# A rant about plans in magazines



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

I just bought a copy of the Summer 2011 Narrow Gauge Annual, it has a few really interesting articles in it! However, the article on the Gilpin Tram's second caboose has a "scale" drawing that is definitely NOT what it is listed as. It's supposed to be a 1/32nd scale drawing, according to the drawing, but it does not scale out that way. It's really hard to make a model based on a drawing when the drawing is not to any scale that you can measure with a scale rule! The body is supposed to be 10 feet 6 inches, it measures 8 feet with my scale rule. The 20 inch wheels measure out at 15 inches. How do they manage to mess up the size of a drawing in what is otherwise a very good magazine? I've seen this with other drawings in various magazines over the years also, so this is not unique.
I guess I'll have to make a photocopy of the drawing and enlarge it until I get close enough to the scale measurements given that I can figure out the other measurements. 
On the plus side, the drawings of the C&S short business car do measure out very close to their given scale, so that's good anyway.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Amber, 
IF you have access to a scanner, just scan the drawing, and use a basic drawing, or drafting, program to correct the size and reprint. 
Most magazines over the years do their best to get it right, but it sometimes seems through the printing process things go a little off! 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, sounds like it was "scale" until someone shrunk it to fit... hmm... I guess the meaning of "scale" escaped the person who did this. 

Greg


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

Yes Greg, that would be my guess too. As for scanning it into the computer and scaling it up, I don't have a program for that. I used a photocopier to enlarge a set of plans from 1 scale to another, so I should be able to do it that way with these plans with a bit of trial and error. 
I'm just "in a mood" this morning and had to vent.


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Amber, 
There is a company "Rail Driver" That has a program called Scale Print. This program will print any plan or photo out to the scale you would like. The program costs $19.95 bu its self, or its free with one of the 3 cd programs they have. Check it out at raildriver.com 

Chuck


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Amber, 

If you're not in a rush for those plans why don't you contact the publisher and explain the problem. 
I'm sure they want to know. 
And also ask them to send you a proper scaled drawing.Knut


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Amber, 
that's Loki's work. 
but you can rescale without a program. 
just scan the plans in, then load the pics into MSWord. (insert image) 
put your word-document in a mode, where you see a ruler. 
with the inserted pic marked (you'll see little squares on the corners) just use one of the cornersquares to draw the pic bigger or smaller as needed.


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

"that's Loki's work."

We know, we know. That's why she is so THOR about it!

(Sorry Kormsen, the pun was too good to resist.







)

Yours,
David Meashey


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Link to SE Forum (SE=Seven Eights) thread on building the Gilpin Caboose. You might contact the poster who mentions he has plans. There's also reference to a book with plans. All found with a Google search, key words, "Gilpin Tram second caboose drawing" and "Gilpin Tram caboose drawing" 

http://www.7-8ths.info/index.php?topic=16681179.0


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

Dave, that was a good one, made me laugh!  I didn't pick up on it right away when Kormsen made the comment.  
Chris, good link, now I have to waste even more time on the internet!  
I don't have MS Word on this computer, so I guess the photocopier method will have to do. It will work well enough for the purpose. I might have to just buy that Rail Driver program, that could be handy for a lot of things.


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

Another thing I noticed about the drawing, the end view drawing is not very accurate. If you look at the picture in the article, you can see differences between the picture and the drawing.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

well then Amber, the picture must be wrong ...!!! What else could it be...? 

Dirk ;~}


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

It's that darned Loki again! Where's Thor when you need him? Probably drinking mead and chasing around with his no good buddies, those good for nothing avengers...


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

Just remember plans are made for a specific date. Quite often as originally built. As accidents and the addition of safety appliances and road equipment occur, the car in question will vary somewhat from the plan. Of course it could work the other way around. The plan could have been made from the car as it existed at that time and the picture was taken earlier. 

For instance, the D&RG Jackson & Sharp cars were delivered with windows looking onto the platforms at each end. Passengers getting on and off with baggage frequently broke them. So within a short time, as the cars were shopped for repairs, the windows were removed. The plans show the windows, pictures don't. 

So Amber, just choose whichever look you like. I will probably be "correct".


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

I'm sure it's just me being picky, but the drawing shows a different end rail setup on the caboose than the picture does, and the brake staff is in a different position in the drawing. Since the end rails were part of what held the car together, I wonder if they would have changed them at some point.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Sometimes it is a matter of;

Calculate with a computer,
Measure with a micrometer,
Mark it with chalk,
And Cut it with a torch.

i.e.: Precision experiences entropy too.

Other times it is that the "model" was made from the photo and the drawing was made from the model.

Theoritically, that should not induce error, but the skill of the photo interpretation process and the availability of pre-existing piece parts of the correct measurement may cause some slight change in relative size vis-a-vis "true scale" contruction. If the wheels were originally 34 inches, but the photos measure out to maybe 32 (after all it is a fuzzy photo and I can't tell if I am measuing shadow, rim, tread or flange), but the wheel set I can afford measures 7/8" then the model wheels will be the wrong scale, but they have to fit the truck side frames that are on sale at Ye Olde TooT Toot Garden Train and Computer Repair and Plumbing Shoppe that I think I want to use instead of whittling-out of gold builion what the photo shows. Of course that can affect the width of the foot-step width on the end of the car so it doesn't restrict the truck from swiveling to the rediculous extreme the 1-ft diameter curves on the RR it is to run on.

