| Welcome to Miniature Railway World Forums, we hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing MRW Forums as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join MRW Forums now! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features. |
| Practicality of Locos; Scale vs Narrow Gauge | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 7 Jul 2009, 02:39 PM (518 Views) | |
| rough-shunter | 7 Jul 2009, 02:39 PM Post #1 |
|
Director
  ![]](http://209.85.48.18/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
whats peoples views of scale versus practicality for example a scale loco over a large narrow gauge loco built heivier |
|
JORDAN ASHLEY LEEDS Trains go into tunnels and come out but locos can go in sheds and never come out | |
 |
 
|
| Selsig | 7 Jul 2009, 05:09 PM Post #2 |
Guard
|
it very much depends on what you are trying to achieve. I personally prefer the NG outline, as it is generally a simpler beast to manage, is more powerful and, if freelance, gives you the freedom to make it to the specifications of the railway you intend to run it on. That along with a lifetime of being a Ffestiniog man, of course. Others I know prefer SG outline, on the basis that they are more challenging to drive well, and represent perhaps a favourite loco. Its all down to your personal preference I suppose |
|
John Savage Echills Wood Railway Assistant Yardmaster Signalling Designer and Installer | |
|
|
|
| Cagney boy | 7 Jul 2009, 05:11 PM Post #3 |
Operations Manager
|
In my opinion a scale loco can equal a narrow scale loco, but the narrow scale would be able to do more.  correct me if i'm wrong 
|
 Laurence Michael Smith Every night is a MRW Skype night!, add me on Skype and let the converstion grow! | |
|
|
|
| DevilDrummer | 7 Jul 2009, 05:35 PM Post #4 |
Director
|
Both have there ups and down, obviously NG can be built bigger and heavier, pwerfuller etc, but then scale are smaller, useful to alot more lines. But then you get beefed up scale loco's like the ZB's. each side has merits and downsides so its difficult, i personally like scale but that my opinion, yours maybe different.
|
|
"Humans are so smart, they dont even need a meteorite to destroy themselves, like the stupid dinosaurs did!" http://devildrummertom.fotopic.net | |
|
|
|
| laalratty | 7 Jul 2009, 08:24 PM Post #5 |
|
Fireman
|
I personally prefer an engine built to it's biggest possible size, so definatly a narrow guage outline unless it's on a big gauge. I think they fit the humen size better, ie a human can sit in a big 7 1/4 narrow gauge outline engine, but has to sit on a standard gauge one, which ruins the effect. plus there the advantages of power etc. I also like it that a narrow gauge outline engine is a loco in it's own right, its own protoytpe, not a model of something |
|
|
|
| Timbo | 7 Jul 2009, 08:36 PM Post #6 |
Timbo
|
I've always been a fan of the chunkier, larger locos that treat the rails as a narrow gauge on which to operate, rather than as a scaled-down version of something bigger. That said, I do have a love of modern image scale stock; probably more down to my accidental ownership of the 125. Even that of course is overscale at 1:6 relative to the 1:8 track width for 'standard' gauge. Even at that scale discrepancy, passengers have a tough time fitting in to the coaches (as any Mardyke operator will tell you). So I suppose it's a case of 'essence' and 'atmosphere' of a scaled-down replica in order to make it practical for its use. There is a german word to convey the essence or evocative image of something - but I forget it. Edited by Timbo, 7 Jul 2009, 08:38 PM.
|
|
Tim Dunn MRW Moderator www.bekonscot.com www.meteorite.co.uk | |
|
|
|
| dereksmith | 8 Jul 2009, 08:53 AM Post #7 |
Cleaner
|
I think it really is a matter of personal choice. I love the RH&DR locos and have felt very privileged to have been allowed to drive them (and get paid for doing it!), but in pure terms they could be looked at as narrow gauge locos as they are roughly one third scale running on quarter scale track. Bullock's locos would have been very large if scaled up to full size but still look right on 10.25". Personally I don't like the Emmett like narrow gauge locos (Thomas 2s, Tinkerbells etc) although I can see their practicality on some passenger carrying lines - but I do like the scale narrow gauge locos like the L&B and L&M types. So put me down for scale rather than narrow gauge please. To show that I don't turn a blind eye to the Emmett things I attach a picture of Gabby Barlow proving he could just fit into Lawrence Martin's Tinkerbelle. Tim's comments regarding Mardyke coaches remind me of the days I ran the Strand Miniature Railway. A lady with a rather large stern remarked that if 'she could get her fat a**e into the coach she wouldn't get it out again'. Not wishing to lose a fare I gallantly pointed out that if she could get in I had a tin of axle grease and a crowbar that could get her out again! Fortunately the Mardyke coaches had a reasonably pliable side panelling and I think it fair to say she wore the coach rather than sat in it.
|
|
Derek Smith dereksmith@whitstablepier.com | |
|
|
|
| MuzTrem | 8 Jul 2009, 05:29 PM Post #8 |
Operations Manager
|
But surely in this situation, there was potential for the money you took in from the fare to be outweighed by a repair bill for the coach?  As for scale vs. practicality, I think the two are not incomaptible. The Greenly/Paxman engines are perfect examples - they have a scale appearence, yet are solidly-enough built to do their intended jobs for eighty years and more. Even the Bassett-Lowke Atlantics, often criticised for being too small, were adequete for the short, level lines for which they were originally designed. That said, I certainly have nothing against engines built on "minimum gauge principles" - indeed, the fact that both types can be seen is one of the reasons I love miniature railways - variety is, after all, the spice of life! |
| |
|
|
|
| sedwards_458 | 26 Oct 2009, 04:16 AM Post #9 |
|
Porter
|
While scale locos are nice, until you reach 10 1/4" you very much have to straddle them awkwardly. Once into 10 1/4" scale locos have sit on or in some cases sit in tenders which are very nice, and look pleasing. Kids also like them as its a size they can relate to. On the other hand there are few scale locos that have the pulling power of larger locos on any gauge (Romeny locos do not really count because they are very overscale). It depends on what you want to acheive. 7 1/4 emmet style locos in my opinion look horrible, but they are designed to be comfortable. The tall chimnies and large cabs take exhaust fumes up and over people heads which is a nice thing to have. Narrow gauge locos are much easier to drive and fire, especialy exmoors! I personaly find this a bit boring especialy on flat lines that are quite straight. The larger Rodger Marsh or some of the large freelance David Curwnes are nice, but I have a soft spot for the Curwen Atlantics because they look right and despite lack of adheision have alot of power. |
|
|
|
| romulus | 27 Oct 2009, 01:43 PM Post #10 |
|
Ticket Collector
|
On this point of discussion it is simply a matter of practicality. If you are hauling the public for eight hours and looking after a train the public and a loco with scale controls everything takes a little bit longer on small handwheels etc. Also having driven a scale loco for a long period you will require a helper to lift you off the loco and straighten your back. After that its a matter of personal preference having regard of the job you want the loco to do. Some years ago the Ruswarp Miniature Railway ran a Black Five every day for two years. However the next three locos built for this line were a Mountaineer, Thomas 2 and a stretched Tinkerbell. John |
|
|
Barlow_and_Tinkerbell.jpg (300.41 KB)| « Previous Topic · Non Gauge Specific · Next Topic » |
1:29 PM Nov 23
