Moderator: MRW Digest

DevilDrummer
Director
Joined: November 2nd, 2007, 6:25 pm

November 3rd, 2007, 7:21 pm #11

I always thought scaled down versions (like the romney engines etc.) were miniatures and ones designed from scratch for that guage (like the heywood and festiniog etc.) were narrow guage.

just my personal view :)
"Humans are so smart, they dont even need a meteorite to destroy themselves, like the stupid dinosaurs did!"

http://devildrummertom.fotopic.net


NYMR Fireman - "More in the back end!"
Like
Share

colinpeake
Director
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 6:15 pm

November 4th, 2007, 9:03 am #12

DevilDrummer wrote: i always thought scaled down versions (like the romney engines etc.) were miniatures and ones designed from scratch for that guage (like the heywood and festiniog etc.) were narrow guage.

just my personal view :)
Generally yes, but there will always be exceptions to the rule! Playing Devil's Advocate here...

You can argue that the Romney locos, although of 'scale' appearance aren't scale models due to them being 1/3rd size on 1/4 track gauge. Also, the 4-8-2s (and I suppose River Esk/Mite too) aren't actually models of any particular prototype, although built to scale appearance.

Equally, the current Fairbourne locomotives (and the Bure Valley's Manifold tank) are equally 'miniature' as they are scale models (within similar tollerances to Romney) of real locomotives, albeit narrow gauge ones!

Is a 7 1/4" gauge scale model of a quarry Hunslet a miniature or narrow gauge loco? :P

Colin

Colin Peake
MRW Digest Editor

My blog: O9 Modeller
Like
Share

David Humphreys
Director
Joined: August 23rd, 2006, 6:54 pm

November 4th, 2007, 1:40 pm #13

sandshifter wrote: Is a 7 1/4" gauge scale model of a quarry Hunslet a miniature or narrow gauge loco? :P

Colin
We have had this debate before. If it is a smaller version of a prototype, be it standard gauge or otherwise and it can pull people it is a miniature. If it is table top, then it is a model. My opinion is that the cross over will be around 2.5" gauge, although non working model can be built to a larger scale.

The Lavender people at Wintringham, just off the A64 use 7.25" gauge to move some of the plants, so I would see that classed a working narrow gauge, not a miniature.

Captain Howey's vision was to build a main line in miniature, so RHDR has got to be classed as miniature, not narrow gauge, and even the RHDR site confirms this.

http://www.rhdr.org.uk/rhdr/history.html


As does the R+ER confirms that Bassett-Lowke acquired the line as a base for testing their miniature trains under fairly harsh operating conditions.

http://www.ravenglass-railway.co.uk/history.html

Who are we to try to change history and the comments made by the makers.

When I built 'Effie' it was definitely narrow gauge (Sir Arthur’s engine built as a replica on 12" to the foot), but No. 24 is a miniature locomotive as it is a miniature version of a large locomotive. So the concept of physical size does not work.

The club I belong to is Teesside Small Gauge Railway, with the emphasis on 'small' to solve the issue of whether it is a miniature or narrow gauge railway.

I am sure the debate will go on for time immemorial.

David




Like
Share

DevilDrummer
Director
Joined: November 2nd, 2007, 6:25 pm

November 4th, 2007, 5:24 pm #14

sandshifter wrote: Is a 7 1/4" gauge scale model of a quarry Hunslet a miniature or narrow gauge loco? :P

Colin
i wouldve said miniature because its a scaled down version, the original wasnt designed for 7 1/4.
"Humans are so smart, they dont even need a meteorite to destroy themselves, like the stupid dinosaurs did!"

http://devildrummertom.fotopic.net


NYMR Fireman - "More in the back end!"
Like
Share

MickT
Guard
Joined: May 27th, 2007, 4:12 pm

November 4th, 2007, 5:28 pm #15

sandshifter wrote:
wrote: Is a 7 1/4" gauge scale model of a quarry Hunslet a miniature or narrow gauge loco?  :P

Colin
Just to muddy the waters a bit more, Colin, my interpretation would be:

a 7¼" gauge "scale model" (your phrase) of a quarry Hunslet would definitely be a "Miniature" as it is a miniaturised model or copy of a full size prototype - irrespective of whether the prototype was broad, narrow, standard gauge, or an elephant for that matter.

