Jeff Smith Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 The post was addressed to me so I don't know how I missed that.....1/6th scale would certainly make for big models....! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyC Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 David - I thought the clearance problems were associated with the smaller British loading gauge which meant that electric motors at the time used for 1/87th would not fit into the British outline loco bodies - hence the bodies were scaled up to 1/76th but the gauge (chassis/motor) kept the same? The other problem is that most British locos have low running plates and splashers which makes the width over the outside of the wheels a major factor. Given the limited clearances I rather admire anyone who can build a P4 model with outside valve gear and keep it all the correct width. This has been linked to on previous occasions and is interesting reading: http://www.doubleogauge.com/history/history.htm and refers to Greenleys influence. I find 4mm / ft quite convenient when reading from imperial drawings as 1mm = 3" and 1/2mm = 1 1/2" etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted September 18, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 18, 2014 The other problem is that most British locos have low running plates and splashers which makes the width over the outside of the wheels a major factor. Given the limited clearances I rather admire anyone who can build a P4 model with outside valve gear and keep it all the correct width. This has been linked to on previous occasions and is interesting reading: http://www.doubleogauge.com/history/history.htm and refers to Greenleys influence. I find 4mm / ft quite convenient when reading from imperial drawings as 1mm = 3" and 1/2mm = 1 1/2" etc Not so easy to measure 4ft 8 1/2 though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 As a professional engineer and a child of the imperial-metric transition, I find that I tend to calculate in metric but visualise in imperial. On the subject of threads, BSP still seems to be the de facto standard for pipe threads worldwide. For fasteners, there are some imperial threads for which the ISO system has no real equivalent. Not usually critical, but in circumstances where it is...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 David - I thought the clearance problems were associated with the smaller British loading gauge which meant that electric motors at the time used for 1/87th would not fit into the British outline loco bodies - hence the bodies were scaled up to 1/76th but the gauge (chassis/motor) kept the same? At the time that 00 became a modelling scale there wasn't really anything around as close to scale that you could describe it as 1/87. Everything commercially produced in such a small scale (mostly German) which wasn't much was essentially a toy- think of the early Lone Star trains from the 1950s in something vaguely like N gauge or even the pre war Hornby 0 gauge tinplate for a comparison- I'm not sure if the motors were so much an issue as an excuse- A.R. Walkley managed to build a 3.5mm/ft demo layout using permanent magnet motors and when Greenly claimed that it was impractical he prompty produced a small working layout in 2mm/ft scale. I think the real problem was that Greenly was trying to apply a standard that would work for both tabletop toy train sets with tinplate curves and for more serious miniature railways. Greenly suggested 5/8 inch track and I think 3/16th inch to the foot scale (4mm/ft more or less) from the start but a group at the newly formed Wimbledon club- the second in the country after the MRC- were already aiming at scale modelling. Hi David The ratio is one inch to 6 feet. Err yes. Thanks Clive.I'm not sure where that one came from. I can multiply six by twelve honestly. Effect of peering at too many referendum polls yesterday perhaps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 As a professional engineer and a child of the imperial-metric transition, I find that I tend to calculate in metric but visualise in imperial. On the subject of threads, BSP still seems to be the de facto standard for pipe threads worldwide. For fasteners, there are some imperial threads for which the ISO system has no real equivalent. Not usually critical, but in circumstances where it is...... amazing how many French modellers have 1200mm long baseboards- despite metrication the international timber trade still seems to like 4x8ft panels- but modellers in France also seem to know about our pieds and pouces. I think scenery builders still use a "metric foott" of 300mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
N15class Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 In my engineering career I have found mm are easier for estimating smallish things like material thicknesses etc but inches and feet win out for me when it comes to anything bigger. When I took my final exams at college (1971) the physics paper had duplicated questions in Imperial and Metric and luckily we could choose whichever system we wanted for each question....I passed, just.... Some of you may know this but even in Metric designs Imperial threads are often used as thought to be superior to metric ones. I remember years ago dealing with a Swiss engineering company and finding they used BSP (British Standard Pipe thread). BSP is a standard throughout the world for plumbing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.