Parts: the great conundrum

[Guest]

Are Hollywood Foundry no longer offering S as a track gauge option for their products? The range now seems to run from 9mm to 18.83mm.

 

http://www.hollywoodfoundry.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=10&cat=BullAnt+Drive+Mechanisms

 

[flubrush]

Are Hollywood Foundry no longer offering S as a track gauge option for their products? The range now seems to run from 9mm to 18.83mm.

 

http://www.hollywoodfoundry.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=10&cat=BullAnt+Drive+Mechanisms

 

David,

 

I note that they offer extended axles and you can specify the length of the extension,  so if you added about 6mm total to their standard H0 axle,  that would be about correct for S when you pulled the wheels out to 0.884"/22.45mm gauge.    Your problem might be the wheel standards if you want to run to UK S scale standards since it looks as though they only supply RP25 Code 110 wheels which might have difficulty running on UK S scale pointwork.

 

Jim.

[Guest]

Why not ask them?

 

In point of fact, I did that very thing earlier today, via the Contact function on their site. Since you seem to find my post faintly redundant, I will tell you that I asked it here for two reasons, 1) to alert interested members to the fact, and 2) in the hope of maybe gaining some additional background information that might not otherwise come my way - one thing I have learned about this forum is that members can be remarkably informed.

[Guest]

Entirely supposition on your part. I merely suggested you ask them directly, for the reasons I give in response to your second enumerated reason.

 

And YOUR supposition was that I had NOT asked the manufacturer in question.

 

A more useful post would be to ask them, and then to alert us to the fact that either:

i) They really don't do this anymore; or

ii) Despite giving the impression to the contrary on their website, they do still provide longer axles, etc.

 

Yeah, but unfortuately, most of us have different ways of doing things. I posted this question on this forum in the hope of getting some informative and friendly answers, and maybe to stimulate discussion as to how the range of available parts for S can be increased. Jim provided an excellent example of what I was hoping for. The fact that I did things the other way round from the way you suggested is totally irrelevant since the manufacturer's answer would have been injected into the conversation at some point.

 

Yes. True. Many are. 

But across the whole community of not just RMWeb, but internet fora generally, myth and rumour are often perpetrated as fact so it is always advisable to ask manufacturers directly.

 

Indeed. But I draw your attention to your use of the word "often" which does not mean always. Further, I asked a question, I did not make an outright statement. If anyone wishes to turn a question into rumour into established fact, that is not my responsibility.

 

So, I am glad you did ask them. Have you had a response yet, and what was it? Your turn to be informed and to share the knowledge with the rest of us.

 

Are you making the assumption that I would not?

 

Simon

Incidentally, re your sig, how do you know that I (or anyone else for that matter) won't like your idea of railway modelling? I have no knowledge of what your idea of railway modelling is, but even if I did, my only action would be to ask, "Are you happy with your definition of railway modelling?" Anything else is rather pointless.

I ask out of curiosity, as you have raised the matter.

(Before you ask, mine is: "Whatever I feel like doing at the time, as a way of passing time, in anyway connected with model railways however weak the link.")

 

You're criticising my signature now??? Perhaps you should read it in conjunction with the second part, the Scoobius Pip quote.

[Guest]

I have a reply from Geoff Baxter at Hollywood Foundry, copied and pasted as follows:

 

 

Hello David,

I stopped making S gauge devices because some of the items ordered would not
have made very reliable drive systems.

So it depends upon what you want? If you let me know, I can say if they can
be built successfully.

Regards,
Geoff

 

So the door is still open, which is good news.

 

David,

 

I note that they offer extended axles and you can specify the length of the extension,  so if you added about 6mm total to their standard H0 axle,  that would be about correct for S when you pulled the wheels out to 0.884"/22.45mm gauge.    Your problem might be the wheel standards if you want to run to UK S scale standards since it looks as though they only supply RP25 Code 110 wheels which might have difficulty running on UK S scale pointwork.

 

Jim.

 

Jim, I take your point. I've done some further digging around and they do offer certain sizes in RP25/88 and P4, none of which seem big enough for S scale use. For myself, I don't follow Society standards so it's not an issue. Oh, for the capital to start up a small business...

[Mod4]

Gents please keep things civil and on topic. Many thanks.

[Guest]

Simon, I think we agree on several counts and may call a truce to what appears to be a developing misunderstanding between us. I look forward to your comments on parts. This has been something of a bugbear with me for some time.

[Guest]

Interesting reply. Must admit that I am intrigued: why would the drives not be reliable in S, when they are OK in narrower gauges/smaller scales.

At least we know that specials are possible, which is a significant step forward.

At a guess, if he is using a form tool or a CNC program for the wheel profiles, then larger diameters should be possible, but he may need to order minimum quantities, which could put the kybosh on things.

 

Agreed on the first two points. My initial concern (and what prompted me to post in the first place) was the appearance of a supplier turning his back on the scale, but it seems not to be the case. On the last point, this brings us into new technology, of which more anon.

 

 

 

Word of warning: NMRA RP25/88 wheels, whilst superficially attractive for S, being all but the correct width, have a flange profile which is deeper than S scale (25 thou instead of 18, but I could live with that) and also wider than S scale (again, 25 thou rather than 18 thou). The latter causes problems if laying track to standard SSMRS standards, with a high likelihood of wheelsets getting stuck or riding up at crossing vees, as there would be about 3 thou (less than 0.1mm!) clearance.

 

Yes, I know of the flange dimensions of Code 88 and should perhaps have suggested (as I meant it to sound) that this oversize flange therefore gives plenty of meat to turn down for a more-to-scale version.

I'm not going to repeat your section on parts: it's very thorough and needs no further input from me. What I will do is go back to my infamous quote from Mr. Pip - infamous because the original contains an extra word that is not allowed to be repeated on this forum and which I therefore neglected to include when I put it up. Perhaps that's just as well since I rather enjoy being here.

 

I'm going to demolish a fundamental tenet of S-scale modelling, that S is a scratchbuilder's scale. It is not. Every scale in the railway modelling spectrum is a scratchbuilder's scale. That is to say, you can scratchbuild a Pannier in 00, if you so wish. The fact that there is an RTR version - plus, I do not doubt, a few kits - available is irrelevant. You can choose to scratchbuild it. So, given that, where does this put S? Simple. The same as any other scale but without the parts necessary to allow more modellers to exploit it.

 

Let's take another question. Why am I in S? Well, it sure as hell isn't for the joy of fretting out and filing individual spokes in locomotive driving wheels, which I suspect would have a limited appeal generally. No, it's the size that attracts me, and I wonder how many other people in the same position are out there, how many would love to have a crack at the scale if only there was more available to allow them to do so. 

There are some things available, I agree. Alan Gibson has done a lot for the scale, and it's good to see the range still available through the new owners. But I have to ask, when Alan retired, did the Society make any attempt to buy the artwork for his S-scale kits? There's a reason I'm asking this.

 

I see what you say about the situation in the U.S. and agree that the market is largely led by the tinplate sector. Even so, there's a interesting and expanding range available for the scale modeller. I'm sure you're aware of a company called S Scale Loco & Supply. Their parts page includes a range of driving wheel tyres in certain (I think) USRA sizes. A small thing perhaps but better than nothing and more than is offered over here. After all, just how difficult can it be to get a small engineering company to machine up a few tyres with stuff like CNC available? Has the Society looked into this?

 

 

 

Don't wish to appear negative there: the appeal of S, part from the size, is that it is a scale for modellers and personal input is required. As Trevor Nunn said back in MRJ 10, one does not need many parts to be able to build a model railway.

 

Trevor is an excellent modeller but there's a difference between not having many parts and not having any.

 

Before anyone accuses me of sitting on my backside and waiting for parts to just drop into my lap, this is not the case. My main modelling project means that anything I want I will have to produce myself. It also means that anything I produce will be of no use whatsoever to anyone else. This is where CNC, on-demand etching services and 3D Printing will be invaluable. I've promised two members on this forum to draw up CAD plans for a wagon and a driving wheel centre to see how they pan out in S. Unfortunately, time has not been my best friend of late so I've made rather less progress than hoped. Apart from holding down a job, furthering my writing career and being manager to my wife (she's a trained soprano with her own increasingly successful music career), there's all the other stuff to get in the way. No, my concern, I think, is the way the scale is viewed. Everybody scratchbuilds so it's a scratchbuilder's scale. Piffle. Not a mousetrap, free cheese and a challenge.

[Guest]

You need to get yourself up to speed!

SSMRS has had a range of tyres produced, and they are still available. They are listed on the SSMRS website, and we're available before the current incarnation of SSLS re-entered the market.

And there is also a range of lost-wax brass centres to suit. The latter need machining to fit the tyres, but this is within the realms of a Unimat SL, and these can be picked up off eBay for about the same price as a good pillar drill, which it can also be used for, so is worth the investment. Also, if someone built a loco using EM wheels and wanted to use Society cast centres, someone would probably help - but only after the loco had been built, not before. We might be esoteric, but we are not stupid.

 

Simon, do you really think I don't know what's available in my own scale? Of course I knew of this range! And I'm glad you brought it up because I'd like to examine it in a little more detail. The wheel sizes, let's look at those. Forgive me but these are hardly the most common sizes used, especially for more modern locomotives. Going back to the SSLS range, we see that these USRA sizes were perpetuated down through the years. The 69" size, for example, appeared on such diverse things as the GN 08s, the UP Challengers, the NKP Berkshires. Similarly, the 63" appeared on nearly every Cab-forward Mallet the SP ever owned, as well as a wide variety of Mikados on many roads. The 57" (some sources state 58" on the last series but who's counting when it comes to turned down tyres and stuff?) was used right through the Y series Mallets on the Norfolk & Western. And so on, and so on. My point is this: the range of tyres your society offers is limited in scope. The centres require machining in order to produce a finished article. Not everyone owns, wishes to own or is able to own the necessary equipment to do that machining. Admittedly, the SSLS range probably suffers from the same requirement but the point about tyre sizes remains valid.

 

SSLS in years past did complete kits, didn't they? The USRA Light and Heavy Pacifics and Mikados, plus the NKP Berkshire, as I recall.

 

 

However, a CNC lathe needs to be programmed, etc, and this takes time so there are usually minimum order volumes to take into consideration. The take-up on these has been a bit disappointing.

 

Duly noted.

 

 

In addition to this, the S wheel profile is near as dammit EM "fine" (Pendon/Ultrascale/Sharman)* so wheels for this standard can be used. AG EM/00 wheels need 0.0015" taking off the back of the flange to be compatible ith scale track standards, plus the centres can be pushed out, so the tyres are usable.

 

But maybe a bit on the thin side? I'm talking thickness of tyre here, not wheel width.

 

 

He is indeed, but it has to be said that the range available now is quite wide and much larger than when he wrote those words.

 

Possibly in terms of etched kits and suchlike but what about the basics like couplings? Someone on this forum (and I forget who it was) a while ago was asking for some 00 scale Jackson 3-links for use in S. And buffers? A wide variety used throughout the long history of British railways so where are we on this one? A good case for some 3D Printing?

 

 

It's also not true.

Some SSMRS modellers have models built from commission.

 

Would that we all were so rich!

 

 

Incidentally, a conscious decision was taken several years ago SSMRS to stop pushing S as "The Scratchbuilder's Scale", whilst still being honest that it may be required. How the scale is viewed is up to individuals, but perception is in the sensory organ of the perceiver...

 

Totally agree! Having worked in Advertising, I know all too well how image plays a greater part in people's perceptions than does substance. Would you care to join me in changing that?

 

 

Given some of the erroneous sweeping statements you have made, you will also need to do your homework more thoroughly.

 

Sorry, Simon, but that was unnecessary. Given much of the foregoing, you may wish to withdraw that comment.

[Guest]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Simon. For myself, I don't regard this as an argument, more a discussion from entrenched positions, of which more anon. As for being circular, that it most certainly isn't except in one respect: I'm circling the main thrust of the discussion, I'm trying to draw out what this really boils down to.

 

I do have to correct one point, though: you're absolutely right, I didn't mention the Society range of wheels and tyres. but not for the reasons you claim. I did indeed know about them all along but didn't mention them because the range is almost an embarrassment. It features, for example, a 4'10" and (rather strangely) a 4'11" wheel. How many prototypes use those sizes? This is why I cited the SSLS range of USRA tyre sizes. They're very commonly used in US prototypes. They have a wide appeal and therefore greater commercial potential. So there you have it. Less backtracking and more can't-be-bothered-to-waste-my-time-on-mentioning-it. I understand the reason why those sizes were produced but this merely indicates a society that is more reactive than proactive. A criticism? Well...yeah! But I would hope that members would stop to consider whether or not it was justified before responding.

 

You mention the membership figures of the Society. One of your members informs me that that figure hovers at around 110, but how many of that number do any actual modelling in the scale?

 

What this discussion boils down to, I think, is the same situation being looked at from two different angles. And I think it's this:

 

There aren't many parts in S because there aren't many modellers in S.

 

OR

 

There aren't many modellers in S because there aren't many parts in S.

 

I belong very firmly in the latter camp. You, I think, subscribe to the first, although I would not presume to make a firm judgement on this.

 

As I see it, what the scale needs is investment, someone with spare cash and the willingness to burn it in pursuance of his hobby without much hope of return. So what is needed? I'm going to start with a range of generic locomotive driving wheels. Yes, I'm aware that a particular wheel won't then be absolutely right for a particular prototype but if you can count the number of spokes and see the difference between a 13" and 14" throw, especially in 1:64 size AND while that wheel is rolling, then Mister, you're a better man than I. 

 

I'd start with a 6'2" wheel. That covers the BR Standard classes from 5 to 8, plus the Gresley V2s, Thompson Pacifics and B1s and Peppercorn A2s. The tyre size would also work for the Bulleid pacifics, obviously with a different insert. Suggestions for other sizes (with reasons) welcome.

 

Wagon kits. Again, something generic to start with, and the letters RCH spring to mind. There are a couple of 7-plankers in the Society range but I'm sure there are other designs to be covered. I'm not a wagon expert but I'm sure there are others out there with some very firm ideas. Let's hear them.

 

Coach kits. Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster, what a minefield. This one, I'm not even going to touch. Open to suggestions.

 

I'd really value some input. What I do NOT want to hear is why this can't be done, why that shouldn't be done, why the other mustn't be done, etc., etc. Let's leave practicalities to one side and just do a little thinking, okay?

 

 

[Guest]

I'm jumping back in to add a question. Why is there a cost attached to rescaling artwork for etched kits?

[Phil Copleston]

As Moderator of this Forum, I have patiently followed this discussion and note that it continues to be acrimonious and critical of individuals and of collective groups (the latter without effective means of reply). Mod 4 has already warned the contributors of this tendency. Therefore, this topic is henceforth LOCKED. No further contributions are possible.