A question of weight

Help and advice for those starting in, or converting to P4 standards. A place to share modelling as a beginner in P4.
User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Guy Rixon » Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:51 am

Noel wrote:Guy, I assume that your calculations are for plain, level track, and that an irregularity in the track may be sufficient to derail a wagon between these two extremes and which would not derail if it had not met the irregularity? In other words, the standard of the track matters, and track faults can cause derailments with lighter wagons in mixed-weight trains?

Noel


Yes, my kinematic approximations are for perfectly-flat track, possibly curved, ignoring the grace of cant. "Spherical horse running in a vacuum" sort of thing. The dynamics of a wagon riding over a bump are more involved. In particular, the dynamics of sprung suspensions are tricky. If we could assume that the suspension adapts instantaneously (i.e. moves much faster than the wagon can rise or fall), then it might be tractable.

The dynamics of a rigid wagon climbing over a bump might be interesting to start with. If I was to (mathematically) model anything here, I'd look at the rigid end of a compensated wagon dealing with a 0.25mm step due to a bad rail-joint.

dal-t
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:06 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby dal-t » Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:09 am

Fascinatingly clear and elegant explanation, Guy, for which many thanks. I'm sure there must be an obvious answer to my follow-up question, or we would all have adopted it as a much simpler solution than messing about with heavy metals, but why don't we just arrange our loco buffers to always be higher than any wagon they might encounter, so that the component force pushes them onto the track rather than into the air?
David L-T

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Forum Team
Posts: 3922
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby grovenor-2685 » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:01 pm

Apart from any issues of wanting scale models, its not just the wagon next to the loco that might be affected, arranging every wagon to have lower buffers than the one next to it is a little tricky. And if you just make light wagons lower than heavy wagons its the opposite way to how the springs function! :)
Regards
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings

David Knight
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby David Knight » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:54 pm

I think there's an unwritten rule; A wagon which derails in normal service will never derail when you are trying to analyse what went wrong :-?

Cheers,

David

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Guy Rixon » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:09 pm

Ok, slightly scary...

The dynamic calculation for a rigid wagon hitting a track bump is tractable, if one assumes that everything is perfectly rigid. Preliminary beer-mat doodling suggests that (a) the effect is independent of the vehicle weight and (b) the vehicle will be airborne to higher than a P4 flange-depth for a step of 0.5mm when travelling at 11 cm/s and for a 0.25mm step when travelling at 25cm/s.

I need to sanity-check my working; I've possibly made multiple, stupid mistakes. I'll post the derivation when I've checked it, probably at the weekend. Meanwhile, back to the rocket science...

User avatar
Paul Willis
Forum Team
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Paul Willis » Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:42 am

Guy Rixon wrote:Ok, slightly scary...

The dynamic calculation for a rigid wagon hitting a track bump is tractable, if one assumes that everything is perfectly rigid. Preliminary beer-mat doodling suggests that (a) the effect is independent of the vehicle weight and (b) the vehicle will be airborne to higher than a P4 flange-depth for a step of 0.5mm when travelling at 11 cm/s and for a 0.25mm step when travelling at 25cm/s.


The fact that this was done on a beer-mat suggests that you were at least in the correct environment...

Speaking of which, I noticed that it looks as though you are in the Cambridge area. Fancy popping down to CHEAG to say hello and have a natter one month? I can't recall the date of our next meeting, but one of the group will remind me soon.

Cheers
Flymo
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Paul Townsend » Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:43 am

Guy Rixon wrote:Ok, slightly scary...

The dynamic calculation for a rigid wagon hitting a track bump is tractable, if one assumes that everything is perfectly rigid. Preliminary beer-mat doodling suggests that (a) the effect is independent of the vehicle weight and (b) the vehicle will be airborne to higher than a P4 flange-depth for a step of 0.5mm, when travelling at 11 cm/s and for a 0.25mm step when travelling at 25cm/s.


So reduce these steps or speeds!
25cm/sec scales as 19M/sec in full size = 68,400 M/Hr or about 45mph, plausible for passengers and fitted freights.

Guy Rixon wrote:
I need to sanity-check my working; I've possibly made multiple, stupid mistakes. I'll post the derivation when I've checked it, probably at the weekend. Meanwhile, back to the rocket science...


Unlike MG of nearby parish, I like theory as it helps understanding practical issues.
We need a spreadsheet showing max track step allowable in theory for any given speed.

I look forward to it....

User avatar
Simon_S
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:32 am

Re: A question of weight

Postby Simon_S » Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:49 am

Flanges contacting the inside of the rail head, such as when propelling on a curve, will cause upward force on the wheels; if this exceeds the load on a wheel then it will climb up the rail. This seems to be a problem in the real world judging from accident reports, hence flange lubricators and careful maintenance of wheel and rail profiles.

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Guy Rixon » Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:28 pm

Simon_S wrote:Flanges contacting the inside of the rail head, such as when propelling on a curve, will cause upward force on the wheels; if this exceeds the load on a wheel then it will climb up the rail. This seems to be a problem in the real world judging from accident reports, hence flange lubricators and careful maintenance of wheel and rail profiles.


Definitely an issue, but this effect is, AFAIK, governed only by geometry and independent of vehicle weight.

There is a dogma in one of the early MRSG papers (published in the MRC in 1969, IIRC) that the flange contact is unproblematic until the angle between the plane of the wheel and the vertical line of the railhead gets up to 3 degrees, after which things can go bad unpredictably. This threshold figure was not fully explained and may have been empirical; but if one trusts the 3-degree rule, one can derive from it the smallest safe radius of curve for a given wheelbase.

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Guy Rixon » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:03 pm

Here's my attempt at deriving the bounce height of a wheel hitting a step in the track.

wheel-and-step.001.png


The step is of height s and the wheel of radius r. The wheel approaches with horizontal velocity v and I assume that it looses no speed in climbing the step. I also assume that there's no deformation, so when first touching the step the wheel moves parallel to its tangent at the point of contact with the step (the thin blue arrow in the diagram). This gives it an upward velocity u and u = v sin(theta) where theta is the angle between the tangent and the horizontal. We can work out theta from the geometry of the green triangle in the picture, giving the expression u = v sin(acos(r-s/r)).

If you throw something up at speed u and let it fall back under gravity, it goes up to a height h = 0.5 u**2 / g where g is the downward acceleration due to gravity (neglecting air and pigeon resistance). For a given wheel and step, this height h depends only on v, since u is determined by v and the geometry. If h is greater than the step height s, then the wheel gets briefly airborne. This is not ideal, but we have no scale people to suffer from it, so it's possibly OK. If h is greater than s by more than a flange depth, however, then we probably have a derailment. (I'm effectively assuming that both wheels on the axle hit steps of the same height. If the step is only in one rail, the effect is less.)

Bunging some numbers in, it now looks like the limiting speeds are about 510mm/s for a 0.1mm step, 375mm/s for 0.25mm, 320 mm/s for 0.5mm and 300 mm/s for 0.75mm. All distances in the table below are in mm and speeds in mm/s.

r s r-s/r theta sin(theta) v u h h -s

6 0.25 0.958333333 0.289686994 0.285652275 10 2.85652275 0.000415888 -0.249584112
6 0.25 0.958333333 0.289686994 0.285652275 50 14.28261375 0.0103972 -0.2396028
6 0.25 0.958333333 0.289686994 0.285652275 100 28.5652275 0.041588798 -0.208411202
6 0.25 0.958333333 0.289686994 0.285652275 150 42.84784125 0.093574796 -0.156425204
6 0.25 0.958333333 0.289686994 0.285652275 200 57.130455 0.166355193 -0.083644807
6 0.25 0.958333333 0.289686994 0.285652275 250 71.41306875 0.259929989 0.009929989
6 0.25 0.958333333 0.289686994 0.285652275 300 85.69568251 0.374299185 0.124299185
6 0.25 0.958333333 0.289686994 0.285652275 375 107.1196031 0.584842476 0.334842476

6 0.5 0.916666667 0.411137862 0.399652627 10 3.996526269 0.000814079 -0.499185921
6 0.5 0.916666667 0.411137862 0.399652627 50 19.98263135 0.020351965 -0.479648035
6 0.5 0.916666667 0.411137862 0.399652627 100 39.96526269 0.08140786 -0.41859214
6 0.5 0.916666667 0.411137862 0.399652627 150 59.94789404 0.183167686 -0.316832314
6 0.5 0.916666667 0.411137862 0.399652627 200 79.93052539 0.325631442 -0.174368558
6 0.5 0.916666667 0.411137862 0.399652627 250 99.91315674 0.508799128 0.008799128
6 0.5 0.916666667 0.411137862 0.399652627 300 119.8957881 0.732670744 0.232670744
6 0.5 0.916666667 0.411137862 0.399652627 320 127.8888406 0.833616491 0.333616491

6 0.1 0.983333333 0.182828717 0.181811869 10 1.818118686 0.000168479 -0.099831521
6 0.1 0.983333333 0.182828717 0.181811869 50 9.090593429 0.004211972 -0.095788028
6 0.1 0.983333333 0.182828717 0.181811869 100 18.18118686 0.016847888 -0.083152112
6 0.1 0.983333333 0.182828717 0.181811869 150 27.27178029 0.037907747 -0.062092253
6 0.1 0.983333333 0.182828717 0.181811869 200 36.36237372 0.067391551 -0.032608449
6 0.1 0.983333333 0.182828717 0.181811869 250 45.45296714 0.105299298 0.005299298
6 0.1 0.983333333 0.182828717 0.181811869 300 54.54356057 0.151630989 0.051630989
6 0.1 0.983333333 0.182828717 0.181811869 510 92.72405297 0.438213558 0.338213558

6 0.75 0.875 0.50536051 0.484122918 10 4.841229183 0.001194572 -0.748805428
6 0.75 0.875 0.50536051 0.484122918 50 24.20614591 0.029864297 -0.720135703
6 0.75 0.875 0.50536051 0.484122918 100 48.41229183 0.119457187 -0.630542813
6 0.75 0.875 0.50536051 0.484122918 150 72.61843774 0.26877867 -0.48122133
6 0.75 0.875 0.50536051 0.484122918 200 96.82458366 0.477828746 -0.272171254
6 0.75 0.875 0.50536051 0.484122918 250 121.0307296 0.746607416 -0.003392584
6 0.75 0.875 0.50536051 0.484122918 300 145.2368755 1.075114679 0.325114679

The results in my previous post about this were not quite right, firstly because because I'd messed up the trig and secondly because I'd calculated h rather than h - s. The new results are rather less worrying.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

John Duffy

Re: A question of weight

Postby John Duffy » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:30 pm

paul4147 wrote:
Is there an agreed amount of weight for an individual wagon and if so what is it?


That'll be a no then!

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Paul Townsend » Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:31 am

Guy Rixon wrote:Here's my attempt at deriving the bounce height of a wheel hitting a step in the track.

The new results are rather less worrying.


If I am interpreting Guy's calculations correctly then using his batch of limiting speeds I get:

1. For a step up to .75mm, 300mm/sec representing scale 54mph is useable ( but this is a totally unacceptable step for usual loco axlebox allowance of +/- .5mm)

2. For a step up to .25mm, 375mm/sec representing scale 67mph is useable ( acceptable step for usual loco axlebox allowance of +/- .5mm but pretty poor track laying)

3. For a step up to .1mm, 510mm/sec representing scale 92mph is useable ( OK track for locos )


So P4 can work after all !!

billbedford

Re: A question of weight

Postby billbedford » Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:01 am

I think that discontinuities of the top of the rail are largely irrelevant, after all they are easily found and relatively easy to correct. Much more relevant to derailments while propelling wagons through crossovers are such things as horizontal discontinuities of the rail, locally tight rail radii, excessive gauge widening etc. It is also important to ensure that the check-rails work as intended, see Geoff Tiffany's letter in the latest Snooze for the full story.

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Guy Rixon » Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:43 am

Bill, you're right, apparently, but it wasn't clear to me before running the numbers. And we don't want unsupported assumptions, do we?

As a coda, I note that a sprung axle accelerates downwards faster than free-fall. The static load on the spring must be 1 gravity when the wagon is at rest and the acceleration goes to zero as the spring relaxes; the effective acceleration of the wheel is in the range g to 2g. So all the bounce heights quoted above can be reduced by a factor ~1.5 for sprung stock.

I also invite you to consider a downward step of ~0.5mm. This is not purely theoretical, as Black Gill had one at a recent show (misalignment across the board joint into the fiddle yard). The stock was just staying on the track, even at the speed of an unfitted freight...

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Paul Townsend » Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:54 pm

Guy Rixon wrote: So all the bounce heights quoted above can be reduced by a factor ~1.5 for sprung stock.


Its good to have theoretical justification for the observed better track holding of sprung wagons.

Guy Rixon wrote: The stock was just staying on the track, even at the speed of an unfitted freight...


Fascinating that after your rigorous treatment of speed v steps you ( a mathematician ? ) should use such sloppy observation!
I daresay you saw the stock jump around a bit but what is the quantitative analysis of "just" ;)

Don't feel obliged to answer this lest our brains start to hurt :)

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Guy Rixon » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:48 pm

Paul Townsend wrote:
Guy Rixon wrote: The stock was just staying on the track, even at the speed of an unfitted freight...


Fascinating that after your rigorous treatment of speed v steps you ( a mathematician ? ) should use such sloppy observation!
I daresay you saw the stock jump around a bit but what is the quantitative analysis of "just" ;)

Don't feel obliged to answer this lest our brains start to hurt :)


Just for completeness ;) ...

I saw somewhere between 10 and 20 movements over the step (wasn't really counting). IIRC (and it was last year so memory is patchy), one derailed a vehicle, one they stopped the train because they thought a vehicle was off but it was actually OK and one looked like a vehicle landed with its flange on the railhead and then the flange dropped back into the 4-foot (not sure about this last, I wasn't close enough to see acturately). Actually, I thought the stock was coping rather well under the circumstances.

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Paul Townsend » Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:31 am

Guy Rixon wrote: I saw somewhere between 10 and 20 movements over the step (wasn't really counting). IIRC (and it was last year so memory is patchy), one derailed a vehicle, one they stopped the train because they thought a vehicle was off but it was actually OK and one looked like a vehicle landed with its flange on the railhead and then the flange dropped back into the 4-foot (not sure about this last, I wasn't close enough to see acturately). Actually, I thought the stock was coping rather well under the circumstances.


Thats a pretty good description of a one year old "just", thanks.

Do you know if the stock was sprung or compensated or rigid?

User avatar
jim s-w
Posts: 2189
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby jim s-w » Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:47 am

It's probably worth saying for anyone dropping by wondering about starting in p4 that you don't need to worry about any of this maths stuff.

Build a wagon and add weight until it runs how you want it to. (assuming its built square)

Cheers

Jim
Jim Smith-Wright

http://www.p4newstreet.com

Over thinking often leads to under doing!

User avatar
Andy W
Posts: 884
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 8:11 am

Re: A question of weight

Postby Andy W » Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:31 am

I'd definitely second Jim's comment. The physics minded will find this interesting - and fair play to them. However, most of us will build something with the appropriate jigs etc and then, if necessary, tweak to achieve good running. Maths is not necessary for P4.
Make Worcestershire great again.
Build a wall along the Herefordshire border and make them pay for it.

John Fitton

Re: A question of weight

Postby John Fitton » Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:09 am

Andy W wrote:I'd definitely second Jim's comment. The physics minded will find this interesting - and fair play to them. However, most of us will build something with the appropriate jigs etc and then, if necessary, tweak to achieve good running. Maths is not necessary for P4.



Well I am an engineer by profession, but in my modelling I ditch most of the math. The reality is that the overriding factor in model rolling stock road holding is one's own ability to build everything to the highest standards. Computers will generate tables to as many decimal points as we want, but, for myself, the most significant bit, as we say, is whether the 1 x 4 I use for the frame square, or is the plywood absorbing moisture and buckling? How about irregularities in the sleeper thickness due to rivets not burred over properly (for Brook Smith track). Then, how well are the rails soldered to the sleepers: Well, with all of this, my rolling stock definitely needs compensation or springing, and lightweight vehicles simply don't work. However, weighting to about 6 ox. per bogie vehicle is just about right.

So, IMHO, the math may be right, numerically, but from an engineering view it doesn't take into account the owners' abilities.

Heavy topic for a Monday morning, and sorry for the pun.

JF

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Paul Townsend » Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:14 am

I totally agree with all the comments since my last post. Pragmatic following the instructions and skill come first; input and advice from others with experience comes second.

However the theoretical analysis is interesting as it might just help us understand when occasionally a hard to diagnose derailment occurs, see 3 below.
Many bods ( -2 here ) will tell me there is no such thing as a "random derailment", but I submit that derailments IN ANY SCALE or GAUGE fall into one of 3 categories, any of which can be found in new builds or after a period in service.:

1. Obvious fault in track or rolling stock, diagnosed in 10 minutes and fixed within the hour.

2. Harder to diagnose ones are likely to cause intermittent derailments and are due to things such as subtle slight twists in track or 3D misalignment of axles, complex buffer interactions etc etc. The exact cause may take a long time to diagnose and cure may be a bit slower to implement.....sometimes several cures may get tried before the right one is applied, much like old cars, plumbing and ageing human beings really.

3. Very occasionally the *£$"%^! fault arises in larger model sets where diagnosis is beyond the patience and/or skillset of the owner.
There are several possible outcomes IMHO, including:
a) Wagon is retired to naughty box or if you are evil - EBay or Bring & Buy. Best result is to give it to an expert and wish him joy with it!
b) Advice from chum reveals what was overlooked or forgotten.
c) Offending track section is relaid more carefully with improved underworks.

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: A question of weight

Postby Guy Rixon » Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:19 pm

John Fitton wrote:However, weighting to about 6 ox. per bogie vehicle is just about right.


Are those imperial or metric oxen? :D

John Fitton

Re: A question of weight

Postby John Fitton » Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:01 pm

Guy Rixon wrote:
John Fitton wrote:However, weighting to about 6 ox. per bogie vehicle is just about right.


Are those imperial or metric oxen? :D

Ha, good spot! sorry, of course meant oz., and not ox!!

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

Re: A question of weight

Postby martin goodall » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:52 pm

Paul Townsend wrote:I totally agree with all the comments since my last post. Pragmatic following the instructions and skill come first; input and advice from others with experience comes second.

However the theoretical analysis is interesting as it might just help us understand when occasionally a hard to diagnose derailment occurs, see 3 below.
Many bods ( -2 here ) will tell me there is no such thing as a "random derailment", but I submit that derailments IN ANY SCALE or GAUGE fall into one of 3 categories, any of which can be found in new builds or after a period in service.:

1. Obvious fault in track or rolling stock, diagnosed in 10 minutes and fixed within the hour.

2. Harder to diagnose ones are likely to cause intermittent derailments and are due to things such as subtle slight twists in track or 3D misalignment of axles, complex buffer interactions etc etc. The exact cause may take a long time to diagnose and cure may be a bit slower to implement.....sometimes several cures may get tried before the right one is applied, much like old cars, plumbing and ageing human beings really.

3. Very occasionally the *£$"%^! fault arises in larger model sets where diagnosis is beyond the patience and/or skillset of the owner.
There are several possible outcomes IMHO, including:
a) Wagon is retired to naughty box or if you are evil - EBay or Bring & Buy. Best result is to give it to an expert and wish him joy with it!
b) Advice from chum reveals what was overlooked or forgotten.
c) Offending track section is relaid more carefully with improved underworks.



There is, of course, another option for those of us who are Very Wicked. :twisted:

I need hardly mention what I have in mind (something to do with EM wheels perhaps?) :twisted: :twisted:

(Been away, so have only just seen this post from Paul.)

Crepello
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:32 am

Re: A question of weight

Postby Crepello » Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:31 pm

martin goodall wrote:There is, of course, another option for those of us who are Very Wicked. :twisted:

I need hardly mention what I have in mind (something to do with EM wheels perhaps?) :twisted: :twisted:


Magnadhesion?


Return to “Starting in P4”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests