Hey, Fella! You tryin' to "S"tart "S"omethin'? On the other hand, increasing the back-to-back dimension of wheelsets by .00000005" could have a dramatic affect on the reduction of coupler misalignment problems.
I'll have to sit this one out, though; I'm too busy having fun with MY trains. Gentlemen - start your word processors! Bob Nicholson _________________________________________________ --- In [email protected], Bill Rigsby <silvergost1@...> wrote: > > Â Maybe it is time to change it again, perhaps to metric? > Â Bill > > --- On Sun, 1/23/11, scale S only <scalesonly@...> wrote: > > > From: scale S only <scalesonly@...> > Subject: {S-Scale List} Scale S standards > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 11:19 AM > > > Â > > > > Hi all -- > > I am just glad that I got into scale S AFTER the changes to the standards > had been made. I have not had to adjust any of the wheelsâ gauge on any of > my locos, though the rest of the rolling stock has needed tweaking. When I > started, I knew of no sources other than the brass importers, American > Models, and Don Heimburgerâs âSâcenery Unlimited. Fortunately, my first > standard gauge loco worked with the Shinohara flex track that Don sold, so I > made my own rather crude track gauge to match from a chunk of sheet brass > which I am still using to this day, at least 30 years later. I still > mostly eyeball guard rail clearances and the like, but my track works very > well, thank you. It also tells me if a wheelset is out of gauge, even by > just a hairâs thickness... > > Thanks to all who made this possible! > Bill Winans > Prescott Valley, AZ > > Bob: > I think you just restated a misconception that probably started the fight in > the first place. Bradley wanted other scales based on HO, other scales > wanted to have some basis in a mathematical reduction from the prototype. > Using the HO track gauge at the time and scaling it S did not produce track > that was 4' 8.5" in dimension. NASG chose to change to new standards that > recognized 4' 8.5" as our track gauge (0.883). > > Change is a fearful and burdensome thing, avoided by most people. In this > case I think NASG made a very courageous move in 1981 with the new > standards, which BTW would common frog with Sn3, something existing (and > Bradley's proposed) standards for S would not. It seems to have withstood > the test of time quite well. Sometimes if we can get past our initial fear > of change, it actually works out. Now, about that DCC... <GRIN> > > It's 8 below zero here so stirring the pot might actually create warmth...! > > Jim Kindraka > > > > > > > > > > > > [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/
