Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
Moderator: Tim V
-
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
“But it’s not P4!”
To which I am afraid my reaction is a nonchalant shrug of the shoulders. I don’t define my model-making by reference to any particular set of technical standards, and never have done.
There is nothing sacrosanct about P4 track and wheel standards. And if anyone thinks that models built to P4 standards represent perfection on wheels, then I am afraid they are deluding themselves. The P4 standards have various built-in compromises, some more justified than others, and there are certain internal inconsistencies in the standards. (I pointed out some of these in another thread a year or more ago – so there is no point in repeating it all here.)
There really is no reason slavishly to follow one particular set of standards, if departure from those standards might be advantageous. I have found that the use of EM wheels set to the P4 back-to-back gauge does offer certain advantages. I have simply reported on my own experience, as a result of initial experiments and then (when these proved successful) several years of practical experience in using these wheels on my P4 track. Incidentally, I do not usually call my layout a “P4 layout”. The track is built to the P4 track standards (without modification) and my rolling stock is adapted to run on this P4 track. I leave it to others to decide whether or not such a layout can be described as a “P4 layout”. To my mind it is an entirely meaningless expression, unless it is used as shorthand to indicate that the track is built to P4 standards (as mine is).
As regards the notion that “Going P4 was all about NOT making the sort of compromises implied by the use of EM /00 profile wheels”, the plain fact is that all model-making involves making practical compromises, and I see no reason why those compromises should not include variations on the wheel and track standards. In fact I am not sure what the term “going P4” is intended to mean. If it implies slavish adherence to one particular set of standards without exception or deviation, then frankly I don’t buy it.
To which I am afraid my reaction is a nonchalant shrug of the shoulders. I don’t define my model-making by reference to any particular set of technical standards, and never have done.
There is nothing sacrosanct about P4 track and wheel standards. And if anyone thinks that models built to P4 standards represent perfection on wheels, then I am afraid they are deluding themselves. The P4 standards have various built-in compromises, some more justified than others, and there are certain internal inconsistencies in the standards. (I pointed out some of these in another thread a year or more ago – so there is no point in repeating it all here.)
There really is no reason slavishly to follow one particular set of standards, if departure from those standards might be advantageous. I have found that the use of EM wheels set to the P4 back-to-back gauge does offer certain advantages. I have simply reported on my own experience, as a result of initial experiments and then (when these proved successful) several years of practical experience in using these wheels on my P4 track. Incidentally, I do not usually call my layout a “P4 layout”. The track is built to the P4 track standards (without modification) and my rolling stock is adapted to run on this P4 track. I leave it to others to decide whether or not such a layout can be described as a “P4 layout”. To my mind it is an entirely meaningless expression, unless it is used as shorthand to indicate that the track is built to P4 standards (as mine is).
As regards the notion that “Going P4 was all about NOT making the sort of compromises implied by the use of EM /00 profile wheels”, the plain fact is that all model-making involves making practical compromises, and I see no reason why those compromises should not include variations on the wheel and track standards. In fact I am not sure what the term “going P4” is intended to mean. If it implies slavish adherence to one particular set of standards without exception or deviation, then frankly I don’t buy it.
-
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:28 am
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
You ken Martin, I totally agree with you.
Now were is my tin hat again.....
Now were is my tin hat again.....
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest
enemy of truth....
Albert Einstein
Perfection is impossible.
But I may choose to serve perfection....
Robert Fripp
https://www.facebook.com/groups/PadgateWorks/
enemy of truth....
Albert Einstein
Perfection is impossible.
But I may choose to serve perfection....
Robert Fripp
https://www.facebook.com/groups/PadgateWorks/
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
Just a bit of petrol to douse some of these flames around here. And in support of Martin by way of the Prototype for Everything argument.
The current edition of British Railway Track, Design Part 3, Bull Head Track, contains on page 136, the following statement
"It is preferable to use Switches in the range C to F ... This is because of the greater potential derailment risk when B switches are negotiated by newly turned tyres in bogies having high yaw stiffness."
Presumably, this derailment risk is reduced on worn wheelsets as a consequence of their deeper-than-nominal flanges?
Luckily, we would never use B Switches would we?
(retreats to bunker)
Best wIshes,
Howard.
The current edition of British Railway Track, Design Part 3, Bull Head Track, contains on page 136, the following statement
"It is preferable to use Switches in the range C to F ... This is because of the greater potential derailment risk when B switches are negotiated by newly turned tyres in bogies having high yaw stiffness."
Presumably, this derailment risk is reduced on worn wheelsets as a consequence of their deeper-than-nominal flanges?
Luckily, we would never use B Switches would we?
(retreats to bunker)
Best wIshes,
Howard.
-
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:38 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
Nice one, Howard.
Or alternatively, "luckily, we would never use bogies with high yaw stiffness"?
(also retreating to bunker)
Or alternatively, "luckily, we would never use bogies with high yaw stiffness"?
(also retreating to bunker)
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge
Wizard of the Moor wrote:That flat crossing is very nice indeed.
Thanks for sharing the pictures.
It is indeed a lovely layout, of a fascinating interchange. Could someone tell me what a flat crossing is?
All the best
Simon
-
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge
Simon Glidewell wrote:Wizard of the Moor wrote:That flat crossing is very nice indeed.
Thanks for sharing the pictures.
It is indeed a lovely layout, of a fascinating interchange. Could someone tell me what a flat crossing is?
All the best
Simon
So-called level crossings usually have a bump for the road. That would not do for rails crossing, hence the distinction?
