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

[cabbage]

Very Well Then...

The following Documents are published under the GNU General Public Licence ver 2.0. They are deemed to be Exemplars to prove the concept of producing a scratch built locomotive and associated documentation.

http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/wondering/exemplar1.png
http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/wondering/exemplar.pdf

Sorry that the formatting using "tabs" has gone amiss -this sometimes happens(?)

regards

ralph

[John Candy]

Ralph,

I am a loss to understand the reason why you have published the material relating to 10800 under a "public" licence.

I know you don't like the proposed terms of entry to the competition but you have now made it impossible to comply with the terms of entry and assign the benefit of the design to the Gauge 3 Society.
Was it your intention to exclude yourself from the competition?
If so, that is a great pity.

As a member of the Society yourself, I fail to understand why you would not wish the Society to benefit.

Regards,
John.

[cabbage]

The reason is simple, it is also one that you could never understand.

I understand it.

My Wife understands it.

My Son understands it.

Several millions of people all over the world understand it.

QUOTE:
Was it is your intention to exclude yourself from the competition?
UNQUOTE:

Yes. I know exactly what I am doing. The software used to produce the drawings and documentation for the loco were Open Office.org and Gimp with some DIAG and Cyberduck routines. Therefore I could not in all honesty submit them.

regards

ralph

[Moonraker]

When I first read about this competition I thought it was a great idea which would be both fun for the members and beneficial for the Gauge 3 hobby. I even intended entering from Australia.

Unfortunately it has been ruined by the passion some people have for rules and documentation and has now degenerated into a political bunfight.

I think that the competition rules should be reduced to the simplest possible such as:

Rule 1: Models entered should be sent to ....... not later than DD/MM/YY.
Rule 2: A costing of all the components should be supplied with the models. The total should be less than 140 pounds.
Rule 3: Models must be Gauge 3 and will be judged on originality, quality and the use of simple tools in construction.
Rule 4: Entries will be exhibited at the AGM where owners can collect them
Rule 5: There are no more rules.

Regards
Peter

[cabbage]

When originally asked for ideas for the documentation this is what I sent:

To: "John R F Candy"
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: LMS 10,800


Working from first principles.

I would say that you need a list of suppliers for parts and the rough costs of the parts. Plus I would say if you needed a particular tool (such as the infamous 7.1mm or nastier to find 7.35mm drill) then I would include that as well -a 7.0 or 7.5mm drill would be considered a std available tool.

Each module and constructional section needs a photo and a drawing. I did specify "When I was Secretary" that all drawings were in PNG and all photos in JPG format.

A running total for the project at the end of each constructional section as well (at the end) a total and parts list for each supplier. Possibly some thought should be given to alternate suppliers and materials (eg Brass is easier to use -but Steel is cheaper).

I would also include a "difficulty rating" for the section and expected problems that will be encountered. There should be some idea of timescale taken for the operation, (allow to set overnight etc).

I hate to say this but I would also say that all dimensions and parts will HAVE to be in Metric. I know that I cannot get away from a 1/4 inch axle diameter for my (pre-made) wheels -so I will have to "fork out" for a 1/4 inch drill to bore my 6mm bore gears to the correct size... But it is getting increasingly difficult to get Imperial tooling. ME and BA are still fairly common -but for how much longer(?)

The model should also include "expansions" that enable it to be improved on -for instance the speed controller should be easy to swap from a simple PWAM to a complex R/C with regen.

regards

ralph

So now you know.

[John Candy]

There are a few points I should make clear about this competition, since it appears there may be some misunderstanding.

Firstly, it is a privately organised competition and NOT a Gauge 3 Society "official" competition.
It is, however, intended to benefit the Society by providing a set of simple designs which the Society may use as its own to promote G3.

Secondly, the intention is to use these designs as the basis of a "G3 Made Simple" ongoing campaign for which www.G3MadeSimple.org.uk has been registered.
Designs will be added to this project as they are donated to the Society or when submitted as entries to future competitions.

Thirdly, although this is not an "official" Society competition, the draft rules were submitted to the Committee for comments/suggestions and the only response came from Ian Turner (Chairman) who stated, <quote>They seem reasonable to me too John.</quote>

Ian is on holiday at present, which is the reason he has not yet responded to this discussion.

The "format" of the entry submissions (the Sections under which the stages of construction are to be recorded) was designed around a set of suggestions provided by Ralph ("Cabbage") and he has no arguments over that aspect.
The draft of that part was sent to Ralph, who commented, <quote>There is nothing there that I can find fault with. On a personal note it could do with making a little more friendlier...
At the moment it reads more like an insurance claims document than the light hearted game rules for a fun thing to do(!)
</quote>

The disagreement revolves around whether or not the Society should "own" the designs.

I shall be away next week so will not be responding to messages over that period.

I have to say, that had I known that this competition would lead to so much aggravation, I would not have bothered!

Regards,
John.

[Derek King]

Gent,

I fully concure with the comments made by Peter and can understand why Ralph has got a little upset. Though the idea of a competition to encourage the membership to get involved is a good one, I fail to understand why the G3 Society should "own" the design, unless it was the intent to turn it into a commercial operation and sell the results as a kit of parts to the general public.

But my understanding is that we are just looking for ideas for a simple locomotive that can be constructed cheaply from commercially available parts and materials with hand tools (and drill) so that railway modellers (not model engineers) in other scales can have a go at Gauge 3. So surely the best way to "spread the word" to the outside world would be to allow those taking part to publicise their ideas in what ever way see fit. I was originally looking into having a go at a small L&Y engine and if this came to fruition I would certainly want to also write about my efforts in the L&Y Society house magazine and maybe even the general railway modelling press. So if I do decide to proceed with this engine I will not now be entering the competition.

Another fact that would exclude me is that I believe modellers in other scales (myself included) would be more comfortable with commercial parts they know - and as stated in an earlier posting, the motor/gearbox & wheels I would wish to use will alone break the cost Limit. Maybe it would have been better to have set a lower cost limit and excluded the motor/gearbox and wheel to give builders the choice (as per most kits in the smaller scales).

Regards,

Derek. 

[John Candy]

The intention would not be to make a profit from the designs which would be freely distributed.
The reason for the Society to "own" the designs would be so that it alone could use the material in targeted campaigns to promote itself as well as G3 generally.
If the designs were available from practically any source, they would have little or no value to the Society since the focus would shift away from the Society and any "G3 Made Simple" promotions would be considerably diluted....typical reaction may be, "Nothing new here, I've seen all this before!"

The idea is that the final material is broken down into easy to follow components so that practically anyone without previous experience could build the model....hence the rather convoluted format of the entry requirements.

Regards,
John.

[midnight miller]

Hello All

Just to say I think Derek makes a very good point with the comment ( please exclude wheels gears and motor ) Please don't give up on the idea .


                                                       John

[cabbage]

[Deep Breath]....

QUOTE:
The intention would not be to make a profit from the designs which would be freely distributed.
UNQUOTE:

See Above for GNU General Public Licence ver 2.0.

QUOTE:
The reason for the Society to "own" the designs would be so that it alone could use the material in targeted campaigns to promote itself as well as G3 generally.
UNQUOTE:

I think you would find that the Members of the Society are its best advertisement. The control of the source material in this regards from both a commercial and advertising point of view I find to be incorrect in both approach and manner. The company I worked for before I retired never advertised. If you were in that market place -you knew who we were. I was more aware of "Das Spur II Gruppe" than I was of the Gauge '3' Society until recently. It was Robin Saxton who first introduced me to Gauge '3' at the AGM of the 16mmNGM at Stonely. This is not a commercial scale -this is not a commercial market, the retailers will tell you that. When IanT was exploring what were the specific marketing things about Gauge 3 he was forced to admit that the '3' was the only thing that was "special". You tried changing the colour schemes and all that happened was we lost the Latin motto (as my son said -"If no one can understand what it says -why do you have it?")

I come from the "Bleeding Edge" of commerce. I understand marketing to a degree that you cannot. The machines that I designed were about £8million per cubic metre, the pressure for companies to get their equipment into my designs was mega...

QUOTE:
If the designs were available from practically any source, they would have little or no value to the Society since the focus would shift away from the Society and any "G3 Made Simple" promotions would be considerably diluted....typical reaction may be, "Nothing new here, I've seen all this before!"
UNQUOTE:

Wrong. Completely and Utterly Wrong. The Gauge '3' Society, The National 2.5inch Gauge Association, and Das Spur II Gruppe are the ONLY places on the entire planet you can go to for information about this scale and gauge. That places the "market resource" at a level of tactical advantage. I do not know how many of the readers of this thread can (like me), speak, read and lipread fluent German -but I don't think it will be that many.... (Yes that is the reason I still use the schoolboy nickname given to me when I came to England of "Cabbage" -"Ich bin ein Kraut"). So that brings the English speaking down to two only. You throw as much information as you can onto the Web. There are people out there looking for the Gauge '3' Society and its followers. I get 170+ "hits' on the section of my website that deals with how to make G3 track per month. That is almost as many people per month as there are in the G3S itself. People are looking, if they cannot find the information easily to hand -they will look elsewhere. We are a niche market at best -there is so very little information out there that trying to control it and restrict it to "targeted marketing" is I believe counter productive.

QUOTE:
The idea is that the final material is broken down into easy to follow components so that practically anyone without previous experience could build the model....hence the rather convoluted format of the entry requirements.
UNQUOTE:

Yes I agree with what you have written -the format of it however is wrong. You are used to producing long legal documents -not text books. Thus the format is more applicable to producing legal texts rather than text books. The format you have given can be "worked around" -and that is why I wrote you the Exemplar. The first test instruction manual I had to write as a student teacher was; "How to get drunk in a Bar", (think about it -it is not that simple!).

You submitted your document to a "Review by Peers", which is good, but you only got ONE reply -which is bad...

Speaking as the former Head Of Design -I would say that "Your project has crashed". My instructions to you as an employee would be: stop now, rejig it after taking advice, do a "blind test" using three other members on this thread to see what they feel about the new version, THEN submit it back to the Committee.  If you still get only the one reply -scrap it.

regards

ralph

[MikeWilliams]

Chaps.

From where I sit reading all of these posts we have total support for the competition.  John has clearly put a lot of effort into this and generously donated a superb and relevant prize (I have one and it is really lovely).

Since the committee apparently agreed with the terms can we perhaps await their responces?  Maybe joint ownership of the design, or some sort of licencing would satisfy all - but what did/does our committee think when they agreed the terms?

Ted?  Richard?  Roger?  Ian(s)?

Mike

[Ted Sadler]

I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this subject in depth with other committee members, but will do so as soon as we can convene in sufficient numbers.

It seems that only approximately one quarter of the G3 Society members look at the web site regularly. Therefore I believe that the correct place to announce a competition would be in the next Newsletter, after full agreement on the above points.

Ted

[Richard T]

The Ruston 48DS is one of Richard Thompson's projects.

I've only just read this thread ( been away for a while) Yes it's one of mine, I think I've got a couple of kits left from the first batch - £140 complete, other than wheels -  (£50 ish from Walsall) and motor gearbox assy (£35 ish from Roxey Mouldings )

Regards

Richard

[cabbage]

Well it seems that my wife is right -my mother did train me well!!!

I seem to be the only one that has beaten the £140 barrier -if only by a few pennies... If you examine the costings in the Exemplar then you will see that the four wheels and axles at £28 are the highest cost single item on the "shopping list". The biggest problem with scratch building has always been the wheels. I think that the £140 barrier is still workable -but a good case could be made for a bodyshell without wheels and motor... Ironically if the model were constructed to level 3, (ie with the use of a lathe), I could build it cheaper(!)

The question that is now "bugging me" is "Can I design a steam locomotive within the £140 barrier?"

A "Climax A" would be possible design -but there were no Climaxs in the UK. This leaves "Yahs" the infamous occupant of "The Peacock Iron Foundry of Bilston Staffs"... Alternatively there is the design from Hunslet which is more "Heisler" in style....

Time for some thinking -with the aid of a little 12 year old Malt.

regards

ralph

[AllWight]

Hi Ralph

Although there was not a climax on uk soil there was infact a 2 truck T boilered Shay on an industrial line the name of which escapes me.

Mark