Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1:32 on 3 Standards.

Expand Messages
  • peter853435
    At last a chance to get back to the subject, and thanks to those who replied. I didn t want to labour too much on the subject of standards , but being a
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      At last a chance to get back to the subject, and thanks to those who
      replied. I didn't want to labour too much on the subject
      of 'standards', but being a member of the GAUGE ONE MODEL RAILWAY
      ASSOCIATION (G1MRA)here in the UK, who do have a published set of
      standards, for standard gauge track, i thought it would be good to do
      the same for narrow gauge.
      [The reason for published standards is primarily for members of the
      association to visit one another, bringing loco and stock for a run.
      This can only be achived by having common wheel and track standards.
      Some visitors to the UK from North America, or local members with
      North American manufactured stock, find their treasured loco's etc
      won,t run here, because North American manufacturers don't have a
      common standard, (Even Bachmann supplies its British outline models
      with wheels to the G1MRA standard in the UK)]. This is the background
      to which i'm used to modeling.
      So having given the matter some thought it would seem best to take
      the line suggested by David Provan, move the wheels closer, and work
      to the existing G1MRA wheel and track standard. For members of this
      group i'll put this information in a file ASAP.
      Rail needs some separate thought though. My garden track is laid with
      Aristo-craft code 332, so any smaller code laid against it would look
      narrow gauge, but i understand code 332 is realy oversize for the
      155lb main line rail used in North America, code 250 would be a more
      representative size, therefore code 215 rail would be best to use for
      narrow gauge. Any thoughts?
      Also i take Pauls point about confusion, 1:32 on 3 is a clearer
      description. Also Curly, i note your facilities.
      I'll look at ties another day.
    • DAVID PROVAN
      I m not really sure that my previous post was read as I intended. I was advocating H0 standards to NMRA RP25/110 for two-foot gauge i.e. 3/4 in 1/32. To model
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 9, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm not really sure that my previous post was read as I intended. I was advocating H0 standards to NMRA RP25/110 for two-foot gauge i.e. 3/4" in 1/32. To model 3' gauge you would retain these standards simply modelling the wider gauge (by pushing the wheels out on longer axles) everything else being equal. If you are modelling Colorado NG then you might want to use say code 125 rail but even the code 100 rail I supply in my kits sometimes looks a bit hefty for small prototypes. To my mind code 215 looks like girders. I'm still going to call it 1/32n3.
         
        Regards
         
        David Provan

        peter853435 <peter.frederickbird@...> wrote:
        At last a chance to get back to the subject, and thanks to those who
        replied. I didn't want to labour too much on the subject
        of 'standards', but being a member of the GAUGE ONE MODEL RAILWAY
        ASSOCIATION (G1MRA)here in the UK, who do have a published set of
        standards, for standard gauge track, i thought it would be good to do
        the same for narrow gauge.
        [The reason for published standards is primarily for members of the
        association to visit one another, bringing loco and stock for a run.
        This can only be achived by having common wheel and track standards.
        Some visitors to the UK from North America, or local members with
        North American manufactured stock, find their treasured loco's etc
        won,t run here, because North American manufacturers don't have a
        common standard, (Even Bachmann supplies its British outline models
        with wheels to the G1MRA standard in the UK)]. This is the background
        to which i'm used to modeling.
        So having given the matter some thought it would seem best to take
        the line suggested by David Provan, move the wheels closer, and work
        to the existing G1MRA wheel and track standard. For members of this
        group i'll put this information in a file ASAP.
        Rail needs some separate thought though. My garden track is laid with
        Aristo-craft code 332, so any smaller code laid against it would look
        narrow gauge, but i understand code 332 is realy oversize for the
        155lb main line rail used in North America, code 250 would be a more
        representative size, therefore code 215 rail would be best to use for
        narrow gauge. Any thoughts?
        Also i take Pauls point about confusion, 1:32 on 3 is a clearer
        description. Also Curly, i note your facilities.
        I'll look at ties another day.


      • Evan & Correne James
        The rule of thumb measurements we use in NZ is that code 100 rail represents 55 pound rail in 1/34 scale. However, we have set our own standards when it comes
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 10, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          The rule of thumb measurements we use in NZ is that code 100 rail
          represents 55 pound rail in 1/34 scale. However, we have set our own
          standards when it comes to wheels and track work, using exact scale -
          we simply get the NZ Railways blueprints and reduce them. This does
          provide problems for guests who want to run UK and US prototype gear on
          our layouts, but we have found that a few of them have switched over to
          our wheels - available from North Yard. However, this is no different
          from the prototype, where locos and wagons bought second hand from
          overseas have to have either their wheels charged or make a trip
          through the wheel lathe to get their toenails clipped.

          evan


          On Feb 10, 2008, at 3:53 AM, peter853435 wrote:

          > At last a chance to get back to the subject, and thanks to those who
          > replied. I didn't want to labour too much on the subject
          > of 'standards', but being a member of the GAUGE ONE MODEL RAILWAY
          > ASSOCIATION (G1MRA)here in the UK, who do have a published set of
          > standards, for standard gauge track, i thought it would be good to do
          > the same for narrow gauge.
          > [The reason for published standards is primarily for members of the
          > association to visit one another, bringing loco and stock for a run.
          > This can only be achived by having common wheel and track standards.
          > Some visitors to the UK from North America, or local members with
          > North American manufactured stock, find their treasured loco's etc
          > won,t run here, because North American manufacturers don't have a
          > common standard, (Even Bachmann supplies its British outline models
          > with wheels to the G1MRA standard in the UK)]. This is the background
          > to which i'm used to modeling.
          > So having given the matter some thought it would seem best to take
          > the line suggested by David Provan, move the wheels closer, and work
          > to the existing G1MRA wheel and track standard. For members of this
          > group i'll put this information in a file ASAP.
          > Rail needs some separate thought though. My garden track is laid with
          > Aristo-craft code 332, so any smaller code laid against it would look
          > narrow gauge, but i understand code 332 is realy oversize for the
          > 155lb main line rail used in North America, code 250 would be a more
          > representative size, therefore code 215 rail would be best to use for
          > narrow gauge. Any thoughts?
          > Also i take Pauls point about confusion, 1:32 on 3 is a clearer
          > description. Also Curly, i note your facilities.
          > I'll look at ties another day.
          >
          >
        • Paul Woods
          David, It certainly makes good sense to use an existing proven standard. I see no reason why RP25 wouldn t work for 19mm gauge track, although I have to point
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 11, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            David,

            It certainly makes good sense to use an existing proven standard. I
            see no reason why RP25 wouldn't work for 19mm gauge track, although
            I have to point out that as the gauge gets wider, flange and overall
            wheel diameter tends to get proportionally larger.

            That said, RP25 is larger than scale for 1/87th, so is probably still
            quite suitable for 28.5mm gauge, and I suspect that the actual flange
            dimensions are very similar to the true-to-scale standards as adopted
            by the NZ 9mill scale movement for modelling 42" gauge. However I do
            think the tread width should be a bit bigger, more like code135 or
            145. Our 3.5mm treads on our 9mill wheelsets are code 138, and our
            steam loco driving tyres are code 161, again actually true scale
            replicas of the prototype.

            I am gathering information with a view to building an East Broad Top
            2-8-2 of some description (re-gauged to 40" to be compatible with my
            9mill trains on their O-gauge track), but the parts I will have laser
            cut will naturally still be suitable for building a 3' gauge
            version. If anyone is interested in pooling resources, I would be
            glad of the assistance and encouragement. I was thinking either #12
            or #14, but it depends very much on what drawings I can beg, steal or
            borrow....

            My $00.10 cents worth (we don't have 5c coins anymore)

            Regards
            Paul Woods
            Whangarei New Zealand


            --- In FS32NGModelrail@yahoogroups.com, DAVID PROVAN
            <david.provan@...> wrote:
            >
            > I'm not really sure that my previous post was read as I intended. I
            was advocating H0 standards to NMRA RP25/110 for two-foot gauge i.e.
            3/4" in 1/32. To model 3' gauge you would retain these standards
            simply modelling the wider gauge (by pushing the wheels out on longer
            axles) everything else being equal. If you are modelling Colorado NG
            then you might want to use say code 125 rail but even the code 100
            rail I supply in my kits sometimes looks a bit hefty for small
            prototypes. To my mind code 215 looks like girders. I'm still going
            to call it 1/32n3.
            >
            > Regards
            >
            > David Provan
            >
            > peter853435 <peter.frederickbird@...> wrote:
            > At last a chance to get back to the subject, and thanks
            to those who
            > replied. I didn't want to labour too much on the subject
            > of 'standards', but being a member of the GAUGE ONE MODEL RAILWAY
            > ASSOCIATION (G1MRA)here in the UK, who do have a published set of
            > standards, for standard gauge track, i thought it would be good to
            do
            > the same for narrow gauge.
            > [The reason for published standards is primarily for members of the
            > association to visit one another, bringing loco and stock for a
            run.
            > This can only be achived by having common wheel and track
            standards.
            > Some visitors to the UK from North America, or local members with
            > North American manufactured stock, find their treasured loco's etc
            > won,t run here, because North American manufacturers don't have a
            > common standard, (Even Bachmann supplies its British outline models
            > with wheels to the G1MRA standard in the UK)]. This is the
            background
            > to which i'm used to modeling.
            > So having given the matter some thought it would seem best to take
            > the line suggested by David Provan, move the wheels closer, and
            work
            > to the existing G1MRA wheel and track standard. For members of this
            > group i'll put this information in a file ASAP.
            > Rail needs some separate thought though. My garden track is laid
            with
            > Aristo-craft code 332, so any smaller code laid against it would
            look
            > narrow gauge, but i understand code 332 is realy oversize for the
            > 155lb main line rail used in North America, code 250 would be a
            more
            > representative size, therefore code 215 rail would be best to use
            for
            > narrow gauge. Any thoughts?
            > Also i take Pauls point about confusion, 1:32 on 3 is a clearer
            > description. Also Curly, i note your facilities.
            > I'll look at ties another day.
            >
          • DAVID PROVAN
            Hi Paul, There are many reasons for using RP25/110 profile, not least that wheels and SPUDS for On3 can be used as is. I model small prototypes, smaller than
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 11, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Paul,
               
              There are many reasons for using RP25/110 profile, not least that wheels and SPUDS for On3 can be used as is. I model small prototypes, smaller than On3 or On30 models of US narrow gauge and I like the look of almost dead scale wheels and rails. RP25/110 does work for 19.05mm gauge because it matches the On3 NWSL wheelset I have in front of me. What keeps wheels on the track is not wheel width or flange depth but that all wheels MUST be in contact with the rail at all times, this means compensation and generally raising the quality of modelling.
               
              None of this makes any difference to you as a modeller so long as all your stock runs together and you are happy with the way it looks. As a sometime manufacturer I have to ensure that my customers know what they are getting. All my kits are available sans wheels for this very reason.
               
              What does the on in 1:32 on 3 stand for?
               
              Regards
               
              David
               

              Paul Woods <paulandclaire@...> wrote:
              David,

              It certainly makes good sense to use an existing proven standard. I
              see no reason why RP25 wouldn't work for 19mm gauge track, although
              I have to point out that as the gauge gets wider, flange and overall
              wheel diameter tends to get proportionally larger.

              That said, RP25 is larger than scale for 1/87th, so is probably still
              quite suitable for 28.5mm gauge, and I suspect that the actual flange
              dimensions are very similar to the true-to-scale standards as adopted
              by the NZ 9mill scale movement for modelling 42" gauge. However I do
              think the tread width should be a bit bigger, more like code135 or
              145. Our 3.5mm treads on our 9mill wheelsets are code 138, and our
              steam loco driving tyres are code 161, again actually true scale
              replicas of the prototype.

              I am gathering information with a view to building an East Broad Top
              2-8-2 of some description (re-gauged to 40" to be compatible with my
              9mill trains on their O-gauge track), but the parts I will have laser
              cut will naturally still be suitable for building a 3' gauge
              version. If anyone is interested in pooling resources, I would be
              glad of the assistance and encouragement. I was thinking either #12
              or #14, but it depends very much on what drawings I can beg, steal or
              borrow....

              My $00.10 cents worth (we don't have 5c coins anymore)

              Regards
              Paul Woods
              Whangarei New Zealand

              --- In FS32NGModelrail@ yahoogroups. com, DAVID PROVAN
              <david.provan@ ...> wrote:
              >
              > I'm not really sure that my previous post was read as I intended. I
              was advocating H0 standards to NMRA RP25/110 for two-foot gauge i.e.
              3/4" in 1/32. To model 3' gauge you would retain these standards
              simply modelling the wider gauge (by pushing the wheels out on longer
              axles) everything else being equal. If you are modelling Colorado NG
              then you might want to use say code 125 rail but even the code 100
              rail I supply in my kits sometimes looks a bit hefty for small
              prototypes. To my mind code 215 looks like girders. I'm still going
              to call it 1/32n3.
              >
              > Regards
              >
              > David Provan
              >
              > peter853435 <peter.frederickbir d@...> wrote:
              > At last a chance to get back to the subject, and thanks
              to those who
              > replied. I didn't want to labour too much on the subject
              > of 'standards', but being a member of the GAUGE ONE MODEL RAILWAY
              > ASSOCIATION (G1MRA)here in the UK, who do have a published set of
              > standards, for standard gauge track, i thought it would be good to
              do
              > the same for narrow gauge.
              > [The reason for published standards is primarily for members of the
              > association to visit one another, bringing loco and stock for a
              run.
              > This can only be achived by having common wheel and track
              standards.
              > Some visitors to the UK from North America, or local members with
              > North American manufactured stock, find their treasured loco's etc
              > won,t run here, because North American manufacturers don't have a
              > common standard, (Even Bachmann supplies its British outline models
              > with wheels to the G1MRA standard in the UK)]. This is the
              background
              > to which i'm used to modeling.
              > So having given the matter some thought it would seem best to take
              > the line suggested by David Provan, move the wheels closer, and
              work
              > to the existing G1MRA wheel and track standard. For members of this
              > group i'll put this information in a file ASAP.
              > Rail needs some separate thought though. My garden track is laid
              with
              > Aristo-craft code 332, so any smaller code laid against it would
              look
              > narrow gauge, but i understand code 332 is realy oversize for the
              > 155lb main line rail used in North America, code 250 would be a
              more
              > representative size, therefore code 215 rail would be best to use
              for
              > narrow gauge. Any thoughts?
              > Also i take Pauls point about confusion, 1:32 on 3 is a clearer
              > description. Also Curly, i note your facilities.
              > I'll look at ties another day.
              >


            • Paul Woods
              Hi David Not sure where the on thing originated, it was already in the subject line. I would call it 32n3 or 1/32n3 myself. The point I was trying to make
              Message 6 of 12 , Feb 11, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi David

                Not sure where the 'on' thing originated, it was already in the subject
                line. I would call it 32n3 or 1/32n3 myself.

                The point I was trying to make in my previous post was: RP25, being
                oversized for 1/87th scale, is therefore by happy chance more or less
                true to prototype for the likes of 9mill/ 1:32 scales, except that the
                tread width is a bit narrow.

                Flange depth and wheel width absolutely does keep wheels on rails, just
                look at the wheels on logging equipment ;-)

                Paul
              • DAVID PROVAN
                Point taken, but look at the flanges and wheel width on trams. Wheel width is typically 3 or so, including tread. Regards David Paul Woods
                Message 7 of 12 , Feb 12, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Point taken, but look at the flanges and wheel width on trams. Wheel width is typically 3" or so, including tread.
                   
                  Regards
                   
                  David

                  Paul Woods <paulandclaire@...> wrote:
                  Hi David

                  Not sure where the 'on' thing originated, it was already in the subject
                  line. I would call it 32n3 or 1/32n3 myself.

                  The point I was trying to make in my previous post was: RP25, being
                  oversized for 1/87th scale, is therefore by happy chance more or less
                  true to prototype for the likes of 9mill/ 1:32 scales, except that the
                  tread width is a bit narrow.

                  Flange depth and wheel width absolutely does keep wheels on rails, just
                  look at the wheels on logging equipment ;-)

                  Paul


                • peter853435
                  Sorry if i ve confused a few members, though the lively discussion on which standards to adopt when modeling Narrow Gauge in 1:32 scale was certainly worth
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 2 6:07 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sorry if i've confused a few members, though the lively discussion on
                    which standards to adopt when modeling Narrow Gauge in 1:32 scale was
                    certainly worth reading, and helpfull.
                    My position is, i currently model a National Railways of Mexico
                    [NdeM] Standard Gauge line in 1:32 (Gauge One) scale. I wish to add a
                    3 Foot Narrow Gauge line.
                    Often in Mexico, Narrow Gauge line's were interlaced with the
                    Standard Gauge by adding a third rail, sharing switches and their
                    frogs, so this is where the problem lay.
                    My current garden track is laid with AristoCraft track, which uses
                    code 332 rail, and scince i'll have to interlace with this i've
                    decided to lay the third rail in code 332, and where the the Narrow
                    Gauge line stands alone use code 215.
                    Also because of the interlacing at switches etc; i'll adopt the Gauge
                    One (G1MRA) track and wheel standards.
                    I've comunicated with Nelson Kennedy of 'Nine Mill', his arch bar
                    trucks will do fine, except i'll have to omitt the wheels, since
                    these are sourced from 'North Yard', and after communicating with
                    it's owner Graham Selman, have learned they are to the 'O' gauge
                    profile of NY277 and 3.5 mm wide. I will need 6mm wide wheels.
                    At the moment i intend to source these from I.P. Engineering, here in
                    the UK, since they are available in a range of diamiters (16mm, 20mm
                    & 24mm), suitable for Narrow Gauge in this scale.
                    Will keep you in formed of progress,
                    Peter Bird.



                    --- In FS32NGModelrail@yahoogroups.com, DAVID PROVAN
                    <david.provan@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I'm not really sure that my previous post was read as I intended. I
                    was advocating H0 standards to NMRA RP25/110 for two-foot gauge i.e.
                    3/4" in 1/32. To model 3' gauge you would retain these standards
                    simply modelling the wider gauge (by pushing the wheels out on longer
                    axles) everything else being equal. If you are modelling Colorado NG
                    then you might want to use say code 125 rail but even the code 100
                    rail I supply in my kits sometimes looks a bit hefty for small
                    prototypes. To my mind code 215 looks like girders. I'm still going
                    to call it 1/32n3.
                    >
                    > Regards
                    >
                    > David Provan
                    >
                    > peter853435 <peter.frederickbird@...> wrote:
                    > At last a chance to get back to the subject, and thanks
                    to those who
                    > replied. I didn't want to labour too much on the subject
                    > of 'standards', but being a member of the GAUGE ONE MODEL RAILWAY
                    > ASSOCIATION (G1MRA)here in the UK, who do have a published set of
                    > standards, for standard gauge track, i thought it would be good to
                    do
                    > the same for narrow gauge.
                    > [The reason for published standards is primarily for members of the
                    > association to visit one another, bringing loco and stock for a
                    run.
                    > This can only be achived by having common wheel and track
                    standards.
                    > Some visitors to the UK from North America, or local members with
                    > North American manufactured stock, find their treasured loco's etc
                    > won,t run here, because North American manufacturers don't have a
                    > common standard, (Even Bachmann supplies its British outline models
                    > with wheels to the G1MRA standard in the UK)]. This is the
                    background
                    > to which i'm used to modeling.
                    > So having given the matter some thought it would seem best to take
                    > the line suggested by David Provan, move the wheels closer, and
                    work
                    > to the existing G1MRA wheel and track standard. For members of this
                    > group i'll put this information in a file ASAP.
                    > Rail needs some separate thought though. My garden track is laid
                    with
                    > Aristo-craft code 332, so any smaller code laid against it would
                    look
                    > narrow gauge, but i understand code 332 is realy oversize for the
                    > 155lb main line rail used in North America, code 250 would be a
                    more
                    > representative size, therefore code 215 rail would be best to use
                    for
                    > narrow gauge. Any thoughts?
                    > Also i take Pauls point about confusion, 1:32 on 3 is a clearer
                    > description. Also Curly, i note your facilities.
                    > I'll look at ties another day.
                    >
                  • peter853435
                    just a little note about the use of 1:32 on 3 In the USA, standards and terminoligy are set by NMRA , so every modeller would use and understand the term,
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 2 7:10 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      just a little note about the use of '1:32 on 3'

                      In the USA, standards and terminoligy are set by 'NMRA', so every
                      modeller would use and understand the term, #1n3.

                      In mainland Europe the standards and terminology are set by Morop,
                      which publishes it's standards as the NEM Standards. So there
                      everyone woud use and understand the term, '1m' qualified by 914.4.

                      Here in Britain we have the BRMSB (British Railway Modelling
                      Standards Bureau), which has had little influance on standards or
                      terms, with most scale associations and manufacturers [ through the
                      model engineering trades association 'META'] taking the lead on
                      standards, and a free for all for terms.

                      So if i seemed confused about terminoligy, i am, because we all are
                      in Britian, where the best terminolagy to use, is a descriptive one
                      such as '1:32 scale on 3 foot gauge' ie; '1:32 on 3'

                      Peter Bird.



                      --- In FS32NGModelrail@yahoogroups.com, DAVID PROVAN
                      <david.provan@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Point taken, but look at the flanges and wheel width on trams.
                      Wheel width is typically 3" or so, including tread.
                      >
                      > Regards
                      >
                      > David
                      >
                      > Paul Woods <paulandclaire@...> wrote:
                      > Hi David
                      >
                      > Not sure where the 'on' thing originated, it was already in the
                      subject
                      > line. I would call it 32n3 or 1/32n3 myself.
                      >
                      > The point I was trying to make in my previous post was: RP25, being
                      > oversized for 1/87th scale, is therefore by happy chance more or
                      less
                      > true to prototype for the likes of 9mill/ 1:32 scales, except that
                      the
                      > tread width is a bit narrow.
                      >
                      > Flange depth and wheel width absolutely does keep wheels on rails,
                      just
                      > look at the wheels on logging equipment ;-)
                      >
                      > Paul
                      >
                    • DAVID PROVAN
                      Hi All, This will positively be my final word on this subject (hooray!). I thought that BRMSB and META had quietly died a death many years ago. If, when they
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 2 10:36 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi All,
                         
                        This will positively be my final word on this subject (hooray!).
                         
                        I thought that BRMSB and META had quietly died a death many years ago. If, when they were still active and I worked in a model shop over 30 years ago (shudder), they published standards which to my certain knowledge were not followed by any significant manufacturers so they were irrelevant then and even more so now so why bring them into the discussion?
                         
                        My point is that introducing the on thereby splitting the term into three parts viz:, 1:32 on 3 makes it less clear and could confuse with On3/On2 etc. as it won't be read as one word. A lowercase n is NMRA standard for narrow (gauge). The NEM lowercase e is the standard in Europe and that just looks and sounds daft.
                         
                        1:32n2 or 1:32n3 is even now my preferred choice and always will be. Please note that Gauge 1 can be 1:32 (Europe/some American), 1:30 (Britain 10mm =1") or 1:29 (some American).
                         
                        Going out now to get a life.
                         
                        Regards
                         
                        David
                         
                        My Decauville KE kit as almost available!


                        peter853435 <peter.frederickbird@...> wrote:
                        just a little note about the use of '1:32 on 3'

                        In the USA, standards and terminoligy are set by 'NMRA', so every
                        modeller would use and understand the term, #1n3.

                        In mainland Europe the standards and terminology are set by Morop,
                        which publishes it's standards as the NEM Standards. So there
                        everyone woud use and understand the term, '1m' qualified by 914.4.

                        Here in Britain we have the BRMSB (British Railway Modelling
                        Standards Bureau), which has had little influance on standards or
                        terms, with most scale associations and manufacturers [ through the
                        model engineering trades association 'META'] taking the lead on
                        standards, and a free for all for terms.

                        So if i seemed confused about terminoligy, i am, because we all are
                        in Britian, where the best terminolagy to use, is a descriptive one
                        such as '1:32 scale on 3 foot gauge' ie; '1:32 on 3'

                        Peter Bird.

                        --- In FS32NGModelrail@ yahoogroups. com, DAVID PROVAN
                        <david.provan@ ...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Point taken, but look at the flanges and wheel width on trams.
                        Wheel width is typically 3" or so, including tread.
                        >
                        > Regards
                        >
                        > David
                        >
                        > Paul Woods <paulandclaire@ ...> wrote:
                        > Hi David
                        >
                        > Not sure where the 'on' thing originated, it was already in the
                        subject
                        > line. I would call it 32n3 or 1/32n3 myself.
                        >
                        > The point I was trying to make in my previous post was: RP25, being
                        > oversized for 1/87th scale, is therefore by happy chance more or
                        less
                        > true to prototype for the likes of 9mill/ 1:32 scales, except that
                        the
                        > tread width is a bit narrow.
                        >
                        > Flange depth and wheel width absolutely does keep wheels on rails,
                        just
                        > look at the wheels on logging equipment ;-)
                        >
                        > Paul
                        >


                      • Evan & Correne James
                        It s also worth remembering that North Yard s 9ml scale are also made to exact 1/34th scale - in other words the New Zealand Railways blueprint for the wheels
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 2 12:00 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          It's also worth remembering that North Yard's 9ml scale are also made
                          to exact 1/34th scale - in other words the New Zealand Railways
                          blueprint for the wheels was scaled down exactly, with no compromises
                          in flange depth, width etc. This means there could be problems when
                          trying to run stock through turnouts that were not built to NZR plans.

                          evan


                          On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:07 AM, peter853435 wrote:
                          >
                          > Also because of the interlacing at switches etc; i'll adopt the Gauge
                          > One (G1MRA) track and wheel standards.
                          > I've comunicated with Nelson Kennedy of 'Nine Mill', his arch bar
                          > trucks will do fine, except i'll have to omitt the wheels, since
                          > these are sourced from 'North Yard', and after communicating with
                          > it's owner Graham Selman, have learned they are to the 'O' gauge
                          > profile of NY277 and 3.5 mm wide. I will need 6mm wide wheels.
                          > At the moment i intend to source these from I.P. Engineering, here in
                          > the UK, since they are available in a range of diamiters (16mm, 20mm
                          > & 24mm), suitable for Narrow Gauge in this scale.
                          > Will keep you in formed of progress,
                          > Peter Bird.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • rd_etropal
                          What attracted me to this forum, was the reference to 1/35th scale. I had realised that 1/35th scale running on 16.5mm track was pretty close to 60cm/2ft
                          Message 12 of 12 , Mar 3 2:43 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            What attracted me to this forum, was the reference to 1/35th scale. I
                            had realised that 1/35th scale running on 16.5mm track was pretty
                            close to 60cm/2ft gauge, which could either be termed 1/35n60 or
                            1/35n2. 1/35th appeals because it is the most popular military
                            modelling scale, and I was interested in building a 60cm gauge WW1
                            line. I have already built a rather rough semi armoured Simplex to see
                            what the size looks like. Tested with Bachmann tipper wagons, which
                            look a bit too small, so considering Slaters 1/32 tippers, otherwise
                            that will be something else to scatchbuild. Hope to find someone who
                            can produce something in resin for the Simplex.



















                            --- In FS32NGModelrail@yahoogroups.com, Evan & Correne James <bce@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > It's also worth remembering that North Yard's 9ml scale are also made
                            > to exact 1/34th scale - in other words the New Zealand Railways
                            > blueprint for the wheels was scaled down exactly, with no compromises
                            > in flange depth, width etc. This means there could be problems when
                            > trying to run stock through turnouts that were not built to NZR plans.
                            >
                            > evan
                            >
                            >
                            > On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:07 AM, peter853435 wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Also because of the interlacing at switches etc; i'll adopt the Gauge
                            > > One (G1MRA) track and wheel standards.
                            > > I've comunicated with Nelson Kennedy of 'Nine Mill', his arch bar
                            > > trucks will do fine, except i'll have to omitt the wheels, since
                            > > these are sourced from 'North Yard', and after communicating with
                            > > it's owner Graham Selman, have learned they are to the 'O' gauge
                            > > profile of NY277 and 3.5 mm wide. I will need 6mm wide wheels.
                            > > At the moment i intend to source these from I.P. Engineering, here in
                            > > the UK, since they are available in a range of diamiters (16mm, 20mm
                            > > & 24mm), suitable for Narrow Gauge in this scale.
                            > > Will keep you in formed of progress,
                            > > Peter Bird.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.