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3921
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
AFAIK Flat crossing is used for one railway crossing another just to indicate that there is no bridge or flyover. Level crossing not being available for the purpose as as already taken. Or vice versa.
Keith
PS Where is the reference to a flat crossing that you were following up? Never mind, found it back on page 1.
Keith
PS Where is the reference to a flat crossing that you were following up? Never mind, found it back on page 1.
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
Thanks for clarifying that Paul and Keith
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:34 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
Crossings aren't always flat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkaFe0um ... re=related
(Check out at about 23 mins in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkaFe0um ... re=related
(Check out at about 23 mins in)
-
- Forum Team
- Posts: 3921
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
Temporary turnouts for emergency use are a rather different animal, what worried me was the pushing with a forklift tine on the buffer, if that had slipped off there would have been a nice hole in the tank.
Keith
Keith
-
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
I have just put a longish post in the tread " Starting over again..."
It describes Highbridge's new home and I am holding breath for BS4 to revisit Highbridge Part III
It describes Highbridge's new home and I am holding breath for BS4 to revisit Highbridge Part III
-
- Posts: 2870
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
Our visit was last night, and with luck - as the forum software has changed, an image (via Photobucket)should appear of the layout in the new shed.
Tim V
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)
-
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
Highbridge has the answer to deal with sea-level rise.
The landscape has been raised by 34 feet so is good for another 100 years!
The model reflects this so baseboards are now at 54" above floor. Consensus among 8 chums ( just one dissenter) is that viewing is improved.
I like easier access below boards for fault-finding and duckunder is much more comfortable.
As the model has only just been re-assembled, I am getting to grips with working on top at this height...various person raisers are on test, ranging from trusty old sturdy but heavy wooden boxes to a light collapsible plastic hop-up.
Running of all GWR has been re-established although it was marred by an unsolved electrical fault in the fiddle yard for the BS4 visit, probably due to a damaged 55 way connector.
Some baseboard joints need attention on the S&DJR so no running there yet.
Use of exhibition-type rail end protectors avoided most damage to track although I did do a bit of damage during re-erection, mostly now repaired. The best buildings, signals, bridges etc have survived the move to storage and re-erection undamaged.
A few yard and platform lamps are nearly decapitated and several temporary card buildings lost their chimneys.
Generally I am delighted with the model's new home, a much nicer environment than its previous Victorian basement. I now have work benches with garden views. Good insulation has been well tested with recent freezy weather, so the only heating needed is a 750w oil-filled radiator. I am metering it but it looks as if the annual heating will cost less than I budgetted for once I sort out the thermostat cunning plan.
Access around most of the outside edges of the baseboards is now possible due to small increase in room size. This eases maintenance and opens up views we never had before so some scenery changes are required as a result. One scenic board carrying the river has apparently shrunk, see Tim's picture so adjustment to grass and water is required. The off-white walls and ceiling are good for light but thought needs to be given to more overhead lighting and back-scene cloudy sky etc. I envisage adding support to the 12v light tracks so they can carry extra weight and I can then add leds galore. The back scene sky may be on flexible vinyl or rigid sheet when I can devise a way of attaching it to the walls without lots of screw holes...thinking about future users of this expensive Garden Office when I pop my clogs.
An official grand re-opening is intended for April. Watch this space.
The landscape has been raised by 34 feet so is good for another 100 years!
The model reflects this so baseboards are now at 54" above floor. Consensus among 8 chums ( just one dissenter) is that viewing is improved.
I like easier access below boards for fault-finding and duckunder is much more comfortable.
As the model has only just been re-assembled, I am getting to grips with working on top at this height...various person raisers are on test, ranging from trusty old sturdy but heavy wooden boxes to a light collapsible plastic hop-up.
Running of all GWR has been re-established although it was marred by an unsolved electrical fault in the fiddle yard for the BS4 visit, probably due to a damaged 55 way connector.
Some baseboard joints need attention on the S&DJR so no running there yet.
Use of exhibition-type rail end protectors avoided most damage to track although I did do a bit of damage during re-erection, mostly now repaired. The best buildings, signals, bridges etc have survived the move to storage and re-erection undamaged.
A few yard and platform lamps are nearly decapitated and several temporary card buildings lost their chimneys.
Generally I am delighted with the model's new home, a much nicer environment than its previous Victorian basement. I now have work benches with garden views. Good insulation has been well tested with recent freezy weather, so the only heating needed is a 750w oil-filled radiator. I am metering it but it looks as if the annual heating will cost less than I budgetted for once I sort out the thermostat cunning plan.
Access around most of the outside edges of the baseboards is now possible due to small increase in room size. This eases maintenance and opens up views we never had before so some scenery changes are required as a result. One scenic board carrying the river has apparently shrunk, see Tim's picture so adjustment to grass and water is required. The off-white walls and ceiling are good for light but thought needs to be given to more overhead lighting and back-scene cloudy sky etc. I envisage adding support to the 12v light tracks so they can carry extra weight and I can then add leds galore. The back scene sky may be on flexible vinyl or rigid sheet when I can devise a way of attaching it to the walls without lots of screw holes...thinking about future users of this expensive Garden Office when I pop my clogs.
An official grand re-opening is intended for April. Watch this space.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:29 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
Guess who wasn't convinced by the raise in height!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:31 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
Well I suppose it beats having a bus on a bridge.
Little over scale though...
Little over scale though...
-
- Posts: 560
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:49 pm
Re: Bristol group visit Highbridge Part II
A bus on the bridge any time.
Gordon A
Gordon A
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests