Beer and Buckjumpers

[Paul Willis]

I am still puzzled by the differing views one hears on the use of steel rail. I have never used anything other than N/S rail, but I am very interested in the possibility of using steel rail on a future layout.

There are strong claims in favour of steel rail - better rail-to-wheel contact (and thus traction), better current collection, less rail cleaning required, etc. etc. Yet one does come across people who have used steel rail and vow 'never again'. But it is difficult to pin them down as to precisely why they say this. Rust is occasionally cited as a problem, but other users of steel rail seem never to have had a problem with it. What else can 'go wrong' with steel rail which makes some of its users reluctant to use it again?

Can one of those modellers who have had problems with steel rail explain for the enlightenment of the rest of us what the down-side of using steel rail is precisely.

Hi Martin,

The only reason that I'm doing it is the appearance. Nothing looks like more like steel than steel, and I really don't like the yellowish tint to nickel silver. That said, the next project (a little 4' x 2' number of which more later) will be done in N/S as I still have a quantity to use up, and the track will mostly be buried in cobbles and industrial grunge...

Other than the appearance, steel is more of a sod to work and solder, but no one ever said that this modelling lark was easy

Flymo

[Paul Willis]

For track-laying adhesive I recommend 'Everflex' external frame sealant. Acrylic based, permanently flexible, and takes paint well. Just a thin skin is all that's needed. Even sticks to polycarbonate.

Zeb.

I may well give that a try. I've a whole suite of sealants in the DIY stores in the garage, and I'm sure that I have some frame sealant in there. It's brown coloured as well, so should be less obtrusive if any ballast lifts.

Flymo

[Paul Willis]

Top tip...

When you have tried *several* times to insert a bitmap (.bmp) image into a Templot background, and you still get a blank square labelled "* Empty Picture", when you reload the file, don't despair...

It's because although Templot allows you to navigate to where the .bmp source file is, it doesn't remember that location or actually import the image. It just (AIUI) imports the name of the file.

You need to copy the .bmp file into the Templot\shape-files folder for it to find it again.

This little undocumented (AFAIK) "feature" has cost me an hour in wasted time this evening. It was only thanks to the good advice of Morgan Gilbert at Scaleforum that I remembered where I might be going wrong. I've searched, and I can't find anything on the Templot site that explains this...

Anyway, the end result is this:

Templot screen 1 (Large).jpg

Onwards and upwards!

Flymo

[frizby]

http://www.templot.com/martweb/gs_bgshape.htm

[Paul Willis]

http://www.templot.com/martweb/gs_bgshape.htm

Hi Andy,

thanks for the link. I actually had that page of the Templot Companion open on my second monitor whilst I went through several cycles of insert, redimension, align, check, save, re-open...lose all the work that you've done

Unless I've looked straight through it, then I don't believe that it says anywhere on the page that the .bmp file has to be in the same file as the .bgs file is saved.

In my case, I keep prototype trackplans, sketches, etc in a separate folder.

To use a comparison, if I was in a word processor, and did <Insert Image> then it would insert a copy of the image into the document, and it wouldn't matter where the original was from. Similar, even if I inserted an image into this page, it would do the same. I could even move or delete the original, and it wouldn't matter.

But as Martin keeps telling us, Templot doesn't work like "normal" programs :-/

Thanks for the pointer anyway,
Flymo

[grovenor-2685]

For a picture shape, the load file dialog will then appear, so that you can select a bitmap image (.bmp file) to be loaded into this picture shape.

If you save this bitmap image file in the same folder as your .bgs shape file containing the picture shape (usually C:\TEMPLOT\SHAPE-FILES\), it will be automatically loaded into the picture shape whenever the shape file is reloaded.

About halfway down the page, and

Remember to save your shapes before you quit Templot if you will need them again. They are saved separately from your template data files so that you can start a fresh track design with your existing baseboard outlines.

a bit further down.
Are about the best hints you get.
Regards
Keith

[Paul Willis]

For a picture shape, the load file dialog will then appear, so that you can select a bitmap image (.bmp file) to be loaded into this picture shape.

If you save this bitmap image file in the same folder as your .bgs shape file containing the picture shape (usually C:\TEMPLOT\SHAPE-FILES\), it will be automatically loaded into the picture shape whenever the shape file is reloaded.

About halfway down the page, and

Ah... I wonder if Martin is reall Martijn, and has Dutch parents...

I spent some time last week explaining to the Dutch financial services regulator that in the Rulebook that they are currently writing (which will be published only in English, interestingly enough) the difference between "should" and "must". If you're writing rules to be obeyed, then you don't make a requirement permissive, in the same way that if you're writing software instructions, it's not helpful to make something sound optional.

Thanks Keith - I had read that, and not understood the deeper consequences of it.

Remember to save your shapes before you quit Templot if you will need them again. They are saved separately from your template data files so that you can start a fresh track design with your existing baseboard outlines.

a bit further down.
Are about the best hints you get.

And I was actually using "Save All" after the first couple of attempts were lost. That's what was getting particularly frustrating, as i couldn't work out whether it was the word "Save" or the word "All" that was malfunctioning :-/

Templot really is a black art!

Flymo

[martin goodall]

This only confirms my preference for relying on a set of railway curves and the Versine Theorem (which, in case you had forgotten, is explained in the S4 Digest) and, of course, you will also need a pocket calculator for doing the fairly simple sums. I still think this is quicker than messing about with Templot, especially when you take into account the steep learning curve which most people seem to encounter when getting to grips with the program.

I take my hat off to Martin Wynne for devising a very sophisticated piece of software, but I have never forgotten something I read in a LAMSAC report over 30 years ago to the effect that no matter how clever computer programs become, there will always be some jobs which can be performed more quickly and more easily with a pencil and paper. It is a point which IT professionals often seem to overlook in their bid to computerise everything in sight. (That last jibe was aimed not at Martin Wynne but at the IT people in large organisations who would try to computerise the wheel if they could find a way of doing so.)

[Paul Willis]

Having decided that I'm doing a quick <hah!> small layout, inspired by Horsley Bank at Scaleforum, I am putting some ideas together. Following the "Beer & Buckjumpers" theme, then it will be of part of a maltings/brewery complex. I've yet to draw up the full trackplan on Templot, but a list of desirable features to include (in no particular order) is:


- wagon turntable into a building, a la Snape Maltings

- GER branch line on embankment in background as part of backdrop

- wharf, with interlaced track for loading

- engine shed triangle, as at Bass Brewery, Burton

- possible Spitalfields style coaling stage

- coal unloading area for brewery

- bay window over a loading bay (I have a particular picture in mind)

- models of my former neighbour's house which was a maltster's house, and my old house (part of a maltings) if there is space.


And I need to fit all of that in 4' by 2'...

Flymo

[Paul Willis]

Sometimes you just need to pick up a soldering iron...

Part of the demo board that I'm building has copperclad track in it, just to show how you don't need to go for the full P4TrackCo stuff (excellent as it is) when you're "behind the scenes". So five minutes with a strip of copperclad, a length of nickel silver rail, and voila!

Copper clad 001 (Large).jpg

Sorted!

[craig_whilding]

If you glue that down and aren't adding anymore sleepers then make sure you do so in a warm room, i've seen what happens if you do that sort of thing in a cold room and bring it to an exhibition!

[Paul Willis]

If you glue that down and aren't adding anymore sleepers then make sure you do so in a warm room, i've seen what happens if you do that sort of thing in a cold room and bring it to an exhibition!

Noted! The demo board is housed in my study, so it never gets too cold to work on (although it's another two weeks before the double glazing goes in!) and I'm only able to do modelling in the evenings after work at the moment.

I probably won't get chance to fix it tonight, but I'll choose a warm temperature to do it in...

[Mark Tatlow]

If you glue that down and aren't adding anymore sleepers then make sure you do so in a warm room, i've seen what happens if you do that sort of thing in a cold room and bring it to an exhibition!

On my layout I beleive!

I would echo the advice though.

[Paul Willis]

Here's a thought - prior to building ply and rivet track, do you actually clean the foot of the rail?

The reason for asking is that I've just done that, and wondered why I'd never done it before. I'm making up some lengths of 36" curved track for my demo board. I plucked a length of nickel silver rail from the tube where it's kept, and did as I always do - burnish both sides of the rail with a glass fibre brush to get rid of the crud so that it is clean for soldering.

And then I looked at the foot of the rail... The flat surface, that I'm actually hoping the solder paint will bond to, was just as tarnished as the sides. So I whizzed the brush along that as well, and now all is bright and shiny.

Hopefully it improved the strength of the track rather than just having to rely on solder joints to the web of the rail. I thought that I'd mention it, as I can't recall anyone mentioning it specifically before. Of course, you'll now better and point me to a dozen references

[grovenor-2685]

Here's a thought - prior to building ply and rivet track, do you actually clean the foot of the rail?

Certainly do, as you say, that's where we want the solder to take, if the solder is getting into the web then the paint was overdone. (it does happen to me as well )

I do know people who tin the bottom of the rail as well, because they refuse to use solder paint, but IMHO it then needs more effort to make sure the rail is sitting down properly on each rivet. But it works for them

Regards
Keith

[martin goodall]

I find that when nickel-silver rail comes out of the tube, it has some sort of oil or grease on it, so I wipe it over with lighter fuel to remove this, but I have never resorted to mechancial/abrasive cleaning.

I have always avoided pre-tinning either the under-side of rail or the brass rivets on the basis that this might prevent the rail sitting down properly on the rivets.

