MRJ 234

[billbedford]

In the GERJ number 98, there is an article "The Lancashire, Derbyshire & East Coast Railway - the route described".  This has a photograph of Shirebrook Colliery, and the final line of the caption says "The photograoh is almost certainly pre 1914 as an LD&ECR truck can be seen in the centre of the rake.  Note a curious feature of the livery with the left slope to the letters".

 

I do have a digital copy of the photo, as membership of the GERS entitles one to purchase all of their Journals on DVD for a miserly small sum of sterling, but respect for copyright means that I won't repost the picture on here.

 

If the photo was taken pre-1912 it will be free of copyright

[Crichel Down]

I thought P4 had gauge widening to deal with such matters.

 

If you have two layouts, both built to a reasonably high consistency and using suitable gauges, with one layout having tiny flanges and one having deeper flanges, it seems blindingly obvious that the larger flanges will make any tiny discrepancies in the track, particularly in levels, less likely to cause a derailment.

 

My view in such things has come as a result of being involved in building upwards of a dozen layouts, mostly in EM but I have done some work in P4 and OO. As such, I prefer to accept what has been shown to work over any amount of being told what should or shouldn't work in theory. When I look at Buckingham, it would give theorists severe headaches as there are things on it that I have been told are impossible and will not work, yet there they are, running as sweetly as many a modern layout.   

 

I know just how difficult it is to keep everything dead flat and level, especially across baseboard joints and the one "true" P4 layout that I have seen running with long fast trains could only do this after a lifting flap was permanently fixed to do away with any chance of slight poor alignment over the joints.

 

Incidentally, having re-read the article, the modification to the wheels is to reduce the overall width (to compensate for the EM wheels being wider and therefore having a greater overall width when pulled out to the wider gauge) and the flange isn't touched.

 

I have it on good authority that the Gibson OO wheel and the Gibson EM wheel have the same tyre profile, so to make it even more heretical, it could be said that the layout is being run with wheels to OO standards moved apart.

 

Tony

 

 

Absolutely correct on all counts.  There speaks a pragmatic practical model-maker.

[Crichel Down]

Many thanks to Martin Goodall for an excellent article on improving the K's Siphon F.  I've one in my kit drawer and now I've got a lot more work to do to it than I first thought!  Sometimes ignorance is bliss!!!!!

 

Now when are we going to see some decent kits for GWR Siphons (6 wheel and bogie)?  I know there are the Blacksmith bogie siphon kits (which I hope are more accurate than K's and Hornby offerings) but they aren't available at the moment and the wonderful D & S 6 wheel O4, O5, and O6 are quite rare too (but Brassmasters do stock them from time to time).

 

drduncan

 

Just a word of thanks to drduncan for his kind remarks about my Siphon F article.

 

The reproduction of the main photo was rather disappointing, but I hope in due course to reproduce better copies of all the  excellent photos of these various Brown Vehicles (which were taken by Philp Hall) in the Burford Branch thread on the S4 webforum.

 

(I don't spend all my time trying to annoy the 'purists' - I spend rather more time building models.  By the way, in answer to one of the earlier comments from someone else, my definition of a 'purist' is someone who insists on rigid adherence to published standards, with no deviation or variation, irrespective of the practical advantage of exercising some discretion or flexibility based on practical experiment and experience.  They are the sort of people who are prone to quote calculations to prove their poont, but have never actually had practical experience of the thing they are arguing about.)

[Crichel Down]

The answer is surely simpler than that. Why not just use Ray Hammond's strict Scalefour standards? I adopted these some years ago, as I liked the ability to eventually be able to run on P4 & S4.

 

Ray Hammond's "Scale Four" standard is a sound practical solution to some of the problems inherent in the original P4 standards.

 

I am sure that those who have adopted Ray's BB and flangeway/check rail settings have found that they are entirely practical.

 

What I laughingly call "Coarse-scale P4" goes in the opposite direction in addressing the same problems, and has the added advantage (so far as I am concerned) of using a deeper wheel flange.

 

Ironically, the running clearance when using EM wheels on P4 track is remarkably close to the running clearance when using Ray Hammond's "Scale Four" standards for both tarck and wheel settings.

 

I can (and do) run rolling stock with both EM and P4 wheels on my layout, because my track complies with the orignal P4 track standards. 

 

If P4 wheels are set to the "Scale Four" back-to-back (17.87 mm, which, incidentally is still just within the published P4 standards) they will run perfectly well on a layout with track laid to the original P4 standards (I tried it myself some years ago - I am an incorrgible experimenter) along with wheels set to the narrower P4 BB gauge.  However, if the track is adjusted to the more accurate "Scale Four" standards, then the wheels must be set to the wider back-to-back setting to match, and wheels set to the narrower P4 back-to-back will not then be able to negotiate the tightened clearances through point and crossing work. (Again, I can confirm this from personal experience.)

 

The latter is certainly not a criticism.  As I said, the "Scale Four" standards are entirely practical.  And this, I suppose is the essential point.  It is not the theory that matters, but the practice.  Does it work - or not?  You can't prove this one way or the other by theory or calculations - only practical experience of it will give you the answer.  Ray Hammond's "Scale Four" standard certainly works.  So does the use of EM wheels on P4 track (subject to the points mentioned earlier regarding the track gauge, which must be nowhere less than 18.83 mm, the BB setting, which must be reasonably near the P4 minimum, and the use of 'modern' EM wheels from Utrascale, KM or Gibson).     

[stewartingram]

All this talk of standards reminds me of a time when I was in a local club. No names, the guy involved is sadly deceased quite a few years ago too. But he was a VERY strong advocate of EM gauge, unbearingly so. This is back in the 60s/70s btw. Also a very strong GWR follower (not BR (WR) either), at the time the GWR BLT was in vogue in RM. The sort of antics we had to put up with:

A small group of us in the club had an interest in buses too. He reckoned that had NO place in a model railway club. Based in E.Anglia, there was a strong local interest (though little available in model form to help us at that time). Whenever a discussion about it started in the club, he would turn his back and walk away! One day at an exhibition, one of our members saw him talking to a respected coach builder, in the act of ordering/buying some. (GWR of course). Some time later he brought them to the club, no mention of buying them, in fact he was hinting they were his latest build...(hypocrit comes to mind?).

Anyway at the same meeting, he was asking advice on the best material to use for a beach scene; the same member that had seen him buy the coaches soon gave a reply....SAND! He was very deflated.

Rather sums up my feeling towards those who promote 'fine lines' in a subject with no deviation. Personally I feel there is room for all in the hobby as it is so diverse. What works for some doesn't do it for others, but so what. Rather nicely discussed in TW's thread on Little Bytham at the present moment too.

 

Stewart

[Grovenor]

If P4 wheels are set to the "Scale Four" back-to-back (17.87 mm, which, incidentally is still just within the published P4 standards) they will run perfectly well on a layout with track laid to the original P4 standards

 

Crichel Down,

You are entitled to your opinion as to what works or not, but the above statement is factually incorrect, the maximum back to back in the published P4 standard is 17.75 and hence 17.87 is not within the standard at all. Whilst wheels set to that BB may well work most of the time there will always be the risk of them striking the crossing nose as the check gauge minus effective flange width comes out less than the BB.

Regards

Keith

[Grovenor]

John,

Not sure why you address that to me and not to Crichel Down, I agree with you entirely, he is entitled to his opinion and if anyone wishes to follow good luck to them. My post was to correct the, potentially misleading, factual error Crichel Down made in relation to the published P4 standards.

Regards

Keith

[Neil]

Gentlemen, might I suggest that it's a rather good thing that there are a multiplicity of approaches to getting a working P4 layout. If we take it that both 'as intended' and 'tweaked' wheelsets work for their advocates (and I don't see why we shouldn't) then any individual wishing to embark on a P4 layout has choices. I'm sure that some will be happiest following the original standards whereas some may feel more comfortable following those modified.

 

Do remember though that in the general scheme of things it matters not one jot, the world will still keep on turning.

[Tim V]

I know "Crichel Down" and I respect his opinion. Some of his stock has run round Clutton. I also know that "Crichel Down" has taken some time fiddling with his trackwork to get it right, then he tried different wheels..

 

Turning to the article in MRJ 234, I'm afraid that the only "fault" examined was the wheelsets. No treatise on achieving reliable running, culminating in modifying EM wheels. No, straight to the jugular - there is something wrong with the standards. He says how he got to the wheels, he doesn't say what other things he had tried.

 

As such the article, for me, fell far short of what a good MRJ article should be about. Does it push the boundaries? No. Did I learn anything from it? No.

[Rumblestripe]

Rather enjoyed this issue (though not the rather predictable "Flangegate" on here)

 

My pennyworth... no-one is attempting to create a new standard or to point out a flaw in the existing standards simply passing on his experience on what worked for him. So if the angry mob could just put down their pitchforks...

 

Ta.

 

A minor point. Did anyone else find the article on Castle Rackrent article confusing? It seemed to be like over hearing part of a conversation and without context I didn't have a Scooby Doo what it was about... (I've since worked it out thanks to the link to the blog in this thread, but that really shouldn't be necessary should it?)

[billbedford]

(I don't spend all my time trying to annoy the 'purists' - I spend rather more time building models.  By the way, in answer to one of the earlier comments from someone else, my definition of a 'purist' is someone who insists on rigid adherence to published standards, with no deviation or variation, irrespective of the practical advantage of exercising some discretion or flexibility based on practical experiment and experience.  They are the sort of people who are prone to quote calculations to prove their poont, but have never actually had practical experience of the thing they are arguing about.)

 

I think we can be all glad that NetworkRail engineers, for example, are all 'purists', by your definition, and that they don't have your cavalier approach to their standards.

[t-b-g]

I think we can be all glad that NetworkRail engineers, for example, are all 'purists', by your definition, and that they don't have your cavalier approach to their standards.

 

I think that if Network Rail wanted to get 8 carriage trains round the equivalent of 4' radius curves with a pacific on the front at 70mph they might just want to adjust their standards too.

[Wheatley]

If the photo was taken pre-1912 it will be free of copyright

Regardless of the on-going discussion on wheels, sloping lettering or what-have-you, the rest of Bill's link is fascinating !

[Crichel Down]

Crichel Down,

You are entitled to your opinion as to what works or not, but the above statement is factually incorrect, the maximum back to back in the published P4 standard is 17.75 and hence 17.87 is not within the standard at all. Whilst wheels set to that BB may well work most of the time there will always be the risk of them striking the crossing nose as the check gauge minus effective flange width comes out less than the BB.

Regards

Keith

 

Keith is right that 17.75mm is the maximum back-to-back dimension recommended for P4.  The figure of 17.87mm quoted by Craig W is the exact scale equivalent of the prototype (full-size) back-to-back measurement (17.87mm min - 17.89mm max).  I was relying on memory without checking the published standards.

 

The recommended back-to-back for "Scale Four" is 0.701" min (17.81 mm) to 0.705" max (17.91 mm)  -  see Ray Hammond's article on "Scale Four" on pages 20 to 23 of 'The Marshalling Yard' (the journal of the EM Gauge Society), Volume 15, Number 1 (Winter 1976).

 

My "Scale Four" back-to-back gauge measures exactly 17.9 mm over its ground faces.  I have set those P4 wheels still running on my layout with this BB gauge, as it eliminates 'hunting' compared with over-generous P4 BB setting (as pointed out in Ray's article cited above).

 

The "Scale Four" standards have now been in use for some 40 years, and have proved entirely practical.  Ray Hammond is a highly respected founder member, former Chairman and President of the Scalefour Society, and a recognised authority on these matters.  Most important, though, is that these standards (including, in particular, the widened BB setting) have been successfully used by quite a few people over the years.

 

As I pointed out earlier, my use of EM wheels set to a BB of about 17.7mm gives a running clearance very similar to the use of P4 wheels set to 17.9mm BB.

 

It is only necessary to keep restating these facts because of the carping comments of the nay-sayers.  Those of us using these variant standards have been doing so for years, and what we have been saying about it is derived from extensive practical experience; it does not just rely on theory or calculations.  All we ask is that the theorists and the 'purists' (see my definition of this term above) simply accept that some of us have found such deviations from the published P4 standards to be entirely practical and even advantageous.

[Bulwell Hall]

I think that if Network Rail wanted to get 8 carriage trains round the equivalent of 4' radius curves with a pacific on the front at 70mph they might just want to adjust their standards too.

 

Fantastic response - I wish I had thought of it! 

 

If this was indeed the requirement for Network Rail we would have full size flanges - and tread width - very much akin to Hornby O Gauge clockwork!

[Brian Harrap]

Bet my flanges are deeper 'n yours. B.

[Captain Kernow]

I think we can be all glad that NetworkRail engineers, for example, are all 'purists', by your definition, and that they don't have your cavalier approach to their standards.

Sorry Bill, whilst I am a great admirer of much of your work, if that is supposed to be a serious comment, I find it one of the most fatuous things I've yet seen on this thread (speaking as a long-serving employee of NR).

[DLT]

I'm beginning to regret starting this thread.....

[billbedford]

Sorry Bill, whilst I am a great admirer of much of your work, if that is supposed to be a serious comment, I find it one of the most fatuous things I've yet seen on this thread (speaking as a long-serving employee of NR).

 

????????

 

Are you really trying to tell us that any railway engineer would change a major component of the wheel/rail system on a whim, without understanding the consequences of breaking the existing sets of dimensional relationships, without extensive testing and for no practical reason?

 

Because,  if you are remind me never to travel by train again.

[Bulwell Hall]

I'm beginning to regret starting this thread.....

 

I'm glad you did Dave - it's certainly brought the fundamentalists and hardliners out of the woodwork - and got everyone commenting on MRJ!  It also reinforces and confirms that I was right in my decision that - when I returned to 4mm scale modelling - to go with EM rather than P4! 

 

Gerry

[Captain Kernow]

????????

 

Are you really trying to tell us that any railway engineer would change a major component of the wheel/rail system on a whim, without understanding the consequences of breaking the existing sets of dimensional relationships, without extensive testing and for no practical reason?

 

Because,  if you are remind me never to travel by train again.

Rather than trying to be clever, why don't you simply acknowledge that you already knew exactly what my original comment meant.

[The Stationmaster]

????????

 

Are you really trying to tell us that any railway engineer would change a major component of the wheel/rail system on a whim, without understanding the consequences of breaking the existing sets of dimensional relationships, without extensive testing and for no practical reason?

 

Because,  if you are remind me never to travel by train again.

Do you know how many flange profiles (and depths of course) are actually running over the national network every day?  Provided the right flange and tyre profiles are matched with the right suspension/vehicle type then all is well - but it won't necessarily be the same flange profile that is used on a vehicle coupled next to it in the train.  Where you are right is of course that, within permitted rates of wear, flanges should confirm to the correct profile (for the profile required for that vehicle).  Oh and I don't know about nowadays but it has come to light when investigating derailments that vehicles were fitted with wheels with the wrong flange profile or the wheels had been turned to the wrong profile while in other cases vehicles were quite happily running around for months with the wrong profile. 

 

Due to wear flange thickness and depth can vary considerably and can even, on occasion, be a contributory factor in a derailment  (in fact in my experience that is quite often the case when points are split although rail wear is also often a contributory factor in such cases).

 

Good article in MRJ 234 about Pendon buildings btw but it's a shame about some of the inaccuracies inadequacies in the article about Dewsbury goods  Maybe it helps to have a  wider knowledge and experience of the real thing?  (although having been involved with it for over 40 years I was never surprised at being told how little we allegedly knew about our own jobs )

[BlackRat]

Funny how the MRJ thread often erupts, just demonstrates our passion perhaps?

 

Flange........ What a lovely word that it, conjures up all sorts!

 

And you should have tried my job........EVERYONE knew how to do it better.

 

To be fair tho, many of them were probably correct lol! ;-) xx

[t-b-g]

Don't seem to be able to find any published figures as to how much crud build up on wheel treads (surely affecting flange depth) should be allowed before the wheels must be cleaned. Is this something else I have to sort out for myself by trial and error or even experimentation? B

 

Many of the wagons on my EM layouts have a "traction tyre" style ring of black crud around the wheel tread. P4 wagons with a similar layer wouldn't have a flange any more!

 

So publishing figures for an acceptable crud layer depends on wheel profile and accuracy of the track level, as a wheel hanging in mid air will fall off easier if the one at the other end of the axle is caked in grot to create an artificial larger diameter. It is OK on the straight but dodgy on curves and points!

 

Mine get cleaned when and if they derail and I investigate what caused it, although I did service a rake of wagons that were so caked in dirt that the wheels were jamming on the brake blokes recently, causing the loco to slip to a halt with 12 wagons when it can normally manage them with ease.

 

Tony 

[davknigh]

Many of the wagons on my EM layouts have a "traction tyre" style ring of black crud around the wheel tread. P4 wagons with a similar layer wouldn't have a flange any more!

 

So publishing figures for an acceptable crud layer depends on wheel profile and accuracy of the track level, as a wheel hanging in mid air will fall off easier if the one at the other end of the axle is caked in grot to create an artificial larger diameter. It is OK on the straight but dodgy on curves and points!

 

Mine get cleaned when and if they derail and I investigate what caused it, although I did service a rake of wagons that were so caked in dirt that the wheels were jamming on the brake blokes recently, causing the loco to slip to a halt with 12 wagons when it can normally manage them with ease.

 

Tony 

Usually wheels accumulates crud when they are not making equal pressure on the rail which is why some form of suspension is recommended in P4 as there is less flange to play with at the start.

 

Cheers,

 

David