FINE RUNNING

Chris Pendlenton
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:14 pm

FINE RUNNING

Postby Chris Pendlenton » Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:26 pm

Catching up with the Committee report in Snooze I read of its decision to shift “accent” from standards towards RTR conversions to P4. Given that there are relatively few chassis kits available for RTR locos, I wonder if this has to imply the Society embracing rigid wheel-swaps as a mainstream principle?

The Society promoted P4 standards and components to improve the way our models looked and how they ran. Compensation and latterly suspension came to be regarded as essential to reliable running in P4, as written in Ray Hammond’s Society Digest publication 41.9. However, in the Forum and News, pieces on converting locos and stock to P4 now seem to major on simply replacing wheelsets, to claimed satisfaction (on perfectly flat track -“no such thing”- Ray again)

It may seem tempting to take the quicker and simpler route if you are intimidated by skill and workshop issues on the one hand and unfamiliar with the pleasures of “fine running” on the other. Significantly, in my view, the choice is weighted by such running not being demonstrable in printed matter, nor adequately in videos. It is something you feel and hear as much as see, especially at close quarters in the peace and quiet of home, away from public sight. So maybe the necessary inspiration gets insufficient oxygen.

My experience with rigid running was that things did bang about a bit and sometimes derail on track that always loses perfect top over time, and that shunting and propelling could be problematic particularly with bigger trains and gangwayed coaches. There was thumping at rail joints, excessive yawing of big engines without proper suspension of carrying wheels, noise, derailments, pick up and adhesion issues. So, I felt my way into springing way back before MRJ 6, in the seventies, and running improvements were a revelation. Remaining rigid engines gravitated to the dead line.

Occasional derailments are inevitable on model railways, and I certainly have not wholly eradicated them, so why worry? But there are degrees, and while some toleration is inevitable, I wonder at its extent. I read of frustration with rigid RTR Co- Co diesels having a propensity to derail, and a wish for a solution. For many diesel prototypes there is one, called Penbits (usual disclaimer) which, with a little straightforward work guided by copious instructions, would lift the model into a different class. Nevertheless, drop in wheelsets continue to be the norm despite their observed shortcomings. Why is this? Is really good running of insufficient interest? There is of course the possibility that some modellers may not operate their layouts very much preferring to concentrate on modelling itself and that others are happy enough with how rigid running performs and Rule 1 applies!

It is of course neither easy nor quick building a fully suspended chassis for a steam loco. Indeed, as Tim Venton has said, the same can often apply to steam outline RTR rigid conversions, anything where re-wheeling is involved. It is true that a re-wheeled factory made wagon will be more reliable than a poorly adjusted sprung one as long as the wheels are concentric. However, while it can be challenging to develop the skills and acquire some “heavy” tools to break through to better engineering, I very much agree with Will Litchfield when he says this learning curve is a pleasurable sub set of the hobby in itself, and is the way to better control of outcomes, and to operating sessions less distracted by perturbations, more able to develop the magical illusion of reality.

There is another aspect. The RTR producers, now in full flood with high quality production of ever more esoteric prototypes, seem bent upon turning us into collectors, undermining the niche kit producers and with the hopefully unintended consequence of diminishing us as modellers. However, there is still something we can do with all this seductive RTR to put our individual stamp on it. Hence the job on my Deltic’s feet of clay, because “she was worth it”, and she handsomely repays the effort. It would be good to be able to reassure those who make well designed high -quality chassis kits, like Justin Newitt, Dave Bradwell, Ian Penberth, Chris Gibbon, Brassmasters and others, to feel that what they do is still important to our end of the hobby. Maybe more entry level kits would help, of simpler prototypes but obeying sound principles. Easi- Chas have had a stab at this, even if their driven wheel suspension depends imaginatively on coarse gear mesh! Can we hope for a sprung variant of the magnificent P4 SLW Class 24 giving newcomers an off the shelf exemplar of what can be?

The drop in wheelset has its place helping a rising generation of converts to P4 modelling to get a foothold. Steve Hall’s article in MRJ on the superb Drighlington gives a refreshingly balanced view of how populating large P4 layouts may involve compromises with previous nostrums, especially where the action is mainly straight haulage. The Barrow Road videos are impressive. Straight wheel swaps may also suffice for small layouts with unchallenging operations. There is nothing invalid about rigid chassis. I hope though that our Society continues to recognise well executed sprung suspension as the route to the most rewarding fine running and how worthwhile and enjoyable can be the effort to attain it. Such a goal is the unique defining feature of Scalefour and it will be tricky to steer between making P4 more accessible to newcomers and weakening its case over straight 00 RTR, if rigid wheel swap P4 conversions come to dominate the scene. I wish the Committee success in this navigational challenge.

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2868
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Tim V » Tue Mar 28, 2023 2:00 pm

Well put Chris.

However, I see both 'routes' (RTR coversions and full-on builds) have their place.

Personally I think the major thing stopping more reliable running is the quality of wheels. Steam locos with self quartering crankpins for example. Wheels that are consistently round and true (diesel as well as steam).
Tim V
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)

User avatar
Captain Kernow
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:08 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Captain Kernow » Tue Mar 28, 2023 2:19 pm

Very interesting and valid points expressed by Chris there and I also agree with Tim's comments about concentric wheels.

There is, perhaps, another angle to look at, in support of quick conversions (by which, I mean, 'drop-in' ones) and that is the amount of time you have available for modelling. If you do not have unrestricted amounts of time (and who really has?), then arguably some short cuts are necessary, if you want to get anything done, such as building (and finishing) that layout. It may be that you have more restrictions than most on the amount of time available, be that due to ill health, work or other domestic/family commitments.

I have long argued (on RMWeb, mainly) that the quality control on many RTR products isn't all that we might like it to be. I model in both OO and P4 and find that the fine running qualities of even new RTR models just can't compare with a well-built etched chassis, for example. As such, most of my OO steam locos and virtually all of my P4 ones have etched chassis. I find inconsistences in 'fine running' between locos of the same type, from the same manufacturer (eg. one Bachmann 64XX pannier runs rather sweetly, the other not so). This clearly seems to be a quality control issue.

On the other hand, if one of my etched chassis locos doesn't run well, then the starting point for the investigation is with myself!

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. You might just as well build a kit (and Judith Edge can oblige in the case of the Hunslet, with Nu-Cast Partners offering a 16XX kit - with a lovely etched chassis by Justin Newitt).

Rapido also use odd driving axle sizes, the Hunslet seems to measure up at about 2.4mm. Both my examples of these Rapido steam locos have been moved on and I doubt that I will buy any examples of their future releases, either.
Tim M
Member of the Devon Riviera Area Group.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Noel » Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:05 pm

Just a few thoughts on Chris' comments, from a different viewpoint, but without intending to disparage them:
Chris Pendlenton wrote:Catching up with the Committee report in Snooze I read of its decision to shift “accent” from standards towards RTR conversions to P4. Given that there are relatively few chassis kits available for RTR locos, I wonder if this has to imply the Society embracing rigid wheel-swaps as a mainstream principle?

The Society is there to support the use of P4 standards, however the user decides to apply them. It is not up to the Society to say that certain ways are acceptable and others are not, and provide support for some methods and not others, although they may choose to explain that some methods are better than others, although, of course, "better" rather depends on the user's objectives... What most interests me is prototypical operation, inevitably on a small layout as I don't have room for anything else, nor, thankfully, do I belong to an area group with a group layout :).
Chris Pendlenton wrote:My experience with rigid running was that things did bang about a bit and sometimes derail on track that always loses perfect top over time, and that shunting and propelling could be problematic particularly with bigger trains and gangwayed coaches.

The real thing could "bang about a bit" in steam days too. An abiding memory for me is watching a train of empty 'Merdogs' going through Yeovil Town station in the early 1960s. They were shuttling as the train picked up speed, and bouncing at every rail joint, and the noise was atrocious. Nevertheless the comment about propelling with long trains is undoubtedly valid if that is what you want to do, and looks magnificent when successful, but is less relevant if that is not what you want to do.
Chris Pendlenton wrote:However, while it can be challenging to develop the skills and acquire some “heavy” tools to break through to better engineering, I very much agree with Will Litchfield when he says this learning curve is a pleasurable sub set of the hobby in itself

For some people, but not for many others, of which I am one. This is one area which I see as exemplifying the oft complained about elitism; I have no objection to others doing such if that is what they want to do, and do [sometimes] admire the results, but have myself no great interest in etched brass and so on, and none at all in anything resembling engineering.
Chris Pendlenton wrote:There is another aspect. The RTR producers, now in full flood with high quality production of ever more esoteric prototypes, seem bent upon turning us into collectors, undermining the niche kit producers and with the hopefully unintended consequence of diminishing us as modellers.

I suspect that any undermining is an unintended consequence of trying to make a profit rather than intentional, and however high the standard of r-t-r models, there will always be errors to correct [if you want to] or alternative versions which can be created. I use ready to run wagons sometimes, if it is useful, although it doesn't normally stay as it was when it came out of the box.

I do find lack of attention to, or knowledge of, prototype usages, both in appearance and operation, regrettable, but otherwise we should all be free to do what interests us, rather than somebody else, surely?
Regards
Noel

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Martin Wynne » Tue Mar 28, 2023 4:15 pm

Chris Pendlenton wrote:Catching up with the Committee report in Snooze I read of its decision to shift “accent” from standards

How about shifting the "accent" away from 18.83mm gauge?

If you are content to convert RTR models with drop-in wheels and a rigid chassis, why not land on EM-SF instead of P4? Hardly anyone can tell the difference without actually measuring it. EM-SF is 18.0mm track gauge with 0.8mm flangeways, and runs EMGS wheelsets unmodified at the same EM back-to-back. The deeper EMGS flange makes for more reliable running with a rigid chassis. 0.8mm check rail chairs are available from Exactoscale.

At 0.8mm flangeway it is closer to P4 (0.67mm) than to EM (1mm) and passes the visual test of being narrower than the rail head (0.92mm).

There isn't currently a society for EM-SF modellers (the EMGS aren't showing much interest), so why not look to the Scalefour Society for support?

EM-SF in Templot Plug Track:

em_sf_plug_track2.png


em_sf_plug_track1.png


Yes I know the V-crossing chairs are still missing -- all in good time. :)

EM-SF is my "target" for the plug track. Tests with P4 have been very promising, but I'm not yet convinced that home 3D printing can hold the tolerances needed for P4.

cheers,

Martin.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
40+ years developing Templot. Enjoy using Templot? Join Templot Club. Be a Templot supporter.

JFS
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby JFS » Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:25 pm

Martin Wynne wrote:How about shifting the "accent" away from 18.83mm gauge?


Is it April 1st already? :D

Looking forward to printing the Plug Track though - excellent work you are doing here Martin! Early days with (SLA) 3D printing for me, but I have already found that very careful calibration for resin shrinkage is needed and resin selection is crucial - some of the "Engineering grade" resins (ie those which actually divulge their mechanical properties) are not cheap.

Best Wishes,

bécasse
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby bécasse » Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:13 pm

When we built Bembridge in P4 rather more now than 50 years ago (and long before the Scalefour Society), the concept of compensation, let alone springing, had yet to become the recommended norm and so everything was built rigid. Most of the locos were 0-4-4 tanks but there was one 0-6-0 tank. Running was exemplary, quite an eye-opener in fact, and an inaugural five 10½ hour day exhibition was a much greater test than most shows today. The track in the station area was an exact copy of what had been there in reality (no standard templates or Templot for us), fortuitously measured up by one of our group before it had been lifted, and even on the "representative" run-in board the curves corresponded exactly with the prototype.

I don't remember a single loco or carriage derailment but we did have occasional problems propelling wagons over a particular point. Years later we were to discover that we weren't alone, the real railway had had exactly the same problem when propelling (sprung) wagons over the point in question, put together from secondhand bits and pieces its geometry was faulty, and we had faithfully reproduced that on the model. At least we discovered that one of the joys of P4 meant that reversing the move usually pulled the wagon back on to the rails without any intervention from the "hand of god".

Before we exhibited we had many "wise men" telling us that such fine flanges would never do the job under such testing exhibition conditions. We never heard that said again - and a few of the wise men became active converts.

Jeremy Good
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:36 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Jeremy Good » Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:13 pm

Chris,

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. I have dug out the Report of 16 November Committee in the last issue of the news and have re-read the comment.

The comment relates to a wider and on-going discussion within the Committee about how we advertise/promote P4 standards and how we encourage more to aspire to modelling to finer standards to grow our membership. Indeed, it talks about "how aspiring finescale modellers can move in manageable stages from RTR 00 to P4".

It is not about abandoning P4 standards nor is it about excluding modellers who are content with fully engineered solutions to achieve better running. It is a recognition that for many of us this is an "aspirational" standard but encouraging modellers along the way is critical and if that means encouraging people to start by re-wheeling a Bo-Bo diesel to P4 standards to get something up and running then that has to be a positive step in that journey. However, this step should not be an end in itself and the Society's role is to encourage those who have taken, or though about taking, that first step to progress on the journey adopting better, higher fidelity solutions to achieve better running and a better model railway. These aims are not mutually exclusive but they do need to be carefully balanced.

We are fortunate that there is a new wave of manufacturers who are offering some very high quality product "off the shelf" and several of those Sutton Loco Works, Cavalex, Rapido and Accurascale have designed products with our standards in mind and some will also provide suitable wheelsets. These offer an ideal entry point to working in P4 and we should be thankful for those giving an opportunity to get something built and running to act as an encouragement to newcomers to P4 standards. We also hope to be able to offer easy to build turnouts kits shortly which compliment this aim. These products are just the starting point on the journey....

Speaking personally I started in P4 modelling with a couple of simple compensated chassis kits and drop in diesel conversions but as I have progressed and developed my skills I am now happy to build sprung loco chassis, both steam and diesel, as I have recognised the benefits in terms of smooth running largely through articles such as yours in MRJ and others in Scalefour News. These articles/models have provided the inspiration and shown me how to do things that I would not have considered when I re-started modelling 25 years ago. However, without the simple entry point and encouragement from articles in the mainstream model press by the likes of Iain Rice, I doubt that I would have stepped onto the P4 train.

It is a tricky balance for the Society to encourage new modellers to P4 standards and also to continue to fully support those who are pushing the boundaries of modelling standards and raising the bar to show what can be achieved but, for the Society to survive and thrive we need to be able to appeal to a wide range of modellers at differing stages on their journey and support everyone on their individual next step.

I hope that these ramblings help to clarify the comment in the Committee Report and rest-assured Chris, we are not abandoning aspirational standards, just trying to help people take the first steps on their journey to achieve them.

Jeremy

User avatar
Jol Wilkinson
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Jol Wilkinson » Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:57 am

Starting in P4 can still be difficult, despite the apparent ease of converting some RTR models. I have been helping a couple of members to our AG and have found that some of the seemingly straingtworward conversions/replacement chassis from established traders are, while extremely detailed and an apparent straightforward way to create your first P4 loco, not that easy to build.

I agree with Noel's view that more consistent loco and rolling stock wheels, preferably self quartering as appropriate, would be a great help. I also believe we could (volunteers please) do more to provide up to date guides on how to go about producing P4 models, track, etc. Much of that already exists in sections of the forum, but newcomers or those considering the move may not find it easy to find (I have just joined another "society/group" and find their website difficult to navigate. I'll get the hang of it in time, but at the moment it is rather a deterrent).

