Everything you need to know - in one place?

Dtsteam said:
I would suggest that any discussion takes place in the main body of the forum, otherwise there will probably be more discussion than knowledge. Anything useful that comes from the discussion can then be added back into the original article.
Click to expand...
Sounds good..

Are we slowly coming up with a workable framework for this, do you think?
 
I agree that this is a good idea but there is a danger that 10 people will provide 10 different views, each valid for their own circumstances but none strictly best practice as they won't suit everyone. Take track for instance, what's the best track (tin hat on and duck!!) Many will swear by LGB, other use Peco, Piko and handmade etc for cost, look or any number of other reasons. Then add the question of trackbed, which depends whether you are building on the ground, raised on posts, wooden or plastic board etc. and the whole situation becomes far more complex.
 
Wobbleboxer said:
I agree that this is a good idea but there is a danger that 10 people will provide 10 different views, each valid for their own circumstances but none strictly best practice as they won't suit everyone. Take track for instance, what's the best track (tin hat on and duck!!) Many will swear by LGB, other use Peco, Piko and handmade etc for cost, look or any number of other reasons. Then add the question of trackbed, which depends whether you are building on the ground, raised on posts, wooden or plastic board etc. and the whole situation becomes far more complex.
Click to expand...
Not saying 'we' should dictate what is 'best' in that sense..
More 'best practices' that will work for the majority. - Such as track clearances.. If you are modelling specifics, then you probably know enough to work out loading gauges and the like.
Mount your track on what you like, but it is good to know that if it is on plastics, then there will be greater thermal movement. That is the sort of knowledge that is good to have pooled.
 
What is loading gauge? If people put information up it should be how it was done and why. If info is not correct then moderators can either take it down or correct it. info about how do i allow for thermal expansion. Doing curves and how to get them correct, transitions etc, same with grades, what grades are to hard on locos etc.
 
That, for me, is the thing - whilst there will be some hard data, which may well be links to the internet, the knowledgebase should be based on our collective experience. Whoever contributes an article remains the editor of that article, and only draws from their own practical experience. That way we don't get the mods involved as sub-editors - that isn't fair on them. I realise this will spawn more, shorter, articles but we're not trying to redefine 'best practise' ??? but simply draw togther what people have done. A lot of people are reluctant to share what they've done, so for me the rule is simple - if it works for you and your pleased then add it to the knowledge base.
 
The Tinker said:
What is loading gauge? If people put information up it should be how it was done and why. If info is not correct then moderators can either take it down or correct it. info about how do i allow for thermal expansion. Doing curves and how to get them correct, transitions etc, same with grades, what grades are to hard on locos etc.
Click to expand...

The loading gauge was/is the maximum height and width of rolling stock (laden or unladen) and that of the motive power, that will traverse a line/road without fouling bridges, platforms and the like.

Add the swept path (kinetic envelope) of your loco or stock and that adds a third dimension.

More could be added (as in the 12 inch world) like axle loading.
 
Question to Paul - is a wiki out of the question?
It seems to me that it would eventually save a lot of work for yourself and mods if articles have to be submitted, vetted, uploaded and indexed. And then other people would want to offer alternative viewpoints to articles - and maybe this would then need to be cross referenced with the original article - etc etc etc.

Seems to me that a wiki would enable everyone to contribute to, amend and extend each topic - and the cross referencing would become in-built (as per Wikipedia)

Rik
 
trammayo said:
The loading gauge was/is the maximum height and width of rolling stock (laden or unladen) and that of the motive power, that will traverse a line/road without fouling bridges, platforms and the like.

Add the swept path (kinetic envelope) of your loco or stock and that adds a third dimension.

More could be added (as in the 12 inch world) like axle loading.
Click to expand...

I'm lost after "and the like"!
 
Surely the loading gauge will cover the 'swept path' (know what you mean, but think you made it up! ;) ).
The path 'swept' by stock as it traverses corners etc. must by definition (surely?) be within the loading gauge, else what use would it be?
A little pedantic, but you know what I mean I hope?
 
PhilP said:
Surely the loading gauge will cover the 'swept path' (know what you mean, but think you made it up! ;) ).
The path 'swept' by stock as it traverses corners etc. must by definition (surely?) be within the loading gauge, else what use would it be?
A little pedantic, but you know what I mean I hope?
Click to expand...

The swept path is something that is affected by stock length, wheel centres, overhangs etc. It is not made up. Track spacing, curves are a determining factor. There are many variables in our own hobby as well as the full size one (mind the gap, portable steps, etc).

Of course, my knowledge is based on tramway and light rail in the main. Tapered ends to railcars, trams or LRVs help to keep the path within reasonable bounds. Even when a rail vehicle is within the loading gauge it can strike objects through hunting (down to the dynamics of worn wheelsets, rail, etc.) or the cant of the rail. Then again, certain stock might only have specific route availability.

But I stand (or sit down) to be corrected ;D
 
??? A wiki... are you kidding, we want hard facts, not flights of fancy, which, unfortunately, most wiki systems turn out to be. :-X
 
So who's going to be the first to submit an article to see what happens?

Wiki...hmmm needs though..
 
Gavin Sowry said:
??? A wiki... are you kidding, we want hard facts, not flights of fancy, which, unfortunately, most wiki systems turn out to be. :-X
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's entirely the case. You hear the occasional story about wiki entries getting hijacked, but that tends to be on open systems (like Wikipedia). If we had one on GSC it would be editable by members only and with tracking for edits, and hence it would be self-managing. If, say, I posted something about tracklaying with which you violently disagreed, you could add a paragraph or two offering another perspective. We tend to get along with each other quite well on GSC and so I think a wiki would actually provide a means for us to share our accumulated experiences in a more organised way rather than spread over several thousand posts which are sometimes a bit difficult to track down.

Unlike an article, which tends to be written by one person on a specific topic, a wiki entry is extensible. I could kick off an entry about track foundations with my contribution about using breeze blocks - then someone else could offer their perspective about laying track on floating ballast, then some else might add a bit more to my section on breeze blocks with a paragraph or two on their experiences - etc etc etc. That way, 'articles' will gradually grow in scope and be amendable as new ideas arise (eg when someone else joins GSC or when a new bit of technology arises). Articles would have multiple authors and hence reduce the burden on contributors to come up with all the information on a topic. In that way we would avoid what's already been discussed about books (and mag articles or blogs for that matter) being only one person's perspective.

Anyway - that's my ten penn'orth. A lot depends on whether Paul thinks it's technically feasible and whether the mods and/or the GSC population as a whole decide it's desirable. I know I for one would be more willing to chip in with one section on a topic rather than feel responsible for writing a whole article about something.

Rik
 
Interesting thread. I tend to agree with Ross, it's a hard thing to take on, there are so many approaches to so many things. It could also be quite a lot of work to maintain.

To think of another media, there was the TV show "The Garden Railway" which tried to achieve a similar thing covering the whole subject for new comers.

However now I have some experience of my own I think there were a load of issues with that railway- to heavily engineered for a first timer dabbling, to many gradients, r1 track - but just MY opinion. I use this example as it was using "a garden railway consultant" and yet was very much open to question.

And for my money there is nothing wrong with asking questions you can find on Google. It's also a community- i trust opinion more here than Google, and I enjoy the interaction......

Just my thoughts.....
 
So far I have found two sites where we could have a wiki for free: wikia.com and wikispaces.com. Perhaps we could set up a wiki on one of these sites and Paul could just link to it for now. If it stays small or doesn't take off then Paul doesn't need to waste a lot of time and effort on it. If it does, he may consider moving it in-house. The software is free.

Cheers,
Peter.
 
The item mentioned by Ross concerning batteries was (and is) extremely helpful and I have lost count of the number of newcomers to the hobby that I have provided with the link. Rambling maybe, a bit argumentative even at odd times, but definitely a source of both interest and information. Tram threads from Trev are another example of the interesting reference material already on the forum. There can be no substitute for experience and this forum is a great source of that. We also have the huge benefit of advice from those who freely pass on the benefit of their personal experience - the wisdom accumulated being so often learnt the hard way.

However what is being discussed here is so open to criticism and on so many fronts as to make it unworkable in any meaningful way. A platform for pedants or a group of guys providing advice based on personal experience? Then consider all of the personal axe grinding and moderation needed. Wiki = war zone could well be the result. For example - Just try stating precisely what G Scale really is and then explain why major manufacturers completely ignore it. Then explain why for example 16mm is no better catered for. Oh yes and let's not forget live steam (in scale of course) - does it really even exist? Be very much like model boaters trying to scale wind and water.

A better idea is for some threads that are advisory, of interest to all, and have sufficient "Like" indications to be eventually locked off and moved to another "reference" forum section, sensibly individually titled and indexed. The index could be downloadable of course. No additional moderation of subject matter needed, and no great extra workload for anyone. If the section is read only no comments needed. Nice searchable archive.
 
These days in the Modern Railway Press, the Term Loading Gauge is very little used. "Kinetic Envelope" is what is now used. So what is this, well it is the Width and Height that the Stock will fit through. Remember the dimensions are different all around the size, being higher at the Top of a Piece of Rolling Stock and somewhat lower where the Rain drips off. There are also many variations of the Width as well. The wheel edges for instance being less than say a coach Body.

Simple solution:-
Make a Card Tunnel Mouth, run your Stock Through it. Then put it on your Sharpest Curve and do the same. Keep cutting it till everything fits through. Remember to make sure to use your Largest Stock with the Biggest Overhang A Harz 2-10-2 is a good test, as is the Piko Kamel and Newquida Coaches or LGB Pullmans. Remember to put up the Pans if you have Electric Locomotives. When Modified this will be your Kinetic Envelope and should be used for building your line. Or Modifying it is stock won't fit through at wherever.

Of course if you do not have a large Pice of Card to hand, you could use a Large Manila Envelope. This would indeed then be your Kinetic Envelope.
JonD
 
The main thing I was trying to emphasize is that Loading Gauge meant two fixed measurements (height and width) whilst kinetic envelope or swept path introduces (at least) a variation on the width required for different types of stock on curves.

One way of assessing the swept path was through practicle trials - dribble pipes attached to the widest part of the fore of the vehicle. The dribble was whitewash. This determined if the vehicle was suitable for the route or if the tracks needed moving further apart and so on, etc.
 
dunnyrail said:
Of course if you do not have a large Pice of Card to hand, you could use a Large Manila Envelope. This would indeed then be your Kinetic Envelope.
JonD
Click to expand...

If you put it on a top shelf.. Does it become your potential envelope??
;) :D ;D ;D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom