 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / October 2009SOT Nail Biting
Telegraph.co.uk " ...... the five carriage train chugs around an oval route, even taking in a ride through a tunnel ....... " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/6414981/Pictur es-of-the-day-23-October-2009.html > Telegraph.co.uk > > " ...... the five carriage train chugs around an oval route, even > taking in a ride through a tunnel ....... " > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/6414981/Pictur es-of-the-day-23-October-2009.html Sorry not impressed. If he was a serious modeller then it would be a shunting plank and not a roundy roundy. cheers, Simon >> Telegraph.co.uk >> >> " ...... the five carriage train chugs around an oval route, even >> taking in a ride through a tunnel ....... " Round not oval. The train is connected to a rotating disk via a slot in the track. The tunnel is there to hold the scenery inside the circle in place. One of Lione;'s tinplate accessories is a model train shop with a tiny circular layout in the window that does this. >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/6414981/Pictur es-of-the-day-23-October-2009.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >cheers, >Simon >>"Dragon Heart" <chris.brett58@o2.co.uk> wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/6414981/Pictur es-of-the-day-23-October-2009.html About the smallest you can get commercially with motorised trains having wheels running on rails is T Scale (1:450).  SignatureMartin S. SignatureRegards John > >>> Telegraph.co.uk [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>cheers, >>Simon It is an oval, not a circle. See http://www.geek.com/articles/news/worlds-smallest-train-layout-is-incredibly-tin y-20090916/ SignatureRegards John >>> Telegraph.co.uk >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > circle in place. One of Lione;'s tinplate accessories is a model train > shop with a tiny circular layout in the window that does this. PD Hancock did something similar on the Craig and Mertonford to represent a small garden railway (though not as small as this example). I'd guess it was built well before 1970. I'd have read about Hancock's idea in his book in the 1970's, one of the main influences on my model making career, borrowed almost continuously on rapidly rotating loans from the local library. - Nigel SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ >>>> Telegraph.co.uk >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Nigel Speaking of P.D. Hancock, I just recently acquired a copy of the January 1954 'Railroad Model Craftsman' which contains an article by him on the 'Kirkgate and Dunmore Light Railway' as proposed in HO gauge. If there is sufficient interest, I can post a copy of the track plan and one of the drawings. LD >>>>> Telegraph.co.uk >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > LD Hand goes up at the back - I'd be interested, I've been buying some 1950s mags of late, started looking for something specific, then got onto following a series, now just generally interested. There was some splendid work back then, especially considering the available materials at the time. Regards Mike > "LDosser" <LD@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Mike Not as far back, but got load of Model Rail Constructor's (70's-80's) and Modellers Backtracks. They beat the current bunch (excl MRJ which isnt aimed at me) of magazines by miles. Have given up on latest ones, recon it takes all 4 to get one that has enough of interest and even then most articles are shallow. An article on mineral wagons in MB is 9 pages and that was just part 2. Everything you need to know including drawings and photos. Modern article would be 4 pages with huge photos and very little of substance. Its tabloid vs broadsheet. Cheers, Simon >> "LDosser" <LD@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Cheers, > Simon That was my impression too, on returning to modelling. However, I don't think it's purely down to the magazines, my perception (I model in 0 myself) when deciding which scale to go for is that 00 and N in particular have shifted much more towards read-to-run (with far better detail than in the days of yore admittedly) and plug-and-play, and the mags have sort of become ready-to-run too. That is definitely not a critisism of 00 or N, or the mags, just my observation. Plus having so many mags must put pressure on publishers to be more tabloidy to get them off the shelves. Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb >>> "LDosser" <LD@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Cheers > Richard Not sure, MRC seems to have much the same content and their reviews of new locos allowing for the difference in standards are bit more critical - but constructive criticism only. Even some of the discussion topics eg couplings, P4 etc are the same but its less of a 'everyone should do this' and more extolling the benefits whilst allowing everyone is different. Theres no 'we are superior attitude' (well that lets out MRJ :-)). Really do think MRC is more classy and less shallow with its less tabloid presentation. Perhaps it is the competitive element, but if a product is good then it doesnt need to try and claim it all the time. Also MRC doesnt have obvious product placement articles. Cheers, Simon [snip preceding discussion for brevity's sake] > Not sure, MRC seems to have much the same content and their reviews of > new locos allowing for the difference in standards are bit more critical [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Fewer and fewer of my customers are willing to assemble kits, let alone scratchbuild. I'm assembling the kits I have on my shelves, because I happen to like kit building. Recently a customer was more than happy to pay a $5 premium on an assembled kit. Also just finished rereading C J Freezer's Railway Modelling (1963). Lovely book, despite the small drawings and grungy photos. See my review at http://kirkwood40.blogspot.com IMO, most people get into _model railways_ rather than _railway modelling_. That is, they want to run trains, ranging from trains circling the Christmas tree to full-blown operation per timetable and train orders/CTC. For these people relatively cheap high-quality ready to run is a better investment of time and money than a kit. cheers, wolf k. > [snip preceding discussion for brevity's sake] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > happen to like kit building. Recently a customer was more than happy to > pay a $5 premium on an assembled kit. You may be selling yourself short. I've seen built up kits selling on e-bay for double or more the price of the kit. > Also just finished rereading C J Freezer's Railway Modelling (1963). > Lovely book, despite the small drawings and grungy photos. See my review [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > orders/CTC. For these people relatively cheap high-quality ready to run is > a better investment of time and money than a kit. And with pre-built layouts, the owner pretty much becomes the Producer of a Hollywood Production. >> Fewer and fewer of my customers are willing to assemble kits, let alone >> scratchbuild. I'm assembling the kits I have on my shelves, because I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You may be selling yourself short. I've seen built up kits selling on > e-bay for double or more the price of the kit. Youre right there, considering the number of hours it can take us hackers to build a kit. This lining has taken 10 hours so far, took 4 to a plastic