FINE RUNNING

[Philip Hall]

Bob,

My truing methods are essentially the same as Chris outlined in his MRJ articles, although my skills do not extend as far as bushing the wheel centres as he sometimes does. I simply check the centres are true using the Unimat and skim as necessary, gluing the tyre back on. I don't usually make a mandrel, instead I mount the wheel on a long 'axle' about 2" long, which runs in a bush held in the tailstock chuck - that's an idea I pinched from Brian Harrap. The wheel grips the 'axle' quite well enough for a touch of gentle skimming. I don't use the lathe under power when working on the plastic centre, I disconnect the drive belt and spin it by hand.

I have heard it said before that eccentricities in wheels can be to some degree ameliorated by a sprung or compensated chassis, but it strikes me as a better idea not to have to engineer out problems which really shouldn't be there in the first place. And of course I appreciate that there are many folk who do not have the gear to enable them to sort these things out, so I consider myself fortunate that I do. Since I have been doing this, it is so much easier when you can press a pair of wheels on an axle secure in the knowledge that there will much less tweaking to do to get them to run truly.

Philip

[bobwallison]

Many thanks for the guidance Philip. I do have a Unimat so I'll give this process a try.

Another thing that bothers me is how to get wheels on square when the boss protrudes beyond the face of the tyres. It means that the wheel press is pushing against a tiny area of the wheel which isn't even concentric with the tyres (because the thicker boss inevitably extends around the crankpin). I have seen a suggestion that plastic shims can be fixed to the press so that at least part of the wheel rim is firmly supported. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this.

Bob

[barrowroad]

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

I have a similar view to Philip. I am also fortunate to have a large layout, Bristol Barrow Road, which requires a large number of locomotives as well as coaches and wagons. I decided early on I would not have sufficient time to build all the locomotives in fully compensated form for decided to go down the route of converting a number of RTR models. So far I have done around 30 for myself and another 15 for friends. They all run well on my layout on my own built track.
Over the years I have also built a fair number of kit built and compensated models including locomotives a number of which form part of Barrow Road's allocation.
I have posted details of some of the conversions I have done on My Workbench on this forum and am happy to help with information should anyone require help.

Robin

[Philip Hall]

.

Another thing that bothers me is how to get wheels on square when the boss protrudes beyond the face of the tyres. It means that the wheel press is pushing against a tiny area of the wheel which isn't even concentric with the tyres (because the thicker boss inevitably extends around the crankpin). I have seen a suggestion that plastic shims can be fixed to the press so that at least part of the wheel rim is firmly supported. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this.

Bob

I have two opposing thoughts on this. One is that when the tyre is glued onto the trued centre, it is best that any pressure when the wheel is pressed on in the GW wheel press should be restricted to the boss, as pressure on the tyre could break the glued bond and shift the tyre as it goes onto the axle. This requires that the front face of the boss is true to the tyre, which it often isn't. The other thought is that by supporting the tyre around the edge of the wheel these forces are evened out and the wheel will go on more truly. I have used both methods and at the moment I am tending towards the 'support around the edges' method.

When a wheel has been trued it's best if the axle is made the exact length for that wheelset, as skimming the front edge of the centre can result in variable dimensions of wheel thickness, depending upon how much the centre wobbles, if at all, on the lathe. The idea is to make sure that when you glue on the tyre it comes out wobble free. I glue the tyre on whilst the wheel is still on the turning 'axle', so I revolve the wheel as the glue (5-minute Devcon) goes off checking it's running true.

Philip

[Terry Bendall]

But that's exactly what the P4 standard are. They are a set of enginnering standards.

I would prefer to think of the (Protofour) standards as a set of dimensions which mean that the interface between the wheels and the track are as close to the prototype as was thought possible at the time they were devised. Ray Hammond's Scalefour standards were closer. However describing these as engineering standards to people who are new to "fine scale" modelling may well put them off if they lack engineering experience.

