I took this out of a locomotive I was working on and failed to note where the leads went.? Would someone who knows more electronics than I do (It won't take much) please advise where the leads to the motor and to the bulbs should go?
|
Re: Track gauge tool question
Opinions have always varied on the best type of track gauges.
For the three-point gauges, one plus is that it is guaranteed to gauge perpendicular across the track where a flat gauge might get held at a slight angle.? However, even a flat gauge at a slight angle won't cause much of an error due to how the trig works out where you have to be rather crooked, and very obviously so, to have very much of a gauge error.
The plus of three-point gauges (for those who think this is a plus) is that it automatically widens the gauge on curves.? The sharper the curve, the greater the widening.? This is done by putting the single point to the inside of the curve.? There is some rationally to this because, since truck axles don't steer, they can be at an angle and not exactly perpendicular to the rails.? Some detractors feel that the NMRA track spec is already wide enough so that this is not necessary,
Since people seem to have good results with either scheme, I don't think there is any right or wrong.? However, I like how the three-point gauges securely hold rails without me having to hold the gauge.
But the flat gauge can be handier when dealing with switch geometry.? No reason not to use both, and each for what they are best at.
Charles E. "Chuck" Kinzer
On Monday, February 10, 2025 at 02:47:25 PM PST, Roger Nulton via groups.io <roger.nulton@...> wrote:
Matt, ? The NASG track gauge is a better alternative. It¡¯s quicker and easier to use and it gives you the flexibility to measure flangeways and wheel tread. ? ? Roger Nulton ?
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Matt Keoughan via groups.io
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 8:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [S-Scale] Track gauge tool question ? Greetings. I finally have my turnouts ready to glue to the FastTracks tie strips.? I'm wondering if the straight across gauge and three point gauge have different uses, such as straight vs curved track.
|
Re: Track gauge tool question
I like using the 3 point on curves as is automatically broadens the gauge. If used on tangent track the gauge will be within the nominal range. Tommy?
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025, 4:47?PM Roger Nulton via <roger.nulton= [email protected]> wrote: Matt, ? The NASG track gauge is a better alternative. It¡¯s quicker and easier to use and it gives you the flexibility to measure flangeways and wheel tread. ?
? Roger Nulton ? ? Greetings. I finally have my turnouts ready to glue to the FastTracks tie strips.? I'm wondering if the straight across gauge and three point gauge have different uses, such as straight vs curved track.
|
Re: Track gauge tool question
Matt, ? The NASG track gauge is a better alternative. It¡¯s quicker and easier to use and it gives you the flexibility to measure flangeways and wheel tread. ? ? Roger Nulton ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Matt Keoughan via groups.io
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 8:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [S-Scale] Track gauge tool question? Greetings. I finally have my turnouts ready to glue to the FastTracks tie strips.? I'm wondering if the straight across gauge and three point gauge have different uses, such as straight vs curved track.
|
Not sure if this is a well known fact amongst non Reading fans and modelers, but the prototype T1¡¯s were built from ex I class 2-8-0¡¯s. Frank Titman¡¯s model ? was built using the AF plastic Atlantic cab, firebox, and part of the boiler. ? ? ? Bud Rindfleisch
|
Track gauge tool question
Greetings. I finally have my turnouts ready to glue to the FastTracks tie strips.?
?
I'm wondering if the straight across gauge and three point gauge have different uses, such as straight vs curved track.
?
Thank you.
|
Re: NASG module specs Update
If you build a four foot module with a 40 inch height, the legs can be attached and fold up within the module for transport.? A module with a 42 inch height, no go.? I don't understand why S and O scale module standards got the additional height built in on the recommendations, but it sure makes a difference when transporting, setting up and tearing down.? Just my pet peeve on modular standards.? As always, Tom Dempsey, Spokane, WA
On Sunday, February 9, 2025 at 03:04:24 PM PST, Ted Larson via groups.io <mhrreast@...> wrote:
I am still active on the NASG standards committee; working on module standards for S standard gauge.? I have received much input from various individuals and clubs regarding FreeMoS.?? I have received little input from individuals or clubs with CURRENT OR PAST participation in SMOD. I have received no input regarding T-Trak or narrow gauge.??
Some needs are incontrovertible; updating the SMOD electrical standards (Cinch connectors are obsolete, Anderson connectors are the hobby norm; DCC has largely replaced?DC; DeadRail is becoming common).??
There is a question regarding double track center line spacing; 2.75" is specified by SMOD.? Some in FreeMoS prefer 3", I am told that 3" comes from a scale up of the HO centerline dimensions, but HO is 2", which scaled up by 87 / 64 is 2.72".? Therefore my question for long term SMOD users; is there any known problem with 2.75"; for example, when using 0-5-0 switching or re-railing???
Again for SMOD users, are there any other concerns with SMOD, or suggestions for changing or adding to the SMOD standards, topics that you wish were different or more comprehensive???
? I have been reading old discussions about SMOD and FreeMo.? ?As has been previously discussed, all that is permitted by FreeMo is permitted by SMOD (other than the different rail height above the floor); NASG has historically?ONLY specified functional interface issues,?to provide individual module owners maximum?flexibility.? There is also much FreeMo discussion and preference regarding two other construction categories; appearance, and operations.??
Operations:? ?should there be specifications for: minimum curve radii, minimum frog number, DCC controls,??location(s) of switch point controls, etc??? Can these be RP (Recommended Practices), separate from interface requirements?
Appearance:? ?should there be specifications regarding ballast color, tie length, backdrop, grass color, rail height, depth of sidewalls (for permitting scenery below track level), sidewall color, track centerline location, module width, rail color, etc?? Some would like all of these specified to provide visual continuity from one module to another.? However, others would like to choose their own; ballast to match the ballast of a favored prototype railroad, tie length and rail height to match a preferred era, etc.? This can obviously be done at the local club level.?? Can this instead be done as an SP (Suggested Practice) for those that would like a consistent appearance from club to club,?separate from interface requirements???
Bottom line, some update issues are very obvious and critical, such as electrical connectors.? There is also opportunity for?rewriting or reformatting to simplify and to avoid misunderstandings that?have plagued discussion in the past.? SMOD specifications could be revised into FreeMo format.? Some have suggested that FreeMo could supercede?SMOD.? Since there are so few real functional differences (optional rail height above the floor), FreeMoS can easily include backward compatibility with SMOD (optional height of rail from floor).?? ? I therefore update my past request for input regarding concerns,?preferences, and volunteer participants or reviewers.?? - What all can we update now with strong consensus??? - What issues need attention that NASG might not be aware of???
IF desired, NASG module?specifications can also be done for S Narrow Gauge modelers; "S Gauge" in the NASG name is not intended to exclude S narrow gauge.??
-- Thanks, Ted Larson?
SuperBowl, The Daytona 500 of Football? -- Ted Larson trainweb.org/mhrr/??????? --------??????? NASG.org??????? --------??????? GN in 1965
|
Re: GP 38-2, some assembly required
Well, a GP35 is 56'2" coupler to coupler.? A GP38-2 is 59'2" coupler to coupler.
?
Rich G(ajnak)
|
Norfolk Southern SW1 1012
I have completed my latest project Norfolk Southern SW1 1012 and revised my SW1 page. ? Please give it a look¡.. ? Thank You,
Bill Lane
Modeling the Mighty Pennsy, PRSL & Reading in 1957 in S Scale since 1987
See my finished models at:
Look at what has been made in PRR in S Scale! ? See my layout progress at:
Join the Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines Historical Society
It's FREE to join!??
Preserving The Memory Of The PRSL
?
|
Re: GP 38-2, some assembly required
Here is a photo of the etched side on a GP-35.  --
Ken Zieska
1/64th Scale Modeler
|
Re: NASG module specs Update
We (Bay Area S Scalers) operated an S-MOD layout for several years. Based on our experience:
The double track 2.75 spacing was never a problem, even for 0-5-0 switching. We followed Lee Johnson's method of widening the spacing in the 90 degree corners, using the same track radius for both tracks.
Minimum curve radii, if adopted, could be fairly short. We used 42 inch and ran a 10-coupled steam engine through it no problem. We had #6 minimum switches, but a couple of #5 wyes and never had a problem with equipment running through.
Did anybody ever use the bus wiring? We ended up just requiring four wires at the interface.
The two recommendations I would make are to ditch the bridge rails and use four inch segments of flex track. The gauge can really spread in the four inch bridge rails. You could still interface with the current standard with a piece of flex track with four inch rails and two inches of tie strip.
One new concern is the requirement by many venus that you have a fireproof or at least flame retardant curtain hiding the legs and underbelly. For that reason, I would suggest a new RP that the distance from the front table edge to the first track centerline be specified. If it has to comply with FreeMo's requirement that the table can be rotated 180 degrees, then the RP should specify the table width at the interface.
|
Re: NASG module specs Update
The Pittsburgh S-Gaugers have had absolutely no problems with the 2.75" double-track spacing that is the S-Mod standard. It uses the standard 4" bridge rails specified by S-Mod. We have some spare bridge rails that are 1/16" too short, and some that are 1/16" too long, to accommodate table shifts?with mid-winter and mid-summer temperature and humidity shifts. This has worked marvelously. Our narrow-gauge trackage, towards the rear of our modules, is non-standard. It uses code 70 rail in a dual-gauge Sn3/Sn42 main line. The Sn2 trackage is, in reality, a micro-layout within two modules, also code 70. All narrow-gauge uses straight DC, and 4" bridge TRACK sections.?
Jim Whipple Pittsburgh S-Gaugers S-Mod coordinator, NMRA Division 2 President, NASG
I am still active on the NASG standards committee; working on module standards for S standard gauge.? I have received much input from various individuals and clubs regarding FreeMoS.?? I have received little input from individuals or clubs with CURRENT OR PAST participation in SMOD. I have received no input regarding T-Trak or narrow gauge.??
Some needs are incontrovertible; updating the SMOD electrical standards (Cinch connectors are obsolete, Anderson connectors are the hobby norm; DCC has largely replaced?DC; DeadRail is becoming common).??
There is a question regarding double track center line spacing; 2.75" is specified by SMOD.? Some in FreeMoS prefer 3", I am told that 3" comes from a scale up of the HO centerline dimensions, but HO is 2", which scaled up by 87 / 64 is 2.72".? Therefore my question for long term SMOD users; is there any known problem with 2.75"; for example, when using 0-5-0 switching or re-railing???
Again for SMOD users, are there any other concerns with SMOD, or suggestions for changing or adding to the SMOD standards, topics that you wish were different or more comprehensive???
? I have been reading old discussions about SMOD and FreeMo.? ?As has been previously discussed, all that is permitted by FreeMo is permitted by SMOD (other than the different rail height above the floor); NASG has historically?ONLY specified functional interface issues,?to provide individual module owners maximum?flexibility.? There is also much FreeMo discussion and preference regarding two other construction categories; appearance, and operations.??
Operations:? ?should there be specifications for: minimum curve radii, minimum frog number, DCC controls,??location(s) of switch point controls, etc??? Can these be RP (Recommended Practices), separate from interface requirements?
Appearance:? ?should there be specifications regarding ballast color, tie length, backdrop, grass color, rail height, depth of sidewalls (for permitting scenery below track level), sidewall color, track centerline location, module width, rail color, etc?? Some would like all of these specified to provide visual continuity from one module to another.? However, others would like to choose their own; ballast to match the ballast of a favored prototype railroad, tie length and rail height to match a preferred era, etc.? This can obviously be done at the local club level.?? Can this instead be done as an SP (Suggested Practice) for those that would like a consistent appearance from club to club,?separate from interface requirements???
Bottom line, some update issues are very obvious and critical, such as electrical connectors.? There is also opportunity for?rewriting or reformatting to simplify and to avoid misunderstandings that?have plagued discussion in the past.? SMOD specifications could be revised into FreeMo format.? Some have suggested that FreeMo could supercede?SMOD.? Since there are so few real functional differences (optional rail height above the floor), FreeMoS can easily include backward compatibility with SMOD (optional height of rail from floor).?? ? I therefore update my past request for input regarding concerns,?preferences, and volunteer participants or reviewers.?? - What all can we update now with strong consensus??? - What issues need attention that NASG might not be aware of???
IF desired, NASG module?specifications can also be done for S Narrow Gauge modelers; "S Gauge" in the NASG name is not intended to exclude S narrow gauge.??
-- Thanks, Ted Larson?
SuperBowl, The Daytona 500 of Football?
--
Ted Larson
??????? --------??????? NASG.org??????? --------???????
GN in 1965
|
Re: NASG module specs Update
Being new to S my bit of input for T-Trak would be to change the track standard to use American Models. I know it doesn¡¯t have the roadbed built in but it¡¯s still around and mth/s-helper isn¡¯t made. I was looking at the T-Trak standards a little bit ago and that is what came to mind. Not sure what other adjustments would be required.?
|
I am still active on the NASG standards committee; working on module standards for S standard gauge.? I have received much input from various individuals and clubs regarding FreeMoS.?? I have received little input from individuals or clubs with CURRENT OR PAST participation in SMOD. I have received no input regarding T-Trak or narrow gauge.??
Some needs are incontrovertible; updating the SMOD electrical standards (Cinch connectors are obsolete, Anderson connectors are the hobby norm; DCC has largely replaced?DC; DeadRail is becoming common).??
There is a question regarding double track center line spacing; 2.75" is specified by SMOD.? Some in FreeMoS prefer 3", I am told that 3" comes from a scale up of the HO centerline dimensions, but HO is 2", which scaled up by 87 / 64 is 2.72".? Therefore my question for long term SMOD users; is there any known problem with 2.75"; for example, when using 0-5-0 switching or re-railing???
Again for SMOD users, are there any other concerns with SMOD, or suggestions for changing or adding to the SMOD standards, topics that you wish were different or more comprehensive???
? I have been reading old discussions about SMOD and FreeMo.? ?As has been previously discussed, all that is permitted by FreeMo is permitted by SMOD (other than the different rail height above the floor); NASG has historically?ONLY specified functional interface issues,?to provide individual module owners maximum?flexibility.? There is also much FreeMo discussion and preference regarding two other construction categories; appearance, and operations.??
Operations:? ?should there be specifications for: minimum curve radii, minimum frog number, DCC controls,??location(s) of switch point controls, etc??? Can these be RP (Recommended Practices), separate from interface requirements?
Appearance:? ?should there be specifications regarding ballast color, tie length, backdrop, grass color, rail height, depth of sidewalls (for permitting scenery below track level), sidewall color, track centerline location, module width, rail color, etc?? Some would like all of these specified to provide visual continuity from one module to another.? However, others would like to choose their own; ballast to match the ballast of a favored prototype railroad, tie length and rail height to match a preferred era, etc.? This can obviously be done at the local club level.?? Can this instead be done as an SP (Suggested Practice) for those that would like a consistent appearance from club to club,?separate from interface requirements???
Bottom line, some update issues are very obvious and critical, such as electrical connectors.? There is also opportunity for?rewriting or reformatting to simplify and to avoid misunderstandings that?have plagued discussion in the past.? SMOD specifications could be revised into FreeMo format.? Some have suggested that FreeMo could supercede?SMOD.? Since there are so few real functional differences (optional rail height above the floor), FreeMoS can easily include backward compatibility with SMOD (optional height of rail from floor).?? ? I therefore update my past request for input regarding concerns,?preferences, and volunteer participants or reviewers.?? - What all can we update now with strong consensus??? - What issues need attention that NASG might not be aware of???
IF desired, NASG module?specifications can also be done for S Narrow Gauge modelers; "S Gauge" in the NASG name is not intended to exclude S narrow gauge.??
-- Thanks, Ted Larson?
SuperBowl, The Daytona 500 of Football? -- Ted Larson trainweb.org/mhrr/??????? --------??????? NASG.org??????? --------??????? GN in 1965
|
I believe the December 2013 issue of the Dispatch has an article on appropriate rail code for weight.?
|
Re: Looking for a source for EMD fans
Another option is the American Models E8/9 36 inch fans. ?If you can find them they are nice.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 9, 2025, at 4:14 PM, Stephen Kutash via groups.io <sjkutash@...> wrote:
? Thank you Stephen J Kutash
203 906-5116 (Cell)
On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 4:08?PM Michael Lytle via <bnomike280= [email protected]> wrote: Sorry the number I quoted in the text was wrong - use the number in the attached picture.
Steve,
If you're looking for a 36" cap fan with a lot of detail consider a Cannon & Company DF-2864. It's a few thousand of an inch undersized but it shouldn't be observable and the detail is phenomenal. Mike, Ohio
Bill Wade let me know he has the 48¡± fan I¡¯m looking for but he no longer has the 36¡± cap top fans. Does anyone have (3) BTS 36¡± cap top fans they¡¯re willing to part with? Steve Stephen J Kutash
203 906-5116 (Cell)
On 2/8/2025 10:01 PM, Stan Stokrocki
via wrote:
?"BTS has the brass 36¡± but ... he doesn¡¯t have the
48¡±??
A suitable O scale 36" fan will measure out to 48" in S
scale.
(snip)
OR you can get the B.T.S.? 48" cap top fans.??? It has
always been listed as the DB fan since when it was created, all the
parts for the F-units and the 48" fan was only used for DB.?? It
wasn't until later that the GPs came out.??
02005 DYNAMIC BRAKE FAN, 48" EMD PKG (1) $ 3.75
Take care
Bill
--
== Author of Military Crime Fiction ==
Amazon Page -
Fair Winds of Death
Fair Winds of Deceit
Fair Winds of Doubt
== Scale Model Railroad Products ==
== Manufacturer - Retailer - Importer ==
Bill Wade
B.T.S.
Phone: 304-823-3729
Fair Winds Always!
|
Re: Looking for a source for EMD fans
Thank you Stephen J Kutash
203 906-5116 (Cell)
On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 4:08?PM Michael Lytle via <bnomike280= [email protected]> wrote: Sorry the number I quoted in the text was wrong - use the number in the attached picture.
Steve,
If you're looking for a 36" cap fan with a lot of detail consider a Cannon & Company DF-2864. It's a few thousand of an inch undersized but it shouldn't be observable and the detail is phenomenal. Mike, Ohio
Bill Wade let me know he has the 48¡± fan I¡¯m looking for but he no longer has the 36¡± cap top fans. Does anyone have (3) BTS 36¡± cap top fans they¡¯re willing to part with? Steve Stephen J Kutash
203 906-5116 (Cell)
On 2/8/2025 10:01 PM, Stan Stokrocki
via wrote:
?"BTS has the brass 36¡± but ... he doesn¡¯t have the
48¡±??
A suitable O scale 36" fan will measure out to 48" in S
scale.
(snip)
OR you can get the B.T.S.? 48" cap top fans.??? It has
always been listed as the DB fan since when it was created, all the
parts for the F-units and the 48" fan was only used for DB.?? It
wasn't until later that the GPs came out.??
02005 DYNAMIC BRAKE FAN, 48" EMD PKG (1) $ 3.75
Take care
Bill
--
== Author of Military Crime Fiction ==
Amazon Page -
Fair Winds of Death
Fair Winds of Deceit
Fair Winds of Doubt
== Scale Model Railroad Products ==
== Manufacturer - Retailer - Importer ==
Bill Wade
B.T.S.
Phone: 304-823-3729
Fair Winds Always!
|
Re: Looking for a source for EMD fans
Sorry the number I quoted in the text was wrong - use the number in the attached picture.
Steve,
If you're looking for a 36" cap fan with a lot of detail consider a Cannon & Company DF-2864. It's a few thousand of an inch undersized but it shouldn't be observable and the detail is phenomenal. Mike, Ohio
Bill Wade let me know he has the 48¡± fan I¡¯m looking for but he no longer has the 36¡± cap top fans. Does anyone have (3) BTS 36¡± cap top fans they¡¯re willing to part with? Steve Stephen J Kutash
203 906-5116 (Cell)
On 2/8/2025 10:01 PM, Stan Stokrocki
via wrote:
?"BTS has the brass 36¡± but ... he doesn¡¯t have the
48¡±??
A suitable O scale 36" fan will measure out to 48" in S
scale.
(snip)
OR you can get the B.T.S.? 48" cap top fans.??? It has
always been listed as the DB fan since when it was created, all the
parts for the F-units and the 48" fan was only used for DB.?? It
wasn't until later that the GPs came out.??
02005 DYNAMIC BRAKE FAN, 48" EMD PKG (1) $ 3.75
Take care
Bill
--
== Author of Military Crime Fiction ==
Amazon Page -
Fair Winds of Death
Fair Winds of Deceit
Fair Winds of Doubt
== Scale Model Railroad Products ==
== Manufacturer - Retailer - Importer ==
Bill Wade
B.T.S.
Phone: 304-823-3729
Fair Winds Always!
|
Re: Looking for a source for EMD fans
Steve,
If you're looking for a 36" cap fan with a lot of detail consider a Cannon & Company DF-2864. It's a few thousand of an inch undersized but it shouldn't be observable and the detail is phenomenal. Mike, Ohio
Bill Wade let me know he has the 48¡± fan I¡¯m looking for but he no longer has the 36¡± cap top fans. Does anyone have (3) BTS 36¡± cap top fans they¡¯re willing to part with? Steve Stephen J Kutash
203 906-5116 (Cell)
On 2/8/2025 10:01 PM, Stan Stokrocki
via wrote:
?"BTS has the brass 36¡± but ... he doesn¡¯t have the
48¡±??
A suitable O scale 36" fan will measure out to 48" in S
scale.
(snip)
OR you can get the B.T.S.? 48" cap top fans.??? It has
always been listed as the DB fan since when it was created, all the
parts for the F-units and the 48" fan was only used for DB.?? It
wasn't until later that the GPs came out.??
02005 DYNAMIC BRAKE FAN, 48" EMD PKG (1) $ 3.75
Take care
Bill
--
== Author of Military Crime Fiction ==
Amazon Page -
Fair Winds of Death
Fair Winds of Deceit
Fair Winds of Doubt
== Scale Model Railroad Products ==
== Manufacturer - Retailer - Importer ==
Bill Wade
B.T.S.
Phone: 304-823-3729
Fair Winds Always!
|
Re: Looking for a source for EMD fans
Bill Wade let me know he has the 48¡± fan I¡¯m looking for but he no longer has the 36¡± cap top fans. Does anyone have (3) BTS 36¡± cap top fans they¡¯re willing to part with? Steve Stephen J Kutash
203 906-5116 (Cell)
On 2/8/2025 10:01 PM, Stan Stokrocki
via wrote:
?"BTS has the brass 36¡± but ... he doesn¡¯t have the
48¡±??
A suitable O scale 36" fan will measure out to 48" in S
scale.
(snip)
OR you can get the B.T.S.? 48" cap top fans.??? It has
always been listed as the DB fan since when it was created, all the
parts for the F-units and the 48" fan was only used for DB.?? It
wasn't until later that the GPs came out.??
02005 DYNAMIC BRAKE FAN, 48" EMD PKG (1) $ 3.75
Take care
Bill
--
== Author of Military Crime Fiction ==
Amazon Page -
Fair Winds of Death
Fair Winds of Deceit
Fair Winds of Doubt
== Scale Model Railroad Products ==
== Manufacturer - Retailer - Importer ==
Bill Wade
B.T.S.
Phone: 304-823-3729
Fair Winds Always!
|
Tom Lennon
Roger Nulton
Bill Lane
.jpg)
Jeremy Lighthouse
Ted Larson
