[modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: "Terry Lane" <tel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:43:08 +1000
errm , yes Clif - the exception that proves the rule.
> Hi,
>
> The late great Roy Amesbury did prove with his 31/2" Brittannia that you
can
> have a scale backhead that works.
> To Roy a 12BA thread was big.
>
> Regards
>
> Clif
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jem Harrison" <Jem.Harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 1:51 PM
> Subject: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/114 - Release Date:
28/09/2005
> >
>
> 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.
Other related posts:
