EM wheels on 18.83mm track

[John Fitton]

This topic is boring and getting really personal, and as I see has as much to do with P4 as a discussion on how to run Trix Twin trains on streamline track.

Could the moderators see a way to assign all this discussion to another forum? Please.

John Fitton

[John McAleely]

This topic is boring and getting really personal, and as I see has as much to do with P4 as a discussion on how to run Trix Twin trains on streamline track.

Could the moderators see a way to assign all this discussion to another forum? Please.

John Fitton

Can I note that as a moderator (de facto), I agree this seems to have moved into circular mud slinging that is too personal for my taste. I feel it's degenerated from something close to trolling which I feel is against the general spirit of this forum.

There have been nuggets of useful data along the way, and I do have a higher-than-in-person filter for behaviour on the internet. It sadly seems to be a necessary fact of life. As such, I've not been moved to take action.

I also feel the blunt technological tools available to me are unlikely to have much effect on a conversation spanning three threads here, and at least one other forum.

Once this one has talked itself out, I'll review it for division into subthreads - that sort of thing is something I enjoy on quiet Sunday mornings with not much in the news, but a desire on my part to linger over coffee. I will not enjoy revisiting this thread.

I will repeat (at the risk of sounding a little grand) my unacknowledged request for martin goodall to refrain from cross posting in future. It is something I have been encouraged to believe is rude, for what I consider are good reasons. I think there are plenty of other people on the set of these threads who are choosing to address the man, rather than the argument (on both sides, natch), and that's unwelcome too.

I hope I only need to patiently wait for this topic to talk itself out. I've seen enough interventions of this sort on threads like this, to not actually hold out much hope.

[Philbax]

I agree but let's not loose sight of our humour and passions

http://captiongenerator.com/25206/Hitle ... ournal-234

[John McAleely]

I think someone needs to google the meaning of cross posting.

[MickRalph]

I have done so and I am no wiser as to the problem to which you are referring. If you mean that Martin should not post the same message here and on RMWeb, why not? There will be people who see only the message in one forum and presumably only S4 members can see the messages in this forum. OK, some see the message in both fora, but the message is relevant to both. Have I misunderstood?

Mick

[Martin Wynne]

I have done so and I am no wiser as to the problem to which you are referring.

I'm also none the wiser. In fact Mick anyone can read it here (good show for the Scalefour Society, I wish other societies would do the same) but only members can post replies. The replies on here will be different from the ones on RMweb, so I'm puzzled what the problem is?

I made my original post which started this topic in three places, so presumably that's even worse? (Here, RMweb, and Templot Club). There are plenty of others I might have posted it and may still do so (Western Thunder, Modellers United, Your Model Railway, Finescale Workshop, ...). Not everyone is a member of all of them, but those that are can simply skip over it if they have already seen it elsewhere. If you join lots of forums* it's obvious that you should expect the same stuff to come up on several of them.

*fora in P4.

Martin.

[John McAleely]

Here are the two postings to which I refer:

viewtopic.php?p=34172#p34172
viewtopic.php?p=34123#p34123

I didn't personally feel that his posting this on RMWeb and here was inappropriate, but I did find Martin's need to post it twice here rude. As I have noted, I have a higher tolerance than some for behaviour on the internet, so chose not to mention it initially.

For the following posting to mine to be PhilBax choosing to duplicate a posting found here:

viewtopic.php?p=34588#p34588

and here:

viewtopic.php?p=34710#p34710

Drove my comment that he should perhaps consider what I'd been talking about with Martin.

[martin goodall]

I am going to commit the heinous sin of cross-posting, by repeating something I have just written on another thread in this forum (even more heinously). [Pause while all the old ladies reach for their smelling salts.]

It is simply this - If people want to go on debating this subject, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to do so.

If you don't want to read it, then all you have to do is to refrain from clicking on this title in the menu.

(It's rather like people who complain about the content of TV programmes - they could use the 'off' button, or if they have some inkling of the content beforehand, simply not switch it on in the first place. Simples!)

The discussion will eventually run its course, and will wind down of its own accord. So there is really no need for the Thought Police to intervene.

[John McAleely]

I am going to commit the heinous sin of cross-posting, by repeating something I have just written on another thread in this forum (even more heinously). [Pause while all the old ladies reach for their smelling salts.]

It is simply this - If people want to go on debating this subject, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to do so.

If you don't want to read it, then all you have to do is to refrain from clicking on this title in the menu.

(It's rather like people who complain about the content of TV programmes - they could use the 'off' button, or if they have some inkling of the content beforehand, simply not switch it on in the first place. Simples!)

The discussion will eventually run its course, and will wind down of its own accord. So there is really no need for the Thought Police to intervene.

There is a strong degree to which I agree with this. However, it is a degree. The opposite tension is that this is a common forum intended for all members of the society to enjoy, and we can reasonably expect an active cohort to read most of it. If the amount of personal sniping they need to tolerate to read that becomes too high, some of that group will drift away, and something important to me will have been lost.

The need to ignore certain threads becomes larger as the group we are in becomes larger, in my opinion (so a broadcast TV channel is a good example of a large group). I happen to believe that the size of Scalefour Forum is such that it will work best as a coherent whole.

Thank you for, by implication, calling me the Thought Police. That's a first for me.

[Edited to add: I see you've cross posted your sentiment. You have also succeeded in annoying me. I'll take that as a no to what I believed to be a polite request.]

[Martin Wynne]

Thank you for, by implication, calling me the Thought Police. That's a first for me. [Edited to add: I see you've cross posted your sentiment. You have also succeeded in annoying me]

Hi John,

The first rule of forums: Any intervention by a moderator always causes more trouble than it cures.

If there is stuff on your forum which you don't want, just delete it. Don't tell anyone.

Martin.

[John McAleely]

The first rule of forums: Any intervention by a moderator always causes more trouble than it cures.

If there is stuff on your forum which you don't want, just delete it. Don't tell anyone.

A core belief of mine here is it is not *my* forum. You're right about the stereotype of moderator intervention however.

On the other hand, broken windows (and this is one such I think) need attention.

Rock. Hard place.

[John Fitton]

The first rule of forums: Any intervention by a moderator always causes more trouble than it cures.

If there is stuff on your forum which you don't want, just delete it. Don't tell anyone.

A core belief of mine here is it is not *my* forum. You're right about the stereotype of moderator intervention however.

On the other hand, broken windows (and this is one such I think) need attention.

Rock. Hard place.

Perhaps we can wait for this one to die a slow, morbid, death! Alternatively, new posts with more wholesome topics will divert our attention away.

John Fitton

[Philbax]

Guilty as charged. Now moving on

[Simon_S]

Well, I'm half convinced by this idea so I'm going to put EM wheels on the left and P4 on the right of a wagon then see which ones derail most

[martin goodall]

[quote="John McAleely
The need to ignore certain threads becomes larger as the group we are in becomes larger, in my opinion (so a broadcast TV channel is a good example of a large group). I happen to believe that the size of Scalefour Forum is such that it will work best as a coherent whole.[/quote]

This perhaps risks going slightly off-thread, but I have always been selective in the posts I read on this forum. I simply haven't got the time to read everything. I rather assume that this applies to others, and it is why I don't object to members posting the same or similar material in more than one place, because it can't be assumed that I will necessarily see it in both places.

The same applies to posting the same material on more than one forum. I certainly saw nothing wrong with Martin Wynne's repeating on this forum his post on alternative track and wheel standards, which he had already posted on RM web. It would be wrong to assume that everyone who reads this forum also reads RM web, so I could see why he wanted to post it here too.

And does it really matter?

[John McAleely]

This perhaps risks going slightly off-thread, but I have always been selective in the posts I read on this forum. I simply haven't got the time to read everything. I rather assume that this applies to others, and it is why I don't object to members posting the same or similar material in more than one place, because it can't be assumed that I will necessarily see it in both places.

The same applies to posting the same material on more than one forum. I certainly saw nothing wrong with Martin Wynne's repeating on this forum his post on alternative track and wheel standards, which he had already posted on RM web. It would be wrong to assume that everyone who reads this forum also reads RM web, so I could see why he wanted to post it here too.

And does it really matter?

I think you are representative of a large cohort of readers of this forum, but certainly not all readers. I have plenty of evidence for both readers dipping in and out, and readers who read much of what is posted.

At no point have I suggested that posting the same thing across forums is inappropriate behaviour here, although I can well imagine that if a determined and unpleasant user abused the wider community of railway forums (or however you define the shared audience) persistently in such a fashion, they might make themselves unwelcome on some of them.

Taking your method of reading, I can see how cross posting within this forum is beneficial for some (and not for others, considering other approaches). It happens now and again, and causes no comment. However, I think any such guideline or rule should be context driven. In this case I believe it was worthy of comment, and I would remain grateful if attempts to light off some of our regular flame-bait topics are done one thread at a time (it is, after all, easier to avoid just one thread). Notice I have *not* asked to refrain from posting on the topic of EM wheels, despite my personal view of it's tedium. I believe one method people can bond as a group is over a shared sense of the topics that cause controversy.

As for whether it matters, I believe that the accretion of our rules of behaviour as a group are one of the material determinants of our long-term health. The long list of abandoned forums where moderation was either not attempted, or attempted badly, is testament to that.

I agree it's straying off topic, and having some separate threads where moderation is occasionally discussed would be a good thing. IMHO.

[grovenor-2685]

Here's a drawing showing the problem of EM flanges in S4 check rails.
http://www.oldpway.info/drawings/1900pc_pl31-32_LYR_wheel.pdf
Keith

[David Thorpe]

Well, as there's been a lot of theory but not an awful lot of practice I thought I'd try it out for myself. I have some really very old Gibson EM wheels lying around so I gave them a back to back of 17.7 and fitted them to an old kit built box van (no compensation or springing). Somewhat to my surprise, and rather to my disappointment, they seem to work perfectly well on my track, built to P4 standards using Society gauges. Visually, the extra flange depth on the EM wheels is more obvious than i thought it would be. I'll give it more rigorous testing during the next couple of days.

DT

[jayell]

regarding flange heights, FWIW I measured some wheels I have lying around.

OO coach wheels source unknown, B2B 14.24mm, dia over flange 15.66, dia over tyre 14.20, giving flange height 0.73mm
OO wagon wheels from recent Parkside Dundas kit, B2B 14.45, dia over flange 13.19, dia over tyre 12.01, flange height 0.59mm

Very Old EM coach wheels, B2B 16.29, dia over flange 15.65, dia over tyre 13.79, flange height 0.93mm
Very Old EM wagon wheels, B2B 15.65 15.65, dia over flange 13.81, dia over tyre 12.41, flange height 0.70mm

recent (Sep '14) gibson P4 wagon wheels, B2B 17.31. dia over flange 13.21, dia over tyre 12.41, flange height 0.40mm

So it would appear from my selection of wheels that P4 flanges are approx half the height of 'old' EM and 00 wheels with a modern 00 wheel closer to P4

John

[iak]

[dal-t]

This seems a good time to admit to having had my tongue firmly in my cheek when I responded to Martin W’s OP by saying the flak would be ‘interesting’. In fact I meant ‘predictable’, and much of it has been just that - well-known positions paraded with venom, and very little intention of conducting a genuine discussion. But other responses have proved surprisingly interesting (to me at least), and unexpectedly educative/enlightening. As a committed non-engineer, I’m never going to understand the full complexities of prototype wheel and track design, and frankly I don’t want to, but I do now feel I have a better grasp of the interdependencies between wheels and crossings, which I can deploy in future decision-making about my own models (which are mine and mine alone, are never going to run on anyone else’s railway, and are never going to disport themselves in public at any ‘organised’ exhibition).
I also realise that my belated move to P4, as a long-time EM modeller, had little to do with improving roadholding, or pursuing the mystic grail of ‘reliability’ (which was doing fine in EM, thank you, except for the inevitable casualties over my imperfectly built standard/narrow gauge turnouts and crossings - based on my own templates drawn up on a very elderly Mac, long before I was aware of programmes such as Templot). My move was mainly driven by the fact that I’d seen P4 wheels and thought they looked closer to scale than my EM stock (which themselves were a massive improvement over OO ‘steamrollers’); but this was aided and abetted by a certain well-known LNWR modeller telling me that it would be far easier to construct a particular aspect of the loco kit he was selling me if I switched to the wider gauge, since I do like 'easy', but accurate, locomotives. I know that will make me a confessed heretic to certain Pharisees within this Society, but so be it. Sitting here on the edge of Cathar country, I’m in rich company pursuing a heresy - and I do still have several drawers full of EM wagon wheels, which might just find themselves under some of the rolling stock yet to be constructed for my evolving ‘built with P4 gauges’ trackwork. I for one am grateful that people like Martin W are prepared to take the initiative in helping anyone with similar heretical propensities pursue them more scientifically.

[Bulwell Hall]

Truly there is nothing new in the world - the GWR were doing it long before Martin Goodall was a twinkle in anybody's eye!

As with so many other things the GWR were way in front of the others, etc., etc..............

Gerry

[martin goodall]

I was tempted to post this extract from the GWR magazine myself, having received a copy from the same source as Gerry I assume (a mutal friend).

What is interesting about this item is the reference on the next page (top right) to "a little deeper engagement between the flange and the rail". Perhaps one or other of our resident experts (you know who I mean) should write an indignant note to Mr Collett's shade, informing him that he was absolutely wrong, and that his wheels did not need any flanges at all in order to engage with the rail - their theory and calculations prove it!

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Martin,

Mr. Collett was making his flanges deeper, and no-one has any complaint about that, nor your doing the same thing on your railway.

Our entire complaint here is about your making them thicker, and Mr. Collett wasn't doing that.

regards,

Martin.

[jim s-w]

Why are people so confused by this flange touching rail thing? When they do they squeal hense the term flange squeal. You can see where this happens without a train because the wear on the rail is more towards the inner face. If you don't hear any flange squeal its because the flanges aren't touching anything. You don't need any theory, you just need to go and listen to the real thing.

Cheers

Jim