Golden Rule
#1
With Harold's discovery of 5.5mm / 55n3 I was reminded of the following information:

I'm passing this along from Brian Fayle who has it from Steve Bennett, a well known Brit modeller, who got it from some guru. It works:

Quote:The Golden Rule for a Loading Gauge is:

WIDTH 3.25 times track gauge

HEIGHT 5.25 times track gauge
Ron Wm. Hurlbut
Toronto, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Ontario Narrow Gauge Show
Humber Valley & Simcoe Railway Blog
Reply
#2
For what conditions? The largest ratios I can think of in mainline use are the operation of (modified) US domestic models on metre gauge in Brazil. Those are pretty much at that width limit, but not as tall. For more extreme ratios, there are some cases on smaller gauges. For example, GE U10Bs modified for 2' gauge in South Africa. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20GE%20U10B.HTML">http://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20GE%20U10B.HTML</a><!-- m --> 9' wide and 12' high, exceeding both limits.
Fan of late and early Conrail... also 40s-50s PRR, 70s ATSF, BN and SP, 70s-80s eastern CN, pre-merger-era UP, heavy electric operations in general, dieselized narrow gauge, era 3/4 DB and DR, EFVM and Brazilian railroads in general... too many to list!
Reply
#3
Well, surely rules are meant to be broken...

The Golden Rule is meant as a guideline for maximum dimensions for equipment for tunnel and bridge clearance.

Most will be smaller, but exceptions exist.

Afterall... There's a Prototype for everything!

The dimensions are meant as a guide in order to get the right look and feel. Especially for Free-Lance models.

Most of the early Bachmann On30 models are based on 3-foot gauge equipment. It is a little oversized for True 30-inch gauge equipment, but still fits within the Golden Rule. To overcome some of the issues, Bachman has chosen smaller 3-foot gauge prototypes that better fit 30-inch gauge.

Most people overlook the discrepency because there is still a good look and feel to it.

Newer Bachmann On30 is based on 2-foot [Forney] and 30-inch prototypes, but is being mixed and matched with 3-foot equipment.

This jumble of compromises has put off some people and I think that Harold is one.
Ron Wm. Hurlbut
Toronto, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Ontario Narrow Gauge Show
Humber Valley & Simcoe Railway Blog
Reply
#4
Triplex, you are being too literal on this one...citing obscurities confirms the rule.

At the start of the narrow gauge movement, the width rule of thumb was 2x the loading gauge. It was quickly determined that it was too restrictive, and so the cars quickly grew from 6' wide (2x) to 7' wide to even 8' wide (2.67x). The standard 3' gauge freight car width was 7'6"-7'8" and the standard passenger car width was 8'2". If memory serves me, the Maine 2' passenger cars were right around 3.25x.

I think I would refer to Harold's latest flavor of the moment is really more of a realization for him (with promotion) than a discovery. He's moved back and forth between On30, Sn42, HO, Sn3 from HO mechanisms, and now 55n3 over the past few years. These are all things which have been done before, but have never caught on (On30 and HO excluded). As I recall, Hugh Boutell did some 55n3 modeling back in the 1930s & 40s, and I'd be shocked if a British modeler hasn't done it already. Effectively, it just shifts the scale compromise from track to other components (yes, I know that 1:1 scale locomotives don't typically have giant Faulhaber motors in them).

Generally, do feel that On30 leaves many people with a less than 100% satisfied feel due to the 31" gauge track. I've seen/heard numerous On30 people just go off on how inherently superior it is to other gauges/scales, only to later admit that the frustration came from their own reservations about On30 rather than people deriding it. Afterall, it is the supposed "freelance" capabilities of it that are being cited here as a problem.

Personally, I think On30 is here to stay for at least the next decade. It isn't all that dissimilar from other fudge factor scales of the past (1/2", 1:29, HOn30). I'm sure that there will be plenty who will switch from On30 to On3, On2, Sn3, or such in time...but I bet it will thrive as long as their isn't a low-cost source for introductory (non-craftsman) On3 or Sn3 as the casual On30 modelers won't care about the 5-7". On30 sits in the odd position of which toy train (and village) people are purchasing the exact same stuff as serious modelers. I personally consider On30 to be one of the 2-3 best things to happen to the hobby over the past 30 years. It is a tremendous source of stuff for On3 and On2 modeling, and it is great for recruiting more NG modelers into the fold.
Michael
My primary goal is a large Oahu Railway layout in On3
My secondary interests are modeling the Denver, South Park, & Pacific in On3 and NKP in HO
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/">http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#5
The Pacific Coast Railway first boxcars were 7'-10" wide at the sills and they were built as early as 1876. The Bachmann On30 boxcar is only slightly wider in 5mm/foot, a board, than those cars. The Bachmann On30 boxcars also comes close to the Central Railroad of New Jersey standard gauge box in the 1879 Car Builder's dictionary. Those plans were drawn to 7/32/ft which is almost 5.5mm/foot.

Harold
Reply
#6
Actually I was put off by On30 because there is now way to make an inside frame classic "narrow gauge era" 4-4-0 in O scale running on HO track. That is why I rubber gauged looking for 4-4-0's. The only ones were Sn3. I am not buying another $500 dollar loco kit and re-guaging HO to Sn3 is more bother than it is worth . If visual disparity between gauge and scale didn't bother me I would still be modeling the 1870's in OO scale running on HO track.

Harold
Reply
#7
hminky Wrote:The only ones were Sn3. I am not buying another $500 dollar loco kit and re-guaging HO to Sn3 is more bother than it is worth

Cheers

$500 is a bit much for kitbashing fodder. It is a heck of alot easier to widen the gauge than to narrow it.
Michael
My primary goal is a large Oahu Railway layout in On3
My secondary interests are modeling the Denver, South Park, & Pacific in On3 and NKP in HO
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/">http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#8
TinGoat Wrote:Well, surely rules are meant to be broken...

The Golden Rule is meant as a guideline for maximum dimensions for equipment for tunnel and bridge clearance.

I misinterpreted that as meaning carbody width and height. It is actually clearance width and height. 3.25 X 56.5" (standard gauge)=15.3', which is the width(15') of the NMRA Standards gauge in HO scale.
A carbody width and height ratio would be different, and would vary with gauge, car style, and car age.
There is a definite case for "That loco, or car, looks too wide for the track gauge" feeling. There is also a definite case for the relationship between car width-track gauge-physical stability. Running standard gauge cars on 3' gauge track/trucks, was done.......but there were "complications", and necessary care in loading, and slow speeds, especially on curves.
In the end, nothing will stop the Sag Harbor Shipbuilding and Drydock Company from building locomotives and rolling stock for their "31" gauge" New England railroad. And that, is the beauty of this hobby.....if the road is freelance, there can be some "fudging" (aesthetics) where dimensions are concerned. To each, their own. Goldth
We always learn far more from our own mistakes, than we will ever learn from another's advice.
The greatest place to live life, is on the sharp leading edge of a learning curve.
Lead me not into temptation.....I can find it myself!
Reply
#9
Quote:Triplex, you are being too literal on this one...citing obscurities confirms the rule.
Once you get down to 2' gauge, I think violations are quite common. The rule is good for 3', meter and 3'6", probably also 2'6".
Fan of late and early Conrail... also 40s-50s PRR, 70s ATSF, BN and SP, 70s-80s eastern CN, pre-merger-era UP, heavy electric operations in general, dieselized narrow gauge, era 3/4 DB and DR, EFVM and Brazilian railroads in general... too many to list!
Reply
#10
hminky Wrote:Actually I was put off by On30 because there is now way to make an inside frame classic "narrow gauge era" 4-4-0 in O scale running on HO track. That is why I rubber gauged looking for 4-4-0's. The only ones were Sn3. I am not buying another $500 dollar loco kit and re-guaging HO to Sn3 is more bother than it is worth . If visual disparity between gauge and scale didn't bother me I would still be modeling the 1870's in OO scale running on HO track.
Harold

Regauging HO standard gauge to HOn3 is no fun either. That's the reason why I've set aside the HOn3 "dinky" mogul, I was trying to build from an HO 0-4-0.
"an inside frame classic "narrow gauge era" 4-4-0 in O scale running on HO track."
Finding a properly sized,scale, boiler and cab, to represent a 30" gauge 4-4-0 in On30,would be difficult. An outside frame 4-4-0 would, more likely, be easier to do. The boiler-cab-steam chest would be wider, and probably easier to find a suitable loco to start from.
Whatever the case, the loco's center of gravity has to appear (and be) low, and centered between the rails. If the loco looks too tall, or too wide........it then looks too improbable. This, in itself, rules out holding too tightly to "stated ratios of height and width".....good rules of thumb....but not fixed laws. The physics of stability are the fixed laws (until someone invents inertial dampers, that allow skyscrapers to be stable, balanced on a pin point, anywhere under the base.)

Ouch! One of the toe dancing hippo's from Disney's "Fantasia" just appeared in my mind's eye! Confusedhock: Confusedhock: Icon_lol
We always learn far more from our own mistakes, than we will ever learn from another's advice.
The greatest place to live life, is on the sharp leading edge of a learning curve.
Lead me not into temptation.....I can find it myself!
Reply
#11
In the history of railroading to date, there have been many instances of equipment that looked "wrong" to the eye. The question is, did it work as designed?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)