Both Modules Conform: nine documents from a model railroad club

Being the complete file of the Kishwaukee Valley Free-mo Group in the matter of Joint 4, November through January.

KISHWAUKEE VALLEY FREE-MO GROUP: LAYOUT INCIDENT REPORT (FORM 3)

Date of incident: November 15 Location: Fellowship Hall, Bethany Lutheran, Sycamore Reported by: R. Pyburn, member in good standing since 2011 Modules involved: Pyburn, “Bakerville Team Track” (single track, 6 ft). Vandermolen, “Kishwaukee Crossing” (single track, 8 ft). Joint number: 4

Describe the incident. Six derailments northbound at Joint 4 in about forty minutes. Same spot every time. Southbound fine all day. I pulled six different cars off three different trains and it did it to every one of them, so it is not the cars.

Corrective action taken at the time of the incident. Took my train out of service. Ran the branch the rest of the session.

Was any module damaged? No.

Additional remarks (attach continuation sheet if required). Dale’s rail is high. I said so at setup.

MEMORANDUM

To: M. Ostrowski, Standards Officer From: Dale Vandermolen Date: November 17 Re: Form 3 of November 15 (R. Pyburn), Joint 4

Marlene,

I have read Rich’s Form 3 twice and I want to say up front that I do not take it personally, and I hope he will not take this the same way.

“Dale’s rail is high” is not a measurement. I would like to put some measurements in the record.

Kishwaukee Crossing was built to S2.1, S2.2, S3.3, S3.5, S3.6, S3.7 and S3.10 and I can produce the receipts for the plywood. The railhead at both endplates measures 50.000 inches. I have checked it four separate times, twice with a tape and twice with a story pole I made for the purpose, and I will check it a fifth time in front of anyone who wants to stand there and watch me do it.

I would also direct your attention to the language of S2.5, which gives fifty inches as the nominal and minimum height of the railhead at the endplate. If one of the two modules at Joint 4 is outside the standard, it is not going to be the one sitting at fifty.

I am not asking for a finding against Rich. I am asking for a measurement.

Dale

P.S. If it turns out to be mine, I will fix it that same night and I will buy the coffee for a year.

MEASUREMENT AFFIDAVIT No. 1, Office of the Standards Officer

Subject: Pyburn module Bakerville Team Track, north endplate Date and time: November 22, 9:10 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Present: M. Ostrowski. Mr. Pyburn was invited and declined to attend. Location of measurement: Fellowship Hall, module set up in the position it occupied on November 15, per the setup diagram retained by the Coordinator.

Instruments used: Starrett six inch machinist’s rule. Dial calipers reading to 0.001 inch. NMRA HO standards gauge. Twenty four inch machinist’s level. Four inch solid square. Feeler gauge set, 0.0015 through 0.035. Story pole, mine, scribed at 50.000.

Findings.

1. Endplate 24.03 in. wide, 6.01 in. tall, three quarter birch plywood. Conforms, S2.1 and S2.2.
2. Through track centered on the endplate within 0.010 in. Conforms, S3.3.
3. Perpendicularity: the square shows no light against either railhead through the first six inches. Conforms, S3.5.
4. Rail is Code 83 nickel silver throughout the through route. Conforms, S3.10.
5. Rail cut back 0.99 in. from the module end. Ties notched to the end and under the rail ends. Conforms, S3.7, and I will note for the record that this is the best notched endplate in the club and somebody ought to tell Mr. Pyburn so.
6. Track level over the first six inches, both axes. Bubble dead center. Conforms, S3.6.
7. Railhead height at the endplate, measured from the floor directly beneath: 50.000 in.

Remarks.

The module conforms in every particular I am able to test. I found nothing.

I am going to note something about item 7 because I do not leave a number out of a record on the grounds that I did not like it.

My first reading was 49.970. I could not repeat it, and I do not enter a number in this record that I cannot repeat, so I set the pole down and started over and got 50.000 four times running. On the twelfth attempt I set the pole a foot nearer the kitchen than I had been setting it, and got 49.970, and then got it again four times.

I would like to measure Mr. Vandermolen’s module before I say anything further.

M. Ostrowski, Standards Officer

MEASUREMENT AFFIDAVIT No. 2, Office of the Standards Officer

Subject: Vandermolen module Kishwaukee Crossing, south endplate Date and time: November 29, 8:40 a.m. to 1:20 p.m. Present: M. Ostrowski. Mr. Vandermolen attended throughout and did not touch anything, which I appreciated and am putting in the record.

Instruments used: As Affidavit No. 1, plus a second story pole belonging to Mr. Vandermolen, checked against mine and agreeing within 0.003 in.

Findings.

1. Endplate 24.00 in. by 6.00 in., to the limit of what my calipers will tell me. Conforms.
2. Through track centered within 0.006 in. Conforms, S3.3.
3. Perpendicularity: no light. Conforms, S3.5.
4. Code 83 nickel silver. Conforms, S3.10.
5. Rail cut back 1.01 in. Ties notched. Conforms, S3.7.
6. Track level over the first six inches, both axes, and level over the whole eight feet, which is more than S3.6 asks for and is worth saying.
7. Railhead height at the endplate, measured from the floor directly beneath: 50.000 in.
8. Not a standard and not my business, but I am recording it. The underside of the frame carries, in pencil, the section number of the Standard that each element was built to. S2.1 is written on the endplate. I asked him why. He said so that anybody could check.

Remarks.

The module conforms in every particular I am able to test. I found nothing here either.

Mr. Vandermolen’s rail is not high. Mr. Vandermolen’s rail is at fifty inches, and so is Mr. Pyburn’s, and there is a step at Joint 4 that takes a 0.030 blade and will not take a 0.025, and I would like somebody to explain to me how that is possible before I go home.

I set my story pole a foot nearer the east wall and read 50.030.

I have a question for the Committee and I would like it answered before I write a third affidavit. S2.5 requires the railhead at the endplate to stand fifty inches from the floor. Which floor.

M. Ostrowski, Standards Officer

MINUTES, Standards Committee, Special Session

December 6, Fellowship Hall. Called 7:04 p.m. Present: Ostrowski (chair, Standards Officer), Vandermolen, Pyburn, Kaczmarek, Delahunt, Boonstra. Absent: Wiech (work).

1. The chair read Affidavits No. 1 and No. 2 into the record and stated the question: from which floor.

2. Mr. Kaczmarek asked whether the coffee had been started. The chair advised that the coffee had been started.

3. Mr. Vandermolen moved that the Committee find both modules conforming and close the file. Seconded by Mr. Pyburn.

4. Discussion. Mr. Pyburn stated that he was seconding the motion in order to get his own module cleared and that he wished the record to show he still believed Dale’s rail was high. Mr. Vandermolen stated that he accepted the second in the spirit in which it was offered. Mr. Delahunt asked whether the derailments had stopped. The chair advised that at the December setup the layout was built rotated ninety degrees against the north wall and there had been no derailments at Joint 4 in either direction all day.

5. Mr. Pyburn stated that this proved his module was fine. Mr. Vandermolen stated that this proved his module was fine. Both members were correct and the chair so noted.

6. Mr. Boonstra moved to amend the motion to add a finding that the derailments were caused by rolling stock. Mr. Pyburn objected that he had pulled six cars off three trains. Mr. Boonstra withdrew the amendment. Mr. Kaczmarek moved to amend the motion to require semi-scale wheelsets on all through equipment. The chair ruled the amendment outside the scope of the Committee’s authority under Article VI. Mr. Kaczmarek asked what the Committee’s authority under Article VI was. The chair read Article VI aloud. Mr. Kaczmarek withdrew the amendment.

7. Mr. Delahunt asked the chair what she thought was going on. The chair declined to speculate on the record and stated that she had a working theory requiring one further measurement and one instrument she did not own.

8. Mr. Vandermolen asked what the instrument was. The chair advised that it was a self leveling cross line laser. Mr. Vandermolen asked what it cost. The chair advised twenty dollars. Mr. Vandermolen moved that the Committee authorize twenty dollars. Seconded by Mr. Pyburn. Carried unanimously, and the chair wishes to note that this was the first thing the two members agreed on without qualification since October.

9. The original motion, to find both modules conforming and close the file, was tabled pending Affidavit No. 3, on the chair’s request, over the objection of Mr. Vandermolen, who stated that a man cannot be expected to live indefinitely under a Form 3.

10. Mr. Pyburn moved that the Committee refer the S2.5 question to the national Standards Committee for interpretation. Seconded by Mr. Delahunt. Carried, Vandermolen abstaining.

11. Mr. Kaczmarek reported that the coffee was ready and that it was, in his view, better than November.

Adjourned 8:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, D. Delahunt, Secretary

NOTICE POSTED ON THE CLUB BOARD, DECEMBER 13

JOINT 4 IS UNDER INQUIRY. Until the Committee rules, please do not adjust the feet on modules 3, 4 or 5 at setup. If a module needs leveling find me and I will do it. Thank you. M. Ostrowski, Standards Officer

In blue ballpoint, beneath:

Nobody has adjusted anything. Some of us build to the standard the first time. D.V.

In pencil, beneath that:

some of us dont write on the board like its a court case RP

In blue ballpoint, beneath that:

You wrote on the board.

In a third hand, in the margin, arrow pointing at all of it:

whos bringing the extension cord -Kaz

CORRESPONDENCE

From: Standards Committee, National Model Railroad Association To: M. Ostrowski, Kishwaukee Valley Free-mo Group Date: December 19 Re: Your inquiry of December 8 concerning S2.5

Ms. Ostrowski,

Thank you for your inquiry. Free-mo is not an NMRA standard and the NMRA does not issue interpretations of it. You may wish to contact the Free-mo group directly.

Regarding your second question, the NMRA does not publish a standard governing the flatness of floors.

Best regards, and happy holidays.

MEASUREMENT AFFIDAVIT No. 3, Office of the Standards Officer

Subject: The floor of the Fellowship Hall Date and time: January 3, 6:15 a.m. to 9:40 a.m. The Hall was empty. Pastor Lindgren let me in and asked no questions, which I want noted somewhere as a kindness. Present: M. Ostrowski.

Instruments used: Self leveling cross line laser, tripod mounted, twenty dollars, authorized by the Committee December 6. Steel rule. Chalk line. Both story poles.

Method. I set the laser at the east wall, established a level line the length of the room, and measured down from that line to the floor at twelve inch intervals along the centerline of the November setup, marking each station in chalk. Thirteen stations. Then, since I was already down there, four more lines at right angles to the first. Fifty two stations in all. I took the east wall as datum and called it zero.

Findings.

1. The floor of the Fellowship Hall is not level.
2. From the east wall to the kitchen partition, a distance of 12 ft 6 in., the floor falls 0.375 in., which is a rate of two and a half thousandths per inch, or thirty thousandths per foot. The fall is smooth and continuous and it runs toward a floor drain set 30 in. out from the partition. I found the drain under the folding table where we keep the cups. I do not know whether the slab was poured that way or settled that way and it makes no difference to anything.
3. On November 15, Joint 4 stood at station 9. Mr. Pyburn’s north legs stood at floor elevation -0.270 in. Mr. Vandermolen’s south legs, one foot upslope, stood at -0.240 in. The difference is 0.030 in.
4. Both members set their railheads to 50.000 in. above the floor directly beneath their own legs. Both members measured correctly. I have re-measured both and they were correct to within four thousandths.
5. Mr. Vandermolen’s railhead therefore stood 0.030 in. above Mr. Pyburn’s, and no provision of the Standard was broken by either of them.
6. NMRA S-4.2 gives the maximum flange depth for HO standard gauge, column D, as 0.028 in. Mr. Pyburn runs semi-scale wheelsets, which are shallower than that, and I measured a set off his gondola at 0.021 in.
7. The step at Joint 4 was deeper than the flange. Northbound, a wheel arriving at that joint had nothing left below the railhead to hold it down. Southbound it stepped off and landed, which a wheel will do all day.
8. In December we set up against the north wall, along a line I have now measured, which falls 0.004 in. across the whole layout. That is why nothing derailed in December, and it is not evidence about anybody’s module.
9. S-4.2 states that its purpose is to set limits “whereby wheels within these limits will operate without fault on track built within the limits of S-3.2.” Mr. Pyburn’s wheels are within those limits. Both modules are within the limits of the trackwork standard. The equipment derailed six times in forty minutes.

Remarks.

Mr. Pyburn’s Form 3 of November 15 contains the finding. It is the second sentence.

I have measured everything in this building I have authority to measure. Both modules are correct. The defect is real.

Seven weeks. I have not had a better seven weeks since I left the bearing plant.

M. Ostrowski, Standards Officer

JOINT FILING

To: M. Ostrowski, Standards Officer, and the Standards Committee From: D. Vandermolen and R. Pyburn Date: January 10

Marlene,

We have both read Affidavit No. 3 and we have both been down there with the laser and we agree with every number in it.

We are withdrawing the Form 3. We are also withdrawing everything either of us wrote on the board.

We are jointly requesting the following.

1. That the Group formally survey the Fellowship Hall floor and publish the elevations, and that the setup diagram show station numbers, so that we know what we are standing on.
2. That setup no longer be permitted along the November centerline, which runs straight at the drain.
3. That the Group draft a proposed amendment to the Free-mo Standard adding a maximum permitted floor fall across a setup, and forward it to the Free-mo group with Affidavit No. 3 attached.
4. That the Committee’s authorization of twenty dollars be increased to cover a better laser, on the grounds that this one is ours now.

This is filed jointly and without prejudice to the respective positions of the undersigned as to Joint 4.

D. Vandermolen R. Pyburn

P.S. from D.V.: The coffee is on me for a year regardless. I said if it was mine, and it was not, but a man said what he said.

P.S. from R.P.: his rail WAS high. by .030. i want that in the minutes

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT (FORM 9)

Member: M. Ostrowski Date: January 10 Authorized by: Standards Committee, December 6, minute 8

Reason for expense. Determination of datum.

Remarks. Do not reimburse the laser. I am keeping it.

Further to the above: the crack in the slab under the coat rack runs the wrong direction for a floor that only falls one way. On Tuesday I put a pole on it and got a number I could not repeat.

I am opening a file.