BUT, if a 7¼" gauge loco is a stand-alone design in its own right, ie not a model of something else, then I would say it is Narrow Gauge and not a miniature - ergo the Moors Valley/Tinkerbelle designs and the design successors are stand-alone, incorporate their own design features and are not models of anything else - therefore: Freelance.

HOWEVER, the 7¼" gauge Sir Arthur Heywood at Eastleigh Lakes is a half size model of Northern Rock, so therefore must be a miniature, even though under my interpretation, Northern Rock is not a miniature, it is a narrow gauge loco in its own right.

And I don't think we should go to the Bure Valley and debate the "ZB" locos - are they miniature ie half scale models of the ZB class or are they true NG as they are only based on the ZB class and have many design features of their own

:blink: :huh: :ph43r:

Nurse, the screens, it is time for my bedpan........

Mick
Mick
Like
Share

colinpeake
Director
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 6:15 pm

November 4th, 2007, 11:42 pm #16

DGH wrote:We have had this debate before.
Indeed we have, I have now located it here.

As we are cycling over familar territory, with the same examples quoted, it might be worth continuting discussion in that topic rather than stretching this Digest out over the long term. Tomorrow I will consider whether to move any of the posts in this thread to that one to keep that element of the debate in one place...
DGH wrote:I am sure the debate will go on for time immemorial.
I have a funny feeling you might be right :D

Colin
Colin Peake
MRW Digest Editor

My blog: O9 Modeller
Like
Share

glastonrail
Director
Joined: January 7th, 2007, 8:13 pm

November 4th, 2007, 11:58 pm #17

MickT wrote:
BUT, if a 7¼" gauge loco is a stand-alone design in its own right, ie not a model of something else, then I would say it is Narrow Gauge and not a miniature - ergo the Moors Valley/Tinkerbelle designs and the design successors are stand-alone, incorporate their own design features and are not models of anything else - therefore: Freelance.
Mick, you're wrong. The Tinkerbell design is based (loosely) on Heywood's No.4 Katie, but with a bit on the back for the driver to be relatively comfortable.

I think the last five or so posts have been perfect examples of why there is so much confusion. Hell, narrow gauge designs were altered for different gauges they were ordered for, why not miniature engines?

And the Ratty only ever had two proper Basset engines during the NGR era - Sans Pereil and Colossus. They chose the Ratty because it was a great tourist attraction and they wanted something totally different to beach-front railways they already had.

Cheers,

Dom
"There's no such thing as sanity, and that's the sanest fact" M. Knopfler, 1985
Like
Share

Murray Tremellen
Director
Joined: December 5th, 2006, 5:58 pm

November 5th, 2007, 7:06 pm #18

DGH wrote: Who are we to try to change history and the comments made by the makers.
It's funny you should say that, because we were having a discussion along those lines at school today. Well, we were talking about writer's intentions vs. director's interpretation in drama, but it's the same principle.

As soon as a writer commits his words to paper, he loses control over them. The reader (or for plays, the director) can interpret them however they wish, even if their interpretation is not what the author intended.

So with Romney and Ravenglass, we could argue that even if they were originally intended by their "authors" as miniature railways, in fact they evolved to serve "real" purposes - eg. the granite traffic at Ravenglass, or the school train at Romney - and thus, we can interpret them as narrow gauge railways.

But then, if we agree that is up to individual interpretation, we really do have no hope of ever coming up with a definitive answer! :rolleyes:
Like
Share

AJcoulls
Director
Joined: October 24th, 2006, 3:19 pm

November 6th, 2007, 11:52 am #19

Pedant mode on...Tinkerbell was actually based by Roger Marsh on the Beyer Peacock works engine "Dot" and then altered to become ride in, rather than ride on. Yes I know I'm sad, but someone had to say it...


I know where I can get an engine...any time I want
Like
Share

craiggluyas
Director
Joined: October 5th, 2006, 7:03 pm

November 6th, 2007, 12:06 pm #20

I was thinking it Anthony, if it makes you feel better.
Craig Gluyas

Talking to one's self is a sign of madness. I talk to my imaginary friend.
Like
Share