One of the early proponents of "fine scale" modelling was Mike Sharman and in his book Flexichas he wrote " I will pass on some theory. Not fancy technical stuff but good old fashioned practical 4mm blacksmith type theory which can be convetred to working results with very basic workshop toola and equipment." Mike was very much an engineer and knew his stuff but what he proposed works with no special engineering needed. Some things have moved on since that time but the principles of keeping all the wheels in contact with the track which is what fine running needs remain.

Surely the job of the society is to support all members who want model to P4 standards, however they do it.

This is very true and I think the Society does a very good job of doing that.

The society shouldn't be selling one aspect of it.

I don't think that happens - certainly not when I have been doing things to publicaise what the Society does. Using drop in wheels on RTR models is ONE way of getting started and will almost always give success but there are other ways. In the end it will depend on what you want to achive in your model making. Although the RTR offerings are now moving into areas such as the pre-Grouping period where once the only way of achievingh what you wanted as to use kits or scratch build, there is still a great deal that can only be achieved by those methods.

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.

Terry Bendall

[jim s-w]

.

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

Martin.

Isn't it the opposite Martin? Isn't rule 1 that you can do what you want because it's your layout completely devoid of any other reason or logic?

Jim

[Will L]

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

Isn't it the opposite Martin? Isn't rule 1 that you can do what you want because it's your layout completely devoid of any other reason or logic?

If thats what you want. If however you wish truth and logic to be your quiding principles on your layout, then thats OK to,

That is the essencer of rule 1

[davebradwell]

To return to reality, I interpret the origin of this thread as frustration that there seems to be little interest in the path towards even better running together with scant encouragement of this aspect.

The biggest obstacle on this journey is probably assembling a chassis for a steam loco. We need a better way of doing this as our standard method is clearly not up to our requirements and we're beaten before we start. I could never produce an accurate chassis first hit using the traditional approach and John Brighton expressed the same condemnation and described his modified approach years ago - it's still out there for traditionalists. I'm calling the problem one of design as we're pretty well stuck with the engineering in the products that we use. Others have changed chassis assembly more drastically - Chris has a home-made hornblock jig that he sets to true dimensions with his vernier while Justin and I use etching to create features that set hornblock positions accurately. There'll be others out there. Once that's done the thing just needs assembling, with some care of course. The same applies to all our modelling, you have to think your way round the obstacles whether it's a chassis, building or a tree.

Things like wheels and gearboxes are subordinate to the matching of axle and coupling rod centres but one thing is certain - we're never going to get self quartering wheels. There's been several attempts but they can all be beaten as plastic is just too soft. Slaters use a brass bush for good reason. Same applies to pinning of wheels, they can still be moved so why do it? Once the rods are right, however, the quartering becomes easier.

I don't think many appreciate just where Chris is with quality of running. A re-wheeled rtr diesel runs very smoothly, there's no doubt about that but the Penbits just floats along. Achieving this with steam is at times a frustrating challenge but it takes more than a re-wheeling job and you won't do it with compensation. It's a stage that comes well after reliable running and part of Chris's attempts to minimise distractions which would include whining motors.

The current cost of rtr has probably trashed the business model for replacement chassis. It was only a slight stretch to chuck away the chassis when a loco was sub £100 but at £250+ a throw it's a different matter. Bachmann sell bodies separately but there's little sign of anyone else following suit unless they're just keeping quiet about it.

Finally, you can call it what you like but if you don't get the back to back dimension within the 3 thou' tolerance then you're on a slippery slope to the ballast. Same for all the other quoted tolerances.

DaveB

[Terry Bendall]

The biggest obstacle on this journey is probably assembling a chassis for a steam loco. We need a better way of doing this as our standard method is clearly not up to our requirements and we're beaten before we start.

Barry Luck has been scratch building steam locos for over 40 years and having operated them on various layouts they are a joy to drive. Barry's methods are very simple and are described on his web site http://www.lbscrmodels.co.uk/loco%20cha ... intro.html He uses Mike Sharman's beam compensation with split frames and axles and they work. Other methods may give smoother running but I have no expereince of operating locos build using other methods.

Loco chassis assembly jig.jpg

Barry uses a very simple home made jigs to assemble the frames square and it works The ouplimg rods are used to set the axle centres.

Loco chassis jig in use.jpg

I have seen the simple practical methods that Barry uses work and as far as I am concerned they is enough for me to want to do the same.

there seems to be little interest in the path towards even better running together with scant encouragement of this aspect.

Who is to do the encouragement Dave? I don't think it is a function of the Society or even the committee. The Society can encourage developements of products and perhaps help financially. It can also publicise new and different ways of doing things but it is not the job of the Society to say that one partiular methods should be used in preference to any others. How people approach their model making is up to them and if some are happy to use replacment wheels in an RTR chassis then that is their decision. Usually such conversions work perfectly well. Other methods may well give smoother running but it is up to the individual to decide how they do things. The job of the Society is to show that a range of methods are available and can be used.

Terry Bendall

[Chris Pendlenton]

Terry writes: "Who is to do the encouragement Dave? I don't think it is a function of the Society or even the committee".
The Society Constitution say "to promote and encourage the use of efficient modelling techniques and fine scale standards among all 4mm scale railway modellers;”. I'd have thought championing fine running techniques might be covered?
Chris

[davebradwell]

Looked carefully through Barry's website, Terry but it's pretty old standard stuff from the Sharman era. Surely we've come on a bit in the 30 or 40 years since but if we haven't it proves my point. Doesn't mean it won't work, of course but if it's so easy why do so many folk have difficulties? I certainly can't make it work straight off, probably because of looseness of fits - his home made parts may well be tighter. Not over-keen on his round bit of axlebox sliding in a straight slot though and it was one of Roy Jackson't gripes with the system. I couldn't understand why a man with a milling machine goes through all the faff setting up with jigs when he can just put the holes in his coupling rods at exact spacing then go and mill his 3 slots directly in the frames, all using the calibrated leadscrew. Far more accurate than his jigging. Leadscrews aren't just to wind the table along, they're a precision part essential to production of accurate components. The co-ordinate table plus dial indicator can also be used for setting frames square.

It would seem normal human behaviour to try and make each model better than its predecessors - "improve" is in the statement at the head of this website - but something seems to be happening along the way with running. That's why I'm suspecting it's to do with lack of progress in chassis construction which has been a demon for a long time

DaveB

[bobwallison]

to Dave and Chris

[Jol Wilkinson]

It would seem normal human behaviour to try and make each model better than its predecessors - "improve" is in the statement at the head of this website - but something seems to be happening along the way with running. That's why I'm suspecting it's to do with lack of progress in chassis construction which has been a demon for a long time

DaveB

Okay, so what is actually the problem and what can we do about it.

There are/have been several designs of chassis assembly jigs available, from inexpensive laser cut versions to the Hobby Holidays or Eileens Emporium Avonside versions. I have never used one, relying on other approaches to assemble my relatively simple (some here would probably say crude) compensated/sprung loco chassis which have given me satisfactory results - within my own definition of satisfactory.

Good motors and "geared drive systems" have available for some years, effectively since Mashima and Sagami 12v motors came on the scene. The now defunct supply of Mashima motors have now been replaced by coreless and some other "standard" iron core motors from several suppliers.

There are several hornblock systems available to suit your preferences (HL, MJT, AG, LRM, etc.). Some kits/RTR conversions incorporate bearings that run directly in the frames with designed in springing, compensation or CSBs. I have little experience of these but most loco chassis designs that need to meet the needs of 00, EM and P4 modellers will probably not include this "complication" as many builders won't need/want it.

Wheels. Probably the main area where a major improvement is needed. "Push on" plastic centred steam loco wheels need quartering and for which there are several "jigs" and tools available. However expertise of the builder can affect the accurate "fit" of wheel on the axle. A tighter fit, such as Sharman wheels(I use the past tense as they seem to be available only while stock lasts) can distort the wheel centre causing lateral wobble. AG are similar although perhaps a bit less critical, while the limited range of Ultrascale wheels are better (a less tight fit) but may need pinning to the axle to avoid slipping.

Crankpins are another area, only Ultrascale providing what appears to be a cleverly designed and consistently accurate product.

What would be better? Wheels with a moulded in centre bush, preferably with a square register section and a Slaters type retaining screw. Steel tyres, moulded into the rim as Sharmans are. A moulded hole for a threaded bush crankpin e.g. the Ultrascale type. Is this practical and if so, at what cost? The answer to the former must surely be yes, but the investment is another matter. The major factor would probably be the expense of the moulds. As 00 and EM modellers already have Markits wheels available (about £16 per axle) then that sector of the market could be fairly limited. Springside produce a limited range of Romford/Markits loco wheel clones with an ABS moulded centre. Does anyone have experience with these and would something similar work in P4 (Markits already produce P4 axles).

Bill Bedford looked at 3D printed centre wheels (I have prototype set under a LNWR 4-4-0). The concept was good and included a self quartering system although it was a "one time fit", but Bill didn't follow it through for some reason. David Lane has been offering a 3D printed wheel service but I think that may have mainly been taken up by requirements for specific prototype wheel designs not otherwise available.

Availability of a new wheel design might be limited to the "higher volume" wheel type in P4. What would you be willing to pay for a better spec wheel? What would the the newcomer be willing to pay much more than the Markits product? Would the Society be willing to support the development of such wheels?

[jon price]

I will admit to joining this discussion of the learned and experienced with some temerity as my loco building so far is confined to three small tanks (though more are onthe way at some indetermined future date).

so here is my three pennyworth. This discussion is focussing on the building of loco running gear, with the primary driver being accurate scale representation, however the other component in running quality is the track. If we are to take this holistically then the track (whilst being less difficult to achieve) must also scale in the vertical and horizontal axes. I don't know what is considered acceptable for various kinds of track, but suspect that for main line running the acceptable vertical deflection must be tiny, although standards can be less in sidings, and much less in industrial and other minor railways. As an example heavy main line engines were banned from the Buckley Railway exchange sidings behind Connah's Quay station, and when, in BR days, a 9F was accidentally allowed in it promptly fell off the track, which was not because its running gear was defective, or because the track could not sustain its normal traffic. So if you want to run mainline locos the track must be of mainline standard, but if you wan't to accurately represent more minor railways then your nicely running mainline locos will/should fall off, whereas the clunky little tanks I have built so far will/should happily waddle all over it.

I therefore think this strand should be renamed FINE RUNNING OF TOP LINK AND HEAVY GOODS LOCOS

[bécasse]

I have an eternal late childhood memory of standing on the country end of a platform at Paddington station and watching a King slowly reverse out behind its train (en route for Ranelagh Bridge no doubt) and being astounded by the extent to which the track work sunk as the coupled wheels of the heavy loco passed over it - probably by a quarter of the rail height, say 1½ inches or so, and that's 0,5 mm in 4mm scale.

Perhaps we should add sprung track to the discussion!

[garethashenden]

I have an eternal late childhood memory of standing on the country end of a platform at Paddington station and watching a King slowly reverse out behind its train (en route for Ranelagh Bridge no doubt) and being astounded by the extent to which the track work sunk as the coupled wheels of the heavy loco passed over it - probably by a quarter of the rail height, say 1½ inches or so, and that's 0,5 mm in 4mm scale.

Perhaps we should add sprung track to the discussion!

Hasn’t that been attempted? I think I’ve heard of putting foam sheet under the track to let it flex a little in the prototypical way. The problem then becomes when the ballast is glued down it binds everything together too tightly.

[zebedeesknees]

Perhaps we should add sprung track to the discussion!

Silicone rubber rails in printed bases and battery power for the trains.
Not holding breath...

Ted.

[davebradwell]

Our chassis are still built predominantly using a technique developed 40 years ago with compensation, single fixed axle and all.

To run down Jol"s list, here's my current version of things:

I'm not looking for a better method of jigging the axleboxes - this has already been done and is about the only significant improvement that's taken place. My efforts have been aimed at getting rid of the jigging altogether - it endeavours to compensate for errors that don't need to be there in the first place and date from when artworks were imperfectly hand-drawn. I just put the hornblocks in the correct place as we can etch the coupling rods to the right centres. All I buy are the axleboxes. Chris and Justin also use this approach and there will be others. I found it a big step forwards and trust that those who built all but my earliest kits will agree. Getting this stage right is crucial to smooth running and no amount of looseness will compensate for errors without exacting a penalty. Suspect quartering gets blamed for many binds that are chassis errors.

Motors and gearbox have improved over this time, with the coarse plastic gears in High Level 'boxes being particularly quiet. We just need to persuade folk to avoid silly high ratios and control speed with a decent controller or decoder in order to keep the noise down. In the current climate I can only hope that folk follow the example set by the rtr models. As to the layout of the drive, removing the motor from the gearbox and mounting it separately and linked by Cardan shaft gives a quieter model usually achieved by putting the motor in the tender.

Wheels I find ok as they can be fettled. They need the face flattening for outside cylinder types anyway so you might as well do a bit more while you're in the workshop. I need to know a lot more about 3D printing before I can be totally enthusiastic but I'd give these types a go. Will they give a press fit into tyre and on axle and will it stay that way? It's the obvious way forward as long as we don't get clever with quartering.

Crankpins - Ultrascale locate in a plain hole that is more accurate than anything with a thread. As the throw of the crank is the other critical dimension it's another bit that requires care. We certainly don't want tapped inserts to make them like the Markits thank you very much as screws give inferior location. This just leaves the question of fixing return cranks.

Finally, no matter how much you love your compensation, please give springing a try even if it's only on a bit of rolling stock or a tender. It's just quieter and you'll notice the smoothness.

Remember, this thread is called Finer Running, it's seeking a way forward. I arrived here by trying to build more accurate chassis so I wouldn't have to fiddle with them to make them work properly.

DaveB

[Will L]

I've been pondering a response to Dave’s previous posting but I wasn't entirely sure where he was coming from. The one above makes it much clearer that he is thinking primarily from the view of the kit manufacturer.

So yes, the enhanced possibility of accuracy of current etching technology is a significant advance on that which went before, and can allow a significant simplification of the build approach. The only trouble is that many of the kits we end up wanting to build don't meet these standards and their pre-existence is likely to prevent new versions being produced that do. So from the kit builders point of view, to get fine running we are often back to hard learned skills and a Sharman-esk build to fit approach.

I do worry, Dave, that as a pucker engineer you do tend to focus on a workshop full of tools, which is nice to have, but that the possession of such a workshop cannot be seen as an entry requirement for the society. In particular the suggestion that commercially available wheels can only achieve fine running by being processed using a laith is not actually helpful. I promise that locos that run smoothly and don’t drop of persistently have been produced without such assistance.

I have to agree that the application of springing to a chassis is highly desirable from the fine running point of view. Giving locos much more apparent inertia and minimising the effect of any minor concentricity defects in wheels, as well as running much quieter. I think this is the development which takes us forward. It builds upon but takes us beyond the compensated chassis, and, unless based on the best etched chassis kits, is very much dependant on the skills learned building them.

But there remains a significant number of variables which can cause the very best designed chassis to not perform well enough. The only solution to that is having the determination and persistence to hunt down and eliminate the causes of the problem. This has always been the hallmark of the best modelers, one of the hardest things to learn and the farthest thing form adding drop in wheelsets to an RTR Chassis.

[DougN]

Our chassis are still built predominantly using a technique developed 40 years ago with compensation, single fixed axle and all.


I'm not looking for a better method of jigging the axleboxes - this has already been done and is about the only significant improvement that's taken place. My efforts have been aimed at getting rid of the jigging altogether - it endeavours to compensate for errors that don't need to be there in the first place and date from when artworks were imperfectly hand-drawn. I just put the hornblocks in the correct place as we can etch the coupling rods to the right centres. All I buy are the axleboxes. Chris and Justin also use this approach and there will be others. I found it a big step forwards and trust that those who built all but my earliest kits will agree.