lorry. Dont mind - I too enjoy building kits whilst listening to BBC radio 7 and 4 on iplayer. >> IMO, most people get into _model railways_ rather than _railway >> modelling_. That is, they want to run trains, ranging from trains >> circling the Christmas tree to full-blown operation per timetable and >> train orders/CTC. For these people relatively cheap high-quality ready to >> run is a better investment of time and money than a kit. Not sure, lot of people say they would build kits if have time or ability but in many cases think thats an excuse. However it does take a lot of investment in building up skills and loco kits are currently more expensive than most RTR. cheers, Simon >>> Fewer and fewer of my customers are willing to assemble kits, let >>> alone scratchbuild. I'm assembling the kits I have on my shelves, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > a plastic lorry. Dont mind - I too enjoy building kits whilst listening > to BBC radio 7 and 4 on iplayer. [...] > Not sure, lot of people say they would build kits if have time or > ability but in many cases think thats an excuse. However it does take a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cheers, > Simon Ah well, the kit was an Accurail boxcar, no fiddly bits, not quite as simple as the old Athearn "shake the box kits", but easy and quick to assemble. And kinda soothing. It's getting pretty bad when my commitments drive me to assemble a kit for the therapy value.... ;-) wolf k. > Ah well, the kit was an Accurail boxcar, no fiddly bits, not quite as > simple as the old Athearn "shake the box kits", but easy and quick to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > wolf k. The old Airfix kits have that effect. Like to build them when can get em cheap. Cheers, Simon >>> "LDosser" <LD@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>>> Speaking of P.D. Hancock, I just recently acquired a copy of the [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > many mags must put pressure on publishers to be more tabloidy to get them > off the shelves. Is it possible that the magazines have found that very few people do actually scratch build wagons from nine pages of detailed information, instead people buy RTR stock? Also, in days of yore a half-decent scratch build could well be better than RTR. These days many of us would be hard-pushed to get anywhere near RTR standards. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > Is it possible that the magazines have found that very few people do > actually scratch build wagons from nine pages of detailed information, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than RTR. These days many of us would be hard-pushed to get anywhere near > RTR standards. But its not just about building them, in fact it just provides drawings and not how to build info. Tis more background info, where and when they were used, variations, liveries etc etc. Sort of thing that Model Rail provides in some of their articles, but tends to be more accurate and thorough. True that RTR is likely to be better quality looks than kits although some components are often better (wheels, gears, motors....). But one important reason for kit building is if it isnt available in RTR. cheers, Simon >> Is it possible that the magazines have found that very few people do >> actually scratch build wagons from nine pages of detailed information, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > provides in some of their articles, but tends to be more accurate and > thorough. Even the 304.8mm scale rolling stock manufacturers might not have full drawings of vehicles these days, just computer files specifying all the subsystems and their interfaces. And going out and measuring a real wagon would probably need an awful lot of paperwork! Also these days we can Google things to prove that the article is wrong on the number of rivets, whereas when we see a 30-year old article we assume it must all be true, and generally can't easily prove otherwise... > True that RTR is likely to be better quality looks than kits although > some components are often better (wheels, gears, motors....). But one > important reason for kit building is if it isnt available in RTR. But how many modellers actually find that enough of a problem to feel the need to build something, and how many are happy with what is available RTR? SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >>> Is it possible that the magazines have found that very few people do >>> actually scratch build wagons from nine pages of detailed information, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the number of rivets, whereas when we see a 30-year old article we assume > it must all be true, and generally can't easily prove otherwise... Pedant would point out its Modellers Backtrack October 1991. However more importantly as the editor was David Jenkinson he probably influenced authors to quote their sources so you can make an informed choice as to its accuracy. In the article on mineral wagons they specify which wagon they measured (full id), who measured it, where it was measured and when. >> True that RTR is likely to be better quality looks than kits although >> some components are often better (wheels, gears, motors....). But one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > need to build something, and how many are happy with what is available > RTR? Am not saying kit building is compulsory - good job as it would take me years and years to have a reasonable number. It is an option for those that wish to go down that path. If you wish to model an industrial scene (say colliery or brewery) then either you have have few industrials available RTR or you explore the plethora of kits and may have exactly what was used in a particular area and era. Similarly if you want a pre BR branch line - LMS of course - then its 1F's, 2F's, 3F's, 4Fs, 1P's and 2P's. OK theres the RTR 4F and 2P that will be upgraded (please !) but thats only a 3rd of the common classes. Then again there were major variations of these missing classes eg 1F had all combinations of round vs belpaire boiler, full and half cab. It isnt a need, but the period(s) that personally find most interesting are pre-BR. There are enough people who are of the same opinion that the kit building industry appears to potter along quite nicely - and it isnt stagnating, there are constant inovations in new loco types and upgrade of designs. Havent even started on coaches, but look at the variety of models available at Wizard models. Cheers, Simon >>>> "LDosser" <LD@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> Speaking of P.D. Hancock, I just recently acquired a copy of the [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > than RTR. These days many of us would be hard-pushed to get anywhere > near RTR standards. That's pretty much what I said - the mags reflect the market. Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb >> "LDosser" <LD@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Cheers, > Simon I still reread my collection of old Railway Modellers, MRC etc from the early 1960s on. Buy the odd earlier edition when I see them second-hand. I even went as far as indexing the interesting articles. If I do buy a current edition of RM etc I tend to leave it somewhere/anywhere. Greg.P. >>>>>> Telegraph.co.uk >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Mike I'll copy the plan and a couple of the drawings this week and post them where they can be found. Think I still have a flikr account. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.