Ah! another Newsletter No.1 - unformed hopes distilled awkwardly on yellowing dog-eared typescript, at the bottom of a drawer.

Welcome to the thirty-odd members who signed-up in the first fortnight to be In at some kind of Beginning, and thanks for your good wishes.

To give an early flavour of activity and concerns, this first virtual newsletter is highly condensed from your own introductions.

We’ve had enough comments to tell that we thirty already include:

• at least five 1:32 manufacturers and two live-steam dealers,
• at least ten builders of 1:32 locomotives on Standard track,
• at least ten builders using Finescale wheels and track,

five of whom are working to Exact Scale in apparent isolation.

In alphabetical order -

from Charles Ashley:

My love is 19th century locomotives so clearances are always very tight! I have a partially built electrically Adams T6 constructed to 1:32 exact scale that is at running chassis stage that I have used to check true-scale principles. Certainly it runs on track with scale flangeways etc with no difficulty but it doesn't take kindly to non-scale curves - realistically a scale 4.5 chains is all I can get it round before the bogie fouls the bogie splashers.

from Ken Cottle:

Many years ago I designed the Scale Seven Standards, along with all the basic gauges assembly jigs and wheel profile tools. I did the same for John Flack many years ago. I have in stock a few of the original gauges, If this of any interest please let me know.

from Les Bird:

Trading as Custom Carriages, we build to 1:32.

from Bob Boyd:

On joining and reading up about G1 standards and scales I was perplexed at the variation, and at a loss to think how it could have come to this. I have resolved to work as closely as I can to 1:32. I'm examining different manufacturers' track and wondering which is the best for me. Hand-built track would seem to be required for a finescale railway wouldn't it? (It reminds me of the Protofour society in the 1960/70's sharing gauges and jigs).

My day job is draughting, or as it is now called CAD. If I can help this group with any drawings or 3D models, please let me know.

from John Butler:

I consider myself lucky that my interest in continental railways took me into Gauge 1 via a French prototype at 1/32nd. scale, so I have not had to make a change away from the dreaded 10mm. The wheel standards used by the likes of Aster I find I can live with.

I am just finishing a British loco which I hope will show that a small prototype can be made to 1/32nd Scale perfectly practicably as a live steamer:

Maunsell's masterpiece was pared to the last pound so that even the wheel splashers were minimal. I defy anyone to make this one look anywhere near right using 10mm to the foot. Even at 1/32nd there are no backs to the splashers. Two cylinders, full inside Walschaerts valve gear, 4-channel radio, as controllable as any electric. But it isn't to Fine Scale standards ......

I haven’t seen a membership application form lately but, tell the G1MRA Committee, it MUST include a warning that we work to two different scales.

from Geoff Calver:

To me, what is important is whether the proportions of a model are convincing and pleasing to my eye - purely subjective of course!

And then again I prefer not to mix the scales in the train consist. Buyers should take manufacturer's claims with a pinch of salt.

Don't assume that just because anything is stated as 1:32 it necessarily is - have you taken a ruler to it and checked against full sized dimensions? Does it look right to you? How about the details? (And in one instance, why are the brake shoes on the wrong side of the driving wheels?)

I have been appalled by online sarcasm and casual stereotyping by some individuals about G1MRA and its Committee. In all the years I served on the Committee I can assure you that we did everything possible to encourage all approaches, including Scale10 and especially 1:32 Finescale. I never got the impression that G1MRA was dedicated exclusively to 10mm scale - where does this come from? It simply ain't true! We offered positive assistance and encouragement (even financial) to build and exhibit a G1 Finescale layout.

from Simon Duhamel:

I have always wanted to go finescale in 1/32 but have not done so because I like to have friends run on my pike. This implies that I use the standard G1MRA standards.

Recently I have started to model US prototypes (Pennsy) and have been using some nearly-scale wheels made in Nevada. They operate perfectly, and I nearly never derail both going forward and in long reverse moves to my indoor terminus.

The main problem is the switch frogs. If I modify them, then I can't have friends come over for a run. I use a compromise setting with 40mm back to back and small flanges, but still too-thick tires... Going fine scale is something I would very much like to do, so that if the ball gets rolling, then maybe my friends will go finescale too.

from Jim Guthrie:

I'm re-starting my G1 interest in 3/8” scale. It will be electric powered at the moment but I would like to get a live steam locomotive working. I've also started doing some etchings and I did some sprung axleguards for the Caledonian wagons I am constructing. I'm also looking at doing some resin cast Fox bogies sides to go under the coaches I am building, and some etchings for the bogie frames.

from me, David Halfpenny:

I keep a 1:32 Scale train in a box on permanent travel standby, and I hope to put together an equivalent box for Finescale track.

This week, a friend sent me this outline Scheme (overleaf) for a 10mm scale model of 1846 Sharp, Stewart 0-6-0 SPHYNX. The over-scale flanges touch and the combination of 5% over-scale with super-narrow back-to-back scythes a massive 5mm off the width of the firebox, forcing some combination of cut-away firebox and distorted back-plate:

That exemplifies why I’m convinced that Gauge 1 needs a passionate and active minority that will get more Finescale tracks built.

It’s not a matter of ‘scale-snobbery’ or even fanatical accuracy.

It’s that complete consistency of scale (between track and flangeways and wheelsets and frames and firebox) makes possible working models of worthy prototypes that could never ‘gel’ properly without it:

from Adrian Johnstone:

I am working on fairly detailed 3D-printable wagons which will be available in the public domain. They can be parameterised to allow folk to choose whether to model, say, strapping in the printed plastic or whether to suppress printing of strapping and add as brass overlays. Parameterisation (and 3D printing generally) supports detailed customisation so that one can generate trains made up of different kinds of trucks rather than just having 20 identical PO wagons running around. It also allows one to choose the scale, be it 1:32, 10mm or some peculiar American thing involving a 29. My main motivation is to allow sensible length trains of trucks to be produced at manageable cost - another aspect of scale modelling that is necessarily often ignored. The design I have at the moment has a very strong body since it is printed as one item. I haven't yet made much progress with the chassis beyond printing some wheels. (They may wear quickly, but then I can print more...) If I print everything, then my wagons come out at around a pound each on my personal filament deposition printer, and about £20 each if I use a commercial sintered nylon bureau.

from Lawrie Loveless:

We’ve sold loads of 1:32 locos and would love to sell loads of 1:32 rolling stock and we need a group similar to what you propose. But it must be practical if any, never mind many, large projects are ever to get going.

Just look at the track in this picture: