[modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: "Jem Harrison" <Jem.Harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:51:47 +0100
Rich,
Bear in mind that I am coming into model engineering from a background of
building models in 7mm and 10mm to the foot, in which I tried to get the
details as near to scale size as the Mark 1 eyeball could achieve. In
considering 3½ inch gauge, i had anticipated that this approach would be
easier, BUT, as LBSC stated "You cannot scale steam", so the working bits
and bobs have to accomodate steam & water & oil. In my observations of
3½-inch gauge locomotives....not that I have seen many, perhaps half a
dozen....boiler fittings and pipework have appeared to be overscale. To me,
that does not matter, providing that those components are out of sight, but
when driving a 3½ inch gauge loco, the backhead has to be one of the main
focus points of one's attention, therefore I would like the fixtures to at
least capture the essence of the prototype. It seems to me that this would
be a much more practical proposition in 5-inch gauge.
One of our club's members has recently finished a Simplex (his first loco).
His next project is a 3½ Britannia. The reason he gave for downsizing was
the issue of weight.
Best wishes,
Jem
----- Original Message -----
From: "R.L. Roebuck" <rlr20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:15 PM
Subject: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
> On the whole issue of 3.5" gauge versus 5" gauge, I've heard several
> people comment that they tried building a 3.5" gauge loco, then tried a 5"
> gauge loc and found it easier - but might this not be because of the
> experience gained in building the 3.5" gauge loco?
>
> Has anyone out there started in 5" gauge and then gone to 3.5" gauge, and
> if so, what are your opinions?
>
> Yours (working in 3.5" gauge and finding it just fine),
>
> Rich.
> PS You commented that you had looked at the Sweet Pea design, but this is
> available in 3.5, and 7.25" gauge as well as Sweet Violet and Sweet
> William.
>
> MODEL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION LIST.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email to,
> modeleng-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject
> line.
>
MODEL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION LIST.
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email to,
modeleng-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
- Follow-Ups:
- [modeleng] Re: Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: R.L. Roebuck
- [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: Clif Walker
- [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: alan Stepney
- References:
- [modeleng] RE: [modeleng] 3½ versus 5
- From: Pendragon
- [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] RE: [modeleng] 3½ versus 5
- From: Jem Harrison
- [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] RE: [modeleng] 3½ versus 5
- From: alan Stepney
- [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: R.L. Roebuck
Other related posts:
- » [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- » [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- » [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- » [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- » [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- » [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- [modeleng] Re: Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: R.L. Roebuck
- [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: Clif Walker
- [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: alan Stepney
- [modeleng] RE: [modeleng] 3½ versus 5
- From: Pendragon
- [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] RE: [modeleng] 3½ versus 5
- From: Jem Harrison
- [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] RE: [modeleng] 3½ versus 5
- From: alan Stepney
- [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: R.L. Roebuck