Then when the drawing is made, the author finds that that wheel brand is long gone as are the frame makers, so he draws what he thinks he would buy now to make it look better or cost half as much and makes adjustments to the rest of the drawing too allow the changes to fit (hope hope hope!.... "oh darn, those were smaller, not larger, I shoulda added, not subtracted... oh well, nobody will notice... the publisher just wants some sketches anyway and they will redraw it right (hope hope hope!)").


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

On most railroads, if the stuff on the car was deteriorating they would replace it with whatever was in the shop at the time. The goal was the least amount of down time possible, not trying to make it look pretty. This goes for all types of rolling stock, from engines to the now long gone cabooses. If this required re-drilling an end beam or replacing something and it could be done more quickly than waiting for the "proper" part, they did it. 

Hope this helps. Like I said, choose the one you like. I also say don't get too uptight about it unless you are modeling railroad XYZ on May 14 1937 or something.


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

I agree that there is a point where pickiness turns into obcessivness.  
It's not hard to see how the end rails were set up on the car in the picture, I'll follow that design, more or less.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Miss Amber, 

I am in the unfortunate position of having lots or original drawings for locomotives and rolling stock from both Rhodesia Rail and Midland Counties> LMS>BR... What I have found is that the "official" plans often do not agree with the locomotive as constructed!!! When I was building the Great India Penninsular WCG-1 loco. This should have been easy. The plans came from SLM (at the time I was working in Berne -directly opposite the transport museum). The plans from SLM did NOT agree with the plans from Vulcan Engineering -who built the loco and sent assembly drawing to Bombay. The problem was resolved by a friend who translated some of the Indic script: 

"These plans are **** some idiot has drawn them using 2cm to the inch -use the main ones from SLM only!" 

The worst example of incorrect drawing known to me is a the case of a 4-6-4 electric loco which due to a fold problem was faxed as 2-6-4. The loco was built and duly shipped to the customer with one end 8 feet shorter than the other. Strangely enough the resultant monster turned out to very stable at high speeds and the company order more of the same configuration. The nice people at BLS museum also showed me a photo of the worst case of drawing failure I know. An SLM made MEYER shunting locomotive was shipped out to Spain and assembled by the works there as a MALLET. The works complained that the steam connection drawings did not make sense.... 

As my late father was oft to comment; "There is the strange, there is the weird and the frankly unbelievable -and then there is reality". 

regards 

ralph


----------



## spincaster (Mar 10, 2012)

Drawings in magazines should always be treated as suspect! 

Every single time I have used drawings from a magazine and photos in building a model I end up doing a lot of head scratching and reverse engineering from the pictures. I've been designing some parts and models based on drawings by people who are considered experts and have found a lot of missing detail and some pretty obvious errors. I consider drawings in magazines guidelines! If you want a dead accurate model best go photograph and measure the subject yourself and then redo when you find your errors. Scratchbuilding scale models can be frustrating, challenging but also rewarding. 

Jack


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

The body is supposed to be 10 feet 6 inches, it measures 8 feet with my scale ruleYou don't need a photocopier or a scanner. 10'-6" = 10.5' / 8' = 1.3125. The 20 inch wheels measure out at 15 inches. 20" / 15" = 1.3333. Measure the drawing with the scale rule you have and multiply the resulting dimension by 1.32


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

The 20 inch wheels aren't too hard to figure out. 3-1/2 inch wheels would be 21 inches, pretty close. The size of the frame timbers is what I couldn't figure out. The article said that the C&S used odd sized timbers when they built the caboose, but did not say what that size was, of course. I just settled on a size for them that seems close to right, based on my best guess from looking at the drawings and the picture. 
Interestingly enough, the plans for the Quincy and Torch Lake straight braced rock cars in the May 1987 Railroad Model Craftsman are actually quite close to the measurements that I took on the remaining cars at the mine hoist site. Wayne Wesolowski did a good job on them. Only minor differences in the size of the timbers, and that can be attributed to differences from one car to another. 
The drawings for the Quincy and Torch Lake 2-6-0 #1 in the August 1985 issue of either RMC or MR, I'm not sure which, are not quite so accurate, especially in the drawing of the shape of the frame. My photocopies don't show the magazine name, only the date. Anyway, the frame drawing is significantly wrong in several ways, including the front of the frame where the cylinder assembly sits, and the lower part of the frame. I measured and drew out the frame of the #1, which is still on display at the hoist house. A lot of the measurements, such as the axle spacing were close enough, but others were not. 
I found this out the hard way after I had cut the first set of frames out of aluminum flat stock for a 1/20th scale model of it, and had to do another set with the proper dimensions. That was about 15 years ago, and the frames are still sitting in a box, nagging me to get back to work on them. The Bachmann big hauler drivers are close enough to the right size to use them on the model. They have the wrong shape weights, but that could probably be fixed. 
I'm guessing that the person who drew the plans for the magazine never actually saw the real engine.


----------

