Change the rail. Leave the wheels alone! John Armstrong
----- Original Message -----
From: shabbona_rr
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} Scale S standards
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 wheels’ 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 Heimburger’s “Sâ€cenery 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 hair’s 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]
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5747 (20101230) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5747 (20101230) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
[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/
