Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 26/05/2021 22:15:35:
…
As Jon says, LBSC used terms like 'bare' and ticket thicknesses – and the adjective 'weeny' – to help 'the common man'; but I have always read 'bare' to mean 'as close as you can make it but not over'. In his era most model-engineers, including presumably him, had far more basic workshop equipment than we think the norm now.
I agree 'bare' means ''as close as you can make it but not over' too. Ambiguous though! In the sense of 'bare minimum' it could mean the opposite – 'as close as you can make it but not under'. Yuk.
I wonder if the term was well understood when LBSC was a lad and chaps routinely worked to inch fractions, and work was fitted. (Later dimensions were toleranced, interchangeable parts came straight off the machine and all the fitters were sacked!)
Are there other words to indicate 'slightly over' etc? I only recall words being used in connection with shaft fits, 'Force', 'Push', 'Slide', 'Shrink', but not linear dimensions, but I don't have any Victorian books on workshop practice.
Terms like 'bare' may also highlight a problem using fractions in engineering when precision is required. The design calls for a bare ¹⁄₃₂". Next finest fractional graduation is ¹⁄₆₄", which I suspect is much too small. Going down to 128ths doesn't help either. Assuming LBSC meant no bigger than 0.029":
- ¹⁄₆₄" = 0.016" (Error -13 thou)
- ¹⁄₃₂" = 0.031" (Error +2 thou)
- ³⁄₁₂₈" = 0.023" (Error -8 thou)
Dumping fractions in favour of thou and tenths provides a better system when calculation and accuracy combine The drawing office no doubt saw the advantage in short order. I guess practical men found decimal easier to adopt when industry moved on: otherwise micrometers would be graduated in ¹⁄₁₀₂₄"!
Cone dimensions and spacings look more tightly specified to me than anything else in the plans. Are injectors the most critically dimensioned part of a model locomotive?
Dave