.33 wire, licenced to trundle.

[Chuffer Davies]

I can only reiterate.............

 

I've built compensated chassis in OO and EM (I even tried a sprung one in EM - quickly abandoned!) and I've never experienced any benefit. Electrical pick-up has not been improved - in fact it was worsened in one case because the design of compensation allowed so much slop that the drivers touched the brakes at times, causing interference and shorting. My West Country (which Mr Duck has right now) is fully compensated, yet it slips (just like its prototype) far more than any rigid chassis locos I've got. Its haulage capacity is, in fact, less than an equivalent rigid Pacific. And, it took almost twice as long to build the chassis.  

 

As I say, I can only speak from my own experience. As mentioned in a previous post, I've entertained several dear friends over the last week, and all have operated LB. Trains have been driven quickly (very quickly!), slowly, have stopped, started, reversed, been shunted, propelled and re-marshalled. In almost every case, the locos hauling these trains were built by me, and none was compensated. None failed, none stuttered, none derailed and none failed to haul its (often long) train with ease. I admit, what I've just listed might sound arrogant, but it's a fact. I've asked before for those who've driven Little Bytham to comment on the running (unfavourably if they wish). They can be the arbiters, not me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Here we go again on the 'rigid versus compensated' roundabout.

 

It is quite apparent that we are not going to reach a consensus and nor should we need to.  Those of us who have built sufficient locomotives, be it 20 or 200, to have become proficient will inevitably have arrived at a personal approach that satisfies what ever it is we personally strive for. 

 

I will always build sprung or compensated chassis because I enjoy building them that way and have never had a problem getting them to work.  I don't care if it takes longer, I do not see why that should be considered a negative.  My locos do not rock and roll, indeed the sprung locos make a very satisfying click as they glide through point work.  I have convinced myself that with compensation/springing 3 wheels picking up on each side are sufficient to achieve reliable running others say you need pickups on every wheel and good luck to them,  I may increase the number of wheels collecting electricity if they are readily available but not if it means wires between the tender and locomotive or physical pickups in contact with the wheels,. I have a personal dislike of both wires and physical pickups, split frame (for tank engines) and American pickup (for tender engines) are the methods I will stick with and I am happy to promote such approaches to those who think they would enjoy trying them.  Those who are not interested then feel free to ignore any such entries by me, I wont be offended but I do get a tad upset when I'm told I'm doing it wrong.  

 

I know there are many who regularly contribute to this blog who think my approach is the Devil's spawn and is a waste of time but if I, or anyone else for that matter, chooses to 'waste their time' in this way and at the same time gain enormous pleasure and satisfaction in doing so then why shouldn't we?  I will continue to offer advice and encouragement to those who wish to experiment with such techniques on this and other RM Web blogs and at specialist shows.  It can be both fun and rewarding, and for a few modellers they will need to develop such skills if and when they transition to modelling in S4.

 

Railway modelling is a broad church so can we play nicely and can we stop trying to promote our own approach by being critical of techniques that others have used with obvious success but which we personally choose not to use?  I agree that we need to be careful to provide good and appropriate advice to the inexperienced, but in my opinion we do not need to develop a one size fits all approach to railway modelling, and anyway how boring would that be? 

 

Now then I will pick up on one statement you made Tony, but absolutely not as a criticism but just to pass on some relevant information resulting from experiments reported a number of years ago in the EMGS Newsletter.  You suggested that a locomotive you had built with a compensated chassis slipped more than an equivalent loco with a rigid chassis.  Extensive experiments were carried out to determine whether compensated and sprung locomotives were more powerful than rigid locomotives.  The experiments proved that compensation/springing have zero effect on the tractive potential of models.  This is because the tractive potential is a direct result of both the weight of the locomotive and the coefficient of friction between  the wheels and track.  Since weight and coefficient of friction are both constants the tractive potential is also a constant.  If you want to increase tractive potential then get as much weight as you can on the driven axles and minimise the weight carried by bogies and pony trucks.  I seem to recall that it was said that steel track and wheels are better than nickel silver because steel results in a higher coefficient of friction, not that I use steel track nor actively avoid nickel silver tyres on my wheels.

 

Regards to all,

 

Frank

[Tony Wright]

"less and less linguists" - I do hope that was irony.

 

As to sat rather than sitting - if a model depicts things say 50 years ago.  Clearly the model container is sitting on the model conflat but is depicting a container sat on a conflat.

 

Confused??

Good morning Andy,

 

May we bring this to a close, please? 

 

Not because I wish to be argumentative or censorious, but let's get back to modelling. In both cases in your sentence 'sitting' is the correct description - not 'sat'. 

 

It is becoming very common these days - not just in vernacular speech, but in the media in all its forms. 'I'm sat here' was screeched-out by some northern vicar (not that I'm against Northerners - I'm one) one Sunday morning when I had the foolishness to turn on Radio 2. It appears on the BBC's morning programme (I've given up watching that because I can't understand the pronunciation of some of the presenters because of their accents, whether or not they're saying 'sat' or 'sitting'). It appears in railway magazines and on DVDs - 'What must it have been like, sat up there?' on some funny little diesel............. or something like that! 

 

I admit to being a pedant in such grammatical matter, and, like all hypocrites, I get things wrong myself. I didn't start this current 'comment' - that naughty Jonathan Wealleans did, but I fired the bullets he'd made. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Here we go again on the 'rigid versus compensated' roundabout.

 

It is quite apparent that we are not going to reach a consensus and nor should we need to.  Those of us who have built sufficient locomotives, be it 20 or 200, to have become proficient will inevitably have arrived at a personal approach that satisfies what ever it is we personally strive for. 

 

I will always build sprung or compensated chassis because I enjoy building them that way and have never had a problem getting them to work.  I don't care if it takes longer, I do not see why that should be considered a negative.  My locos do not rock and roll, indeed the sprung locos make a very satisfying click as they glide through point work.  I have convinced myself that with compensation/springing 3 wheels picking up on each side are sufficient to achieve reliable running others say you need pickups on every wheel and good luck to them,  I may increase the number of wheels collecting electricity if they are readily available but not if it means wires between the tender and locomotive or physical pickups in contact with the wheels,. I have a personal dislike of both wires and physical pickups, split frame (for tank engines) and American pickup (for tender engines) are the methods I will stick with and I am happy to promote such approaches to those who think they would enjoy trying them.  Those who are not interested then feel free to ignore any such entries by me, I wont be offended but I do get a tad upset when I'm told I'm doing it wrong.  

 

I know there are many who regularly contribute to this blog who think my approach is the Devil's spawn and is a waste of time but if I, or anyone else for that matter, chooses to 'waste their time' in this way and at the same time gain enormous pleasure and satisfaction in doing so then why shouldn't we?  I will continue to offer advice and encouragement to those who wish to experiment with such techniques on this and other RM Web blogs and at specialist shows.  It can be both fun and rewarding, and for a few modellers they will need to develop such skills if and when they transition to modelling in S4.

 

Railway modelling is a broad church so can we play nicely and can we stop trying to promote our own approach by being critical of techniques that others have used with obvious success but which we personally choose not to use?  I agree that we need to be careful to provide good and appropriate advice to the inexperienced, but in my opinion we do not need to develop a one size fits all approach to railway modelling, and anyway how boring would that be? 

 

Now then I will pick up on one statement you made Tony, but absolutely not as a criticism but just to pass on some relevant information resulting from experiments reported a number of years ago in the EMGS Newsletter.  You suggested that a locomotive you had built with a compensated chassis slipped more than an equivalent loco with a rigid chassis.  Extensive experiments were carried out to determine whether compensated and sprung locomotives were more powerful than rigid locomotives.  The experiments proved that compensation/springing have zero effect on the tractive potential of models.  This is because the tractive potential is a direct result of both the weight of the locomotive and the coefficient of friction between  the wheels and track.  Since weight and coefficient of friction are both constants the tractive potential is also a constant.  If you want to increase tractive potential then get as much weight as you can on the driven axles and minimise the weight carried by bogies and pony trucks.  I seem to recall that it was said that steel track and wheels are better than nickel silver because steel results in a higher coefficient of friction, not that I use steel track nor actively avoid nickel silver tyres on my wheels.

 

Regards to all,

 

Frank

Sound words, Frank,

 

The only thing I'd 'question' is why taking longer to build a 'more complex' chassis should be seen as a negative. To the modeller who's making things for himself/herself, in their own time and at their own pace, of course it isn't. 

 

However, if like me, you'd been a professional model loco-builder, that longer time imperative is definitely a negative. Imagine my saying to one of my customers 'I've built your latest loco (in OO or EM) fully-sprung/compensated, and, though it runs no better than the previous (rigid) one I built for you, it's (quite a bit more) expensive'. What do you think his reaction would have been? KISS I imagine.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Chamby]

At the risk of incurring Sir’s wrath, I would like to point out that on my layout, the containers are seated on the conflats.

 

So, like compensated or rigid chassis, there is more than one correct approach to the situation...

[Chuffer Davies]

Sound words, Frank,

 

The only thing I'd 'question' is why taking longer to build a 'more complex' chassis should be seen as a negative. To the modeller who's making things for himself/herself, in their own time and at their own pace, of course it isn't. 

 

However, if like me, you'd been a professional model loco-builder, that longer time imperative is definitely a negative. Imagine my saying to one of my customers 'I've built your latest loco (in OO or EM) fully-sprung/compensated, and, though it runs no better than the previous (rigid) one I built for you, it's (quite a bit more) expensive'. What do you think his reaction would have been? KISS I imagine.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Sounds totally reasonable to me Tony, horses for courses as the saying goes. Unless of course the punter stipulates that they want their model sprung/compensated in which case they must be prepared to pay any extra that the builder chooses to charge and also accept that their preferred builder may be unwilling to build such a model.

 

Frank

[Compound2632]

Good morning Andy,

 

May we bring this to a close, please? 

 

Not because I wish to be argumentative or censorious, but let's get back to modelling. In both cases in your sentence 'sitting' is the correct description - not 'sat'. 

 

It is becoming very common these days - not just in vernacular speech, but in the media in all its forms. 'I'm sat here' was screeched-out by some northern vicar (not that I'm against Northerners - I'm one) one Sunday morning when I had the foolishness to turn on Radio 2. It appears on the BBC's morning programme (I've given up watching that because I can't understand the pronunciation of some of the presenters because of their accents, whether or not they're saying 'sat' or 'sitting'). It appears in railway magazines and on DVDs - 'What must it have been like, sat up there?' on some funny little diesel............. or something like that! 

 

I admit to being a pedant in such grammatical matter, and, like all hypocrites, I get things wrong myself. I didn't start this current 'comment' - that naughty Jonathan Wealleans did, but I fired the bullets he'd made. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

OK. Fewer comments on the evolution of the English language.

[Mallard60022]

Thanks Archie,

 

That still doesn't make it right. I intend to rail and rail against such corruption of our wonderful native tongue for as long as I evolve.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I misread that that as 'revolve' and almost fell off my perch........great start to a Friday.

P

[Jol Wilkinson]

Sound words, Frank,

 

The only thing I'd 'question' is why taking longer to build a 'more complex' chassis should be seen as a negative. To the modeller who's making things for himself/herself, in their own time and at their own pace, of course it isn't. 

 

However, if like me, you'd been a professional model loco-builder, that longer time imperative is definitely a negative. Imagine my saying to one of my customers 'I've built your latest loco (in OO or EM) fully-sprung/compensated, and, though it runs no better than the previous (rigid) one I built for you, it's (quite a bit more) expensive'. What do you think his reaction would have been? KISS I imagine.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

like Frank, I build all my locos compensated/sprung and while it takes longer than a simple rigid chassis, I prefer the outcome. There are two locos on London Road  that pick up on two axles only, a 2-4-0 and a 4-4-2T, which will both run perfectly under exhibition operating conditions for a weekend (although they usually get a clean before a show, as does the rest of the loco stud). That involves regular smooth stopping and starting in public, a fairly rigorous test.

 

The question of build time to the professional builder is something of a red herring. It depends entirely on the customer and the builder. I know one full time builder who only builds split frame chassis because he regards the reliability with electrical pickup which that confers is a major benefit to his customers. His order book has a two year lead time - due to the reputation of his work  - and his customers are happy to wait. The only time one of my etched kit designs for London Road Models has been criticised to my face was by a "professional" builder who had misjudged the build time and felt it was my fault because the kit was more complex than his usual fare. I have seen "professionally built" models that were simply appalling, but had been built to a price.

 

You have developed an approach for building locos that works for you and Little Bytham, as it would for anyone building a large, well stocked layout. My approach is different and works for me. There are many others that do the same as you or as me (or some other variation on those themes). Neither is right or wrong, just appropriate.

 

Jol

[queensquare]

That Shakespeare chap played pretty fast and loose with the language, changing or completely making up around 1700 words in his writing - as writers go he does seem to be fairly highly rated!

 

Jerry

[grahame]

That Shakespeare chap played pretty fast and loose with the language, changing or completely making up around 1700 words in his writing - as writers go he does seem to be fairly highly rated!

Jerry

Yep, perhaps those who currently mangle the language will be similarly revered in 300 years time.

 

So, for me, it's the modern fad for starting almost every sentence with 'so' that wrangles.

 

G