Let's see if we can't get a few more involved!

[cabbage]

Yes -it was at the Peacock Iron Works...

I have been thinking with the aid of a little "lubrication" last night(!)
A possible model of a Sentinel Y10 might be adapted from parts from a Mamod -no SERIOUSLY!!!

This is the idea:

I use two Mamod ends with a Mamod boiler between them. I then take the steam from the boiler
and drive a USE kit 1 engine to worms on the axles. This will multiply the torque from the single
cylinder to a usable amount. Can it be done under the £140 limit -no... But I think that for around £300
it might be possible to have something chugging around the tracks.

These are my costings so far:


Supplier            £   Rqd   £            £

PPS steam

cab back            8   2   16         
cab front            12   2   24
cab roof            4   2   8
std boiler             25   1   25
adjustable safety valve      8   1   8
water sight glass and O ring    3   1   3
back water level brass plate   5   1   5
combustion chamber      10   1   10
fwd/rev valve         15   1   15
steam regulator         23   1   23
meths burner         26   1   26      163

Forest classics

USE kit 1            33   1   33      33   

Technobots

std MOD 1 worm gear      0.81   2   1.62         
MFA 40T plastic gear      0.70   2   1.40
s/steel bar 4mm         1.07   1   1.07
K&S 64 thous 1 inch      7.19   2   14.38
4mm bearings         1.19   8   9.52      27.99

Muffet gears

45 tooth MOD1 spur gear   0.57   2   1.14      1.14   

Brandbright

47mm coach wheels      14   2   28      28   

                           £253.13p

regards

ralph

[IanT]

I've been away this week (West Highland Railways – good weather, lovely scenery, very enjoyable) so have not been around to comment some of this thread, either in my role of Moderator or Chairman. The most important point in my view is that John put this competition together on his own initiative and kindly offered a very good and valuable prize (which he is funding). Simply on that basis, I think he has every right to decide on the terms of entry.

As stated, John distributed the written terms of the competition to the Committee and I saw no objection to them. The copyright conditions were clearly set out and are unambiguous. I see no reason to change them. It may well be that some Members will find these terms unacceptable and decide not to enter the competition. That is their right but it would also be a great pity.

Let's examine in more detail some of the issues behind this....

First, I hope I do not need to point out that the Society is a not-for-profit organisation.  We are not a commercial operation and indeed, have no desire to become one.  We should be "businesslike" (professional, efficient, solvent) but we are not a business. In fact our main remit is simply stated on the back of every Newsletter;

"Our aim is to encourage interest and participation in the building and running of scenic Gauge '3' model railways. ..."

My view is that this competition actively supports that aim. The fact that John has (correctly in my view) asked for Society copyright, makes life much simpler for the Committee, in terms of making these designs available to a wider audience (without fear of legal complications) by any means we might see fit (Online, Society Publications, Railways Magazines etc). We will, of course, always fully acknowledge the author/source of any particular design.

As our aim is to "encourage interest and participation {in} Gauge 3" I also think it extremely unlikely that we would ever refuse the use and publication of one of these G3 designs elsewhere, although there may be circumstances where we might. I really can't think of any but it seems sensible to reserve the right to do so.

Should the designer later wish to use his design commercially, I doubt we would object to that either, in fact I'm sure we would welcome professionally made G3 engines. Nor would we normally seek any financial gain or advantage from any such arrangement. Our primary reason (in practice) to ask for copyright is to give the Society the freedom to use any design submitted without constant reference back to the designer (or their heirs should this be required one day).

If anyone isn't happy with the terms of the competition, then don't enter it. You will still be most welcome to exhibit your design at the AGM but you will not win the nice prize.

You have to be "In It to Win It"!

So there you have it. In my view, a good, useful competition, with an excellent prize, that can only benefit Gauge '3' whilst also providing the Society with some useful intellectual property. Please approach the competition in the spirit that was intended and I'm sure we will see some interesting and innovative G3 designs come next February's AGM.

Regards,


IanT

[John Candy]

I have returned from a week in Sussex and see that this thread has now gone quiet.
The offer of the prize and competition is still "on the table" and I hope that some of you will take up the challenge, even though you may not be in total agreement with the rules.

So far only one judge has been appointed but it has been suggested that the editor of a model railway magazine (particularly one with a large-scale/ garden bias) should be invited to participate.

The object of the exercise is not to produce the best model per se but to produce a set of instructions to enable a beginner to produce a locomotive.
So, don't be deterred if you feel your finished model will not be up to exhibition standards...that should not affect your chances of winning.
What is important is that the instructions are logical and easy to follow and someone with few tools and a small budget can use them to produce a working model.

Regards,
John.