FINE RUNNING

[SteamAle]

Tim
No. I did not have time to keep up with learning CAD.
I know there are members who produce 3D printed wheel inserts for a plain axle but wondered if they could produce a square on the inside of the print to fit on the axle and still have enough strength to avoid breaking!
Philip

[Proton]

I have been modelling in P4 for about 45 years and my fourth railway is coming along well. I read Chris' post several times, and I agree with everything said, but there are clarifications which will assist, I believe.

First, the post says "Fine Running". But we can have "Reliable" running without it being "Fine"
Reliable running means, for me, staying on the track almost all the time, with all, or most turnouts working well, with no more than one derailment per hour, about. BUT, it may be noisy, especially if there is no springing or compensation, and excessive limitations may be required re high speed running (my favourite!) or ultra low-speed, to avoid stalls.

So, Second, Fine running for me implies near silent operation, with minimal microphony of motor noise being transmitted to the track and baseboards, and minimal limits to high speed or low speed running.

I started off in P4 with the wonderful Ultrascale wheelsets, (modelling diesels and electrics, as I do), and to this day they are excellent. As Chris points out though, there are an increasing number of Co Co diesels which cannot be converted this way, and since 2021 I have been acquiring the kits by Ian Penberth, with excellent results. They bring a new dimension to the hobby - near total silent running, as well as excellent roadholding, even for 1Co Co1 locos.

I should add that all my rolling stock runs on compensated bogies my MJT or Brassmasters, again with fairly quiet running.

I retire in a few weeks and I will have to start converting my 25 or so steam engines, and I suppose its something of a shame that, here we are in the second half-century of P4 modelling, still talking about basic chassis design, availability, and wheel availability.

Kind regards to everyone, and sheer admiration to our suppliers

John Fitton

[Chris Pendlenton]

Thanks to all who have joined the discussion so far. I agree with Tim V that reliably concentric wheels really are the foundation of good running and we know they are difficult to come by. I have spread myself on this subject in MRJ 219 and will leave it there, save to say that I recognise my solution for AG wheels to be a pretty steep one. I'd go for Ultrascale I suppose but wish they did a scale 1.85mm tyre width and used steel. And didn't have such a lead time. Even with my methods I could bush an awful lot of sets of AG wheels in the same timescale.

Jeremy, I could only make inferences from what I saw in print. I was interested to learn if the accent change inevitably meant taking rigid chassis back into the fold as one, rather than the only, chassis conversion principle, in conflict with the view of the Society’s Digest author. Recommended suspension practices was the issue, not the actual P4 standards which I assumed to remain a given. As the first “manageable stage from 00 to P4 for the bulk of RTR stock must realistically involve rigid wheelswaps. I began with rigid stock so know it can work well enough to degrees dependent on your tracklaying and the truth of your wheels. Unfortunately as Tim says the former can be problematic and flat track is a temporary thing. Curiously, unlike you I have never built a compensated engine; otherwise we seem to be flying in formation.

What no one has picked up on so far is my thought that going the whole hog (and doing it accurately enough for it to be better than rigid) produces running standards that are not often properly seen unless you have access to a private layout that features it, and this thwarts aspiration. I like John Fitton’s clarification of “fine running” as distinct from reliable running as a helpful codification and substitute for a first hand experience.

Depressingly, elsewhere in the thread, we are reminded that enjoying the business of learning appropriate engineering skills can be seen as elitist. Personally I don't get why people who are keen to pursue this hobby as far as their skills will take them, in whatever department, are so regarded, especially within a Society like this one, whose whole raison d'etre was setting engineering standards. Would one use that term about musicians, photographers, mountaineers, footballers and so on?
Mind, I did chuckle at Jol's view of the word "engineering" as "language"!
Chris

[Horsetan]

...Some manufacturers do not design their locos to be taken apart by the customer/modeller, even to the simple extent of being able to separate the body from a functioning chassis. I'm afraid that Rapido are one of the main culprits here - both their 16XX pannier (in conjunction with Model Rail) and their more recent Hunslet 0-6-0ST feature 'chassis' where some of the main components also form part of the body.

As such, unless you want to almost completely dismantle the various body components, hack some of them about a bit and re-assemble (in order to end up with a body that can be placed on a chassis of your own building), then they are almost unconvertable....

That's the whole point. The makers don't want every Tom, Dick or Kernow messing about with their finished OO product.

[nigelcliffe]

...Some manufacturers do not design their locos to be taken apart by the customer/modeller, even to the simple extent of being able to separate the body from a functioning chassis. I'm afraid that Rapido are one of the main culprits here - both their 16XX pannier (in conjunction with Model Rail) and their more recent Hunslet 0-6-0ST feature 'chassis' where some of the main components also form part of the body.

As such, unless you want to almost completely dismantle the various body components, hack some of them about a bit and re-assemble (in order to end up with a body that can be placed on a chassis of your own building), then they are almost unconvertable....

That's the whole point. The makers don't want every Tom, Dick or Kernow messing about with their finished OO product.

I don't think that is the case. The makers of OO locos want to make OO locos cost-effectively, and sell the batch to customers. Any other use is outside of their scope.
The number of people who convert them to any other gauge are a tiny fraction of potential purchasers, and its not worth while to cover their needs unless the cost is trivial. For bogie diesels and some wagons the cost can be trivial (different wheelset), for other things it isn't trivial, so it won't happen.


- Nigel

[johndarch]

This really is a most interesting discussion. I don't have anything new to add except that I seem to have feet in most camps (yes, I know I only have two feet). I have totally kit built locos, kit built chassis under RTR locos (most of which have been cosmetically 'improved'), one loco with Flexi-chas suspension and one with drop in wheel sets. The kit built chassis include compensated, sprung and CSB examples. I can't say that any one performs better than the other but my current choice would be CSB's. Interestingly, I have one loco, designed to be sprung that, as yet, has not had the springs fitted. It has temporary stops in the hornguides to keep it at the correct level and to allow downward movement of the wheels. It runs very smoothly but, in its favour, it is very heavy and the driving wheels were turned on a lathe. I really enjoy building complete loco kits and the only reason for me converting RTR locos is time. Like many fellow modelers, I am not getting any younger!

[Terry Bendall]

Your comment that the Committee Report (S4News 231) suggested that the Committee was proposing moving away from finer standards to simply embrace RTR conversions worried me as I didn't recall the Committee every considering or saying that

Like Jeremy I was a bit surprised to read what Chris had written since I did not recall that being mentioned at the meeting so it is helpful that Jeremy has clarified what was discussed.

But we can have "Reliable" running without it being "Fine"

I think reliable running is probably a better term than fine running.

Reliable running means, for me, staying on the track almost all the time, with all, or most turnouts working well, with no more than one derailment per hour,

I would want to go for something better and on the layouts I have helped to build I want no derailments and all turnouts working. My son and I don't always achive that but certainly all the turnouts work correctly and if they don't they get worked on until they do. On one layout there are a couple of locos that are not yet 100% reliable but we will get there with a bit more time and effort. Both of the locos are Bachmann Class 37 models which are fine in one direction but one bogie falls off when running in the opposite direction over one particular turnout. Other models from the same manufacturerand converted in the same way - 14 mm Black Beetle wheels using the original gears on the new axles are fine.

Second, Fine running for me implies near silent operation

At an exhibition the noise is never heard, unless you are in a small quiet room with few people about. It is obviously more apparant at home but I can live with that and noise does not make the loco or anything else fall off!

I don't claim to be an engineer although I know about and can do things that could be descrined as engineering. However there is usually more than one way of doing a job and for me the quickest and easist solution that results in running that is acceptable to me is what I will do.

The other point that occurs to me is that, as Bécasse observed, a rigid finescale chassis can sometimes perform just as well as an all singing, all dancing compensated or sprung loco chassis. For a beginner in P4, a rigid loco chassis might be a less daunting prospect as a first effort in P4.

