Category Archives: Thinking

Sums

1 Reply

At the recent Uckfield Model Railway Exhibition, a member of the public tried to suggest that quoting the track gauge to a thousandth of an inch was a bit extreme, and why not use 0.9” instead? Well, ignoring the trite response that 0.9” can also be expressed as 0.900” – and often is in engineering circles to specify the required level of accuracy (which otherwise covers 0.850” to 0.949”), the simple fact is that we don’t actually use the decimal fraction, merely divide 56 ½ inches (standard gauge) by 64, and then express that result in a decimal format… (And yes, I know that results in 0.883”, and the SSMRS standard is 0.884”, but there are technical reasons for that, due to engineering tolerances required for an exact scale wheel profile.) In truth, when I started in S, I didn’t have a track gauge, but I did have a (cheap) vernier calibre which was calibrated in 1/128” of an inch – scale half inches in S scale: I quickly took it to ⅞” (a scale 56 inches, and used the fine adjustment to add the extra single graduation – an extra 1/128”, or 0.008” if you must have it as a decimal!)

I recently realised that when we say S scale is 3/16” to the foot, this is slightly misleading. It is entirely true, but it happens to the result of simplifying 12/64”, which latter possibly expresses the vulgar fraction in a way that explains exactly what we are doing by referencing the scale ratio. But we run up against people thinking we measure everything in terms of how many 1/64” it is (like 120/64” for a scale 10’) which is patently silly but reflects the poor standard of mathematical understanding in everyday life. For the record, when using mental arithmetic it gets much quicker, as ¾” represents 4’ on the prototype, 3” 16 feet and so forth. Or one can buy a “scale ruler” and just that! (Ten feet is 1 ½” – a scale 8’ – plus ⅜” – a a scale 2’ – which results in 1 ⅞”, or ⅛” less than 2”.)

And whilst we are about it, the MRSG and the P4 society invented neither “true scale” model railway standards nor indeed “finescale railway modelling”: they merely promoted it in the most popular scale in the British Isles. Aside from the rarely acknowledged systematic derivation of the track standards for S scale undertaken by Ian Pusey in the early 1960s (which influenced the self-styled “Model Railway Study Group” soon afterwards) people like Jim Richards, working in 7mm scale, had been dividing prototype dimensions by their chosen scale ratio for years beforehand, and Charles Wynne effectively defined finescale back in 1919, when he set himself a standard of accuracy for his own modelling (to the nearest scale inch: maybe not much compared to some, but a lot better than what was going on elsewhere at the time!) The same is true about the benefits of allowing wheels to move up and down, whether sprung, “compensated” or via a mixture of the two, as the prototype often did.

Gooderstone: yet another S scale GER branch terminus!

I have started constructing a new achievable layout, and have set up a page to record progress, which links to other pages as they appear (which requires me to make the requisite progress!)

The aim is to have a functionally operable layout by the end of 2026, with more scenic details etc to follow thereafter. Good progress is being made, but the reports will lag a little behind, so tune in occasionally, or subscribe to this blog and receive updates to the blog, pointing to a new page being added.

Enjoy if you visit!

PS. It does not seem possible to leave comments on pages, but the “leave a reply” option is available on posts for 2 weeks.

Dealing with reality

Mike Cougill has made a more than usually thought-provoking post on his blog, on the need to persevere through the learning process.

Finding something not as easy as you thought it would be? Finding that you need to improve your skill as they are not as good as you thought they were? Don’t give up or lower your standards: keep going.

We learn through repetition. We get more skilled by regular practice.

Festina lente!

Wanting to be better

In 1980, the scientist and author Isaac Asimov memorably commented on ignorance:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

Well, I am fairly sure that this isn’t restricted to the USA: my language skills are not sufficient for me to be able to comment on other cultures, but it seems fairly widespread in the anglophone world, and very much so in our hobby. This does not just apply to knowledge of the prototype – although that in itself is a big problem (witness the number of times you will see layouts praised  on forums [fora?]for being “operationally challenging”, when the prototype wants exactly the opposite) – but also to skills. I am all for encouraging people to post their efforts as they start to learn the craft, and there to be positive encouragement, but surely that also includes advice on how to redress such basics as learning to cut in a straight line, and how to make sure basic assemblies are square, rather than offering uncritical praise? We aren’t at pre-school: most of us are adults, and if not adults yet, then anyone reading this blog is possessed of enough self-awareness to realise that the drive to be better is a sign of a healthy human being.

Let me re-phrase the quote:

There is a cult of mediocrity in the hobby, and there has always been. The strain of anti-finescale has been a constant thread winding its way through our media and clubs, nurtured by the false notion that “fun” means that my “near enough is good enough” is just as good as your desire for accuracy.