DaveB

I do agree with Dave on his design methodology on the later kits are a better result. I have now down a few of his kits. The Q6 is the "new" foldout a single side and bearing to space off a angle method. I agree it removes a lot of the 5 hands and a soldering iron of springs/ jig axles etc.

The Q6 I did with the system did work very well and quickly. I would prefer to change to this on all chassis from now on if possible. Yes the Tony Wright's, with his rigid chassis ways, would not cope and could not under stand why some one would want it. However for our purposes they locos do glide along on the tracks purposeful and powerfully.

[davebradwell]

We have a lot of common ground here, Will. I hadn't realised I was presenting the case from a sellers point of view but it's inevitable, really, as my business is just an extension of how I make things for myself and there's many bits that I don't sell. I am not a machinist and spent my working life in design but that meant working closely with our workshop who were always very helpful but never missed a chance to remind me that model engineers couldn't make anything to a size. Manufacturing industry requires drawings with dimensions and tolerances and that's what we produced.

I haven't had much opportunity to build other people's kits as there are so few suitable but will either knock up a new chassis as an etch or stick the frames in the mill and put in some datum faces the correct distance apart as I'm the impatient sort. It's all based on dimensions. I just collect tools that make the job easier. Before I had the mill I made a chassis using home made gauge rods to push a coupling rod blank along under a pillar drill - there's other ways and I'm trying to bring out some ideas rather than just struggling with the status quo. Chris sets up a simple jig with his vernier to put the hornblocks in the right places - it's just a matter of tackling the problem. The change is we locate the hornblock, not the axle so perhaps back to jigging after all! Perhaps with the rising cost of rtr there's a market for replacement chassis for old etched kits - I did this to myself when I wanted another J27, same with B1.

I never mentioned a lathe when fettling wheels but it does make the job easier. You only need a simple mandrel to check the plastic centre is running true. It seems to me that plenty of folk have machine tools but the amateur approach to instruction misses the vital dimension element. I use my mill for assembling and checking chassis but it's unplugged.

As an experienced builder, you are of course perfectly correct in warning that there are a miriad of little things waiting to sink your chassis right until the end but I suggest these are easier to find when the basics are fundamentally sound. Slogging it out to the bitter end is essential. There is, however, no excuse for finding that the crankpin hits the slidebar when a few measurements and a sketch would reveal this long before assembly.

Where am I going with all this? I'm trying to make the job easier by de-skilling it but that means loosening the grip on tradition. Thanks to Doug for his support.

DaveB

[Daddyman]

stick the frames in the mill and put in some datum faces the correct distance apart
using home made gauge rods to push a coupling rod blank along under a pillar drill
Chris sets up a simple jig with his vernier to put the hornblocks in the right places
locate the hornblock, not the axle
fettling wheels ... simple mandrel to check the plastic centre is running true.

Sounds like scope for a few photo essays there, Dave. Surely the most valuable thing this thread could do would be to show people how to ensure fine running (for those that want it). Things that come naturally to you probably don't to less experienced modellers - I'm afraid I find the points I've quoted a bit cryptic.

[Chris Pendlenton]

We have heard from many contented rigid runners, and this will no doubt give adequate encouragement to those who have recently joined the Society. It is also good to hear official reassurances that suspension and other refinements still have their place. Feeling a bit “fitted up”, I have to say again that I never wrote, as Jeremy seemed to think, that I thought P4 standards were in danger of being “abandoned”, nor that Society policy was going to settle on rigid chassis to the exclusion of sprung, nor that rigid chassis can’t work.
Newcomers wishing to graduate from 00 gauge to P4 can surely be presumed to have an element of aspiration to finer running, otherwise what would they see in it compared to, say, the EM gauge Soc, and I just wanted to be sure the new Society "accent"will keep those possibilities and techniques in front of them; to encourage but not to preach.