It can and if that helps someone to get started in P4 then that is what I would suggest the newcomer does. There is obviously scope for different ways of doing things and some people will move onto using etched chassis kits or ones which are scratch built and various ways iof sringing or compensation. Others will be qquite happy with just replacing the wheels.

Depressingly, elsewhere in the thread, we are reminded that enjoying the business of learning appropriate engineering skills can be seen as elitist. Personally I don't get why people who are keen to pursue this hobby as far as their skills will take them, in whatever department, are so regarded, especially within a Society like this one, whose whole raison d'etre was setting engineering standards. Would one use that term about musicians, photographers, mountaineers, footballers and so on?

I don't think those who have engineering skills are necessarily regarded as elitist but I never discussed that point with anyone. We have in the hobby people who have highly developed skills in painting, lining and weathering for example. Those skills are not engineering but they are skills of a diffeent sort that we can all admire. Similarly other people will be able to paint a very convincing back scene or make wonderful buildings. Some might say these sorts sof skills are elitist as well. No one was born with those skills just as no musician or sports person was born with their expertise - they all developed it through hours of learning and practice. I can now make a fairly reasonable job of making anything in wood or metal, and not just engineering but other metalworking crafts as well, but I have been working in these materials for about 67 years so I have had time to develop the skills. Anyone can develop the skills if they are willing to put in the time and effort and accept all the mistakes that will happen and the need to start again.

I dont think the aim of the the Society was to develop engineering standards and there is nothing about engineering is the Society objectives. The first of these states "... to bring together persons interested in railway modelling to 4mm fine scale standards." The late Iain Rice once said that the term "fine scale" is something of a misnomer - either something is to scale or it is not but most of us know what the term implies. As far as I am concerned the hobby is about railway modelling in whatver way the individual chooses to do that. I choose to make and operate models that are as accuarate and reliable as I can make them using the P4 track and wheel standards on layouts that are as an accurate representation of the chosen prototype as I can make it. Others will choose to do things in a different way which is obviously fine. One of my aims has been to provide whatever assistance and advice that I can to those who want to work to P4 standards but also to anyone else who chooses to do something different.

Terry Bendall

[Noel]

Depressingly, elsewhere in the thread, we are reminded that enjoying the business of learning appropriate engineering skills can be seen as elitist.

Presumably this is a response to me. I thought I had made it clear that I do not see wanting to learn such skills [or, indeed, any others] as elitist, so apologies for the lack of clarity. What I do see from some comments, on the Forum and elsewhere, is what I perceive as an implication that you must do so to be a 'proper' P4 modeller, and, sometimes, that this is much more important than the realism of the overall picture you create around the resulting models. I acknowledge that the perception may not always be accurate, but if I can sometimes be left with that impression, despite having been a member for several decades, what is the impact on non-members who do not have such interests?

I choose to make and operate models that are as accuarate and reliable as I can make them using the P4 track and wheel standards on layouts that are as an accurate representation of the chosen prototype as I can make it.

[Daddyman]

I wouldn't worry about the charge of elitism; the way the word is used today, in modelling as in politics, it means something like "this person possesses knowledge/skills/a grasp of data which is inconvenient to my worldview/values/half@#sed approach to things": witness one of Accurascale's minions' use of the term on RMWeb recently - at the merest mention of kitbuilding as an alternative to RTR.

[jjnewitt]

I don't think those who have engineering skills are necessarily regarded as elitist but I never discussed that point with anyone. We have in the hobby people who have highly developed skills in painting, lining and weathering for example. Those skills are not engineering but they are skills of a diffeent sort that we can all admire. Similarly other people will be able to paint a very convincing back scene or make wonderful buildings. Some might say these sorts sof skills are elitist as well. No one was born with those skills just as no musician or sports person was born with their expertise - they all developed it through hours of learning and practice. I can now make a fairly reasonable job of making anything in wood or metal, and not just engineering but other metalworking crafts as well, but I have been working in these materials for about 67 years so I have had time to develop the skills. Anyone can develop the skills if they are willing to put in the time and effort and accept all the mistakes that will happen and the need to start again.