A guide to those products (and where to get them) that will help the newcomer get started without too much difficulty or expense. A C&L P4 point kit (with gauges, switch blades, common crossing, P&P, etc.) seems to be a good starting point but is £106, not inexpensive and a lot more than Pecos most expensive offering or the EMGS/BritishfineScale kits. Tony Wilkins excellent guide on track building shows an economical and effective approach, but the rivet/punch gauges are no longer available and the various filing jigs are expensive for a newcomer to commit to.

These aren't easy things to fix but perhaps we could find ways for the Society to provide support. Jig and tool rental, a guide to the more straightforward kits (and those that are less easy), an index of Forum articles (the Wiki doesn't seem to be making much progress). Perhaps we should also watch our language and not use phrases like "fully engineered solutions", which despite my training as an engineer and modelling in P4 for several decades, still frighten me.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Noel » Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:24 am

Jol Wilkinson wrote:I agree with Noel's view that more consistent loco and rolling stock wheels, preferably self quartering as appropriate, would be a great help.

Thanks for the credit, Jol, but it belongs to Tim V in this instance.
Regards
Noel

nigelcliffe
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:31 am

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby nigelcliffe » Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:29 am

Jol Wilkinson wrote:......

A guide to those products (and where to get them) that will help the newcomer get started without too much difficulty or expense. A C&L P4 point kit (with gauges, switch blades, common crossing, P&P, etc.) seems to be a good starting point but is £106, not inexpensive and a lot more than Pecos most expensive offering or the EMGS/BritishfineScale kits. Tony Wilkins excellent guide on track building shows an economical and effective approach, but the rivet/punch gauges are no longer available and the various filing jigs are expensive for a newcomer to commit to.
...


There is a problem with P4 turnout kit prices. C&L kits come to approaching £100, excluding gauges, no doubt this reflects the costs of making them with the technologies chosen when they were designed. There are some savings to be had by not selecting the pre-assembled crossing, but even so, they're still over £70. Other methods as Jol indicated are now "hard to find".

In contrast a turnout kit in OO or EM from British Finescale is under £30, frequently under £25.

Or, the beginner has to research Templot and the very interesting new niche of "print your own parts", and purchase a couple of 3D printers (extrusion for the sleepers, resin for the chairs) before they can produce anything.

User avatar
stephenfreeman
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:13 am

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby stephenfreeman » Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:43 am

One of the reasons the kits are so expensive, is that they include ready made common crossings, pointblades and gauges etc.

You only really need to buy one full set of gauges, why not buy them from Scalefour stores?

In any case, only Exactoscale produce all the special chairs needed.

You do not need a punch/rivet for attaching rivets to sleepers, The right size drill and vice will serve equally well though it might take a bit longer.

Templot is so much easier to use these days although it can be very complex, there is plenty of help. 3D printing isn't quite there yet so I haven't bite the bulllet and bought a resin printer as yet, though it is probably only a matter of time.

No I have never bought a C&L turnout kit and yes turnouts can be built for a lot less.

Jeremy Good
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:36 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Jeremy Good » Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:54 am

Jol,

I think your comments encompass much of what the Society is trying to deliver.

The issue of concentric/self-quartering wheels is definitely something that would help new modellers but I’m not sure how commercially viable that would be for a manufacturer due to the potential wide range of wheel sizes/types needed. It is something that we, as a Society, should be investigating.

Many of the other matters you raise will be dealt with in the short term. We are in the middle of a full overhaul of the web presence to help promote the Society and make us the “go to” for 4mm Finescale Modelling. We will need some help with conversion guides and so on and as such would welcome volunteers to assist delivering this. Much of this is already on the Forum but needs tidying up to turn it into a useful guide.

We have been working with British Finescale and I have the second prototype P4 turnout kit on my workbench for approval before we launch. Hopefully this will be available before the AGM (possibly Scalefour Crewe) at under £30 for a B7 turnout. We hope this initiative will give new P4 modellers a helping hand to get started.

