--- In [email protected], Paul Vaughn <pv_sn3@...> wrote:>> Hi
Bill: that just supports my contension that Proto anything is a bunch of
hooy.
Not really: if/when I come to build one, it will have wide tyres (if the
story is true) but the flange will stay the same as my other items of
equipment.For most wheels, the tyre width is the same, but there are
very good reasons why this is not always the case. From investigating
locomotive drawings, it seems that some steam engines had some of their
wheels spaced slightly further apart in the US, which reduces the need
for side play on driven (as opposed to coupled) wheels. You guys are
lucky. Over here, we took a bit off the rear of the flange, and a bit
off the front. The check gauge did not remain constant, although the
distance between the centres of the flanges did, indeed the requisite
published standards show this, but also state exactly where and when
this deviation from usual practice is permitted to occur. The difference
in S is in the order of 0.001"-0.002", which is about my level of
engineering tolerance. Since my model locos are not driven by the power
of expansive steam (well, they are, but it is converted into electricity
at a power station first!) the forces involved are a lot less - also
related to the reduction of some forces by the inverse of the square and
others by the inverse of the cube, etc - and I prefer to allow for a
little extra side play. Yes, it is a compromise, but it comes where
engineering tolerances and the precision of my work collide.
If Proto:64 is defined as scaling down from the real thing by a factor
of 64, then that's what you do.If Proto:64 is defined as the rigid
application of one wheel profile - which you seem to suggest, but no one
practicing it has ever said this - then you are right, it is complete
hooey, but it also isn't proto:anything, 'cos it isn't about scaling
down from the real thing, even allowing for engineering requirements.
>Thanks for sharing the photo. Is there anyone close to the loco that
could measure the wheel width on the 2-10-0? I would like to know.
I would like to know that, too. Being somewhat further away than most, I
really would appreciate someone measuring up for me!
Self-guarding frogs were not particularly common in areas where Russian
decapods ran, if indeed they were common anywhere at that time. Stating
that one had problems in transit to a museum is interesting, but beyond
showing how the prototype has problems accommodating wheels outside of
its own "Proto:1" standards, I am not sure how it adds to this debate.
Neither does the following, but it is interesting. Well, I think so -
you can make up your own minds.
In the 1940s, the London Midland and Scottish railway supplied two of
its 0-6-0T switchers to its subsidiary in Northern Ireland, the
"Northern Counties Committee". This ran on 5'3" gauge.British driving
wheel centres typically have a flat rear, and are thicker at the
boss/axle than at the rim. To re-gauge the locos, they removed the tyres
from the wheels and the wheel centres from the axles, turned the wheel
centres about face, and red-assembled them. Et voila! Two locos
re-gauged, without the need for new axles (as was typical practice at
the time, the engines had inside cylinders with two cranks and four
eccentrics - sounds like some model railway clubs I know - so new axles
would have been expensive). Sounds like a modeller's solution, doesn't
it, but it was prototypical!
One thing I don't understand. As this list is not an official one for
any organisation, and clearly states that its remit is about the "scale"
side of things, why have "deep flange" standards been mentioned? Or have
I not understood the meaning of the word "scale" as much as some of the
more contentious posts in this thread suggest, i.e. "S Scale" means
'usually 3/16" to the foot, unless I can't be bothered, in which case I
will dismiss those who can be bothered to be consistent in their
modelling by calling them names
<http://ewjr.org/2013/05/29/elitism-in-the-mind-of-the-accuser/> '?
Simon Dunkley
