Getting started in Gauge 3 (how to encourage newcomers young and old)

[Traininvain]

The reason I went for the Hawthorn Leslie was that it was the closest I could get from Judith Edge to an 08 and the reason I went to Judith Edge to get a quote was because they use CAD to produce their etch artwork.

If anyone is interested in an 08 then they may be an alternative route from another supplier - though the etches are not produced via CAD. For what it's worth, the reason I want an 08 is because it would do as a station pilot and as a shunter.

I know there's an 08 available from another supplier but there are a number of documented issues with this and, besides, as a matter of personal taste, I don't like resin bodied locos.

[Christopher]

I some how seem to have missed this thread - until now!

I have also been looking at a suitable starter loco and have been dabbling with Chris Barrons Polar Bear which is a scale model of a very small Bagnall - the original was 6'x11' so the G3 model is about 1:10 and will almost go in a shoe box
It is cute - no other way to describe it - and the designer tells me that he sells more plans of it than all his other locos put together so it seems to impress others as well.

The original is in the Amberly museum

Putting my money where my mouth is I am building two - might do three.

But as I have less than a hundred more months to annoy you chaps I am looking for as many shortcuts as I can. Time is of the essence!

So far the chap who cuts the frames (£19 a pair) has suggested that he can do all the chassis platework for about £75 and I am hoping that he will be able to do ALL the platework for around £120. The motion would be a little extra as the components are too small for his equipment so they would have to go elsewhere.
A full set of castings is available for around £130 but these need machining of course albeit they could be done on the smallest lathe. However the machining could be very substantially reduced if all the casting were lost wax and not sand. This would reduce the machining to careful drilling and filing.
Modern 3D software has a facility which enables plate to be cut with tabs and slots along the lines of the old hornby kit of old so etching is not needed except for some detail like cab windows.

Then we get to the boiler. I have bought a boiler set for less than £100 with flanged plates to the drawing. It is a simple marine type with 5 or 6 tubes. A single flue radiant gas boiler would probably cost half that in material terms and would be very simple to build.
An electric version would simply involve mounting a suitable motor within the boiler space. But I dont know about that sort of stuff.

If we went down the lost wax route we would need patterns and they would come from a 3D model and a 'printed' pattern in ABS.
The modelling cost might be in the order of £2-300 and the printing about £30 a unit. A mould would then cost another £40 or so and after that the price depends on how many you have. Simplst!

The result would - sorry, will - be a locomotive built to be an exact representaion of the original without qualification. However if you just take the chassis it could be built up into almost any small NG type. With a superstructure made of styrene, drainpipe and resin

(No, I am not sneering - look at www.cumberlandmodelengineering.com - and they work from ORIGINAL drawings)

There is another issue that really needs addressing if we are to find commercial acceptance for G3 - the scale. Here we do 1:22.588, In america it is 1:20.37 (or is it 2) and on the continent its 1:20. And the gauge.... well you know what I mean.

By the way - check out what French modellers do in 1:20  -  
www.usinages.com/040-d-vapeur-vive-t9391.html

Another thing is track. Modern brass and plastic track is very pretty but expensive. Both young Frank and Bassett Lowke (or was it Bonds) did pretty well with hollow formed track and tabbed sleepers. Surely the same thing in stainless with pressed spacers would be cheap to produce (and flog profitably.) and be acceptable in the garden layout

If anyone is interested in Polar Bear I would be pleased to discuss it.

and

[IanT]

Hi Chris,

Well to be honest - I thought Polar Bear was a narrow gauge engine - in that although it runs on 2 1/2" gauge track, it's not built to a scale of 13.5mm. Gauge '3' is essentially standard gauge in nature.

With regards to scale - we normally use 13.5mm (or sometimes 17/32nds) when converting measurements but 1:22.6 when describing the scale. They are not exactly the same but the differece is very small in practice. Some pre-war G3 models were built to 1/2"  (12.7mm) scale but it is not generally used in G3 these days.

With respect to 1:20.3 this is essentially a US form of G-scale, as it translates to 3 foot gauge when used with 45mm track. LGB use 1:22.5 which is correct for metre gauge on 45mm. Clearly we model standard gauge engines on 2 1/2" track (which is 63.5mm) so need to use a scale of 13.5mm (or 1:22.6). So whilst we are pretty much the exact same scale as LGB 'G' we use standard gauge track rather than metre gauge.

As Continental standard gauge is also (generally) 4' 8.5" - anyone who was modeling European standard gauge would also have to use 13.5mm (or 1:22.6) if they want a scale model to run on 63.5mm track, although the loading gauge would be larger. So the French 1:20 scale cannot be standard gauge if it's running on 63.5mm track.

There does seems to be a lot of confusion between "scale" and "gauge". There are also 'degrees' of scale in other gauges (fine/coarse 32mm, 00, H0, P4, EM etc)  - but in G3 we are very fortunate that our scale and gauge combination are pretty accurate and therefore easy to define.

Regards,

Ian T   

[Kalinowski]

The French 1/20 live steam runs on either 70mm or 72mm track. Cest la difference.
Peter

[IanT]

I've never heard of the French 70/72mm gauge before Peter.

I had simply assumed it was another 45mm NG variant, as this would work out at 900mm in full size, which I think was used in real life - although I'm no expert on Continental NG working and all its different flavours

IanT

[Christopher]

Gentlemen - I think you have made my point.

If you were an international commercial toy company would you invest in HO/00 which is a wordwide standard. 0 gauge or gauge 1 which are also world wide standards - or gauge 3 with no adherents in Europe at all, one standard in America which has been adjusted to use commercially available track - or the UK with more variations than one can shake a stick at.

Still - not to worry. They arent investing in our market place and we dont have to save up to buy the products they arent producing.

But - dont winge if there are no RTR trainsets available for G3/G scale/72mm or whatever

However, finally, for the avoidance of doubt Polar bear is a genuine person pulling SCALE Bagnall modelled to a scale of approximately 1:10 and it runs on 63.5 gauge track.

[cabbage]

Now that I have left the Gauge '3' Society and after Saturday 30th of October 2010 -this forum... When I first found G3 in the UK it was at the AGM of the 16mmngm at Stoneleigh and it it was Robin Saxton's stand that I found it at. I measured the gauge with my index finger and said "This is Spur II -sorry Gauge 3?" Not being english and spending a lot of my time in Berne I called it by what I knew it as. I knew people who built Spur II models and belonged to Spur II Gruppe from my time in Berne. What I was not prepared for was the demarcation of the "G3" and the "N2.5GA". The demarcation is that G3 pull carriages and wagons and that N2.5GA pull people.

Another point of demarcation is perception. It has to be a steam engine -or a steam outline engine. Some people are shocked that I build ELECTRIC and DIESEL locomotives -from other countries even...

When my son brings his friends home from school one of the first things they want to see are "The Big Engines".

When I was Secretary of The Gauge '3' Society I did suggest that the best way was simply for a few members to take a couple of models to a local Model Railway Club "Open Day" and just show people what they were like in comparison to '00' '0' or '1'.

I have seen the looks of sheer hunger on the faces of small boys and their fathers that have come to pick them up and seen the simple loco prowling up and down the 6 foot length of test track in my shed. I have demonstrated that building a Gauge '3' locomotive is a fairly cheap thing and can be done on a budget of £10 per week using the space between the kitchen sink and the cooker. By the very nature of the small number of people building and running Gauge '3' equipment there will be a small selection of equipment that can be purchased and used. What is required is a grass roots advertising campaign -not a model. Information would also be useful. I am working from books printed in the mid 1920's from HG and LBSC. I needed a manual for Gauge '3' -so I ended up having to (mostly) write my own. The modern trend of "garden grabbing" will also deter many people -a Gauge '3' layout requires garden space that very few people have nowadays. One of the criteria for my present home was a garden big enough to build in Gauge '3', even then I have had to have very tight corners of 2.2 metre radius.

What both "G3S" and "N2.5GA" seem to have forgotten is that most people simply want to build big locos and rolling stock -and have fun with them simply watching them and "playing trains"...

regards

ralph

[John Candy]

Hi Ralph,

It has been a while since you last posted, although I had noticed that you have been logging in on an almost daily basis to observe.
You have me wondering, what is the significance of October 30th?
I assume you will not be having a bonfire of your G3 models on November 5th!
Your posts are always interesting (even though the subject matter may at times appear a little unconventional to some) and your contribution will be missed.

Returning to the subjects you cover in the current posting, the advertising point is something which is under discussion at present.
The first small step has been to take out two one-eighth page ads in Garden Rail (the first will be in the issue due out today) and other publications are currently under consideration. The design work and placing of these ads was undertaken by forum member Markie who donated his professional services, for which the Committee is most grateful.

Mark Pretious is involved with Railway Modeller and they will be publishing an article on Blackgang sometime next year (the photo session is in December and Members are invited to attend with their stock....see www.gauge3.org.uk/diary.html for details).

The draft material for the proposed Technical Manual is not forgotten and will, when time permits, be progressed (I have the digital material here and made an enquiry just a few days ago to ascertain the whereabouts of the hard copy).

Regards,
John.

[cabbage]

You are at liberty to print your own copy, I did, all 473 A4 pages of it.

The significance of the 30th of October 2010 is obvious, as are the reasons why I check over entries on this forum because of it. Once I log out of this forum the preferences will ensure self destruction and prevent any more participation in it.

regards

ralph

[IanT]

Well, frankly, I am a bit mystified by some of this thread, as I thought some of these issues were  pretty old hat by now.

First, let me say that there are lots of common interest points of interest between the Association and the Society and that we have an excellent & friendly relationship. The Assoc have for a long time been the main source of castings suitable for 2.5" gauge loco designs and most are suitable for G3 use. The Society has not needed to duplicate this effort and so we have focused on other areas (e.g. track components). I've also seen electric locos at Assoc Rallys, so it is not just a live steam vs electric debate either. But there are two pretty fundamental differences between the two groups

Gauge '3' is by definition the building and running of scenic, standard-gauge model railways on 2.5" gauge track. What's wrong with that? Gauge 'O' is about running standard gauge railways on 32mm track, Gauge '1' about the same on 45mm track.

In other words, we only (whether it be British or Continental outline) build standard gauge railways (4' 8.5" gauge) which on a track gauge of 2.5" (63.5mm) has to be to a scale of 1:22.6. That's it. We don't build narrow gauge or broad gauge engines. Not that I have any problems if anyone wants to do so, but it simply would not be a Gauge '3' engine. The Assoc prefer to build a wider range of prototypical gauges, both standard and narrow gauge. Polar Bear is a very nice little engine but being a narrow gauge loco, it clearly is NOT a suitable loco for Gauge '3' use. I am sure some G1/G0 Members also run 16mm narrow gauge engines on their tracks – but I don't think they would describe them as 'G1' or 'G0' engines.

Being a "scenic" model railway of course also means that you will not see passenger hauling at a Gauge '3' GTG, which are run at privately owned garden railways not designed for such use. The Assoc holds it's Rallys at Model Engineer Societies with 2.5" tracks, which are invariably raised tracks suitable for such use. There are other more subtle differences this implies. Passenger hauling engines tend to be not only larger but also more heavily built. LBSC designed small locomotives, not scale locomotives.

So there are clear differences between the modelling activities that the Association pursues and those of the G3 Society. There are no right or wrongs here, it's simply a matter of preference. As a Member of both organisations I see no conflict between the two as there are useful overlaps. I am also member of G1MRA (although I've never built anything in G1) and I decided some time ago that I wanted to model in Gauge '3'. I made that choice at a time when there was very little commercial support available for Gauge '3' but it was still the Gauge that appealed to me the most. Nothing has changed in that respect and Gauge '3' remains my scale and gauge of choice.

With regards Ralph's comments, Gauge '3' can support any standard gauge prototype. The fact that Members tend to model steam engines simply tells you about their modelling preferences rather than anything about the scope of G3. In fact I have seen several large diesel locos at GTG's recently – although both are in the process of rebuild/re-motoring. In terms of 'building materials' and information I really do not see the problem. The reason I am a Member of G1MRA is that I enjoy their magazine. Virtually everything described therein is easily adapted to G3 and there has been a lot of very good live steam info. This is much more up to date than LBSC or Greenly and most of this information is available on the web by the way. See http://lakes-pages.com/gauge3.co.uk/G3Forum/index.php?topic=228.0 for an example.

I think that summarises it. If anyone wants to model in 1:20.3 (because that has more commercial support) well good luck to them. Of course I'm not sure there is too much commercial support for British outline in 1:20.3. If you want to build a Polar Bear live steam engine, then again, good luck to you too. But if you have the skills to do build this engine, why not build a G3 'Dee' as Dick has recently described here?

Regards,

Ian T

[Markie]

Having finally caught up with this thread, the one matter I would like to discuss is Ralph's point that people want to buy in to this hobby to build a loco. I certainly don't - I don't have the inclination nor time. Why would I want to spend all those hours building something only to find I did not get on with it, or the scale? I bought a RTR N gauge set, and loved it. Same with a OO set, then G45, then, actually G3, via a job lot on ebay.

Some people simply don't have the time to build stuff but want an RTR solution and my view is if G3 is going to expand, then that is exactly what you guys should do.

Markie

[IanT]

Well I think we all understand that we (modelers that is) come in all shapes, sizes, preferences and abilities.

Some like to build their own stuff and some don't. Some can afford to buy (or commission) and some can not. This is true in all Gauges but is probably more sharply felt in G3 because a) the commercial RTR offerings are a bit restricted and b) the cost of what is available is much more expensive than the smaller gauges (but much less so when compared with comparable larger scales).

However, let's be clear. For a price, there are RTR engines out there, either used or from specialists such as GRS. So it is not that there are no RTR engines available - it is the really the price point that is the issue here.

Ralph correctly points out that it is possible to build a G3 loco for not a lot of money - and I absolutely agree with him. And that is the trade off in many things these days. Last week I fixed my Mums central heating system - it cost me 5.95 for a new fused connection unit. If Mum had called in a specialist, then it would probably would have cost her several hundred pounds. If Ralph commissioned someone to build his engines for him, then they would cost him a lot of money too, if only in labour.

For entry level (& inexpensive RTR G3) you need volume - not just a dozen units or so. I've spoken to several manufacturers about this recently. One stated that they worked on minimum volumes of 800 units per engine and the other said that they would not consider a run of less than a hundred units. So whilst I understand all the arguments about the attractions of affordable RTR - we find ourselves in a 'chicken & egg' situation.

We need volume to get a low-cost RTR engine and we need a low-cost RTR engine to get the volume.

Gauge '3' will grow and expand, after all it has been quietly doing so for a while now but perhaps some patience will be required.

[Richard T]

http://lakes-pages.com/gauge3.co.uk/G3Forum/index.php?topic=389.msg1773#msg1773