Buffer height 'standard'

[billbedford]

Flymo748 wrote:

billbedford wrote:
That is true as far as it goes, but wagons were built to carry loads and loaded wagons were allowed to have their buffer height 3" below that of locos and brake vans. The point is that calls for a buffer height 'standard' to the nearest 0.1mm are inauthentic.

You're being disingenuous Bill... A standard is exactly that - a level that should be aimed for to eliminate ab-initio variation in design. The Railway Clearing House first specified a standard for buffer height in 1887.

Then can someone please tell me why if the RCH allowed a tolerance of 3" (that's 1mm in 4mm scale), people here think that the tolerance in 4mm scale should be a whole order of magnitude tighter, i.e. to the nearest 0.1mm?

Even the putative quoted standard height of 13.8mm is spurious, since the GWR specified a buffer height of 3' 5 1/2" for coaches and 5' 4 1/2" for locos.

[jim s-w]

Even the putative quoted standard height of 13.8mm is spurious, since the GWR specified a buffer height of 3' 5 1/2" for coaches and 5' 4 1/2" for locos.

2 feet difference? What is your buffer height jig set too bill. Does it show max and min?

[Penrhos1920]

Even the putative quoted standard height of 13.8mm is spurious, since the GWR specified a buffer height of 3' 5 1/2" for coaches and 5' 4 1/2" for locos.

Now I know what I've been doing wrong.

I guess they used 3' 5 1/2" for coaches to allow 1" for when they were loaded.

[Guy Rixon]

Then can someone please tell me why if the RCH allowed a tolerance of 3" (that's 1mm in 4mm scale), people here think that the tolerance in 4mm scale should be a whole order of magnitude tighter, i.e. to the nearest 0.1mm?

Even the putative quoted standard height of 13.8mm is spurious, since the GWR specified a buffer height of 3' 5 1/2" for coaches and 5' 4 1/2" for locos.

Has anybody asked for a tolerance of 0.1mm? I didn't see that. The target height is being quoted to a precision of 0.1mm, in the same vein as the railway companies specifying heights to a precision of 1/2", alongside their [RCH] 3" tolerance.

And yes, if we scale it exactly, the target won't be 13.8mm for all vehicles. But would we gain better running if we made the buffer heights more consistent than the full-size stock?

[grovenor-2685]

in the same vein as the railway companies specifying heights to a precision of 1/2", alongside their [RCH] 3" tolerance.

A lot of drawings give the buffer height to a precision of 1/4" which scales out to a little less than 0.1 mm.
Keith

[Russ Elliott]

Reversing 20- and 30-wagon trains on Ken York's Addison Road many years ago made me realise the importance of a consistent model buffer height. (And the desirability of reasonably matched wagon weights, where possible.)

On the setting gauges I made, I tried to get the height to as close to '13.8mm' as I could, and am content to be within 0.2mm (eyeball) of that in a vehicle build. The gauge is an assessment device. I chose 13.8mm because it seemed to satisfy anything I would ever build, and would interoperate with other stock whose owners shared the thought that a standard setting was a sensible idea. The gauges also check for 22.8mm lateral buffer spacing, and with that spacing centred on the track centreline.

I regard differences and loading variations on the prototype as irrelevant.

I remain unapologetic for my heretical views.

[Tim V]

I would agree Russ.

I thought this topic had been done to death in the locked thread.

Perhaps it's time to move on.

[billbedford]

Reversing 20- and 30-wagon trains on Ken York's Addison Road many years ago made me realise the importance of a consistent model buffer height. (And the desirability of reasonably matched wagon weights, where possible.)

That was thirty years ago.........

I'm getting the distinct impression of someone stuck in a time warp, or maybe their spiritual home is on the Isle of Wight.

[jim s-w]

Is there a reason in the last 30 years that buffer heights have become less important Bill?

Genuinely curious

Jim

[John Fitton]

I would agree Russ.

I thought this topic had been done to death in the locked thread.

Perhaps it's time to move on.

I think Tim has hit the buffer on the head with this one.

So, in our scale, the answer is 14mm.

[Horsetan]

Is there a reason in the last 30 years that buffer heights have become less important Bill?

Genuinely curious

Probably because his products may be involved

[LesGros]

John Fitton wrote:

...So, in our scale, the answer is 14mm...

Presumably to the nearest mm - for a new and empty waggon; 13mm if loaded

[billbedford]

Is there a reason in the last 30 years that buffer heights have become less important Bill?

Genuinely curious

Buffer heights are still the same 13-14mm as they were 30 years ago, but even P4 modelling has moved on since then. The chances are that Ken York's layout had all the things that make propelling trains next to impossible, e,g wagons with three point suspension, fixed buffers, locos and controllers that didn't allow for precise slow speed running etc.

[jim s-w]

Is there a reason in the last 30 years that buffer heights have become less important Bill?

Genuinely curious

Buffer heights are still the same 13-14mm as they were 30 years ago, but even P4 modelling has moved on since then. The chances are that Ken York's layout had all the things that make propelling trains next to impossible, e,g wagons with three point suspension, fixed buffers, locos and controllers that didn't allow for precise slow speed running etc.

Here you go, long wheelbase wagons, unsprung suspension, unsprung buffers. Clearly no where near impossible. It seems to be yourself Bill who still adheres to the myths of 30 years ago.

Cheers

Jim

[Mike Garwood]

Jim
Amazing stuff, it does seem to prove the point that a standard buffer height is most desirable, regardless of exact specifications.

Mike

[Paul Townsend]

Jim
Amazing stuff, it does seem to prove the point that a standard buffer height is most desirable, regardless of exact specifications.

Mike

While I agree with Tim this thread should now die, you've got to laugh or cry
I have happily built models for 45+ years with a standard target buffer height of 14mm and recently started modelling Brunel's Broad Gauge. That's a whole new can of worms because, long before RCH took an interest, buffers were 3' above rail, then over a 20 year period new builds had buffer height creeping up at an average rate of around 3/10" p.a.until 3'6" was reached!

Just try mixing stock through that period

You narrow gauge guys don't realise how easy you have it

[Ian Everett]

Here you go, long wheelbase wagons, unsprung suspension, unsprung buffers. Clearly no where near impossible.

Mightily impressive, Jim - I saw Calcutta sidings last month and it was awesome - not really my cup of tea but a wonderful myth-shatterer - a very large P4 layout that ran perfectly.

I presume these are re-wheeled RTR (hence very precise bearing alignments etc.)? I wonder what type of couplings are used and how heavy the wagons are?

Ian

[jim s-w]

Hi Ian

They are rtr with just a wheel swap. Couplings are smiths instanters and they do have a smidge more weight in. I can try weighing one for you if you like?

Jim

[billbedford]

Here you go, long wheelbase wagons, unsprung suspension, unsprung buffers. Clearly no where near impossible. It seems to be yourself Bill who still adheres to the myths of 30 years ago.

Oh yes sure -- I bet those aren't B6 turnouts..........

'corse if you have a club room the size of a small Tescos you are not going to have the same problems as ordinary modellers.

[jim s-w]

Oh right, are you now trying to say they couldnt have pointwork bigger than a B6 30 years ago?

(that's not a club layout BTW - but that's a different p4 myth shot to bits.)

[Horsetan]

Maybe a charity boxing match between Bill and Jim could be arranged to help settle matters

I want to find this man to act as referee

[Terry Bendall]

Oh yes sure -- I bet those aren't B6 turnouts..........

'corse if you have a club room the size of a small Tescos you are not going to have the same problems as ordinary modellers.

Like the Calcutter Sidings team I have also got RTR stock with no springing or suspension, or sprung buffers, or extra weight, just fitted with P4 wheels and they do stay on the track. Not on a B6 turnout, but a B7 and a B8 so not a lot of difference. I use Smiths couplings for three links or Instanters and Roxey etched screw couplings where a screw coupling is needed. The stock also runs on a small layout, in this case Elcot Road. In case anyone is wondering, the stock in question, some Dapol HEAs, has yet to be seen in public since the painting and detailing is not finished yet but they should be out for the next appearances of Elcot Road at the Derby show in May and Scalefour SW in August. The couplings we use are a bit overscale, but they do give more of a chance when coupling up than exact scale ones.

On Pulborough all the wagons are fitted with rocking W irons since that was all that was available in those days and they all work, but such things do need a bit of care and checking. There are some derailments on Pulborough but they are fairly rare and there are moves where trains with 14 or so wagons are backed over a crossover and other turnouts into the yards again over generally B8 turnouts

As I have said several times, it is your train set, and you do what you want to do, and which you find works for you but there is more than one way of doing the job.

While I agree with Tim this thread should now die

I agree too.

Terry Bendall

[Trevor Grout]

Maybe a charity boxing match between Bill and Jim could be arranged to help settle matters

I want to find this man to act as referee

lol

[allanferguson]

I've just come into possession of a "Standard Specification for the construction of new and rebuilt 8 or 10 ton Private Owners waggons to work upon the lines of the Railway Companies". It's dated September 1899. It's issued by the Caledonian Railway Company, but it's clear from the context that it is an RCH document.

Section 9: "The buffers to have laminated springs and to be 18 inches in length from headstock to face and 12 inches in diameter; the centres to be 5 feet 8 1/2 inches apart and 3 feet 5 inches high from top of rails; the buffer blocks to be not less than 10 inches in length."

Can anyone clarify for me what is a "buffer block" in this context?

Allan F