I have a operating layout suitable to test and observe locomotives, something Mark Newton does not have yet. Also Mark Newton the expert does not have locomotives with side control to make an informed comment.
Unlike Mark Newton, Greg's character is intact, and Greg's skills and experience are evident in his detailed knowledgeable responses. Mark Newton has to date not displayed any knowledge of model locomotive design.
None of Mark Newton's recent purchases of Broadway Limited locomotives have side control. They are ridged chassis locomotives like most HO models. That means the bogie has no effect on the vertical movement of the model, sprung or unsprung. If the model has a train in tow, any side control from the bogie only comes from friction on the spring which is minimal compared to the force of the train on the locomotive body. There is no visible difference. Another Mark Newton fantasy story. If you have easements and superelevation, then the side control is not needed as much. It just shows Mark does not understand what he is talking about.
There is only a difference if your model has working sprung suspension on the driving wheels. If your track is well laid you cannot objectively determine the difference between sprung models and ridged ones. The dynamic driving wheel spring travel in HO is less than 0.3mm on average HO track. The difference a sprung bogie makes on a HO model is even less noticeable. Side springs on a bogie if you get it to work in HO will only make a difference when your locomotive is running without a train. With a train the pulling force on the locomotive by the train will override any steering from your bogie because your springs on your bogies are proportionately much lighter compared to the prototype case. I have a number of locomotives with working springs on driving wheels, and I do not see any improvement in ride even though it exists. I do notice an improvement in pickup. One tank engine I own has a sprung bogie, it is done purely to improve electrical pick up on this model. It only needs to pull 3 passenger carriages on my layout, so pulling a full length train is unimportant in this case.
As far as I can se, that is irrelevant. Of over 100 locos in my collection, no more than a dozen have spring suspension or equalization. The main purpose of that suspension is to gain better current collection.
Errr, well, ok.
Agreed. As I run a terrible mix of wheel standards and therefore large frog gaps I have to limit the amount of drop available on sprung or equalized chassis so that wheels don't drop into frog flangeways.
If we're talking individual axles on bogies then I agree - I aim to make bogie axles remain parallel within the bogie. If we're talking springing of the entire bogie of a loco then I entirely disagree. A non-sprung bogie that wanders along under a loco must have appreciable weight to maintain tracking and therefore becomes useless weight that the loco must haul. A leading bogie can be constructed of thin brass or plasticard and held to the track by a spring to the loco frame. The weight can be contained within the loco boiler and a portion of it will be transfered to the drivers when climbing a gradient.
Again I have to strongly disagree.
Well, my curves are MUCH tighter and speeds are much higher compared to the prototype, but what you are describing is very much dependent on the loco-tender coupling. I tend to make my drawbars as long as is practical for two reasons; the loco-tender clearance shortens less on curves when the draw bar is longer, and with the loco drawbar pivot near to the rear coupled axle the effect of angular pull is minimised and has little effect on the attitude of the loco.
I'd have to agree on that point - if there was a noticable improvement then I would suspect the vertical alignment of the rails!
Exactly!
Electrical pickup is perhaps the most important consideration in a small tank loco - if it won't cross the station throat due to poor pick-up then it is useless!
My first awakening to the ultimate importance of current collection came when I built an 0-4-0T. Initially it had a rigid frame and it would run over dead frog turnouts about
50% of the time - that meant in effect that it sat still 99% of the time. I rebuilt it with a rocking front axle, lightly sprung by way of phosphor bronze flange wiping current collectors. It now crosses dead frogs better than many large proprietry models.Back to bogie side control, my 4-4-0, with side control removed, goes straight on at the beginnings of curves and at turnouts and then the buffer beam makes a sudden leap. On a cross-over the effect is horrendous. With side control it nicely follows the track alignment. (about 20mm late)
Regards, Greg.P.
In the same way that yours is clearly defined by the endless stream of posts haranguing and denigrating any and all who dare to disagree with you?
Bear in mind, the alleged "disgusting and foul language" is directed solely at you - you're such a vile and contemptible individual you deserve no better.
Silly old mad scientist, I've never claimed to have any qualifications for railway modelling . The obsession with claiming engineering qualifications is all yours - I presume this is because any you may have are at best second-rate.
Still, you're well balanced - you've got a chip on both shoulders.
ALL of my steam-outline models have side control on their leading/trailing trucks, fitted by me after purchase. You may lack the skill to successfully modify your models, but that doesn't hold true for the rest of us.
Some employ the method described by Mike Sharman in his book "A Guide To Locomotive Building", and others an even simpler method. Either a short length of springy wire or nylon is fixed in a hole drilled in the underside of the pilot deck, and allowed to project through a hole in the bottom of the leading truck frame. At the entry to a curve the truck starts to pivot, but instead of simply flopping around loosely, it guides the front of the locomotive into the curve, as it is intended to do.
Don't tell more lies - I seriously doubt that you have seen, let alone closely examined ANY BLI or similar models, as your statements concerning their mechanical features are mostly wrong. By "ridged" I presume you mean rigid? You claimed elsewhere that these models were unsprung, and yet all my steam-outline models - BLI, P2K and even Bachmann - have sprung coupled wheels. So what exactly do you mean by rigid chassis? One that is not articulated in the manner of a Mallet?
What vertical movement? The purpose of the leading truck is to control the lateral movement of the locomotive - yaw, if you like - rather than vertical movement - pitch. If you are labouring under that delusion, it is little wonder that you cannot appreciate the benefit of side control.
Utter nonsense. The side control spring is biased to keep the truck centred, which it will do regardless of whether a train is being hauled or not.
There is a considerable visible difference, a fact which Greg Procter, myself, and many, many others agree on. If it is not apparent to you, then that indicates a problem with either your eyesight or your perception. It does NOT invalidate the experience of many other modellers.
The difference is this: A locomotive without side control will turn into the curve only when the leading coupled wheel reaches the curve. The leading truck will simply follow the curve, without imparting any guiding or turning force to the loco. The loco lurches into the curve and looks awful doing so. The old Triang M7 mentioned earlier was an extreme example of this.
With side control, as soon as the leading bogie starts to pivot, it will start to guide the locomotive into the curve. Instead of lurching around, the loco will enter the curve more smoothly, which greatly improves its appearance while doing so. The effect is quite pronounced with models of large US locomotives with long wheelbases.
I believe the fantasy here is yours - the one where you are the unimpeachable authority on all matters relating to railway modelling. Whatever.
Quite the contrary, it shows that don't understand the concept at all. Quite apart from the fact that turnouts or yard trackage typically dont have either easements or super, the appearance and performance of long-wheelbase steam outline models is visibly improved by having the leading truck perform the same function as it's prototype - guide the engine into curves.
And don't cloud the issue with stupid remarks about flange wear, or your HO scale enginemen not complaining about the ride. Since you're so fond of the scientific method and "testing", provide unambiguous proof that there is no visible difference or benefit, instead of mere opinion.
Put up or shut up.
Wrong. In a few days, family and work commitments permitting, I will have my new web page up and running. At which time you may - having rebuffed my numerous invitations to visit me and see my layout firsthand
- see for yourself what I do and do not have.
Do you like the taste of crow?
Wrong again. All of my steam-outline models have some form of side control on their leading and trailing bogies/trucks fitted by me, as appropriate. You can determine for yourself the veracity of my comments when the web page is published.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, fitting side control springs to any model, whether RTR, kitbuilt, kitbashed or scratchbuilt, is the essence of simplicity. So simple in fact that it is evidently beyond the ability of a person such as yourself - with your "encyclopedic" knowledge of all matters engineering - to understand.
"Mark Newton" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@optusnet.com.au...
What happened to Mark's kill file?
You have wasted your time. All you have done is decrease the tractive effort of your models and made no visual improvement in model running. I have the skill and knowledge not to waste time with sprung bogies. I have the knowledge and skill to modify locomotives so they can do more than pull the skin of a rice pudding. What is the maximum train length your 4-8-2 USRA can pull up a 1 in 40 grade with it's sprung bogies? I have had loads exceeding prototype lengths on scale grades using my smaller loading gauge 4-8-2.
For these methods to work the side force of the springs is minimal, otherwise the bogie will derail. Such small forces make no visible diference to the side movement of a locomotive with a train in tow. Removing sideplay in wheel axles stops any visible flopping.
They are not a full sprung mechanism. The model tracks exactly the same as a simple rigid mechanism. The odd sprung wheels on these models does not change the ride characteristics, they improve pickup and allow the model to stay on trackwork with smaller vertical curves. I've seen enough Broadway Ltd models in the flesh to know the accuracy, detail and paint work is only average. I also know some have highly visible gearboxes and all have steam roller width wheels, comparable to models from 20 years ago. The competition is producing better detailed models, brass from 15 years ago is still well ahead as far as accuracy and detail.
Again you show your lack of knowledge about the purpose of prototype locomotive bogies. They are part of the vertical suspension system, and obviously contribute to vertical control as well as side control on the prototype. They support a considerable amount of the locomotives weight.
You really don't have a clue. On a curve the side control spring will direct the bogie towards the outside rail, which is where the centre line of the model will tend to go. If your spring is to stiff the wheel will climb over the rail. Its side force has to be minimal to be practicle in HO. Therefore it's effect is minimal compared to the lever force on the locomotive resulting from a train in tow . Measurable fact.
It's all in your mind. I have enough models with rigid construction to compare with working fully sprung models and have a layout big enough to run and test them on. Code 55 rail ends up like roughly laid prototypes, all over the place, so there are enough rough spots to see any difference. The difference in side control is not observable.
By simply decreasing clearances between the track and driving wheels, using minimal end play in drivers and using close to scale curves will solve the old Triang models problem of lurching into curves. It was designed for toy train set curves, that's why it looks wrong. The lurching is largely a function of small radius set track .
Again you show your lack of knowledge on this subject. Around the wrong way again. Long wheel bases means more side stability. It just means you probably have to much side play in your driving wheels and or trackwork with underscale curves. Put a train behind the locomotive, and your sprung boge has no visible effect as stated before because the springs are to weak. It is mostly the axle end play, wheel and track clearances, track geometry and locomotive wheel base that determines how a model tracks in H0.
The fact is the side force you are appling to the bogie is not enough to make any visible difference to lateral movement of a model in HO if it has a train in tow.
Reversing your statement now. Caught out again. As usual you do not understand the facts. The fact is your model railway suspension is nothing like the prototypes, the bogie does not support the same protortion of weight, therefore cannot have much side force otherwise the bogie will derail. If your bogie supports the same proportion of weight as the prototype, your model will not be able to get close to maximum prototype loads and would be lucky to haul a tender up the slightest incline. Because you should be moving your model at slow scale speeds through your yard, fast side movements in the locomotive will only accur if your track uses underscale curves or it is poorly laid.
Were is your evidence?
If your model has a train in tow the lever force is far greater than the side spring force. The side spring force is minimal compared to the side force from the train. I need to keep repeating these facts, as you seem unable to understand. To prove the point simply put a train with your sprung bogie on the track. Twist the model. run the model. It straightens up. Do the same without the side sprung bogie. Exactly the same result. The tapered wheel treads centre the model if the driving wheels have minimal sideplay. Second test. Push a train. The model will move to an angle if the train is of reasonable length. The same will happen with your side sprung bogie. These tests show the centering spring is to light to have any visual effect. Final test. Run a train forward. The train weight pulls the locomotive straight, when it enters a curve the locomotive stays straight untill the leading driving wheels hit the curve. Repeat using a model with side spung bogies, exactly the same thing happens, because the side spring force is to small to do anthing other than hold the bogie against the outside rail. On a model without side sprung bogies, the same thing happens, except there is less side force on the bogie. I had a model which came with a simple spring system as Mark the expert uses. All it did was cause the bogie to derail. I got rid of it, increasing tractive effort and solving the derailing problem. Trackwork, not bogie springs is what makes a big visual difference in how our models ride. The larger the radius, the better the result. One dissadvantage Mark has is by choosing US steam, is he needs larger curves and layout length to make things look correct.
And finally, flange wear is not a problem in H0 a fact, one reason why bogies are used on the prototype, another fact. My H0 crew have not complained about the ride, another fact and a joke. The scientific method of testing is all about making accurate observations, something Mark the expert is clearly incapable of doing. Im not sorry about introducing these facts, every one reading understood the meaning but it seems Mark had trouble thinking about more than one thing at a time.
Terry, you're confusing vertical and horizontal springing.
If you need (say) a 50 gram vertical load on a bogie to make it track reliably and you provide it by weighting the bogie, but Mark and I provide it by springing the bogie and adding another 50 grams to the smokebox, then on level track there will be no difference in tractive effort. On a 1:50 gradient Mark's or my loco will gain an extra gram weight on the drivers and lose a gram from the bogie equalling around an additional 5 grams tractive effort compared to your loco.
That's not correct. Those wheels must have some ability to apply a guiding force or the driving wheels also would have no ability to apply a guiding force. What you have described is basically a very long 0-4-0 with attached wagons. If we utilise the leading bogie for guiding then we have a 4-4-0 with twice the number of wheels guiding and therefore spreading the guiding force over twice as many points or halving the load per wheel.
Usually each axle of a bogie takes about half the weight of a driving wheel.
Why would scale make any great difference to the amount of side control available? The locomotive still has to be guided around the curve, whatever the scale.
Thanks for the reminder.
That's another lie, there are plenty of examples of your disgusting language against others on news groups.
Mark has claimed qualifications and experience he doesn't have to give the impression Mark is the expert. Mark's an expert on track work and standards, yet has never built a turnout, simply entering the argument on the side which he thought would win. Mark's a DCC expert yet doesn't know how to wire up a turntable. When he claimed my layout was not prototypical, he did not even have a operating prototype layout at the time. How accurate is Marks layout compared to prototype? He does not even know what type of turntable was used at the location, assuming there was one. It's the same with model railway locomotives, Mark has not given any evidence that springing improves running appearance. His argument starts with insult, because I have shown him to be a fraud in the past. The model methods he supports are the fashion of the day, which he supports religiously. The problem is they are not always the best solution. When a valid alternative is shown to be superior, Mark's argument is insult, because he has no other argument.
Finally Mark claimed to have put me in his kill file. Will he do it again. Every time Mark is caught out lying or simply wrong he says he will not reply to my posts again. Who is the most prolific Australian liar, Prime minister John Howard or Mark Newton? Mark seems to be trying to keep up with little Jonnie. How many more times will he say he will not respond to my posts.
I await Mark Newtons next lie.
It's funny that you should bring politics into this, Flynn, because in many ways you remind me of Tony Abbott. You're another doctrinaire prude with an inflated sense of self-imporatnce.
At other times, when you carry on like an old moll at a christening, you remind me of Bronwyn Bishop.
Either way, as long as you are stupid enough to respond, I'll keep tugging on that ring in your nose - 'cause I know you'll follow.
Have a nice day. :P
I'm still waiting for your "evidence" on springing...
You would have to concede, I AM an expert at winding you up.
Have a nice day. :P
Another lie from Mark. Replying already to my posts.
Terry Flynn wrote: >
Another tug on the ring through his nose, and he responds. Mooo!
Mark still refuses to provide facts as to what his models can pull. This is probably because he does not know due to a non operating layout .
Again Greg you have ignored the extra bearing friction you have on your sprung bogie which increases drag. I do not add weight to my bogies as this is not necessary for the bogies to track properly. Correct tracking is achieved by compatible wheel and track standards, and in some cases removing excess sideplay. The lightest leading bogie I have is plastic with metal wheels being the only weight required. Side springing was introduced by the expert who thinks bogies steer locomotives.
The evidence is in the earlier post's. Clearly you do not have the ability to work it out.
I use a yard of track on a meter long board (I know, odd mix of measurements :-)
By raising one end until the point where the loco slips I can calculate the tractive effort available.
I have the same number of axle bearings either way, and the same weight on each bearing, whether the bogie is weighted with lead or a spring. It is a factor that can be ignored.
Well, there has to be some weight there or they will float away from the rails! ;-)
Either you run your locos _very_ slowly or you have much better track than I do! (the second is possible)
I know bogies steer locomotives - that's my whole point!
Locomotives look much better in operation when they are steered by their leading and trailing bogies.
By that fallacious "reasoning" real steam locos would require no side control on their bogies, as their wheel and track standards are also compatible.
You're not the one that particular jibe is aimed at, Greg.
As for experts, I'll put my money on people like Mike Sharman, Gordon Gravett, and the late Dennis Allenden, all of whom have advocated side control on trucks and bogies. All of whom are expert miniature locomotive builders, which Flynn patently isn't.
Greg, that is merely your subjective opinion! Where is your "evidence"??? :-)
"Mark Newton" <
No editing as all above is relevant.
I model North American and mainly steam, therefore ALL my road engines have a pony truck and many have a trailing truck. On all these engines I have removed any "controlling" device, springs or whatever, from both the pony and trailing trucks and rely 100% on the weight of the wheels, in the plastic trucks, for tracking. Removing the springing from all trucks ensures 100% of the weight of the locomotive is on the drivers thus increasing the tractive effort. Needless to add that I also add weight to all steam locos and try to balance the weight so that the locomotive will balance about the centre point of the drivers.
-- Cheers Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.