[modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
- From: "Jem Harrison" <Jem.Harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:00:04 +0100
Now that is interesting, Clif.
My first attempt at 3½ was Don Young's GWR mogul. OK so I made all sorts of
mistakes before I binned the main-frames, but what finally ended my interest
was the receipt of Roy Amesbury's drawings for the GWR 3500gal tender for
his 5-inch gauge President. The detailed approach to the design of this
tender made the 3½ mogul appear to be but a pale imitation of the prototype.
I must try to find Roy Amesbury's W&M for his Britannia in the club's
back-numbers of the Model Engineer.
Thankyou, Clif,
Best wishes,
Jem
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clif Walker" <clif.gwr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:38 PM
Subject: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: [modeleng] Re: 3½ versus 5
> 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:
