Pieter,

In that same light I was giving John a hard time in that I said those wheel 
sets  from the side and three feet away pretty much look the same.  His reply 
was yes but from above you can see the difference..I can agree with that except 
most of mine have cars over the top of them.  All we need is a few more 
divisions to be split into...and the numbers just get smaller..

gale
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Pieter Roos 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:14 AM
  Subject: {S-Scale List} Re: Rail height


    
  Guys;

  Really? I'm all for realism and getting as close as possible to the 
prototype, but are we going to obsess over .010 in the height of our rail? 
Better have tie plates with the correct number of spikes, rail clips, 
"bondings" on rail joints in signaled territory, etc. if you plan to worry 
about this discrepancy.

  I would suggest someone insert a strip of .010 styrene under the rail in a 
section of track and see if you really notice the difference.

  I'd rather worry that there is no 40' steel 10'6" boxcar with IDE and 
diagonal panel roof, nor a plastic PS-1 boxcar which existed in the tens of 
thousands post-war. Yet, we endure...

  Pieter E. Roos

  --- On Thu, 12/15/11, Bob Werre <[email protected]> wrote:

  > I guess that makes more sense, glad I
  > didn't do the math!   But it also 
  > says that code 100 would be a little on the small
  > side!  I understand 
  > that Cleveland once sold some #115 size rail, which would
  > be nearly perfect.
  > 
  > I have measured the middle sized (KCS) and it comes out to
  > 90. while the 
  > MILW comes in at 60 which is what I was told.  The
  > actual rail sample is 
  > about #40, so it could have been used for early 3'
  > running.
  > 
  > Bob Werre
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > On 12/15/11 2:46 PM, Tom Hawley wrote:
  > >
  > > As you can see it's nearly 7" high.
  > > ----- Original Message -----
  > > From: Talmadge C 'TC' Carr
  > >
  > > Thats around code 130
  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
  > > > > > > > >
  > > -----------Response-----------
  > > The gentleman forgets that our scale is one to 64, and
  > that the code is
  > > derived from the rail height. 7 divided by 64 gives a
  > "code" of about 110.
  > >
  > > Tom Hawley -- Lansing Mich



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to