EM Flanges on Clutton

Moderator: Tim V

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

EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Tim V » Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:28 pm

Martin Goodall came round with a couple of trains with EM flanges. Seen here is the passenger train, headed by a standard Clutton pannier tank, as Martin doesn't use DCC. Note the large piece of lead on top of the cattle wagon, which had P4 wheels but was very light. The train did run round the layout without falling off.
IMG_0029.JPG

The goods train (not pictured) was backed through the pointwork under the group's eagle eyes, where I'm afraid to say, it performed no better than stock with ordinary P4 flanges. However, all at the meeting agreed that although any stock should run on any layout, the home stock always ran the best :!:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Tim V
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)

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

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby martin goodall » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:04 pm

This confirms the view I have always held - it's "horses for courses". Rolling stock (of any scale or gauge) runs best on the layout for which it was built or for which it was adapted.

It is a fallacy to suppose that any P4 rolling stock should be able to run on any P4 layout. We proved that on Heckmondwike more than 35 years ago - stock from other layouts lent for use on Heckmondwike had to be tweaked in various ways before it could be relied upon to run smoothly on that layout.

Incidentally, the anachronism of BR Mark 1 coaches with a c.1920 GWR cattle wagon arose from the need to use an 'adaptor' wagon between the coaches (which are fitted with 'Burford' couplings) and Tim's pannier, which had ordinary screw-type couplings. I have two panniers of my own, but they are not equipped to run on DCC.

As regards the goods train (not photographed on this occasion), only the brake van has compensated suspension. All the other vehicles have rigidly suspended EM wheels. There was an evil glint in Tim's eye as he backed this train through a fiendish combination of double and single slips on Clutton. I think he was slightly disappointed that nothing fell off, other than the P4-wheeled short cattle wagon (despite its compensated suspension), which is admittedly too light and will have to have extra weight added [as well as being converted to run on EM wheels :twisted:].

My thanks to Tim for his kind invitation to try out this rolling stock on Clutton, and to the Bristol Area Group for their good-humoured company.

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Terry Bendall » Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:37 am

martin goodall wrote:Rolling stock (of any scale or gauge) runs best on the layout for which it was built or for which it was adapted.


When Pulborough was being regularly operated, the stock belonged to various members and ran on home layouts as well as on Pulborough. The same thing has happened on Ravenscroft Sidings where we have run stock belonging to other people on occasions. It can be done and has been done. When things fell off a check showed that the wheels or the compensation/suspension were not correct.

martin goodall wrote:It is a fallacy to suppose that any P4 rolling stock should be able to run on any P4 layout.


Sorry but I disagree. ;) If there is a set standard and the track and wheels conform to that standard, within the allowed tolerances, then any item of stock must be able to run on any track. The key of course is making sure that the wheels and ALL the trackwork is exactly to the standard (within the allowed tolerances). Given that Heckmondwike was built in the days when track was made on rivetted sleeper, it might have been that not all of it conformed exactly to the standard. When Pulborough was in its early days on the exhibition circuit things did fall off. Two members spent a long time checking literally every inch of the trackwork to make sure that it was in gauge and clearances were correct and making adjustments where required. Rivetted sleepers were used so this was easy to do. After this running was much better.

If something like exactoscale track and turnouts are used, it is likely that the trackwork will be more likely to conform to the standards. Standards are common in engineering. If we buy a 6BA bolt in one place and a 6BA nut in another place we rightly expect them to fit which they will do if they are made to the correct standard for the thread form. It is no different in our modelling.

Terry Bendall

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

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Paul Townsend » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:04 am

martin goodall wrote:
<snipped>This confirms the view I have always held - it's "horses for courses". Rolling stock (of any scale or gauge) runs best on the layout for which it was built or for which it was adapted.

It is a fallacy to suppose that any P4 rolling stock should be able to run on any P4 layout. We proved that on Heckmondwike more than 35 years ago - stock from other layouts lent for use on Heckmondwike had to be tweaked in various ways before it could be relied upon to run smoothly on that layout.


Heretic!
I hope you weren't invited to Ash's fireworks or I will have to personally tie you to the stake.

While I didn't have your experience of Heckmondwyke I can't let you get away with this. Terry has already said most of what I would have done.

However there is this strange implication that early Brooke-Smith rivetted track may be out of gauge...rubbish.
Unless of course it was built before proper gauges were available.

I don't see why plastic chaired track will be any more accurate than rivets and soldered.

THE WHOLE POINT of P4 is standards and interoperability. If we lose faith in this we may as well go back to OO. Rant suspended!

Anyway your stock and several other friends' runs OK on Highbridge.

I note that neither Tim or yourself commented on the jumping that was seen...was the conclusion that it was solely due to a poor BB joint alignment and so temporary...I got distracted by another conversation....that is the trouble with BS4 meets...too many interesting simultaneous threads!

User avatar
jim s-w
Posts: 2186
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby jim s-w » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:46 am

With Terry on this one.

With my layout being years away from completion I have done loads of shows with my stock on Amlwch and Moor St. If stock runs on one it will run on the other, if it doesnt it wont. Simples

Cheers

Jim
Jim Smith-Wright

http://www.p4newstreet.com

Over thinking often leads to under doing!

User avatar
iak
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:28 am

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby iak » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:48 am

Whatever happened to just enjoying playing trains.... :D :thumb :shock: ;) :?:
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/

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

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Noel » Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:27 am

Playing trains is a bit like playing bridge - half the fun is in discussing who should have, or should not have, done something or other ... From time to time you even learn something as a result :D.
Regards
Noel

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

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby martin goodall » Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:55 am

Oh, I do enjoy this! (I was thinking of asking my wife for a Kenwod Chef for Christmas, so that I can stir it more vigorously, but my old wooden spoon still seems to be quite effective.)

I am not suggesting that stock will necessarily fall off on a layout for which it was not built, but it does need some adjustment to the lcoal peculiarities of the track in order to run well. Alternatively, the track needs tweaking.

The track on Burford has been fettled up and the stock has been adjusted so that running is pretty well perfect nowadays. But (as Noel pointed out) there was a bit of bumping and jumping with this same stock through some of the track formations on Clutton, although all the EM-wheeled stock stayed on.

I can confirm that Brook Smith track, even if carefully built with P4 gauges, can be slightly inaccurate, and needs checking with a roller gauge, and minor adustment to iron out tight spots or other discrepancies

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

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby martin goodall » Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:22 pm

paultownsend wrote:I don't see why plastic chaired track will be any more accurate than rivets and soldered.


I forgot to pick up on this point, which Paul mentioned in passing.

I am convinced that track which is both plastic chaired and plastic sleepered is definitely NOT more accurate than soldered construction. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that it is all too liable to go out of gauge (at least if plastic sleepered). One layout exhibitor at Scaleforum was heard to say that they would never use plastic sleepered track again (after laying and then relaying the layout with two different makes of currently produced plastic-sleepered track, and still getting multiple derailments).

Soldered construction is far more reliable, and remains infinitely adjustable with a soldering iron until, having satisfied yourself that it is exactly right, you then add the cosmetic chairs.

User avatar
Russ Elliott
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Russ Elliott » Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:34 pm

martin goodall wrote:Soldered construction is far more reliable, and remains infinitely adjustable with a soldering iron until, having satisfied yourself that it is exactly right, you then add the cosmetic chairs.

I'm with you on your basic message, Martin, but to be fair to the plastic fans, the reality of the above is that 'exactly right' is often not discovered until sometime after ply and rivet stuff has been chaired! So some chairs have to come off, and then get let lost or damaged, and then put back again after the requisite solder tweaking. (Not a problem of course, just wanted to get the tweaking thing into perspective.)

I suspect your reported Scaleforum layout exhibitor cussing at plastic stuff was perhaps thinking less of the technology itself and thinking more about the potential problems of rail height differentials produced when mixing 'brands'. Again, to be fair, that can happen when attempting to mix ply 'n rivet with copperclad interfaces, or when interfacing bullhead with flatbottom rail. Or indeed, when the rivets in the Stores get manufactured with different head thicknesses.

I think the message is "trust nothing, measure everything, and be prepared to pack or lower trackbeds according to what is being laid".

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Terry Bendall » Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:29 pm

martin goodall wrote:I am convinced that track which is both plastic chaired and plastic sleepered is definitely NOT more accurate than soldered construction. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that it is all too liable to go out of gauge (at least if plastic sleepered).


Well it may do Martin and perhaps it depends on which make of plastic track is being used. All I can say is that on Ravenscroft Sidings, where Exactoscale track has been used throughout, there have not been any problems with track going out of gauge, or not being within gauge to start with. The layout was built in 2008 and lives in my workshop in the garden - a wooden building, with insulation, but which still suffers from extremes of temperature.

Terry Bendall

User avatar
MarkS
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:15 am

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby MarkS » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:04 pm

Many (30?) years ago I visited a large HO layout in Montreal, housed under the CN mainline leading out of Central Station. It was a huge layout, the mainline being hundreds of feet long.
see - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvI8sZaWlKQ&feature=plcp to get an idea...

One thing that stood out was the club rule that every piece of rolling stock had to pass an extensive testing protocol to make sure it met minimum standards before it was allowed on the layout.
Checking of back to backs, weight, coupler height/function, a run through a test track etc., was completed and a card was produced for each piece of stock showing results and used as a maintenance record thereafter.

How many of us do that?

We have our P4 standards, but do we make sure we adhere to them every time we move our stock to another layout?
Cheers,

Mark.
"In the end, when all is said and done, more will have been said than done..."

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Will L » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:04 pm

Now here's a turn up for the book, I'm about to agree with Martin.

I admire your certainty Terry, Paul and Jim, but I regret that you have forgotten something. That something is cant. Strangely, the very suggestion this isn't true may itself be cant, but all that proves is that you shouldn't spend too much time reading dictionaries!

Cant, in this instance, being a measure of the difference in hight between the two rail heads. The ability of stock to stay on the track is as much dependant on your stocks ability to deal with changes in cant, as it is on gauge and back to back tolerances. On the real thing, there are defined tolerances for track cant and stocks ability to deal with it. There are very few people in the model railway world who have considered measuring the degree of cant and the rate of change, or measuring how much of this a given vehicle can deal with. Until you have got as good a grip on cant as you have on trying to achieve other track standards, you can't even theoretically guarantee interoperability.

I did try to raise this as an issue once before, but it generated very little interest. See http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1132

So that's the theory, but even assuming you have got to grips with cant, I still feel there are practical issues, as well as religious and linguistic one's. Sorry I've been at the dictionary again.

The truth is that we only really start to find most of our deviations from the true track and wheel standards when we start to operate trains. Then we fix what we find until we achieve reliability. But this process doesn't necessarily produce perfect adherence to the standards, in practice it produces adherence to a local subtle variant. So given two layouts which both operate perfectly, you still can't absolutely guarantee interoperability of stock.

Will

Oh by the way, I wouldn't want anybody to run away with the idea that I think running a slightly over gauge EM railway is any sort of acceptable answer. One can't take agreeing with Martin too far.

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

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Tim V » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:34 pm

I agree Will. I have one of the Mike Clark Cant detectors, which sees regular use, a recommended buy.

Also used a lot these days is a Mint gauge, now available from stores.

And by the way, some of the track on Clutton is over 20 years old. It was interesting when I relaid some of the oldest track recently, there was a definite flat on top of the rails, probably caused by track cleaning rubbers. Also the track bed was very up and down, possibly caused by excessive pressure on the track rubbers. Nowadays, abrasive forms of track cleaning are forbidden (when I am looking), only wiping with cotton buds and cleaning fluid is allowed. Why do I bring this up? Cant again, as the rails are all over the place - no longer level to each other. It was this that caused me to rebuild the end of the layout. I am pleased to say that extensive testing tonight has not resulted in any derailments.

And as for Martin's stock bumping over the pointwork? I didn't mention it as Martin's claim was that EM flanges reduce/eliminate derailments. He made no claims about bumping - so cannot be criticised for it :D
Tim V
(Not all railways in Somerset went to Dorset)

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Terry Bendall » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:35 am

Will L wrote:I regret that you have forgotten something. That something is cant.


I agree with that Will. Track should be flat and level along the length of the rails and across the rails, unless of course you want super elevation on curves. Cant can be, and often is a cause, of derailments but assuming that there is no cant, and all other things are correct, stock should not fall off.

Will L wrote:But this process doesn't necessarily produce perfect adherence to the standards,
I agree, but if you DO work to the standards it will help.

Will L wrote: you still can't absolutely guarantee interoperability of stock.
No you cannot guarentee it but keeping to the standards makes it more likely that there will be interoperability of stock. ;)

Tim V wrote:Also used a lot these days is a Mint gauge, now available from stores.


Devised by Roger Sanders after he finished the checking of Pulborough as described earlier in this post. One of the most useful items in the tool kit.

Terry Bendall

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

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Paul Townsend » Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:28 am

Terry Bendall wrote:
<Multisnip> That something is cant.
a Mint gauge, now available from stores.

Devised by Roger Sanders after he finished the checking of Pulborough as described earlier in this post. One of the most useful items in the tool kit.

Terry Bendall


Confession time...8-}

Highbridge track is 32 years old with ply/rivet and no chairs beyond the original big solder joints fashionable then.

About the time the Mint and MC's cant gauges came out ( >5years ago?) I was troubled by a number of areas of track where derailments were too often and no obvious causes. Probably about 1 in 10 passes of some stock only would hit the ballast.
Those two tools were applied rigorously and various adjustments made, especially Gauge Widening through tricky point-blades a la Russ Elliott recipe on CLAG website. Everything has been much more reliable since, including stock visitors and even Martins EM'd versions ;)

I still have one baseboard joint that is less than perfect on the S&D Burnham fiddle yard approach and my only excuse is that access is da*&^d hard!

So others' recommendations are endorsed here.

Does Mr Mint see this?
Can anyone provide a PM address for him?

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Terry Bendall » Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:24 am

paultownsend wrote:Does Mr Mint see this?


I am not sure but since Roger is a long standing friend I will make sure that he knows.

Terry Bendall

User avatar
jim s-w
Posts: 2186
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby jim s-w » Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:58 am

Will L wrote:Now here's a turn up for the book, I'm about to agree with Martin.

I admire your certainty Terry, Paul and Jim, but I regret that you have forgotten something. That something is cant. Strangely, the very suggestion this isn't true may itself be cant, but all that proves is that you shouldn't spend too much time reading dictionaries!


Very true Will but that assumes that a layouts stock has been adapted to cope with the track rather than ensuring the track is correct in the first place.

One day in the distant future i hope you will be able to bring one of your lovely engines and something for it to pull for a trundle round my train set. If you cant get it all the way round i'll donate a tenner to a charity of your choice 8-)

Jim
Jim Smith-Wright

http://www.p4newstreet.com

Over thinking often leads to under doing!

User avatar
LesGros
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:05 pm

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby LesGros » Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:29 am

Jim S-W wrote:

...Very true Will but that assumes that a layouts stock has been adapted to cope with the track rather than ensuring the track is correct in the first place...


I have been following these threads with great interest. As a beginner to the art, and about to commence [at long last] building a layout in P4. The lesson(s) that I have taken to heart from Will, Terry, Paul, Jim, Keith,Tim, Russ, and a few others, is fairly straighforward.
First and foremost, build the track accurately to the standard gauges; beware narrowing of the Gauge at the point blades [use joggle or set]. Test the track and joints with a Mint. Use gauge widening where radii less than 120cm; deal with problems as they arise.
Secondly, Build/ convert rolling stock with particular care that all that should be square is actually square.
Finally, monitor the performance of stock, and keep a log of all derailments [which vehicle, where, pulled or pushed, direction of travel]; Thus, a pattern is likely to emerge with which to diagnose any persistant problems.

I will be happy to be advised if I have erred, or missed out anything important.

My thanks to those named above.
LesG

The man who never made a mistake
never made anything useful

User avatar
Ian Everett
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Ian Everett » Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:21 am

Terry Bendall wrote:I agree with that Will. Track should be flat and level along the length of the rails and across the rails, unless of course you want super elevation on curves. Cant can be, and often is a cause, of derailments but assuming that there is no cant, and all other things are correct, stock should not fall off.
Terry Bendall


In my case I sometimes think that "can't" is the reason but hey-ho...

One factor which might preclude stock built properly to P4 specs running on a layout built to P4 specs is small-radius curves. I defy anyone to run anything bigger than an 0-4-0 round Humber Dock's curves/corners!

In a more normal situation it is still likely that stock built to work on large radius curves might object to say 42" radius curves. Is there a standard for gauge widening? I confess I tend to simply widen the gauge until my 0-8-0's flanges don't climb the rail.

Ian

User avatar
Paul Willis
Forum Team
Posts: 3033
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Paul Willis » Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:07 pm

clecklewyke wrote:
In a more normal situation it is still likely that stock built to work on large radius curves might object to say 42" radius curves. Is there a standard for gauge widening? I confess I tend to simply widen the gauge until my 0-8-0's flanges don't climb the rail.

Ian, if it works for you...

There is a standard, and you will find it in a Society Digest sheet. As a matter of fact, any finescale modeller can find it, as it's in the public area of the Society website:
[url]
http://scalefour.org/downloads/P4-standards.pdf[/url]

"Use of gauge widening

Gauge widening should not be applied to any sections of pointwork where CG, CF or BC dimensions are specified.

Where applied to non-pointwork curves, prototype gauge widening at 10 chains radius is 0.25in, at 7 chains radius is 0.5in, and at 5½ chains radius is 0.75in maximum. (In 4mm scale, 1 chain is equal to
264mm, or approximately 10½in.) In P4, where BB max is less than the 4mm scale equivalent, and here adequate sideplay can usually be given to inner axles, gauge widening should not be necessary unless using long-wheelbase stock around sharp curves.

Where required, check rails should be set from the outer rail of a curve, using a CG gauge (in the same manner as the CG gauge is used in turnout construction), and gauge widening should be applied only to the inner running rail if wheelsets are still found to be binding. "

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

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Will L » Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:18 pm

jim s-w wrote:[Very true Will but that assumes that a layouts stock has been adapted to cope with the track rather than ensuring the track is correct in the first place.

One day in the distant future i hope you will be able to bring one of your lovely engines and something for it to pull for a trundle round my train set. If you cant get it all the way round i'll donate a tenner to a charity of your choice 8-)

Jim


It is true that if you manage to build and maintain your track billiard table flat, cant ceases to be an issue, but I do have to say getting you track truly flat is quite an achievement, and keeping it that way isn't always that easy either. Just erecting your layout on somebody else's floor can have an interesting effect. Then you find there are people who design in the cant by insisting on building their curves with super elevation! On Knutsford the super elevation on the up line winds out rather quicker on entry to the bridge, just before the platform, than it does else where on the layout.
Knutsford cant.jpg

This finds out any vehicle, typically coaches, which can't cant. (This an old view of Knutsford taken during construction)

As for getting one of my trains round your train set, I expect your money's safe, if only because they have to deal with the above, but I'm prepared to put my own tenner on the probability that if we tried all the stock we use on Knutsford, we'd find at least one vehicle that doesn't cause trouble on on it's home ground that does find somewhere In New Street it objects too. That should ensure a tenner donation gets made one way or the other.

Will
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
jim s-w
Posts: 2186
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby jim s-w » Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:26 pm

:)

Its worth pointing out if you counted the fiddleyard it would take a train a several hours to go everywhere.

Cheers

Jim
Jim Smith-Wright

http://www.p4newstreet.com

Over thinking often leads to under doing!

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Will L » Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:25 pm

Going to be a long session then!

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: EM Flanges on Clutton

Postby Terry Bendall » Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:44 am

LesGros wrote:As a beginner to the art, and about to commence [at long last] building a layout in P4 ...


Excellent news Les, and when it is finished I know an exhibition that would be delighted to have you along, if you want to and can make the journey. ;)

LesGros wrote:I will be happy to be advised if I have erred, or missed out anything important.


I reckon you have got things right, but one more thing, have fun and enjoy yourself. :D

Terry Bendall


Return to “Bristol”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests