[modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: "JESSE LIVINGSTON" <fernj1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 04:36:56 -0500
> Jesse,
> Somebody with a digital camera will have to do the necessary
at
> the Fosse !
Let's hope some kind soul will make the photos and send them to Alan for
posting. Digital cameras are dirt cheap these days and getting cheaper so
there will be lots of them there.
> I am currently drawing the tender for a loco in Gauge 1 (10mm - 1ft) using
a
> photocopy of a works drawing at 1½ inches to the foot. I did get the
> photocopy reduced by 50% to make it more manageable to spread out on the
> table, but found that many of the written dimensions were difficult to
read.
> At 1½ inches to the foot, the drawing is spot on for 1:8, i.e.
7¼/7½.....and
> the bits and pieces look easier to accomplish in that size ! No, no,
> no....and yet?....
Interestingly, when I was building my Filer and Stowell logging locomotive,
a kind lady at the factory found a set of 1889 drawings for the tender which
she sent me. They were in 1/8th scale and all I had to do was trace the
arch bar trucks off for an article/series for Live Steam I was working on at
the time. The trucks were different, special and seemed awfully rigid for a
logging locomotive, but they have never derailed on me yet. In an old book,
I read where a draughtsman said that it was best to not go metric because of
the difficulty in reducing drawings. With Imperial inches/feet, one could
go half size, 1/4 size etc whereas he claimed metric did not reduce well.
Jesse in Tennessee where it is still hot in October, but ought not to be!
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.
Other related posts:
- » [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
