Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

20 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

... the author had asked Didcot Museum to take some measurements for him off their preserved example.  These they gave him in metric, which he then converted to imperial before converting in turn to 4mm scale!  Why?? 

 

20 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

an article in MRJ

 

You may have answered your own question there, Jim!

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

I recall an article in MRJ a few years back on detailing some GWR (sorry, I'll go and wash my mouth out) loco where the author had asked Didcot Museum to take some measurements for him off their preserved example.  These they gave him in metric, which he then converted to imperial before converting in turn to 4mm scale!  Why??    Dividing them by 76.2 in the first place would have been so much simpler.

 

Somewhat perverse when dealing with a full-sized object that was designed in feet and inches. The conversion from metric to imperial would be a worth-while double-check. Also, the measuring tools we use for modelling are usually marked in millimetres, so at least in 4 mm/ft and 2 mm/ft scales, life is easy. 

 

Likewise with modelling materials. I know that 0.040" thick plasticard is 1 mm thick, or 3 inches in 4 mm/ft scale: no further thought required.

 

The thing I do find useful to remember is the ratio 25.4 mm/ft, although 127 mm = 5 in comes in handy when using my steel rule as an ersatz set square!

 

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

The thing I do find useful to remember is the ratio 25.4 mm/ft,..... 

Surely you mean 25.4mm/in?

 

Jim 

[Donw]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It’s British 0, not O.

 

Pedantic enough?

 

 The Gauge 0 Guild has decided it is the Gauge O Guild. Boo Boo. David Jenkinson always described it as Gauge Nought. He modelled in EM at one time not sure is he ever modelled in Double Nought.

 

Don

[Edwardian]

19 minutes ago, Donw said:

 

 The Gauge 0 Guild has decided it is the Gauge O Guild. Boo Boo. David Jenkinson always described it as Gauge Nought. 

 

Don

 

Hornby Dublenought doesn't have quite the right ring to it.

 

And double zero seven might raise an eyebrow.

 

[Compound2632]

41 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Surely you mean 25.4mm/in?

 

Jim 

 

Darn! But no, I meant 25.4 mm/in, as the SI Brochure states, one leaves a space between the numerical value and the unit.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

And double zero seven might raise an eyebrow.

 

Isn't that 1'9" gauge modelled at 4 mm/ft?

[rocor]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Isn't that 1'9" gauge modelled at 4 mm/ft?

 

Ideal, for building a scale model of the Blackpool Pleasure Beach Express.

[Nearholmer]

Long known as the Gay Joe Guild.

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Darn! But no, I meant 25.4 mm/in, as the SI Brochure states, one leaves a space between the numerical value and the unit.

I stand corrected, sir.

 

Jim

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, rocor said:

 

I have been struggling to prevent myself succumbing to this act of pedantry, but now find myself overcome (sigh!).

 

British O scale at 7mm to the foot, defined as the ratio of an irrational number, it is usually rounded to 1:43.5. Therefore 175% would be a more appropriate enlargement of the original.

 

Sorry.

 

8 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Not a scale I model in, or am, therefore, familiar with, so happy to learn!

 

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I've never understood why anybody bothers to quote the dimensionless ratios, since these usually introduce error* (4 mm/ft, usually given as 1:76, is exactly 1:76.2 but as mentioned, 7 mm/ft is 1: 43.542 857 ...). The conversion factors (which are of course just ratios in disguise) are what one uses in practice. 

 

*Pace @Regularity and other S scale enthusiasts - but which is more useful in practice: 1:64 or ³⁄₁₆ in/ft?

 

No need to worry about the ratios. 7/4 = 1.75. Simples. One good thing about S scale is that, using a decent imperial ruler, 1/64" on the rule represents 1" at full size.

[Donw]

32 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

 

 

 

No need to worry about the ratios. 7/4 = 1.75. Simples. One good thing about S scale is that, using a decent imperial ruler, 1/64" on the rule represents 1" at full size.

 

Indeed I acquired a vernier as a schoolboy and realised it could measure an S scale  half inch. However my enthusiasm was dampened by my lack of the skills to be able to work in S at the time.

[Annie]

Working in 3/4 inch scale was a delight since 1/16th of an inch = 1 inch.  Perfect for building small quirky narrow gauge light railways and a much better scale to work in than 'G'.

[Donw]

G came about because they used a gauge which was based on ft and ins 1 3/4  and set the scale to make that 1 metre gauge.  Difficult to think of a more awkward scale. 1:20 would have been much easier  simple for those modelling a metric protoype and most rulers come with a scale marked in 2 inch steps for imperial measurments. Of course being based on inches G1 would have been on the small side to represent 1m  but pretty good for the IOM or Irish railways

 

Don

 

[Annie]

'G' scale ended up becoming a confusing mess though with every manufacturer picking a scale and calling it 'G' scale.  LGB was always out of my price range, but the various cheap Chinese made 'G' scale trainsets on the market back then were useful to pillage for bits for my own projects.

 

This is very much the kind of thing I had in mind when I was working in 3/4 scale only to 2ft 3in gauge instead of 3ft.  I was only really starting in on this project when too much life happened and I ended up developing narcolepsy.  I still have about a million coffee stirrers, ice lolly sticks and wooden tongue depressors stashed away so it wouldn't be impossible to start on it again once I find where my room is under the rubbish mountain.

 

[Edwardian]

11 hours ago, Donw said:

 

Indeed I acquired a vernier as a schoolboy 

 

I believe these days there are treatments available.

[Regularity]

19 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

*Pace @Regularity and other S scale enthusiasts - but which is more useful in practice: 1:64 or ³⁄₁₆ in/ft?

Generally the former, but whatever suits the purpose.

 

18 hours ago, rocor said:

The use of ratios to specify a scale seem natural in the sense, that although you have been building your model at 3/16" to the foot, if asked what scale it is, your reply of 1/64th, immediately tells the enquirer that is the fraction of the full size prototype it is.

 

And yet, the most common question after explaining the scale and the benefits is, “What’s that in millimetres?”

When we reluctantly reply to this, we then get, “How do you work to that?” 
To which the answer is, “We don’t, except in so much as 4.76mm is what you get from multiplying 25.4mm by 3/16.” (Two decimal places quoted.)

(The private thought at this moment is often somewhat more profane.)

 

12 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

No need to worry about the ratios. 7/4 = 1.75. Simples. One good thing about S scale is that, using a decent imperial ruler, 1/64" on the rule represents 1" at full size.

An exposition of one of the benefits of S which usually produces a look of fear. 
It is odd, but the idea that 12/64” simplifies to 3/16” generates alarm, or that 4’ prototype comes down to ¾” (in itself, 48/64”, of course.

The fact that I can use a standard metal ruler to mark  out 14” to scale, for example, is lost on someone who seems happy to faff around finding 4.66667mm or 8.16667mm on theirs.

I do have, somewhere, a “Scale Ruler” especially for S, but I never use it. Never needed to. Did try it once. Prefer the mental agility of simple arithmetic. Good for the brain, too.

[rocor]

2 hours ago, Regularity said:

Generally the former, but whatever suits the purpose.

 

 

And yet, the most common question after explaining the scale and the benefits is, “What’s that in millimetres?”

When we reluctantly reply to this, we then get, “How do you work to that?” 
To which the answer is, “We don’t, except in so much as 4.76mm is what you get from multiplying 25.4mm by 3/16.” (Two decimal places quoted.)

(The private thought at this moment is often somewhat more profane.)

 

An exposition of one of the benefits of S which usually produces a look of fear. 
It is odd, but the idea that 12/64” simplifies to 3/16” generates alarm, or that 4’ prototype comes down to ¾” (in itself, 48/64”, of course.

The fact that I can use a standard metal ruler to mark  out 14” to scale, for example, is lost on someone who seems happy to faff around finding 4.66667mm or 8.16667mm on theirs.

I do have, somewhere, a “Scale Ruler” especially for S, but I never use it. Never needed to. Did try it once. Prefer the mental agility of simple arithmetic. Good for the brain, too.

 

What is important, is that which works best for the individual. Each modeller has their preferred method of transferring prototype dimensions to their model utilising their favoured units of measurement.

 

My own preference, is to scan drawings or images of the prototype into the computer, and then scale them with photo imaging software. As the prototype would normally have been designed in imperial units of measurement, I scale as pixels to the inch. I then use the imaging software to measure directly off the image and produce a 1:1 scale 3D CAD model.

 

The CAD model is then reduced to the model scale and converted to millimetres. All dimension can then be extracted directly from the CAD model.

 

Quirky as this may seem, it works for me.

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

I must admit I've sometimes used the finger/knuckle gauge as good guide for things. Place finger beside scaled drawing, mark of along finger the length then cut to suit (not the finger of course because that would ruin a perfectly good calibration instrument).    

[Caley Jim]

6 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

(not the finger of course because that would ruin a perfectly good calibration instrument).    

And a digital one at that! 

 

Jim 

[Florence Locomotive Works]

On 07/11/2020 at 06:28, Edwardian said:

W J Bassett-Lowke (presumably spinning away in his marble vault at the thought of Hornby's 'Bassett-Lowke' resin-crud grunge-punk, sorry, 'steampunk' range.)

Couldn't agree more sir.

 

 

Anyways thought I'd stop back into this parish as I was passing through.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Florence Locomotive Works

[Canal Digger]

At a MoD establishment I worked in a few years ago, a young modern apprentice designed himself a toolbox and sent drawings off to the workshop. A week later it arrived ......... only problem designed by a modern apprentice in millimeters and made by a traditional workman in inches!

[Canal Digger]

It's quiet in here, has everyone gone to the Hempton Sheep Fair?

 

Perhaps I should introduce myself, I'm Jed and this is Frankie my horse (with cart), I collect scrap metal. G'day to you sir. 

Edited November 21, 2020 by Canal Digger
to include picture

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Canal Digger said:

It's quiet in here, has everyone gone to the Hempton Sheep Fair?

 

So, that got me thinking, what does a WNR cattle wagon look like? I went hunting for a postable photo of a cattle wagon from the neighbouring line - the M&GN - but came across this interesting topic instead:

Deep in there, @Penlan quoted the 1920 Bristol wagon survey, pointing out that all the cattle wagons were Great Western vehicles (which leads me to suppose the survey only covered Great Western yards, not Midland). Cattle wagons weren't pooled until August 1925 and even then the Great Western wouldn't play. The conclusion I draw is that at least on a large system like the Great Western, livestock traffic across company boundaries was rare. However, on a small system like the WNR, there probably was a fair amount of "foreign" traffic, especially for sheep moving between hill and lowland pasture - though that would be a highly seasonal traffic. 

 

Cattle wagons made up 20% of the M&GN's goods stock, so I would imagine the WNR had a similar proportion. On the Midland in 1905, the proportion of cattle wagons was much smaller, under 4%, which makes sense given the dominance of mineral traffic conveyed in the company's own wagons. I was surprised therefore to find that the figure for the Great Western at around the same date was only just over 4%; the Great Western didn't provide wagons for mineral traffic. So, was livestock less inclined to move around in Wales and the western counties, compared to Leicestershire etc.? Or was the Midland dominating Irish and Scottish cattle traffic?

[Edwardian]

16 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

So, that got me thinking, what does a WNR cattle wagon look like? I went hunting for a postable photo of a cattle wagon from the neighbouring line - the M&GN - but came across this interesting topic instead:

Deep in there, @Penlan quoted the 1920 Bristol wagon survey, pointing out that all the cattle wagons were Great Western vehicles (which leads me to suppose the survey only covered Great Western yards, not Midland). Cattle wagons weren't pooled until August 1925 and even then the Great Western wouldn't play. The conclusion I draw is that at least on a large system like the Great Western, livestock traffic across company boundaries was rare. However, on a small system like the WNR, there probably was a fair amount of "foreign" traffic, especially for sheep moving between hill and lowland pasture - though that would be a highly seasonal traffic. 

 

Cattle wagons made up 20% of the M&GN's goods stock, so I would imagine the WNR had a similar proportion. On the Midland in 1905, the proportion of cattle wagons was much smaller, under 4%, which makes sense given the dominance of mineral traffic conveyed in the company's own wagons. I was surprised therefore to find that the figure for the Great Western at around the same date was only just over 4%; the Great Western didn't provide wagons for mineral traffic. So, was livestock less inclined to move around in Wales and the western counties, compared to Leicestershire etc.? Or was the Midland dominating Irish and Scottish cattle traffic?

 

My current intention is to provide:

 

- A minimum of 8 WNR cattle wagons.  These are based on resin casts of a Scottish prototype.

- x2 2-deck covered WNR sheep wagons

- x2 WNR pre-diagram 4-plank opens with raves fitted for use as sheep wagons

 

I think Achingham would have a livestock market weekly, the traffic for which would have to reverse at Castle Aching. 

 

EDIT: Presumably foreign wagons would bring in Scottish cattle for finishing, but not at the right season for the model.  We have discussed this, I recall. 

Edited November 21, 2020 by Edwardian