[Paul Willis]

A friend gently chided me this weekend about the absence of blog updates. He has a point - when I'm modelling, I tend not to think of the computer, and when I'm sorting out things on the computer, I don't get any modelling done! The excuses are not relevant though - I should just get on and do both!

There has been progress in the last couple of weeks though. The Scalefour Society stand was attending the East Ham Finescale Show, thanks to time dedicated to by Terry Bendall, Mike Ainsworth and Bob Bourne. However I helped out on Sunday, and I was determined to take the demo board along. There were three reasons for building this set of track.

Firstly was to proved that after a few years away from active modelling, that I could still build track that worked! Well, subject to wiring it all up, I think that I succeeded in this, and I certainly learned a few lessons of what NOT to do. More on these in a separate post...

Secondly was to give myself a small test-track that was more than a rolling road and 12" of straight track.

And thirdly, and the reason for the diversity of track types on it was to show to people new to P4 modelling that there were now a whole range of track solutions available, ranging from the "shake the box" kit that is almost like RTR (but not quite!) to the more traditional ways that are still valid.

So I set myself the goal of finishing the tracklaying in time for EHFS. I managed that during the week beforehand, and was able to take the completed board along with me. This is the track fully laid:

Demo board finished 001.jpg

The diagram beside it is the key to the actual types of construction. This will be smartened up when I have learned enough Templot to re-draw the board using that software. The next shot is down the length of the board, showing what are hopefully some flowing curves.

Demo board finished 002.jpg

And finally, just to show the reason for taking the time and modelling effort of modelling to P4, an A5 turnout alongside a similar dimensioned OO Peco turnout.

Demo board finished 005.jpg

The next steps are the wiring and point motors...

[John Bateson]

and that last picture should go with the one with the P4 and 00 wheels next to each other to illustrate why so many people now model to P4 standards!
John

[martin goodall]

and that last picture should go with the one with the P4 and 00 wheels next to each other to illustrate why so many people now model to P4 standards!
John

That would depend which 00 wheels you use to illustrate the point. In my 'Black Museum' (an old shoe box which I have never got around to chucking away) I have some Tri-ang wagon wheels from the mid-50s which have to be seen to be believed, and Lima also produced some real horrors as late as the 1980s. However, there are some much finer-profiled 00 wheels around nowadays. Even the RTR wheels from Hornby and Bachmann are a great improvement on what went before. And, of course, some of the manufacturers who supply us with P4 wheels also supply some finescale 00 wheels which are very acceptable in visual terms.

Peco Streamine track using Code 100 rail is a very easy target to compare unfavourably with P4 track, but finescale 00 track built with Code 75 rail and SMP or C&L sleepers and chairs can look very convincing. So maybe we should not be so ready to sneer at 00 nowadays. Quite frankly, if I were starting again completely from scratch, I would regard modern finescale 00 as a definite option. I don't think we have any excuse for complacency or smugness about modelling in P4.

[Paul Willis]

Peco Streamine track using Code 100 rail is a very easy target to compare unfavourably with P4 track, but finescale 00 track built with Code 75 rail and SMP or C&L sleepers and chairs can look very convincing. So maybe we should not be so ready to sneer at 00 nowadays. Quite frankly, if I were starting again completely from scratch, I would regard modern finescale 00 as a definite option. I don't think we have any excuse for complacency or smugness about modelling in P4.

Hi Martin,

There is no smugness or superiority intended in putting down that piece of OO track. It is simply to illustrate one of the most common questions that we get on the Society stand - so what's the difference with OO?

The couple of pieces of track were ones that I picked up from one of the box-shifters at the Stafford show last year. I've got no idea where the very "finest" finescale RTR OO track would be these days. I just know that "when I were a lad" Peco Streamline was viewed as about as good as it got.

I could (if I borrowed a set of gauges) knock up some OO track in copperclad, or C&L. However, if you're investing the time in doing that, then to use the old argument you might as well build it to 18.83. That is in terms of the track aspect anyway. Obviously RTR locomotives are a whole different game, but equally that is why the importance of drop-in wheelsets and quick conversions has risen so much in the EM/P4 world in recent years.

Flymo

[martin goodall]

I just know that "when I were a lad" Peco Streamline was viewed as about as good as it got.

When I, too, were a lad, I used Peco Streamline track, and it was largely my expriences in trying to run a wide variety of frankly incompatible wheel profiles on that track in the late 1960s-early 1970s that drove me to adopt 'finescale' standards, and to make the leap directly to P4, rather than going via 'finescale 00' or EM on the way. Back in the early 70s, 'finescale 00' such as it was then, and also EM at that time, were nowhere near as precise in their engineering as P4.

However, things have moved on considerably in the hobby since then, and it is fair to say that the example set by P4 has had a significant effect on 4mm scale modelling generally. The irony is that this has brought modern-day finescale 00 and EM significantly closer to the sort of standards to which we have always aspired. It is this which makes both finescale 00 and EM realistic options for today's 4mm scale modeller, whereas back in the early 1970s (and for some time afterwards) there was nothing anywhere near P4 in accuracy and reliability.

That is why I suggest that we can no longer feel quite so superior as we undoubtedly did 30 or more years ago, and why a comparison between P4 track and the latest finescale 00 track, such as that from C&L or SMP is far less unfavourable to 00 than a comparison with old-fashioned Peco Streamline Code 100 track.

[Paul Willis]

I just know that "when I were a lad" Peco Streamline was viewed as about as good as it got.

That is why I suggest that we can no longer feel quite so superior as we undoubtedly did 30 or more years ago, and why a comparison between P4 track and the latest finescale 00 track, such as that from C&L or SMP is far less unfavourable to 00 than a comparison with old-fashioned Peco Streamline Code 100 track.

Hi Martin,

I believe that you overlooked the point that I was making, which was the valid comparison of handbuilt track with RTR components. I don't believe that either C&L or SMP make RTR track, so of course if you're hand-building OO track anyway of course you can do it to finer standards, as some modellers indeed did 30 years ago.

A person that is afraid of handbuilding track in P4 would still be afraid of handbuilding track in OO, and vice versa. There are several modellers currently on RMWeb that have realised that as they were building finescale track in OO, they might as well go the whole hog and model P4 - and they have!

The legitimate comparison that I'm trying to make, rather than red herrings, is between handbuilt track and the best of the RTR track systems. Do you know what is currently the best of breed for "out of the box"?

Cheers
Flymo

[martin goodall]

I am not sure that putting hand-built track in any scale or gauge against a ready-to-lay product (particularly one which was designed and manufactured to 'universal' standards) is really a fair comparison, especially if the hand-built track was assembled by the Brook Smith method (as mine is, and as the example which was shown in the photo is).

I entirely agree that a person who is afraid of handbuilding track in P4 would still be afraid of handbuilding track in OO, and vice versa. But what the punter wants to know is what's the difference in appearance, and in that case you should really compare (say) C&L 00 track with C&L P4 track. The design and manufacture of the components is the same. They are of the same high quality. The only diference is the track gauge, and the clearances through the flangeways. Now, I accept that some people set a lot of store by this, but seen obliquely (at a normal viewing angle on a layout) there is not much to choose between them, especially when ballasted and weathered, etc. and (using modern finescale 00 wheels) the running qualities are likely to be very similar.

In terms of track-building (taken by itself) there is clearly no difference in assembling track from C&L components in 00 or P4. That might seem to be an argument for going the whole hog and modelling in P4, but it overlooks the extra work of converting rolling stock to run on P4 or building kits instead of using RTR models. I am far too committed to 18.83mm gauge in terms of completed models to want now to change to anything else, but I long ago lost my missionary zeal, and would no longer claim any significant superiority for P4 over finescale models in the other 4mm gauges.

[LesGros]

Flymo,
Personally, I agree with you that placing RTR peco track next to P4 handbuilt is a fair comparison. That appears to be the whole point of the exercise. But I would agree with Martin that it would also be a good idea to display a selection of P4 and OO wheels, standard and finescale and, perhaps Romfords too; all, of course, suitably labelled.

Having met you at Scalefour North and followed your posts, you come across as enthusiastic about your modelling, and willing to share your experience; In my view, commendably so. I do not see you as a zealot. So I think it a bit unfair of Martin to suggest that you are in any way guilty of the "missionary zeal" apparently in evidence 30 years ago.

I think it continues to be right for the Scalefour Society to inform and encourage finescale modelling, for those with the desire and skill to do so. It is also desirable to inform newcomers so that they may make intelligent choices about which scale and gauge to model. Besides, if the intention is, primarily, to emulate traffic systems, and run trains, then modelling at less than finescale is an equally valid choice and likely be much quicker to achieve with standard RTR kit.

regards,

[David Thorpe]

I think it continues to be right for the Scalefour Society to inform and encourage finescale modelling, for those with the desire and skill to do so. It is also desirable to inform newcomers so that they may make intelligent choices

I think it should also, in all fairness, be pointed out that working in P4 is not easy - in fact, it's pretty difficult and if I persevere with P4 I reckon it's going to take me a long time to produce even a modest working layout that runs properly, taking into the account the fact that, being self employed, I also work more than full time! Is it really fair to say, for example, that "If you decide to go down the finescale path and already do a fair amount of construction work yourself, then modelling in P4 is now no more difficult than finescale OO or EM"?

I'd be quite interested to know how many people on this forum have actually built in P4 even a "modest working layout that runs properly" or how many, on the other hand, basically confine themselves to building locos and rolling stock?

DT