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

1:32 on 3 Standards.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.