14.2 and 13.5mm gauges

[Graham Hughes]

It is interesting that someone should join the forum to tell us it is, apparently, impossible to build locos to run on scale gauge track that have outside valve gear and then someone else should join to agree with him. Both seem to be 3mm modellers too. I think rather than "common knowledge" this sounds like it might be a myth circulating among 3mm modellers.

 

However, let us suppose for a moment that all megreog says is correct. How does reducing the track gauge by a fraction of a millimetre change any of it? If you can't make the valve gear because the components are too small at 9.42mm or14.2mm what miraculously changes if the gauge is 9mm or13.5mm?

 

The over scale wheel thickness doesn't affect the valve gear as the position of that is determined by the cylinder centres. There is no need to increase the distance between the cylinder centres to accommodate the finescale wheels. I have in front of me a general arrangement drawing for an LMS class 5. The dimension between cylinder centres is 6' 7 7/8" or 13.3mm in 2mm scale. The over face dimension of a 2mm FS wheelset is 11.10 mm. That gives 1.1mm either side between the wheel face and the cylinder centre. That means one could make both the coupling and connecting rods from 20thou material and have more than adequate clearances and keep the cylinders in the correct positions. What happens outside that is not affected by the overall width of the wheelsets unless someone is proposing to move the cylinders inwards in the narrower gauges.

[Horsetan]

It is interesting that someone should join the forum to tell us it is, apparently, impossible to build locos to run on scale gauge track that have outside valve gear and then someone else should join to agree with him. Both seem to be 3mm modellers too....

Or they might be one and the same troll, peddling the same rubbish.

 

And you wonder why the 3mm sector isn't as big as it could be? With friends like those, who needs enemies?

Edited March 29, 2015 by Horsetan

[Graham Hughes]

But to answer your initial question in straight forward terms:-

 

12MM = OO in 4MM

13.5 mm = EM in 4mm

14.125mm (commonly called 14.2 but actually 14.125) = P4 in 4mm

 

megroeg.m

Only in so far as one is the commercial gauge, one is the correct scale gauge and one is in between. The track and wheel standards are not directly comparable. In those terms 14.2mm is more closely equivalent to EM than P4.

[megroeg]

I have been a regular visitor to the 3mm section of rmweb ever since it was set up but I have never felt the need to contribute until I read these recent postings where I found my name being bandied about and a subject about which I have a great deal of experience being belittled by correspondents who quite obviously know little or nothing of the subject.

 

I do not lie in wait for little Billy goats gruff to cross my bridge.

 

First of all lets get a couple of things clear. One - anyone who is a regular reader of the 3mm mag Mixed Traffic or a member a member of the egroup is well aware of the limitations of the 14.2 loco. It is a fairly regular subject. That is why I said ‘common knowledge’ in 3mm. And two, 3mm despite all the nastiness and abuse thrown at it by usually by those not good enough modellers to work in it, 3mm is in my opinion THE best scale to work in bar non. I should know, I have tried most of the others.

 

So what experience have I got? Well, I have been a railway modeller for over 40 years and 34 years experience of 3mm modelling, I design, do the artwork, and build all kinds of etched kits for, coaches, wagons, signals, trackside bits and pieces and, oh yes, locomotives. I also do the 3d drawings necessary for 3d printing and as someone observed I build locomotives, lots of them. Well over 250 so far in all scales from 2mm to gauge 1 and in just about every variation in between but especially in 3mm.

 

My own personal collection of hand built locos in 14.2 and 13.5 extends to over 30.

 

I have built and exhibited the largest 14.2 mm gauge layout seen in 3mm and also the proud owner of a 3mm scale 28ft x 6ft 4 track main line in 13.5 mm gauge. This exhibition layout has hand made track and incorporates 22 points, crossovers and double slip and runs perfectly.

 

Now tell me I am trolling or I do not know what I am talking about.

[megroeg]

I model in both these gauges as well as 12mm so I will try to explain to those that are genuinely interested the pros and cons of 3mm / 14.2 and 13.5

 

First of all let us be quite clear that it is quite possible to model loco with outside valve gear in 14.2 gauge and many have done so but what they and you cannot do build them to scale dimensions, you need to cheat. There is just not the space to do the valve gear mechanically strong enough. The most common way to cheat, there are other ways, is to set the cylinder centres out over by 0.5mm. ( take note of that dimension as it will turn up again later) This will give enough clearance to fit the valve gear. Most loco kits in 3mm are ‘shot down’ from 4mm or even 7mm so the parts are etched to scale and the operation of easing out the cylinders up even by just a small margin and getting that margin equal on both sides of the loco is laborious and a real pain at times depending on the kit.  

 

Secondly, 14.2,done properly, and to the standard will allow 0-6-0 locos of say, N.E.R. P3 (LNER / BR J27’s) proportions to negotiate curves of about 4ft, tighter than that you are either cheating or chancing your luck, or maybe both? 

 

So where does this leave 13.5? The first mistake the outsider looking in makes is this:- 14.125mm – 13.5mm = 0.625mm or 0.3125mm each side, so then outsider immediately makes the mistake that 13.5 has the same problem as 14.2 there is still not enough room for valve gear.

 

Wrong.

 

Ken Garret, who penned the TM standards donkey’s years ago realised this as well as the large radii needed by 14.2 locos so the crucial dimension is the back to back which in TM (TM is what Ken called 13.5) is 11.8 mm. The back to back in 14.2 is 12.8mm so that is a whole 1mm difference or 0.5mm per side of the loco and where have we heard that figure before?

 

In 13.5 there is no need to alter anything, usually using the EM spacers for the frames is all that is required.

 

Reducing the back to back also means that the relationship between track and wheel has altered to the extent that the minimum radius decreases from 4ft to 3ft, even less depending on loco. So turnouts can be sharper, transition curves shorter, hence layouts smaller for the same content and yet the only guy that can tell the difference between 14.2 or 13.5 is the guy with a vernier calliper.

 

But of course there are doubters and there are those who like to have a shot at anything different to the norm or shakes their cradle.

 

All I can say is I have tried both, I still build in both, but then I also build in just about every other scale less than 7mm, I just enjoy model railways.

[Anglian]

Thank you for positing  – all interesting for me to consider.

[Graham Hughes]

 

First of all let us be quite clear that it is quite possible to model loco with outside valve gear in 14.2 gauge and many have done so but what they and you cannot do build them to scale dimensions, you need to cheat. There is just not the space to do the valve gear mechanically strong enough. The most common way to cheat, there are other ways, is to set the cylinder centres out over by 0.5mm. ( take note of that dimension as it will turn up again later) This will give enough clearance to fit the valve gear.   

 

 

There, I think, we might have the reason why the claim that you need to model to 4'6" gauge to build locos with outside valve gear comes across as nonsensical to many of us, if it based on the assumption that you need to widen the cylinder centres to fit the valve gear in. Setting the cylinder centres wider makes no sense at all, since every component of a locomotive's outside valve gear is outside the centre line of the cylinders. If you want more room for the valve gear it would make more sense to move the cylinders inwards.

 

It is possible, within the limits of the 3mm Society 14.2mm gauge standards, to have wheels narrower than scale over the faces. Typically a full size connecting rod would be around three inches thick. That is .030" in 3mm scale. Worsley Works etch their 3mm valve gear in .018" material. The boss on the full-size connecting rod would be as much as 6 inches deep and the one on the coupling rod another 4 inches. It is perfectly possible to increase the thickness of both rods, if it felt it is needed, while retaining the overall thickness of the bosses at a scale dimension to fit. Taking the cylinder centre dimension I quoted earlier for the LMS Class 5, even at the maximum over faces dimension allowed by the standards there is still 1.8mm either side between the face of the wheels and the centre line of the cylinders. All you have to fit in there is the thickness of the coupling rod and half the thickness of the connecting rod. How thick and strong do you need to make the rods? 

 

 

Se so the crucial dimension is the back to back which in TM (TM is what Ken called 13.5) is 11.8 mm.

 

 

Not according to the published standards on the 3mm Society's website, it isn't. According to them the back-to-back for 13.5mm gauge is 12.15mm +/- 0.05mm.

 

The back to back in 14.2 is 12.8mm so that is a whole 1mm difference or 0.5mm per side of the loco and where have we heard that figure before?

 

 

We heard it when we were making the erroneous assumption that the valve gear goes between the wheels and the centre line of the cylinders.

 

 

 

Reducing the back to back also means that the relationship between track and wheel has altered to the extent that the minimum radius decreases from 4ft to 3ft, even less depending on loco. So turnouts can be sharper, transition curves shorter, hence layouts smaller for the same content and yet the only guy that can tell the difference between 14.2 or 13.5 is the guy with a vernier calliper.

 

Except the 3mm Society standards don't reduce the back-to-back. In fact all the wheel and track standards for the nominal 13.5mm and 14.2mm gauges are identical except for those dependent on the 0.6mm difference in actual track gauge. If you are going to depart from the standards you can do so equally in 14.2mm gauge as 13.5mm. The 0.6mm difference in gauge doesn't, by itself, make a significant difference to anything.

 

13.5mm gauge was around back when I joined the 3mm Society. I can't recall exactly when that was but I remember you joining a little while after. In the time I was a member of the 3mm Society I wasn't aware of anyone other than Ken Garrett modelling in 13.5mm gauge, not many seem to have taken it up since. It has had a long time for its supposed advantages to be appreciated but I didn't see a single example of it when I looked on the 3mm Society's webpages of members' layouts. All the standard gauge ones are to either 12mm or 14.2mm. For anyone starting in 3mm my view is that those are the options to consider. 

[megroeg]

I have been waiting (very, very, very patiently) for this. Thank You.

 

 

 

Graham, you are talking as much nonsense now as you and your cronies were before I joined the thread. And that includes Dobbin.

 

 

 

You lot, and your 3mm knocker friends, and there are quite a number, why do you all hate 3mm so much, what did we ever do to you? 

 

 

 

Just who are the trolls? Um? I wonder.

 

 

Anyway I digress..........

 

 

Everything in your post proves you can run around with a calculator and add 2 + 2, (or minus 2 and 2) splendid, well done, top of the class and kiss the teacher, but, it also proves that you have NO practical experience of the subject that we, the more discerning and knowledgeable members of 3mm are discussing 

 

Everything in your post proves to those of us in 3mm who have looked beyond the end of our nose, that you have no PRACTICAL, and that is what counts, experience of the subject at all..

 

 

 

I for one am just not not interested in arguing with you or your ill fated attempt at face saving, until you have achieved in 3mm what I have achieved and you at the moment are at Zero.

 

Oh, and I may be wrong here, and probably will be I usually am, I for one have never heard your name mentioned in 34 years of  3MM Society membership, and yet you do claim to have met me, more than once, but I do have a bad memory for names, and faces, maybe it's just as well eh? 

 

 

megroegm

[Graham Hughes]

So I presume that as you have now resorted to personal insults rather than addressing the points I made that you concede those points. Let us keep the discussion to the subject rather than attacks on individuals. 

I will repeat the points concisely:

1: How does moving the cylinders outwards help make room for the valve gear when all the parts of a locomotive valve gear are positioned outside the centre line of the cylinders?

2: You state that the back to back for 13.5mm gauge is 11.8mm. The standards on the 3mm Society website show this as 12.15mm +/- 0.5mm

 

3: The standards on the 3mm Society website for 13.5mm and 14.2mm gauge are identical except for the track gauge and the dimensions which follow from it. In that circumstance the minimum radius will be directly proportional to the difference in track gauge since that is the only dimension which changes.

 

4: Despite your claimed advantages for 13.5mm gauge very few modellers seem to be modelling in it. The 3mm Society has a long list of members' layouts, all of which, discounting the non-standard gauge ones, as far as I could see, are to either 12mm or 14.2mm gauge.

 

and an additional one

5: If you reduce the back-to-back to 11.8 mm how do you get round the fact that the track standards set the distance over the check rails at 11.9mm and the minimum inside clearance as 0.10mm, that is 0.20mm greater than the back to back? If you reduce that measurement and increase the check gaps you then get into a situation where the wheels are not wide enough to meet the requirement that they be at least twice the width of the check gap in order to be properly supported at crossing gap. 

All of these are factual statements. Would you care to address any of them rather than simply posting personal abuse  

The thread was started by a newcomer to 3mm Scale who wanted advice to help decide on whether to work to 13.5mm or 14.2mm. Now perhaps you would tell us why a newcomer to the scale should choose a gauge which very few other modellers appear to use, and which requires him to deviate from the published standards to gain the claimed advantages rather than choosing one that a large number of fellow modellers are using and which has been shown to work satisfactorily to the published standards? A claim based on the erroneous assumption that moving the cylinders out makes more room for the valve gear does not really provide a very good reason. I stand by my original statement that 14.2mm was the best option and that 13.5mm gauge had very few adherents. Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about, tell all your fellow 3mm Society members who are working in 14.2mm gauge.

I am not sure what it says about the members of the 3mm Society who apparently follow this forum but don't join up to post advice to a potential new member looking at starting out but only do so to be abusive to those who, in the absence of any advice from 3mm modellers, try and help.
 

 

Now, briefly, to the personal attack. Show me one incidence where I have knocked 3mm scale. I have said several times now that I regard it as my favourite scale to scratch-build in. If you look at my posting history you will see I have said this before on other threads. I am currently engaged in a continental TT project which may or may not see light on these pages depending on how it goes. I don't hate 3mm scale or anything about it, except that I am rapidly losing any good feelings towards a few of those modelling in it. 

Yes, you have met me, at a Borders area group meeting at the home of a chap at Wetherall whose name escapes me at the moment. (We all went to the pub up the road for a very nice lunch) and at a couple of AGMs. As to my own modelling I think I have built around a dozen locos to 14.2mm gauge but then was more involved in manufacturing than personal modelling. If you want to, you can still order my 3mm wagon kits from 3SMR although I wouldn't recommend it as they are probably getting a bit dated by now compared with more modern offerings. Did you ever build the Finney and Smith NER G5? If so you might have been surprised by the large number of very small castings that came with it. I know I was when Dave Finney sent me the bag of the original 7mm ones that he wanted reproducing in 3mm. All those were my work, patterns moulds and castings. I did quite a number of others too, as personal commissions and some for the Society shop when, I think it was Allen Doherty, later of Worsley Works, who was New Products Officer at the time and commissioned quite a few. So yes, I was active in 3mm Scale for many years. From memory I think my membership number my have been 2442 but i am not sure, that may have been my HMRS number

I was seriously considering rejoining the 3mm Society as besides my continental TT I was tempted, as I posted in last month's Railway Modeller thread, by the drawings in Railway Modeller to resurrect the Brougton layout I was building to 14.2mm gauge but which stalled as I could not find drawings for the buildings. The track I built for it has been lost but I still have some locos and rolling stock and the full size plan I drew up for it. With it being the Society's 50th Anniversary year as well I though it would be nice to join again. I even printed out the membership form. That is not going to happen after this thread.   

Now rather than responding with more personal abuse I am sure it would be more helpful to the OP if you were to address the five numbered points I made at the top of this post. I am sure that clarification and discussion on those would be more useful to him in making an informed choice of which gauge to model in than more metaphorical "willy-waving" over who has built the most locos or "My modelling is better than yours".  
 

Edited April 9, 2015 by Graham Hughes

[Horsetan]

.... factual statements. Would you care to address any of them rather than simply posting personal abuse  

....I am not sure what it says about the members of the 3mm Society who apparently follow this forum but don't join up to post advice to a potential new member looking at starting out but only do so to be abusive to those who, in the absence of any advice from 3mm modellers, try and help.....

 

Graham, he's a troll. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Graham Hughes]

Graham, he's a troll. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

He is also a very accomplished and prolific modeller, which is why I am coming back to try and get him to address the points I raised. I would genuinely like to hear his reasons for making assertions that to me, and I suspect to you, seem self-evidently false. Maybe I am missing something I can't see what. I can't for the life of me see how pushing the cylinders outwards makes more room for the valve gear when all the valve gear is positioned outside the cylinder centre line. This all seems to me a bit like those people who think they have destroyed the whole reason for P4 because someone is using less than scale radius curves. It looks to me like someone somewhere has got the idea that moving the cylinders out is necessary to build outside valve gear in the true to scale gauges and the myth has caught hold within the 3mm Society. I have certainly never heard it suggested in regard to 2mmFS or P4. It seems to me that if the valve gear rods are going to be overscale in thickness, pushing the cylinders inwards would be a better bet. Moving them outwards is surely only going to make things worse. In any case I can't see how having your track a scale two and half inches narrower is any better than having your loco valve gear two and a half scale inches wider. It is only the locos with outside valve gear that won't be to scale then, the other way the track and everything that runs on it is not to scale. I am pretty sure that when Bob Jones finished that 9F, scale valve gear or no, he didn't think to himself, "I should have built Fencehouses to 9mm gauge."    

[3mm John]

As a 3mm Society member who admires the skill of my fellow members of the society, what ever gauge they choose, I am disappointed to see the debate raging on this thread. Whilst agreeing that for some members absolute accuracy is everything, surely we all choose the level of modelling which is comfortable for us. I have chosen 3mm as for me it is an exquisite scale and suits my space constraints. I am currently modeling using 12mm gauge which is of course not to scale but currently it works for me. I am sure that as my skills develop I will make the move to 14.2 but one step at a time, The 3mm society has helped me to get started and I have met some great modellers in 3mm. I am now enjoying my railway modelling and that's what matters or have I missed the point? To anyone thinking of 3mm I say try it, whatever gauge you end up using I reckon it won't matter to your fellow society members.

[MartinWales]

I too in addition to yourself model in 3mm but in 14.2mm gauge, thanks to the Society track base introduced in 2009.

 

All I'll say is this-if I can do it anyone can   

[Anglian]

Thanks all. I'm definitely going to give it a go and will rejoin the 3mm society over the weekend.

[MartinWales]

Go for it-you won't regret it!

Edited April 10, 2015 by MartinWales

[whart57]

Does anybody here have experience of either or both? Would you care to comment of the relative merits of either approach? I read variously that 14.2 is actually an equivalent of EM in 4mm and not P4 – is this really the case? If working in 13.5mm are there less wheel sets/kits etc or is that not really a problem since all can be adapted?

 

If working in 14.2mm is the minimum radius extremely generous?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread of replies, the 3mm Society is a scale society and not a gauge society. As a result the Society's published wheel and track standards can appear confusing when set against those from P4, S guage or the 2mm Association. The easiest way to pick a way through the undergrowth is to think of the Society's standards being three sets of wheel standards.

 

The coarsest is the legacy Triang standard, set by Triang over fifty years ago when every railway model manufacturer thought trains were steamrollers on rails. The problem for the 3mm Society is that Triang did such a damn good job at the time making indestructible mechanisms and producing locos, coaches and wagons that were superior to their OO counterparts that a lot of Triang TT is still in use today. However, similarly coarse wheelsets are delivered by Continental TT manufacturers at least until very recently.

 

The next standard is the Society "Intermediate" standard. Not a very good name as it doesn't convey the fact that this is the more forgiving of the two wheel profiles used by the 3mm Society for the wheels they sell to members to use on the rolling stock they build. In the past wheels have been made to this standard by Chris Hardy, Romford, Kean-Maygib and Alan Gibson. The Sharman Millimetre range also fitted this profile. About four years ago the 3mm Society launched their own SQ (self quartering) range. These have a square axle hole for ease of quartering, and - more importantly - ensuring wheels stay properly quartered. Dimensionally these wheels are about 0.5 mm too wide for exact scale and the flanges are approximately twice as wide and deep as the exact scale equivalent. In proportion these wheels are only slightly coarser than 2mm FS are of a similar fine-ness as 7mm finescale and are a little finer than RP25. Or RP25 as was, the NMRA seem finally to have twigged that RP25 doesn't match their own wheel standards

 

The Society also drew up a Finescale wheel standard and through the 1990s produced loco and rolling stock wheels to that standard. The full range is still available to Society members. These wheels are correct scale width, albeit that the upper tolerance is about 10% over scale width, but flange width and depth are about 50% overscale.

 

The fact that 3mm Society finescale wheels are still a little overscale has led some people to propose an S3 standard, one where wheels and track are built to exact scale. The reaction of most 3mm Society members has been along the lines of "best of luck with that" and certainly the Society, nor anyone else, has not delivered any product to that standard.

 

All three wheel profiles have been used on different gauges

 

The legacy Triang profile, and its modern commercial TT relations, is really only for 12mm gauge though back in the 1980s a layout appeared in the model press where Triang wheels had been pushed out to allow the rails to be set 14.2mm apart. That approach is not recommended by the Society.

 

The Intermediate profile is intended for 12mm gauge though the Society will sell axles for the SQ wheels that allow them to be used on 13.5mm or 14.2mm gauge track. Track standards have to be tweaked however, flangeways widened, so that these wheels can pass through crossings. I personally have built a small test track with three points to 13.5mm gauge and using Intermediate profile wheels and it seems workable.

 

The finescale profile has been used with 12mm gauge but most of those who use the FS wheels also use an exact scale track gauge - 14.2 mm for standard gauge, 15.75mm for Irish broad gauge and 21mm for Brunel's broad gauge. George Mitcheson was building an ambitious 13.5mm gauge layout using the finescale wheel profile on his stock but I believe a change in circumstances has meant this project has been shelved.

 

As to what works, the best thing is probably to view some of these layouts at shows. At the Crawley MRS show this weekend there were examples of 12mm gauge using Intermediate standard wheels (Paul Hopkins' Redford Junction and Tony Briddon's Bilton Goods), 14.2 mm gauge using finescale wheels (Peter Bossom's Whatlington and the Croydon MRS' Hemyock) and 15.75 mm gauge using FS wheels (Ballyconnell Road). All fine layouts demonstrating what is possible in 3mm scale.

 

There will be similar pods of 3mm scale layouts at Wells and Warley later this year, showing the different ways of modelling in the scale and in October, in conjunction with Worsley Works there will be a 3mm scale only show in Kidderminster.

 

Hope this helps

 

3mm Society Chairman

[sp1]

What date is the show in Kidderminster?

[flubrush]

As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread of replies, the 3mm Society is a scale society and not a gauge society. As a result the Society's published wheel and track standards can appear confusing when set against those from P4, S guage or the 2mm Association.

 Just a minor nit-pick. :-)   The S Gauge Society in the UK changed its name to the S Scale Society a few years ago to reflect the fact that several of its members modelled gauges other than standard gauge - like 5' 3" and 3' 6".  So we are now a scale society. :-)

 

Jim.

[Grovenor]

 

The fact that 3mm Society finescale wheels are still a little overscale has led some people to propose an S3 standard, one where wheels and track are built to exact scale.

"Scalethree" standards were published in an article by Stewart Hine in Model Railways, January 1973. Scaled down very closely from the prototype IIRC as for S4. I think some experimental items were shown in the article but I don't recollect ever seeing anything further on it.

Regards

Keith

[whart57]

 Just a minor nit-pick. :-)   The S Gauge Society in the UK changed its name to the S Scale Society a few years ago to reflect the fact that several of its members modelled gauges other than standard gauge - like 5' 3" and 3' 6".  So we are now a scale society. :-)

 

Jim.

 

I stand corrected, thank you

[Anglian]

What date is the show in Kidderminster?

 

I think it's 17 October – a 50 year celebration. I will definitely be going. Too good an opportunity to miss to see so many 3mm layout in one space in one day and the SVR as well.

[Graham Hughes]

I think it's 17 October

 

 

It is indeed. Worsley Works has more information on their website.

[NCB]

 I read variously that 14.2 is actually an equivalent of EM in 4mm and not P4 – is this really the case?

This statement is indeed sometimes used, but you need to understand the context. The 3mm Society finescale standards specified for 14.2mm gauge are rather more generous than say P4 is in 4mm scale (relatively speaking). This is sometimes illustrated by saying that it's rather like reducing EM standards to 3mm scale but, unlike EM, using the correct 14.2 (or, as has been pointed out, 14.125) gauge. So it's some way removed from Stewart Hine's S3 standards. Whatever, the standards work.

[IanKirkwood]

I have been a 3mm modeller for some 30 years, originally using 12mm gauge.  Some may remember my layout 'Wray' which was widely exhibited in the '90s. I am at present building a small layout using 13.5mm gauge.  Difficult?  Not at all; I have sets of gauges which were marketed by Finney and Smith and make track building a doddle (I'm using soldered track with PCB sleepers, at least for pointwork, and 3mm Society 13.5mm track bases for plain track).  Why 13.5?  3mm modellers are by nature bloddy-minded - why else would you chosse a scale with virtually no trade support?  12mm always looked very narrow; and I have stocks of the old Sharman millimetre range driving wheels which are too wide in the tread to work well in 14.2.  13.5 seems to be a good compromise for me.  But then I don't consider myself a finescale modeller - I just want the overall effect to be convincing.  When using 3mm Society finescale wheels one can request axles shouldered either for 14.2 or 13.5, so that's all right.  The new intermediate wheels with square-ended axles are likewise available with 13.5 axles.  Rolling stock wheels can simply be regauged using a  suitable back-to-back gauge.  And I'm modelling the Furness Railway in 1908.  Small locos so the extra space between the fames compared to 12mm is useful for fitting motors in. I think 13.5 is OK.  I've just this week built my first ever single slip, and that seems to work fine.  If you're thinking of 13.5, give it a go.

 

Ian

[johnarcher]

I have been a 3mm modeller for some 30 years, originally using 12mm gauge.  Some may remember my layout 'Wray' which was widely exhibited in the '90s. I am at present building a small layout using 13.5mm gauge.  Difficult?  Not at all; I have sets of gauges which were marketed by Finney and Smith and make track building a doddle (I'm using soldered track with PCB sleepers, at least for pointwork, and 3mm Society 13.5mm track bases for plain track).  Why 13.5?  3mm modellers are by nature bloddy-minded - why else would you chosse a scale with virtually no trade support?  12mm always looked very narrow; and I have stocks of the old Sharman millimetre range driving wheels which are too wide in the tread to work well in 14.2.  13.5 seems to be a good compromise for me.  But then I don't consider myself a finescale modeller - I just want the overall effect to be convincing.  When using 3mm Society finescale wheels one can request axles shouldered either for 14.2 or 13.5, so that's all right.  The new intermediate wheels with square-ended axles are likewise available with 13.5 axles.  Rolling stock wheels can simply be regauged using a  suitable back-to-back gauge.  And I'm modelling the Furness Railway in 1908.  Small locos so the extra space between the fames compared to 12mm is useful for fitting motors in. I think 13.5 is OK.  I've just this week built my first ever single slip, and that seems to work fine.  If you're thinking of 13.5, give it a go.

 

Ian

If you hadn't got stuff already, like the Sharman wheels, would you say 13.5 has any advantages over 14.2?  As 14.2 is not like P4, bringing in the need for compensation etc (though that's useful anyway), but more like EM?