I don't think we are all born with a blank canvas. People have certain atributes which may or may not be developed but some will naturally be more adept at some things than others. You are quite correct that people will get better at something by putting in the work necessary to develop and maintain the skills and indeed, no matter what atributes someone has they will never be really good at something without putting in the hours. On the other hand I don't think that anyone will be able to do anything just by spending a lot of time doing it and I happily include myself in that.

Sadly I think the kind of inverted snobbery that leads to accusations of elitism are rife not just within the hobby but throughout society. Some people are very quick to be negative towards anything that they consider as being better than they can do which is sad. In our world they are usually acompanied but such well worn tropes as "you don't need to do that" or "why do you want to do that for", implying that what you've done is a waste of time. In the wider world witness the socail media outcry when a premier league football team losses. Suddenly they are all rubbish (!) and suffer some quite horrendous abuse. Of course they are not rubbish, they are better at what they do than most of us will ever be at anything...

I don't think the aim of the the Society was to develop engineering standards and there is nothing about engineering is the Society objectives.

But that's exactly what the P4 standard are. They are a set of enginnering standards. We use engineering in so much of what we do, be it constructing baseboards or anything involving making things move. We may not think (or want to think!) of it in those terms but's that's what it is.

We are a broad church in the Scalefour Society, from people who make wide use of RTR rolling stock and buildings to those who craft everything by hand. Perhaps we are becoming as broad a Church as any group within the model railway community. Surely the job of the society is to support all members who want model to P4 standards, however they do it. The society shouldn't be selling one aspect of it. I'm not sold that RTR conversions are the natural way into P4. It kind of excludes people who are familiar with making stuff for them selves but are just moving from a different set of standards and want a different challenge.

On a general RTR note I'm not sold that it's all that wonderful and personally doesn't do a lot for me. I do buy small quantities of it but it tends to get looked at then put away for another day. For me it doesn't come close to the sheer joy I feel when I've created something for myself. Sure, I'll end up with far less stuff than others (and I am very aware of that!) but I think a lot of modellers are more ambitious than they need to be and perhaps with a bit more creativity in layout design could happily manage with a lot less than the contents of the average wish list.

As others have pointed out it is also not necessarily straightforward to convert a lot of the more recent offerings to P4. The recent Bachmann 94xx springs to mind. Has anyone actually converted one to P4? A beautiful looking model but Paul Marshall Potter quotes the distance between the insides of the splashers as 21.3mm which is a problem even with scale width wheels at 17.75mm btb. Is there enough material on the splashers to accomodate 2mm wide wheels with sideplay on the middle axle to get round say a 4ft radius curve and clearance or are we into replacing them? That's exactly the kind of job that I go great lengths to avoid.

Justin

[bobwallison]

I'm with Chris and Justin on this one - our locos (especially) are small machines with a real job of work to do. Anyone who doubts that should try pulling eight or more coaches around a 4ft-radius curve by hand - the effort involved is far from trivial. So unlike Joel, I very much like the idea of fully engineered solutions - especially when someone else (eg; the kit designer) has done most of the hard stuff for me.

One of the Society's unique selling points is its willingness to publish, support and generally encourage advanced techniques and skills, so it is reassuring to read in Jeremy's post that the committee is in no way planning to abandon that stance. If that means that a few (vociferous) people accuse us of elitism, so be it, we should stick to our own principles. In any case, it strikes me they have it completely back-to-front: when skilled people share their knowledge with others, surely that is the exact opposite of elitism?

Having said all that, I welcome the society's aim to also support people who cannot or choose not to employ those advanced and specialist skills.

Bob

[Tim V]

...Some manufacturers do not design their locos to be taken apart by the customer/modeller, even to the simple extent of being able to separate the body from a functioning chassis. I'm afraid that Rapido are one of the main culprits here - both their 16XX pannier (in conjunction with Model Rail) and their more recent Hunslet 0-6-0ST feature 'chassis' where some of the main components also form part of the body.

As such, unless you want to almost completely dismantle the various body components, hack some of them about a bit and re-assemble (in order to end up with a body that can be placed on a chassis of your own building), then they are almost unconvertable....

That's the whole point. The makers don't want every Tom, Dick or Kernow messing about with their finished OO product.

I don't think that is the case. The makers of OO locos want to make OO locos cost-effectively, and sell the batch to customers. Any other use is outside of their scope.
The number of people who convert them to any other gauge are a tiny fraction of potential purchasers, and its not worth while to cover their needs unless the cost is trivial. For bogie diesels and some wagons the cost can be trivial (different wheelset), for other things it isn't trivial, so it won't happen.


- Nigel

Actually the RTR manufacturers are not interested in making models - they are interested in making money (shades of Henry Ford here).

The more models they sell - the more money they make.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I'm with Chris and Justin on this one - our locos (especially) are small machines with a real job of work to do. Anyone who doubts that should try pulling eight or more coaches around a 4ft-radius curve by hand - the effort involved is far from trivial. So unlike Joel, I very much like the idea of fully engineered solutions - especially when someone else (eg; the kit designer) has done most of the hard stuff for me.

Bob

Bob,

I am not against "fully engineered solutions", just that I feel we need to be careful in suggesting that it is what is needed to model in P4. It implies a complexity which some newcomers may find daunting, whereas we know - and have discussed - that there are different ways of creating P4 models that work well, look good and are a source of satisfaction.

I very much share Jim S-W's view on how ownership of shiny new things is regarded as a high status thing, whereas making things isn't generally seen in the same light.

Finally, in the quest for getting things right may I ask that people spell my name correctly.

Jol

[bobwallison]

Apologies for the spelling error Jol.
Bob

[Philip Hall]

I have actually converted a Bachmann 94XX but to EM not P4, and it was a bit of a pain, I can tell you. I had to hack an enormous amount out of the splashers, and on this model they are diecast and part of the footplate casting - therefore a lengthy and messy job with a milling cutter in a mini drill. I went through the face of the middle splashers but the damage was hidden by the toolboxes. I would not want to do it in P4! It ran quite beautifully but I had worked on the wheels so they were absolutely true.

Chris writes of the kind of running I aspire to, but I differ in that I am using converted RTR as well as kit built with compensation. My track is pretty good and passage of trains is very smooth and steady. But I do insist on true and concentric wheels; I take a lot of trouble with a conversion and am very far from just dropping in wheelsets and expecting a beautifully running engine straight off. I try to apply careful engineering to what I do and with properly decent wheels I think this has made a huge difference. Coming to this new fairly large layout later in life I cannot contemplate every engine being sprung or compensated if I am to get anything reasonably finished, but maybe sometime in the future some springs will make an appearance.

I guess most of us have progressed as the years pass and I am one who has come to enjoy a more 'engineering based' approach which has given me the most satisfaction. Whether it be RTR conversions or a kit built engine, my insistence on the best running that I can achieve gives me (and, I like to think, others) the greatest pleasure. Here I have had the track making skills of Eddie Bourne who has played a large part in getting it all just so, and Peter Swift has jumped in and laid a lot of track to a high standard. But we have consistently worked together towards that high standard.

Granted this is not for everyone but I do think we should still be at least pointing out to people what is possible. What is quite nice is that it is not just experienced folk who appreciate how my railway works. We had many 'non-railway' visitors last summer and a common comment was 'how smoothly the trains run, no bumping or rock and roll like most models we've seen'. It makes all the effort worthwhile.

Philip

[Jol Wilkinson]

Apologies for the spelling error Jol.
Bob

Thanks Bob, you are not alone but it gets a bit annoying over time.

Jol

[Simon_S]

Actually the RTR manufacturers are not interested in making models - they are interested in making money (shades of Henry Ford here).

That's a bit unfair on the newer RTR manufacturers, Revolution, Cavelex, Accurascale to name a few, that are run by enthusiasts.

[Will L]

Actually the RTR manufacturers are not interested in making models - they are interested in making money (shades of Henry Ford here).