There is a desire on the Committee to move all these ideas forward and a willingness to look at new ideas (jig and tool rental might be one) but we need help to deliver these initiatives. If we want to make the Society the go to one for 4mm Finescale modelling and to help others on their journey we will need to be open to new ideas and initiatives but will need some help delivering these objectives too.

Jeremy

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Martin Wynne » Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:13 am

nigelcliffe wrote:Or, the beginner has to research Templot and the very interesting new niche of "print your own parts", and purchase a couple of 3D printers (extrusion for the sleepers, resin for the chairs) before they can produce anything.

Hi Nigel,

Or only the resin printer if you prefer to use laser-cut plywood for the timbers. I'm fairly sure that once I have got the plug track progressed to a full turnout, the trade will be be supplying pre-cut plywood bases for the common turnout sizes. No gauges needed, but whether the process can hold the tolerances needed for P4 remains to be seen. The same applies to the 3D printed bases in the Finetrax kits. There is no way that gauges can be used in either plug track or those kits. In plug track it will be possible to tweak the track gauge and flangeway gap by changing the settings in Templot, but only on a global basis for the entire turnout.

If deciding to get 3D printer(s) it's not reasonable to load the entire cost on the track-building, because of course they can also be used for many other modelling purposes.

If deciding to get a FDM (filament) printer, it can be used to print the rail filing jigs needed at the minimal cost of materials (under £1), so the savings on not buying those and track gauges would go towards the cost of the printers:

Image

The STL files for the jigs will be available in Templot (all free). They work well for low-volume production, see user report:

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?t ... /post-2032

and if they do wear out it is easy to print a replacement.

cheers,

Martin.
40+ years developing Templot. Enjoy using Templot? Join Templot Club. Be a Templot supporter.

User avatar
jon price
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby jon price » Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:29 am

Self quartering wheels would be very useful, and since the Gibson centers are common to 00, EM and P4 (and HO if you are happy to do the simple maths and use OO wheels) there might be some mileage in this.
Connah's Quay Workshop threads: viewforum.php?f=125

User avatar
Captain Kernow
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:08 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Captain Kernow » Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:46 am

Jeremy Good wrote:We are fortunate that there is a new wave of manufacturers who are offering some very high quality product "off the shelf" and several of those Sutton Loco Works, Cavalex, Rapido and Accurascale have designed products with our standards in mind

Hi Jeremy,

At the (not inconsiderable) risk of sounding like a broken record, I feel I must qualify the reference to Rapido in particular.

Neither of their 4mm steam locos produced to date are in any way straightforward to convert to P4, due to the overall design of the models (where there is no separate 'chassis' and 'body', as there is with Bachmann, for example).

Rapido rolling stock, on the other hand, is generally straightforward to convert, especially if you are going to simply 'drop' replacement wheelsets in.

Also, Accurascale have already stated publicly (on RMWeb) that their forthcoming 4mm 'Manor' will not lend itself for straightforward conversion to P4 or EM (although in this case, we do not yet know whether it will feature a separate 'body' and 'chassis').
Tim M
Member of the Devon Riviera Area Group.

Jeremy Good
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:36 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Jeremy Good » Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:10 am

Tim,

Fair enough. I understand the point re Rapido locos but as you say their rolling stock isn’t an issue. Cavalex’s rolling stock has also been designed with the wider gauges in mind.

It’ll be interesting to see when Accurascales’ Manor arrives whether or not it can be converted or will need a new chassis. The last photos I saw suggested a separate chassis but I wasn’t able to take a closer look at Ally Pally the other week.

The good news is that there are a lot of products out there that can give a newcomer a “leg-up” as part of the first steps into P4.

Jeremy

triumph3
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:52 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby triumph3 » Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:34 am

Whilst there is much to agree with Chris the one thing to remember is that many of the latest RTR locomotives now come with sprung axle boxes (as an example the Bachmann Coal tank) and there are many others. The newly introduced Hornby 9F also has separate sprung axle boxes so the chassis are no longer rigid.
The issue then of course is jointing the coupling rods. Brassmaster now sell an extensive range of etched (and jointed coupling rods.

IMG_4572.JPG

David
IMG_4573.JPG
IMG_4575.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby PeteT » Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:55 am

One point is that the 'rigid' chassis option does fall into 2 camps:

1. If building an etched chassis kit in a rigid format with fixed bearings then it is very much rigid, so any track imperfections, or minor discrepancies during the build, will have major issues.

2. An RTR 'rigid' chassis tends to be far from - it has built in 'slop' that with the weight of the body on top can work as a form of compensation in its own right, whether a built in part of design or not (& some as mentioned by David do actually have designed in springing). But no 2 manufacturers, or design philosophies over time, are necessarily the same.

As has been said it seems a horses for courses approach. It is a difficult balance to get newcomers going - it needs to be approachable with the right mindset - but if we build our first baseboard, pointwork and loco and it falls off then where does the root cause lie? Therefore there is a need to easily 'have a play' and see if the skills are something we have, and as importantly enjoy using with our spare time. As has been said there are many jigs and tools which can make life easier - but for that first tentative step people arent going to shell out £100s to try.

Area groups are a great option for learning from other peoples experience in areas where available, but this doesn't cover everyone. I thought the workshop elements to the last Aylesbury S4um were a great option.

SteamAle
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:38 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby SteamAle » Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:22 pm

Self quartering wheels?
Markits P4 axle. 3D printed wheel centres. Gibson P4 tyres.
Has anybody tried this?
Philip

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2868
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Tim V » Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:10 pm

No, have you?
Tim V
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)

User avatar
PeteT
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby PeteT » Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:50 pm

I think self quartering was a design intent of exactoscale which was then put on the too difficult pile, if I have heard correctly in the past!

martin goodall
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby martin goodall » Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:08 pm

This is an interesting discussion. Anything that the Society can do to help modellers to get started in P4 is to be welcomed, although (as Martin Wynne has correctly pointed out) other options are available, including 00-SF (= EM minus 2) or EM-SF, etc., etc. P4 standards are not the be all and end all that some people seem to think they are.

My own experience suggests that ‘drop in’ wheel conversions of RTR locos can yield variable results. As others have observed, it entirely depends on the quality control of the RTR manufacturers, which tends to be a bit up and down. Their best efforts are excellent, but running quality can still be a bit of a lottery, whether the models are converted to P4 or EM or continue to be run in 00 Gauge.

I know of several modellers who have started out with a drop-in conversion set for a particular loco but have eventually thrown away the RTR mechanism and substituted an etched chassis. So there is a risk that some P4 beginners could be put off if they encounter difficulties with an allegedly ‘easy’ RTR conversion.

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.

User avatar
Winander
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Winander » Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:41 pm

PeteT wrote:Area groups are a great option for learning from other peoples experience in areas where available, but this doesn't cover everyone.

I accept in-person meetings are potentially more useful, but we manage quite a bit of advice in the virtual group, with the benefit attendees are at home and have access to all their paraphernalia.
Richard Hodgson
Organiser Scalefour Virtual Group. Our meeting invitation is here.

User avatar
Captain Kernow
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:08 pm

Re: FINE RUNNING

Postby Captain Kernow » Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:11 pm

Jeremy Good wrote:It’ll be interesting to see when Accurascales’ Manor arrives whether or not it can be converted or will need a new chassis. The last photos I saw suggested a separate chassis but I wasn’t able to take a closer look at Ally Pally the other week.

There was some debate about this, involving Accurascale themselves, fairly early on in the RMWeb thread about this loco. The answer about conversion (at least involving using the Accurascale chassis with P4 wheels substituted) was a definite 'No' from Accurascale.

But yes, if you can get the body off easily, then a replacement chassis becomes a possibility.
Tim M
Member of the Devon Riviera Area Group.


Return to “Chassis and Suspensions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 3 guests