mswr guards van,

[Compound2632]

Can I ask you guys a basic question? For Gauge 3 and 5" gauge, what scale are you working to? Either as mm/ft or a ratio? 5" gauge sounds as if it started out being 1/12 scale but I can't believe you can be putting up with the wide gauge at the level of detail you're working to.

[dajt]

So many scales, so little time! I want to try S scale, 1/32, and the 5" stuff. I have a few unfinished items in 7mm scale, but I think those are going to stay that way. Luckily I have little interest in building rolling stock so that makes things easier.

 

1/32 is the tricky one. Trying to make a cab that doesn't look appalling and the problem of going with either steamroller wheels or not being able to run on anyone else's track are problems. Trying to learn Fusion360 I've been drawing up a 1/32 0-6-0 and the distance between frames, wheel back to back, and wheel width require some substantial compromises.

 

The Swiss Dee team and TME were able make good cabs so it is possible. Mine won't have sight glasses or pressure gauges, and I'll try to use the short boiler/fake backhead idea if I ever do build one.

 

5" gauge has the same problems as 1/32, but at least you can sit behind them and drive so the tradeoffs can be lived with

[Spitfire2865]

Gauge 3 scale

G3 is stated as 1/22.6 which works out to 13.5mm/foot or 17/32"/foot. Around 1900, G3 was Gauge 2 which is where Spur 2 comes from. Also it was originally 1/2" scale, but modern scaling makes standard gauge scale almost perfectly to 2.5".

Plus, most 1/24 items are usable for details or figurines.

By that theory, Id assume 5" gauge was to 27mm/foot or so

[IanT]

G3 is stated as 1/22.6 which works out to 13.5mm/foot or 17/32"/foot. Around 1900, G3 was Gauge 2 which is where Spur 2 comes from. Also it was originally 1/2" scale, but modern scaling makes standard gauge scale almost perfectly to 2.5".

Plus, most 1/24 items are usable for details or figurines.

By that theory, Id assume 5" gauge was to 27mm/foot or so

 

Absolutely right in terms of scale Trevor but historically Gauge '2' (in the UK) was 2" gauge. Gauge '3' has always been 2.5" in the UK.

 

In the very early days, there was a good deal of confusion as to how model 'gauges' should be measured here in UK - these days the accepted gauge is the distance between the inside rail edges but at one time some manufacturers used the distance between rail centres (with an assumed rail width of about 2mm) so the quoted 'gauge' in early literature can be confusing.

 

The change from 1/2" (to 17/32nd) scale in G3 generally happened between the wars but some well known (in their day) model engineers stayed with 1/2" scale after WW2 (CM Keiller here in the UK & Victor Shattock in the US).

 

Regards,

 

IanT 

[Spitfire2865]

Absolutely right in terms of scale Trevor but historically Gauge '2' (in the UK) was 2" gauge. Gauge '3' has always been 2.5" in the UK.

 

In the very early days, there was a good deal of confusion as to how model 'gauges' should be measured here in UK - these days the accepted gauge is the distance between the inside rail edges but at one time some manufacturers used the distance between rail centres (with an assumed rail width of about 2mm) so the quoted 'gauge' in early literature can be confusing.

 

The change from 1/2" (to 17/32nd) scale in G3 generally happened between the wars but some well known (in their day) model engineers stayed with 1/2" scale after WW2 (CM Keiller here in the UK & Victor Shattock in the US).

 

Regards,

 

IanT 

I personally have a desire to revive American G3.  Only problem is finding drawings.  Somehow its easier to find drawings of UK stock than US stuff, Even IN the US.  

I thought I read somewhere that G2 (2.5inch)was rebranded as G3 and G2 (2 inch)was added.  

[IanT]

Much of this (subject of gauges) has been lost in the mists of time Trevor and also (to some extent) confused by various people claiming credit for establishing THE 'standard'...... (Henry Greenly being one such)

 

Early 'toy' trains usually didn't come with track, so the gauge of the engine was somewhat irrelevant. Marklin recognised that using a standard track gauge would be a big step forward in selling train sets and in 1891 introduced their Spur 1 sets, shortly followed by their Spur II & Spur III sets. Spur II was 64mm and Spur III 89mm. These are still the European (MOROP/NEM) standards - but I think it's worth noting that Marklin would have naturally used metric dimensions (not imperial ones).

 

In the UK, early German imports would have either been built to no particular gauge or possibly to Marklin metric standards - however there was no real 'standard gauge' consensus in the UK modelling community at the turn of the century. In the July 16th 1903 ME - Percival Marshall (the Editor) raised the question of "scale and gauge" and stated that "some time ago the Society of Model Engineers recommended building to two gauges" (3.5" at 3/4" & 5" at 1" ). However his Editorial then sparked much ongoing correspondence amongst the eminent model locomotive builders of the day (EL Pearce, James Crebbin etc) with all sorts of strange proposals being made. Much of the debate was about the best 'scale' to build in (rather than any standardisation of gauge) - there didn't seem to be the notion of achieving common running standards except among a few close friends (no public tracks back then). 

 

However, in the Dec 11th 1903 ME - the Editor wrote an article entitled "Standard Scales and Gauges for Model Locomotives" where the correspondence and issues raised previously were discussed - and perhaps more importantly, the following was also clearly stated:

 

"The small gauges are respectively termed 1-1/4 (No 0 gauge, 1-3/4 ins (No 1 gauge), 2 ins (No 2 gauge), 2-1/2 (No 3 gauge), and 3 ins (No 4 gauge) in model locomotive catalogues. The last named gauge, however is not 3" but 2-25/32nds between the rails. These standard gauges are used for 1/4, 3/8, 7/16, 1/2 and 9/16 models."

 

So it seems clear that these 'standards' had started to establish themselves in the UK by the end of 1903. However, they are clearly imperial in nature and I suspect here lies the confusion between European & UK gauge standards - the fact that European "Spur" gauges look very similar to UK "Number" gauges. However they are not the same.

 

(BTW - Early in 1904 Henry Greenly published the "ME Locomotive" in ME - using a 3-1/4" track gauge!) 

 

Sorry if this has been a bit off-topic - but there is a lot of poor information about in terms of how the larger scale track gauges developed here in the UK (different standards apply in the US) and I hope this helps clear some of this confusion up.

 

Now back to building some excellent 5" gauge wagon stock...    :-)

 

Regards,

 

IanT

[Compound2632]

Yes, but what scale are the 5" gauge models?

[IanT]

Not sure that MSWJR has stated the exact scale of his model Stephen - but GL5 is normally built at 17/16th  (1-1/16) these days....twice G3 in fact...   :-)

 

Regards,

 

IanT 

[Compound2632]

So the gauge comes out spot on to 0.05%!

[mswjr]

According to wikipedia ,it is  approximately 1:11.3., All i know is working to 1inch and 1/16 from a full size drawing is a nightmare,Things like buffer centers and heights do not add up, So like all the other Gauges listed above it is all a compromise,all good fun thou,  Do not mention gauge to my wife, as that is my nickname as i have a liking for them, 16mm,g1, 0,00,  My next loco is 3 1/2, and ive modeled  7 1/4, The best gauge i have modeled in was 7 1/4 inch gauge ,it was 1 1/2 to the foot and this made working from prototype stuff much more accurate.  

[dajt]

Here in Aus we use both 9/8" and 17/16" to the foot for standard gauge models on 5" track. Even though I've asked many times why, I always forget the answer. I think it might be because it suits our oversized wheels. Our wheels standards are more crude than those in the UK because we decided that was necessary based upon our predominance of ground level passenger hauling. Catches out people who are building their first loco to from UK sourced plans.

 

The 9/8" thing seems relatively recent - as in the last 40 years or so. We have a large range of plans and castings for NSW engines in 17/16", but people who design their own locos often go for the 9/8" scale!

 

And if you model Victorian broad gauge you use 1" scale... plus all the freelance 'narrow gauge' locos we have of no particular scale.

 

It's a real mix down here. Like G1 standard/fine/One32/G/etc.

[runs as required]

First of all what a joy to happen across your thread. Alas, like wishing to be an operatic tenor, I have left it too late to ever hope to model at 5" gauge.

 

I am puzzled why you all still have scaling (and Metric versus Imperial)  headaches in model engineering. It all seemed simplified for me with the arrival of CAD. Most practicing engineers/architects surely work to full size, then simply output at a scale suited to standard paper sizes. This also works well for 3D printing.

 

So therefore can't modellers simply digitise from whatever source full size then simple print out to one's chosen model scale - determined by that scale's actual gauge dimensions between inside rail faces [in this case 5" represents 4' 81/2"  (or 127 mm represents 1435 mm. or 1/11.3]

 

In modelling buildings (as I do), you just do all this pricking out with dividers off the print outs. Is this not accurate enough for model engineers ?

dh

 

PS

It seems a real shame to paint that beautiful model. Can you not at least (like workshop 'grey' photographs) record some images of the model showing off its hardwood subtleties in an oiled finish before painting.

[Compound2632]

Certainly for 5" gauge live steam locomotives, from what I've seen, model engineers often work from drawings prepared specifically for that scale which include all the departures from true scale necessary to make the engine work - steam and pressure don't scale!

[runs as required]

Certainly for 5" gauge live steam locomotives, from what I've seen, model engineers often work from drawings prepared specifically for that scale which include all the departures from true scale necessary to make the engine work - steam and pressure don't scale!

Of course, interesting!.

But that would not be true of most artifacts such as this guard's van.

In the case of the non-scaleable functions, couldn't these be addressed by working to the full size of the model artifact in CAD on files rescaled down from the full size prototype?

dh

 

Subsequent Edit

Thank you for your replies below to my scaling queries. Let's end this OT discourse now;  I have no wish for it to hijack msjwr's majestic photographic project thread. If I had my time again I'd try to venture into these heroic gauges.

Edited April 11, 2018 by runs as required

[dajt]

So therefore can't modellers simply digitise from whatever source full size then simple print out to one's chosen model scale - determined by that scale's actual gauge dimensions between inside rail faces [in this case 5" represents 4' 81/2"  (or 127 mm represents 1435 mm. or 1/11.3]

.

 

As compound said the compromises for 5" gauge are many, including platework thickness where scale thickness material would be hopelessly thin; steamroller wheel profiles and deep flanges mean splashers are wider and higher than the prototype ones and there are many flow-on effects of this on other platework and even the boiler barrel; pipework can't be to scale, nor injectors and pumps; anything attached to frames like brake cylinders have to adjust to the wider frame widths; scale rivets might not be strong enough to do the job, nor scale screws. Motion work has to be strong enough to work and truly scaled stuff probably wouldn't last long. The list just goes on.

 

Good modelling to any scale of any subject seems to require a lot of artistry to minimise the visual impact of the necessary compromises.

[Compound2632]

As compound said the compromises for 5" gauge are many, including platework thickness where scale thickness material would be hopelessly thin; steamroller wheel profiles and deep flanges mean splashers are wider and higher than the prototype ones and there are many flow-on effects of this on other platework and even the boiler barrel; pipework can't be to scale, nor injectors and pumps; anything attached to frames like brake cylinders have to adjust to the wider frame widths; scale rivets might not be strong enough to do the job, nor scale screws. Motion work has to be strong enough to work and truly scaled stuff probably wouldn't last long. The list just goes on.

 

Good modelling to any scale of any subject seems to require a lot of artistry to minimise the visual impact of the necessary compromises.

 

So in fact 5" gauge has much in common with 00! Is there such a thing as a P27 finescale group?

[dajt]

The ground level (https://www.gl5.org/) is the closest thing to a finsescale group. But it's not in the same league as S7 or P4 or S scale.

[Compound2632]

But it's not in the same league as S7 or P4 or S scale.

 

... which is strange. Naively, one would think it would be easier to work to exact scale the larger the scale.

[IanT]

... which is strange. Naively, one would think it would be easier to work to exact scale the larger the scale.

 

No model can ever be "exactly" to scale - and "easier" is of course relative.

 

I've no idea how you'd compare 'scale' standards in any sort of 'league' but I do know that in both G3 & GL5 there have been standards of work achieved that would be very hard to surpass. This is clearly down to the particular craftsman involved - and of course great work (and dreadful stuff too) is done by folk in all sizes.

 

In terms of 'easy' - a larger scale almost demands more attention to detail, simply because it's much more obvious if it's missing in a larger model. So it's not really about being 'easier' to model in a larger scale - more a matter of how much time the modeller wants to invest in a model to achieve the standard they require - it's not really different from working in a smaller scale - although the time involved does probably increase linearly with the relative volume of the model....

 

Regards,

 

IanT

[Compound2632]

No model can ever be "exactly" to scale - and "easier" is of course relative.

 

I've no idea how you'd compare 'scale' standards in any sort of 'league' but I do know that in both G3 & GL5 there have been standards of work achieved that would be very hard to surpass. This is clearly down to the particular craftsman involved - and of course great work (and dreadful stuff too) is done by folk in all sizes.

 

In terms of 'easy' - a larger scale almost demands more attention to detail, simply because it's much more obvious if it's missing in a larger model. So it's not really about being 'easier' to model in a larger scale - more a matter of how much time the modeller wants to invest in a model to achieve the standard they require - it's not really different from working in a smaller scale - although the time involved does probably increase linearly with the relative volume of the model....

 

Regards,

 

IanT

 

By "easier", I meant "with fewer compromises" not "with less effort"!

 

But as RaR says, looking forward to more on the brake van build.

[mswjr]

A bit more done, only the roof to finish,some ribs under the roof planking and roof canvas,so should be finished next week, 

[IanT]

Very nice - well done.

 

IanT

[Spitfire2865]

What are you going to use for roof canvas?

[mswjr]

Im Thinking off using Net curtain, Paint pva, onto the roof then put on the Net curtain then it should stick well and look the part i hope, But i will do a Test on something first, Ill let you know how i get on.

[mswjr]

I have a question for you all please,I have been told by a modeler that the hand rails and lamp irons would of been picked out in either black or white, I am not sure that early ones were, I can not find any early photos of pre grouping vans, so what are yours thoughts on this please.