Does anybody know Iain Rice?

Hi all
I have just returned from a few days away where I have had time to study
Iain Rice's book on finescale track construction in some detail
I have a couple of projects on the boil at the club and I am seriously
considering doing one of them in OO finescale but for reasons too difficult
to explain here I don't want to (read as dare not) use the "finescale
standards" that Iain talks about in his book. Therefore I need to write to
him and ask him how a variation of the DOGA "proposed commercial standard"
published in Jan 2000 would fit in with his views on OO finescale.
I am sure that I did once have an email address for him, and we swapped a
couple of emails about the courses he sometimes runs in Chagford; the
in-laws used to live down that way so I was considering doing the course and
visiting with them at the same time. Unfortunately that was several
computer re-builds ago in the days when I was experimenting with Netscape as
an email client and I can not now find the address I had for him.
Can anyone forward this message to him and ask if he can contact me please?
My email is snipped-for-privacy@ntlworld.com
TIA
Elliott
Reply to
Elliott Cowton
Loading thread data ...
Is there a web site for MRJ, I've googled but I don't seem to have come across a direct reference to either MRJ or Wild Swan.
Jerry, who much regrets disposing of his old MRJ from the early years - issues 0 to 1?? :~(
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
I'm nearing completion of a Club layout is a sort of 00 Finescale but one that runs bachmann locos with their iffy back - to - backs. Would give you some info if you contact me off line.
Davidas at Copthorne.freeserve.co.uk
Reply to
David Smith
":::Jerry::::" wrote
No, Wild Swan are firmly entrenched in the steam age in more than one way. They can be extremely difficult to contact at times, and when I suggested they might like to considering getting an email option for trade orders and the like, the response was that someone would have to answer the emails and it would only generate more work! :-)
Got 'em all mate. One of my planned projects for retirement is to actually read them!
John.
Reply to
John Turner
"David Smith" wrote
Interesting comment, I've always found that it is Hornby locos & stock which has the iffy back-to-backs, with Bachmann generally being there or there abouts.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
have
suggested
Well, I suppose there is still hope, after all even Peco relented eventually.
The words 'off' and 'piss' comes to mind...
It was a moment of madness when I thought the model railway bug had died, I even had the complete set of Railway Reflections (all issues published) along with all four issues of it's sister publication 'Loco Modeller' which I *gave* away...
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
Ah yes chaps, but if you read Iain Rice's book in great detail you realise that "back to back" is a myth and what you really should worry about is the "front to front" or more precisely the "Check Gauge" - i.e. where the flange in the crossing gap is when the flange on the opposite wheel is up against the checkrail. B-B only holds good if the wheel profiles are all the same and my experience of both manufacturers is that their wheel profiles are not consistent.
This is why I want to talk to Iain to sort out a sort of commercial friendly standard for both Gosport and Nictun Borrud.
Elliott
Reply to
Elliott Cowton
[ context snipped due to previous top posting ]
about is the
profiles are not
This is why P4 become easier than modelling fine scale OO. If 'drop-in' replacement wheel sets were more commonly available for the new bread of commercial RTR stock then I doubt many people would bother with building fine scale OO and perhaps not even EM.
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
"Elliott Cowton" wrote
Is that why Iain's layouts always seemed to have a significant problem with derailments whenever I saw them being exhibited?
John.
Reply to
John Turner
"John Turner" wrote in message
Now that I didn't know about...
However, reading the book has answered a lot of questions for me about problems we have with our current semi-finescale layout and I hope that this will be worth following through.
Elliott
Reply to
Elliott Cowton
Ah, yes, sorry. Having been inactive here for quite a while I had sort of forgotten the rules...
I promise to flail myself with a branch of pyrocantha in the morning.
Reply to
Elliott Cowton
"Elliott Cowton" wrote
That's good. Both theorising and producing are not always the strong points of the same individual. If you're able to come away from reading a book with positive ideas then the writer has achieved his objective.
Fingers crossed! :-)
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Yes, Ian Rice'a tome. Read it several times, been there, done it, got the singed fingers.
As you say, the front to back measurement is fine, but only if all wheels are the same. If they are not, then the Back to Back is the next best thing.
I read Ian's book through a number of times and still refer to it. I then considered and started to build track to the DOGA fine standard with 14.8mm back to back, as changing the BtoB on Hornby stock, incl locos, was quite easy. Then came the shock. Bachmann steam locos' BtoB varied down to 14.2/14.3mm and the method of manufacture of the driving wheels meant that it was not an easy job the re-gauge them.This was also at about the time Hornby announced that all there locos would be produced with a BtoB of 14.5mm. This is a club layout and we felt that it would not be fair to ask members who already owned a large amount of stock to change their wheels just to run on a new layout.
We also wanted better looking (nearer scale) track but that presented the problem of those with Lima diesels and their massive flanges.
The answer came in Exactoscale track components. The ability to stain the wooden sleepers and the fact that their chairs allowed Lima stock to pass without bottoming out on them made up my mind. However, I haven't gone the whole hog with the components. I just use the sleepers, chairs and a few 'anchors'.
The problem of the poor Bachmann wheel standards has been solved by building points with a gauge of 16.2mm. This allows for 1mm flangeways and works well with everything on the current market. No one can see the difference and in fact, points with 1mm flangeways run and look rather good.
I can recommend it and I believe Exactoscale are about to solve my last problem for me. Third/forth rail chairs are to be available soon. Lets hope they don't cost too much.
Reply to
David Smith
hope that
strong points
Indeed, hence why (IIRC) C. J. Freezer challenged the North London MRC to put their track were their mouth was and produce a working mainline layout [1] in the then new 18.83 scale track gauge standard - they did, it ran (very well), RM wrote about it, the rest is history as they say...
[1] can't remember what the name was, but it was based on the Midland Rly practice on the S&C line. They then when on to build 'Bodmin' which was written up in MRC in the early '80's.
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
Back to back on its own is useless.
It would be better if UK outline models used a back to back of 4.4mm, which is what most H0 models now use. it allows a slightly wider flange, which in turn allows a slightly finer flange depth to work reliably on RTR track. My spread sheet on my web page confirms this. You may also be interested in my page on fine scale wheel profiles. It puts to rest the myths surrounding the NMRA RP25 flange profile.
I agree 99% with David except I would suggest a slightly wider track gauge of 16.25mm. This allows a larger range of RTR wheels to run on the track. See my web page which has H0 fine scale standards which are suitable for 00. Also you can download a spread sheet which calculates the important dimensions, and gives information about clearances.
-- Terry Flynn
formatting link
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
DC control circuit diagrams
HO scale track standards
Reply to
NSWGR

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.