Sometimes the “purists” in the magazines don’t really understand the larger scales… I know it was a bit of a shock coming from HO and N to find a “scale” with the track standard and the actual scale “variable” (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)
Greg
Wendell Hanks said:
Thanks all for your help. I understand the process. My guess is the words “photocopier to enlarge” would have triggered the understanding Todd offered.
Meanwhile, Steve’s observation above - the omission of 1:29 - is a good one. Do modelers think in 1:29 or is it in our hobby as the manufacturer’s default scale?
Wendell, 1:29 RR stuff is physically larger than the equivalent 1:32 stuff. One would have to enlarge the plans to about 10% more than the 1:32, to get 1:29. If memory serves, to get 1:32, the plan has to be enlarged to 107%. That would mean that 1:29 would be enlarged to roughly 117%.
I wasn’t confused, but maybe my explanation wasn’t clear. I am sorry I didn’t splain it better.
Wendell, many modelers do build in 1:29 to go with their 1:29 equipment. I had, maybe I still do, a 1:29 scale ruler around here somewhere. But I build in in 1:24, because the math is easy for my narrow gauge brain to deal with. And 1:24 is close enough to the scale I should be in for my chosen narrow gauge.
Greg, I did not say or infer that the author was insane. I merely used an expression that was meant to suggest that people who are not in the publishing business, don’t understand the importance of clarity. To refresh, what I said, or attempted to say is that in writing for public consumption, i.e. for magazines and newspapers, but not necessarily for the internet, which has no editorial standards, you should express things as clearly as possible so the simple minded like me, understand. Several posters before me said it took them a while to figure out the scale chart, so I’m not alone. I wasn’t commenting on the story, but rather on the chart, which I found confusing. I believe a previous poster said that when you enlarge the scale diagram on a copy machine, it makes sense. Great. But what if you don’t have access to a copy machine or even know that the device is capabable of doing such things? Then what? Greg, you’re suggesting that this personal, which it’s not. Nor was it meant to be. It’s my opinion about how the story/subject was presented. Newspapers and magazines (remember them?) publish letters to the editor and people express their opinions all the time. It’s a time-honored tradition.
I’m suggesting that the author, if he read your post, would take it personally.
Yes, it is a forum, where people express opinions, BUT under Bob’s “be nice rules”… this is not a newspaper nor a magazine.
Greg
Please gentlemen,
end this discussion here. It isn’t headed anywhere good. Just a friendly suggestion to remind us that the Op asked a question, which was answered and some conversation took place on the subject. Now it is starting to veer down a trail no one wishes to go.
Please bring it back around to discussion on the watch tower plans.
The first link is to the tower I built; it is different to the one in the original post. If you look at the list of GR plans, 2nd.link, you will see that they are all listed as 1:29 with percentage increase and decrease for other scales.
http://grw.trains.com/how-to/full-size-drawings/2012/02/gatemans-tower-drawings-in-129-scale
Joe Zullo said:
Devon Sinsley said:
Well I want to join the conversation, but I do not subscribe to the magazine. If someone wants to scan it and put t into PDF and then send it to me I would be glad to evaluate its understandability.
Now I know what your all thinking… this guy just wants a free set of plans without buying the magazine…Honestly I just want to help… really.
OK no I want a free copy of the plans.
Here you go…
Note from Bob: File deleted by request of GR. Do NOT post copyrighted material on this site.
I’ve removed the file from the thread.
a discussion about the content of the magazine wouldn’t actually infringe on copyright though… bill of rights trumped copyright law years ago…
Correct, but thats not what happened here.
PM and email would be a better course of action when sharing “stuff”. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-undecided.gif)(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Nice to know that the folks at GR pay attention to what happens on LSC. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-smile.gif)(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-smile.gif)
didnt see what was posted so, oh btw you want those tokens mailed or pick up at york Bob?
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
PM and email would be a better course of action when sharing “stuff”. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-undecided.gif)(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Nice to know that the folks at GR pay attention to what happens on LSC. (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-smile.gif)(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-smile.gif)
Yea, I was quite pleased that someone from GR peeks in here now.
Mark: Ill pick em up at York. Thanks!
For my part in that I am sorry Bob.
I didn’t even think about it from the magazines prospective of copyrighted material. I should have known better than to ask. I am glad i did though now I am signed up at least on their website and found many cool things there. So at least a positive came from it. I am seriously considering becoming a subscriber. But that’s not the point it was a no no, one I should have thought about and respected.
