Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It
Tom,toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Actually to me the answer is quite simple, (but then I'm kinda weird some say), because of the general context's of the STMFC's stated purpose and the MANY topics discussed in this group. Everything possible seems to be considered for discussion, from the scale size of rivet-heads, to exact underframes, exact brake-wheels, exact metal-thickness, exact car-color & weathering, ad infinitum!! Scale-weight is just, in fact, another part of the total scale-picture!
But, James Eckman just posted a link to the page, "Railway Engineering", that very interestingly covers the scale-weight & car-weighting issue, by Steve Hatch, questions 9 & 10. As per Hatch's hypothesis, weight doesn't, almost, matter at all, and states why. His theories actually argue in favor of why NOT use actual scale-weight in our cars? Therefore, the case for actually attaining the scale-weight of a model, to me, should become an additional function in the total scale-building formula, as well as the question, "What color would be the under-carriage of a NYC freight-car traveling through Phoenix, Arizona in August of 1947."
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Jones III<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Scale Weights - Doubt It
My only question is: "Why scale WEIGHT?" What do you achieve by having exact
scale weight, vs. weight that makes the car act and appear to have the same
mass as the prototype would under the same circumstances? I am not
challenging you, I am simply trying to figure out what it is you wish to
Tom Jones III