I’d have liked to understand if there is much interest in what I call fine running and tooling up for it, or if it is seen as involving disproportionate effort and time. I know where I stand but I’m still unclear whether significant numbers of folk are either aware of what fine running can be like, or if they are, do not regard it as worth the effort and time preferring to pursue broader objectives, while living with those running imperfections that may remain. An entirely legitimate choice but I imagine our chassis kit producers would appreciate a steer. Meanwhile a discussion seems to be getting underway about methods of loco chassis production. I see David Addyman calls for more. There is much to say, but are there many who want to listen?

With Justin and Dave I firmly believe that making anything run reliably in P4 involves having some regard to engineering techniques. Railways are themselves founded upon engineering and if we seek to make moving models we have to give a nod to the principles. Work on truing steam engine wheels for rigid wheelswaps cannot avoid them and that may involve equipment or access to a friendly helping hand. I note the reluctance about machine tools but you can get a new basic lathe for the price of two or three RTR locos at today’s prices, and that may be a better investment, especially when you consider the number of things they can help you with, in all modelling departments.
Chris

[Will L]

We have a lot of common ground here, Will. I hadn't realised I was presenting the case from a sellers point of view but it's inevitable,

Agree entirly and it is exactly what one should expect. I only build other peoples kits, I don't bulid many but I do expect what I hope can be define as fine running. But I dont have much more than a kitchen table to work off, and that all coulours my point of view too. Its always good to understand where others are comeing from.

[Jeremy Good]

Chris,

I'm sorry if you feel that I "fitted you up" in my initial comments - I didn't mean to but simply wanted to highlight that the Committee has no bias towards rigid, sprung, compensated or any other sort of chassis. I was not intending to upset anyone or help generate the discussion that has ensued although it has been quite interesting to follow and it has sent me back to first principles and some very enlightening articles in MRJ/S4News to see how I can do things better - wheels without crankpin holes being my current bug-bear.

As far as newcomers to the Society are concerned the Committee don't want to exclude any potential members and certainly would want to actively encourage anyone who aspires to achieving better running/looking locos/stock/models. The difficulty is trying to support the different levels of expertise amongst those who want to join us. I think that on the whole we represent a broad church reasonably well and certainly when I have been on the Society stand at non-Society exhibitions the discussions have ranged from the "how do I get started after coming back to modelling" to "how can I make this work/look/run better". We need to engage and encourage both audiences.

It seems that the target audience for the newer manufacturers of high quality RTR locos, could be those that we should be actively encouraging to consider adopting the finer wheel/track standards of P4 to match the generally high quality mechanisms and upper parts of these new models. This is where the drop-in RTR conversions can get things up and running quickly although, as has been a said, there are always ways of doing it better.

To answer your question about whether there is any interest in achieving better running I can only speak from a personal perspective. For my diesel loco models, I initially used drop-in conversions but having seen the difference springing makes, am now very happy to invest the time and effort in building sprung bogies (either PenBits or Rumney) for many of those models. This is partly, simply because I enjoy building them and learning new techniques but I can clearly see the benefits even on my 10ft "shunting plank" and no doubt they pale into insignificance compared to the benefits on a much larger layout. Indeed, I have been lucky enough to have seen Ian's sprung Peak on his layout which has simply reinforced how much better a sprung loco (and coaches) runs compared to the rigid version. In my view this investment in time/effort is more than worth its while.

I have yet to complete one of the new generation of steam loco chassis adopting the self-jigged axleboxes but am part way through building one of Justin's N Class chassis kits. I sincerely hope that this will help to make a smooth running chassis more easily achievable with my basic tools and jigs. It should certainly remove some of the variables and will probably show up issues with my crankpin/wheel mounting processes that I'm not yet aware of! However, I view this as all part of the learning process and the necessary investment to get from a state of "alright running" to "reliable running" and hopefully, ultimately "fine running" for my models.

Let's hope that there are more modellers out there who feel the same way and that we can encourage them to join us...

Jeremy