Oh a far to jaundiced a view. Most people who set out to run a business do so because they have significant interest in the product they produce. Its only when it proves to be so popular that it starts making pots of money that they get taken over by those who can only see the money. Not a description of most of our RTR producers I think.

[Will L]

Apologies for the spelling error Jol.
Bob

Thanks Bob, you are not alone but it gets a bit annoying over time.

Jol

My apologies also Jol, as I'm sure I will have been guilty at some point. Apart from being dyslexic I also have a son called Joel. While my little difficulty with the English language does mean I often play fast and loose with it, I do try and spell people names right.

[Tim V]

Actually the RTR manufacturers are not interested in making models - they are interested in making money (shades of Henry Ford here).

That's a bit unfair on the newer RTR manufacturers, Revolution, Cavelex, Accurascale to name a few, that are run by enthusiasts.

If they don't make money - they will be out of business.

[David Catton]

I can assure you that when as a graduate trainee I joined Ford in 1965 we were asked by Bob Seecrest, the Financial Controller, at one of our induction course sessions to put up our hands if we had joined the company "to make cars". The vast majority of the 80 graduates (including me) raised their hands. He scowled at us and bellowed:

YOU'RE NOT HERE TO MAKE ******* CARS, YOU'RE HERE TO MAKE MONEY!!

A lesson learned . . .

David C

[Will L]

I was away when this topic started and it must have come as a surprise to those that know me that I have failed to comment on the major themes, particularly having been correctly and supportively quoted by Chris Pendlenton in his very first post. Now I am back I find that much of what should be said has been said but I can’t resist sticking my oar in on a couple of my own favourites.

Fine Running

For me this goes much further than being relatively certain things won’t fall off of their own accord. Yes any such event should be investigated and the reasons eliminated, but there are far too many available external causes to entirely eliminate such events, after all even a strong side wind can be enough. For me fine running must also include that the stock should be seen to move with the same sort of visible unperturbable inertia as tens of tons of heavy metal and water does on the real thing. Thus, rigid chassis and even the simpler forms of compensation which leave the body rigidly connected to the rail top is not going to do it for me. Hence my interest in springing and CSBs that effectively decouple the body from the track. One pleasant side effect is that wheels that aren’t perfectly concentric are much less evident on a properly sprung chassis.

The E word

But the key operative words in all the above were “for me”. Yes I am trying do things better in the areas that interest me than others that I see, but that is entirely for my own gratification not a commentary on the worth of the interests of others. To characterise that as elitist is(... after dew consideration I will stick with) mistaken). I have always felt that pandering to the prejudice of others isn’t a wise move. The society has always been the home of those who feal they want to take some part of our hobby to a higher level, and long may it remain so, but, this does not mean the society isn’t also a perfectly valid and welcoming home for those with different interests to mine and who are perfectly happy to run converted RTR on rigid chassis. Rule 1 applies.

[Martin Wynne]

.
Even within rule 1 it is possible to ask interesting questions.

For example, to what extent does the length of time exposed to an error count towards its significance?

Suppose an errant locomotive limps out of the fiddle yard, and a couple of minutes later limps back from where it came. Total time the viewer is exposed to the sad sight is say 5 minutes.

Whereas for hours on end, the viewer of a P4 layout has in front of his nose track with flangeway gaps which are 15% over-scale.

If the object is to get everything right, which error should the modeller regard as the most deserving of correction? Most modellers would say the locomotive, but where is the logic in that?

Does logic play no part in modelling a railway? Is that the essence of rule 1?

Martin.

[bobwallison]

But I do insist on true and concentric wheels; I take a lot of trouble with a conversion and am very far from just dropping in wheelsets and expecting a beautifully running engine straight off. I try to apply careful engineering to what I do and with properly decent wheels I think this has made a huge difference.

Philip - I'd be very interested to hear the detail of the methods you use to improve the wheels. I know Chris Pendlenton has written about this in Wheel Derangements, but wonder if you have a different take on this perennial problem.

Bob

[Noel]

Does logic play no part in modelling a railway?

Not very often.