Lastspikemike richhotrain I'm still chuckling over the insistence that Prussia was a combatant in the Crimean War. Rich Always happy when I can make anyone laugh.
richhotrain I'm still chuckling over the insistence that Prussia was a combatant in the Crimean War. Rich
I'm still chuckling over the insistence that Prussia was a combatant in the Crimean War.
Rich
Always happy when I can make anyone laugh.
Alton Junction
richhotrainI'm still chuckling over the insistence that Prussia was a combatant in the Crimean War.
Never mind; I see his point now. He was laughing at someone else thinking that "Germany" was a "combatant" in the Crimean war, not asserting it himself. We should let this die now.
As I noted, any 'scale' discussion of OO necessarily involves finescale 4mm, as most precisely delineated in the Scalefour Society's S4 standard. Once the obvious kludges in using HO gauge for 1:76 are eliminated, even EM ('eighteen millimeter') is within Mike's close-enough standard for visible track.
I do find it surprising that the Broad Gauge Society makes no formal mention of HO, or its finescale equivalent P:87, anywhere in its discussion of broad-gauge standards development. This could be due to a British insistence on using British refinements for perhaps that most quintessentially Victorian British thing, the broad-gauge GWR; I do not know if P:87 smacks too excessively of 'not invented here' to appeal to them as an option. Mike's point about HO (at any level of finescale) not catching on in British modeling is interesting.
The point remains that BG4 is an established scale for modeling the broad-gauge GWR ... which was part of the OP's question. It is no less accurate than anything in HO; prejudices against toylike concerns in OO having no relevance once S4 became the base for modeling standards. It would not take much work to develop just as good a "BG3.5" standard ... but then again, why is there no "Scalethreeandahalf Society" (I grant you it would need a better name) in Blighty in the first place?
Mike's other implied point -- that very few modelers in 3.5mm scale would have much interest in replicating something exquisitely Britannic that was legislated out of existence while 4-4-0s were still first-line passenger power -- is a reasonable one. I had frankly hoped that the Broad Gauge Society was going to have a worldwide scope of enthusiasts of many nations; that doesn't seem to be of much importance.
There is a substantial community of Civil War-era modeling (it successfully weathered the transition from a Yahoo Group to groups.io and now has regular Zoom meets) and their opinions on how to model Pennsylvania, Ohio, or southern 5' during this period might be interesting. At least some of the "HOb6" represented by Erie and associated prototype would logically match the period scope (although little associated with typical 'Civil War' layouts or themes.)
LastspikemikeI assume Prussia signing the Treaty of Paris (the peace treaty ending that particular war) was irrelevant to you all.
Prussia as a 'great power' had diplomatic presence at the Congress of Paris, which put together the terms. That is not at all the same thing as participating in the war itself, unless you want to claim 'diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means'.
I'm not certain there is an objective reason to prefer HO (3.5mm) over OO (finescale version, 4mm) since virtually everything needs to be scratchbuilt anyway, and the cost of mastering and etching a scale ruler for either would be about the same. The 4mm models would be a little larger and easier to detail, but would need more material and 'real estate'. There would be more scenery and detail material in HO, but most of that is reasonably close in size to use in OO. PLENTY of room for decoders, speakers, motors and interiors in either one...
Erik_Mag BART is 5'6" gauge for stability. If Marin county had voted for BART, the tracks from SF to Marin would have been on the lower deck of the Golden Gate briidge and the wide gauge was to improve stability in high winds.
BART is 5'6" gauge for stability. If Marin county had voted for BART, the tracks from SF to Marin would have been on the lower deck of the Golden Gate briidge and the wide gauge was to improve stability in high winds.
Its also part of the reason they are having a hard time maintaining it. They built outside the US standard and now its costing them big money to fix it.
Colorado Front Range Railroad: http://www.coloradofrontrangerr.com/
Lastspikemike I'm still chuckling about the assertion that Germany was a non-combatant in the Crimean War, no kidding. Prussia either was, technically, or Russia thought they were or might be.
I'm still chuckling about the assertion that Germany was a non-combatant in the Crimean War, no kidding.
Prussia either was, technically, or Russia thought they were or might be.
LastspikemikeI'm still chuckling about the assertion that Germany was a non-combatant in the Crimean War, no kidding.
I'm assuming you have historical proof of specifically-Prussian combat, and can cite specific units and dates. That is what being a 'combatant' means by any definition of the word that matters. It will be highly interesting to see what your definition of 'technically' comes to be contorted to mean (incidentally your use is incorrect; "technically" they would have to be 'a combatant' and not a 'non-combatant' to be anything of importance in this context).
Guys, the references to broad-gauge modeling I've seen use the letter 'b' (for broad) rather than 'w' when referring to the opposite of 'n' for narrow. Not sayin' we can't adopt the w, only that there is established usage for the b.
Interesting that there seems to be so little support for modeling at an appropriate true scale that makes "HO" gauge track the equivalent of either 5'3" or 5'6", especially considering how much of the prototype equipment is specific in detail to broad gauge... if we consider an earlier mike analogy there are enough potential broad-gauge modelers in India alone to support a whole new scale based around easy trackwork.
Did you even look at the site I linked? Some very nice models there.
Most British modelers do OO. The original reasoning was that since most British outline locomotives are much smaller than North American locomotives so the slightly larger scale allows more room for the motors to fit. Not an issue any more, with modern motors, but back in the day it definitely was an issue. That allowed the locomotives to be slightly oversize to fit the motors. Track gauge is still the same as HO.
The prototype perfect scale modelers are the 2mm Society using 2mm scale, 4mm Society using 4mm scale (OO with the correct track gauge), and the 7mm Society, using 7mm scale. Like Proto:48 elsewhere, doing O scale with proper gauge track. 5' gauge - just use standard O scale track and make the locos and cars a little bigger, the track is already 5' wide in 1:48.
Most off the shelf RTR models in GB are OO, not HO. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is a silly, minority scale.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
It does have to be said that I spent a certain amount of time and effort building out a few sections of railroad to test and demonstrate the ideas broached in Trains Magazine (remember "The Case for the Double-Track Train" which was actually illustrated with HO track?) This had the necessary equalizing beams and side bearings, etc. to work on track where the line, surface, and superelevation were not comparable "field side to field side the long way". "First best use" was the same idea as one incarnation of RRollway: loading an Auto-Train service 'sideways' at relatively high density, then having not just relatively luxurious accommodations for the clients...
Let's say it seemed to be a better idea than a solution...
A note on compromise cars and the like - South Korea developed a truck that can change its gauge from standard to Russian broad gauge by rolling over a transition section. The hope is that it can be used for Korea-Russia interchange after reunification.
As for modeling, I haven't really heard of broad gauge modeling. Seems to me that most non standard gauges that aren't a common narrow gauge are just modeled on standard gauge. Japanese HOj exists for that reason. I'm not sure how many people would be willing to hand-lay all of their track and re-gauge all rolling stock to do special gauges nowadays. When standards exist already, it would be difficult to start up a new product line with an exclusive gauge as well.
-Peter. Mantua collector, 3D printing enthusiast, Korail modeler.
With the typical notation for narrow gauge applied, I guess HOw6 would be it for a 6' wide gauge. Or if doing Brunel's GW, OOw7.
Doing the GWR - there's a whole group dedicated to doing the broad gauge version
http://www.broadgauge.org.uk/
That is some massive stuff. Bunch of prototype pictures, as well as model shots from exhibitions. Brunel was I think incapable of doing things in ordinary sizes - the railroad, the bridges and viaducts to support it, the ships like the Great Eastern...
Also some searches show that Harold Minky played around a bit with picking models and scales that would work for Erie 6' broad gauge. All the pictures I can find link to another publication so I can't post them here, just google erie broad gauge model railroad.
Re: Angola - yes, mostly the fault of the compromise car, though it also was defective. Learned about that one way too long ago when we got the book Train Wrecks by Robert Reed. Interesting factoid, John D Rockefeller was supposed to be on that train but was late to the station. Drove a lot of change - better braking, safer stoves than open pot belly stoves then in use, safer lighting instead of the kerosene lamps, etc. ANd helped drive a change to standardizing ALL railroads at 4' 8 1/2".
richhotrain Oh well, at least you tried, Kevin. As a reminder, the original topic was: Is anyone daring enough to model Great Western's 7 foot 1/4 inch gauge? The off topic was: Russia adopted 5' to ensure German locomotives dropped between their rails at the border. Rich
Oh well, at least you tried, Kevin.
As a reminder, the original topic was: Is anyone daring enough to model Great Western's 7 foot 1/4 inch gauge?
The off topic was: Russia adopted 5' to ensure German locomotives dropped between their rails at the border.
All right, back on topic. I think it would be fun to model the Erie's 6ft gauge. So would that be HOw6 in HO?
Gary
Russia adopted 5' to ensure German locomotives dropped between their rails at the border.
SeeYou190 The adoption of the 5 foot gauge in the Soviet Union, and previously Russia, predates the German advance to their borders, and any aggression between the two countries by decades. Prior to Barbarossa, the Soviet Union did not directly border Germany (controlled/occupied territory).
The adoption of the 5 foot gauge in the Soviet Union, and previously Russia, predates the German advance to their borders, and any aggression between the two countries by decades. Prior to Barbarossa, the Soviet Union did not directly border Germany (controlled/occupied territory).
The gauge difference may well be legend, but the German Empire and the Russian Empire shared a very large border before WWI.
LastspikemikeI took this off topic? You just have to be joking.
No I am not joking. Joking is for the Diner only.
You posted this, which you admitted you knew was not true when you posted it as the second response to the OP:
LastspikemikeRussia adopted 5' to ensure German locomotives dropped between their rails at the border.
Then people chimed in to correct your false statement, then the thread went off topic, and now it is off topic even further.
I am not going to be drawn into another pointless back-and-forth with you, so this will be my only response, and I will ask again that you not post any more incorrect or misleading comments as answers in these forums. That is rude to the people that work so hard to make this an area of intelligent conversation and source of good information.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Erik_Mag As for Germany versus Russia in WW1, it was the Russians who attacked Germany and not vice versa. The final trigger for the start of hostilities was when Russia started mobilizing their army, which then prompted Germany to mobilize and so on.
LastspikemikeMind you, my remark was not intended to be taken seriously. 3.5 inches difference is not that significant.
I have asked this of you before, as have others.
Please stop posting comments you know are false as if they are true, then coming back and saying you were just joking or not trying to be taken seriously.
This destroys threads that could be interesting.
You threw this one so far off topic that it might get locked.
Many people in here try very hard to keep these threads factual, and you are undermining their efforts.
Erik_MagI've seen reference to Russia adopting 5' gauge as a defensive measure against aggression from western Europe. Their thinking may have been driven by seeing what the USMRR had been able to do in the Civil War
Now any decision to give up using 5'/1524 in subsequent decades, as the urge to interconnect systems before practical 'automatic' gauge-changing methods led to dramatic standard-gauge conversion in the United Stated and Britain, and elsewhere ... there you might see some military paranoia, just from planners with little practical understanding of or experience with tracklaying or maintenance.
richhotrain The point that Kevin was making was that Russia adopted the 5 foot gauge well before German aggression against Russia which occurred twice, but not until the 20th century, in the two world wars.
The point that Kevin was making was that Russia adopted the 5 foot gauge well before German aggression against Russia which occurred twice, but not until the 20th century, in the two world wars.
I've seen reference to Russia adopting 5' gauge as a defensive measure against agression from western Europe. Their thinking may have been driven by seeing what the USMRR had been able to do in the Civil War and thinking what Napoleon may have been able to accomplish with railroad suplly lines.
As for Germany versus Russia in WW1, it was the Russians who attacked Germany and not vice versa. The final trigger for the start of hostilities was when Russia started mobilizing their army, which then prompted Germany to mobilize and so on.
SeeYou190 - - Russia adopted 5' to ensure German locomotives dropped between their rails at the border. This is absolutely 100% untrue.
- - Russia adopted 5' to ensure German locomotives dropped between their rails at the border.
This is absolutely 100% untrue.
Prussia was a north German kingdom prior to 1871 when the unification of German states into the German Reich resulted in Prussia becoming the leading state in the Reich.
Since you mentioned the Crimean War (1853-56) in your response to Kevin, I wanted to clarify that Germany (Prussia) was not a combatant in that war. Also, in response to your mention of the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71), Russia was not a combatant in that war, so no German (Prussian) threat there.
BEAUSABRE Everyone knows that narrow gauge modelers form a large subgroup of our hobby - but what about WIDE gauge modelers...after all a substantial portion of the world operates on five foot or above "Broad gauge is the dominant gauge in countries in Indian subcontinent, the former Soviet Union (CIS states, Baltic states, Georgia and Ukraine), Mongolia and Finland, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Chile and Ireland. And the Erie and Lackawanna were wide gauge in their eary days - not to mention the ante-bellum South Is anyone daring eough to model Great Western's 7 foot 14 inch gauge (please, in the name of all the saints in heaven, why, oh why, 14 inch!)
Everyone knows that narrow gauge modelers form a large subgroup of our hobby - but what about WIDE gauge modelers...after all a substantial portion of the world operates on five foot or above
"Broad gauge is the dominant gauge in countries in Indian subcontinent, the former Soviet Union (CIS states, Baltic states, Georgia and Ukraine), Mongolia and Finland, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Chile and Ireland.
And the Erie and Lackawanna were wide gauge in their eary days - not to mention the ante-bellum South
Is anyone daring eough to model Great Western's 7 foot 14 inch gauge (please, in the name of all the saints in heaven, why, oh why, 14 inch!)
rrinkerGreat video on the US change to all-standard guage (other than narrow guage lines) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v81Gwu6BTE (seriously, if you are the least bit interested in history at all, subscribe to this guy's channel)
That was a very interesting history story -- one that I did not know very well. Thanks.
York1 John
Numerous street car lines in the US were built to 5' plus gauge due to franchise requirements intended to prevent interchange of RR freight cars.
There was an article in MR not long after it was cancelled about the sale of the models used. Cost the studio millions. It's on ever list of worst TV shows of the 70's, and there were some other doozys too.
rrinkerSupertrain? You mean Love Boat but on a train? One wonders at how much damage that idiotic show did to the reputation of trains in the minds of the general public.
The model of the Supertrain used in the outdoor shots was actually an impressive bit of building.
I watched this show when it was on TV, I was 11. I picked up very quickly that when the train was in the countryside it was on wide trackage, but magically transformed to standard gauge when it pulled into a station.
Great video on the US change to all-standard guage (other than narrow guage lines)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v81Gwu6BTE
(seriously, if you are the least bit interested in history at all, subscribe to this guy's channel)
Supertrain? You mean Love Boat but on a train? One wonders at how much damage that idiotic show did to the reputation of trains in the minds of the general public.
Overmod Rather obviously any 5' route in wartime could easily be regauged by moving one rail inboard on the ties
Yes, the Germans had no problem regauging Soviet trackage to 4' 8 1/2" as they occupied territory. Some accounts of German field engineers stated that the Soviet attempts to sabotage their trackage actually made the regauging work easier on the invaders.
The Soviets took as much of their equipment as they could as they retreated. I do not know of any scaled measures for Gemans to regauge Soviet equipment. I am certain it happened here and there, but doubtful very much.
Ther Germans had quite a bit of captured Polish equipment in fine condition that they used extensively in the Soviet campaign, including armoured artillery trains.
OvermodWhat you may be thinking of is some Russian military standards, notably gun caliber, where the Russian bore is just slightly larger than common "enemy" spec -- this would allow Russian guns to fire captured ammunition, but enemy guns to jam (or worse) if the opposite were tried.
This I am curious about. I have read many conflicting accounts of this from sources that should be reliable.
The Soviet heavy anti-tank gun was 85mm, the German was 88mm, but the shell designs were so different that neither could use each others ammunition.
The Germans had a 37mm anit-aircraft gun, the Soviets primary AA gun was 40mm, but I am very doubtful German ammuntion could be used in the Soviet gun. The soviet AA gun was similar to the Bofors 40mm AA gun used by the United Kingdom, and I have never read accounts of the UK 40mm gun firing captured German 37mm ammunition.
The Soviets had a 76mm gun used in the T-34 and KV-1 tanks up until 1943/1944, self propelled artillery/assault guns, and on field guns (ZIS-3). The Germans had a 75mm gun used in the Panzer III and IV tanks, and some anti-tank guns (PAK-40). This might be the only situation where it could be possible, but I am doubtful. Looking at images of the German 75mm shell vs. the Soviet 76mm, they do not look like they would work in the Soviet gun.
This is factual... the German soldiers loved the Soviet sub-machine guns, and made extensive use of them anytime they could. A captured Soviet sub-machine gun was a prize for a German foot soldier. Capturing ammunition for these guns was celebratory. Of course, when the StG44 entered service, this changed.
The Germans also captured so many ZIS-3 guns, T-34 tanks, and tracked assualt guns using the 76mm bore that they actually manufactured their own ammunition for them.
The Japanese had a rifle that fired a 7.7mm cartidge, that was slightly larger than the UK SMLE and USA 30-06, but very similar in design. I have read stories about Allied soldiers trying to use Japanese 7.7mm ammunition with disastrous results. I wonder if these stories are the source for the less likely German/Soviet ammunition swap stories.