Hello Simon; I think this whole thread began with a post that was not intended for this list, but to an officer of the NASG, hence the mention of the deep flange standards;
I'm troubled by Paul's assertion that P-64 is "a bunch of elitists", a strong echo of the complaints some Flyer folks have against scale modelers. If someone wants to model more closely to the prototype, we should applaud their efforts, not be derisive toward them. Unless someone has some really substantive fact to add to this thread, I think it is time for the topic to end. Pieter E. Roos --- On Sun, 7/7/13, Simon <[email protected]> wrote: From: Simon <[email protected]> Subject: {S-Scale List} Re: Wheel Aizes To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, July 7, 2013, 7:17 PM --- 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 '? Simon Dunkley
