Jump to content
 

Model Rail 234 May 2017


dibber25
 Share

Recommended Posts

Britain’s 20 best railway inclines are the linking topic for the May 2017 Model Rail, published on April 6. Track plans, gradient profiles and great photography of locomotives at work are set to inspire your model-making.

News. The new models reviewed include Dapol’s ‘OO’ gauge Class 68, Little Loco Company’s Class 15 in ‘O’ gauge, the Graham Farish ‘N’ gauge autocoach and Peco’s ‘OO9’ slate wagons. Chris Leigh installs Train-Tech’s new sensor signals.

Workbench: George Dent recreates one of Tebay shed’s Shap bankers. Paul Lunn operates on model figures to change their poses. Richard Foster shows the right and wrong ways to renumber locomotives for his Gedney project. Peter Marriott builds a narrow gauge winding house diorama. Graham Goodchild explains how he built his remarkable funicular railway. Paul Lunn transforms a cheap planter into a cargo ship (yes, really!) and kitbashes the old Dapol turntable kit into a swing bridge.

Features: Richard Foster details the 20 best places in Britain where locomotives defy gravity.

Layouts: Windmill Terminal, Paul Rolley’s modern image ‘OO’ freight terminal.

Brixcombe, exquisite GWR modelling in ‘P4’ by Farnham & District MRC.

Regulars: Exhibition Diary, Show & Tell and Q&A plus Backscene, in which Chris Leigh ponders ‘Goin’ Back’ with apologies to the Byrds.

Plus details of the low stock levels on Model Rail exclusives and some ‘USA’ tanks. If you want one you really do need to order NOW!

post-1062-0-58680300-1491216112_thumb.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my copy from a local newsagent this morning. A bit surprised that the climb from Grosmont to Goathland on the NYMR is not deemed worthy of a mention. up to 8 Mk 1 coaches regularly hauled up by single Class 4 or 5 locos several times a day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not impressed. This magazine is getting very repetitive with the same old things rehashed. All the boat lacked was the sticky back plastic and it could have been on Blue Peter. Richard Foster's renumbering was a mess. It looked like the varnish was applied with a wallpaper brush. Also the slate wagons look to high to go under the winding house.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A mixed reception and feelings from me. There is often something of interest but I guess I'm starting to tire of having a large portion of the magazine dedicated to a list of locations that I "have to model".

 

G.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

A mixed reception and feelings from me. There is often something of interest but I guess I'm starting to tire of having a large portion of the magazine dedicated to a list of locations that I "have to model".

 

G.

 

But they do provide inspiration surely?   There is no way I can model Dainton (more interesting in my view than Hemerdon) but the whole theme of inclines does promote thinking and ideas and surely that is really the point of it - not that you should slavishly set out to precisely model one of the examples the mag shows.

 

One look at, say, Dinmore tunnel can give all sorts of ideas about modelling tunnel mouths but you don't have to model Dinmore  (people who know it will understand why I have mentioned it).  Similarly the 'theme' approach will introduce folk to places they don't know or might not have heard of and start off some thinking and research.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I don't get this fascination with numbers. 20 inclines , 18 branch lines. So what? Wouldn't you be better covering one or two in detail. To me these articles are designed to be eye catching but are just not substantial enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Got my copy from a local newsagent this morning. A bit surprised that the climb from Grosmont to Goathland on the NYMR is not deemed worthy of a mention. up to 8 Mk 1 coaches regularly hauled up by single Class 4 or 5 locos several times a day.

I was more surprised Stainmore wasn't included, slight error in the 68 review. Only the ones equipped for Chiltern working have the AAR MU equipment

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they do provide inspiration surely?  

 

Unfortunately not for many in the list for me - far too many black wheezing steam locos belching out smoke in rather poor quality pics. A bit of a more balanced mix might have been more inspirational for me.

 

G.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm a little confused by the Black Label review. It states that only 6 members of the A4 class, 4483-4487 wore the Apple Green Livery, and yet Hornby has produced 4494 Osprey as part of the Sir Nigel Gresley Collection in Apple Green. I can't see Hornby making a blunder that big, so is the article incorrect?

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused by the Black Label review. It states that only 6 members of the A4 class, 4483-4487 wore the Apple Green Livery, and yet Hornby has produced 4494 Osprey as part of the Sir Nigel Gresley Collection in Apple Green. I can't see Hornby making a blunder that big, so is the article incorrect?

 

Regards

Think you are reading the article wrong, what it actually says is that 4483-4487 had black smokeboxes. If it was only 4483-4487 in Apple Green then Dapols model of 4482 would also be wrong.  Locos Illustrated 38 lists 4482-4487 and 4493-4495 as being in Apple Green, and has photos of  4482, 4483, 4484 4485 4493 and 4494 as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I was a bit disappointed not to see a mention of the Taff Vale's Pwllyrhebog incline, but I suppose you can't have everything.

You would need the linguistic articulacy to pronounce it first.Not for the fainthearted that.....Part of old Rhondda long gone.

Edited by Ian Hargrave
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Think you are reading the article wrong, what it actually says is that 4483-4487 had black smokeboxes. If it was only 4483-4487 in Apple Green then Dapols model of 4482 would also be wrong.  Locos Illustrated 38 lists 4482-4487 and 4493-4495 as being in Apple Green, and has photos of  4482, 4483, 4484 4485 4493 and 4494 as such.

This is the passage from the magazine. Im definitely not misreading it.

post-7482-0-96086900-1492031982_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I wonder what happened to the "bits box in the bag" that is still advertised on the web site? Not a problem but I do wonder why magazines (on all subjects) catch themselves out by having web sites that advertise something that is not in or with the magazine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the passage from the magazine. Im definitely not misreading it.

4483-4487 is only five locos. The error in the article is the reference to six locos in Apple Green when it should be nine; four (4482, 4493-4495) being painted with a curved join between the apple green and black as per garter blue livery and five (4483-4487 as listed in the article) with the black extended along the sides to the first boiler band.

I wonder what happened to the "bits box in the bag" that is still advertised on the web site? Not a problem but I do wonder why magazines (on all subjects) catch themselves out by having web sites that advertise something that is not in or with the magazine.

The bits box was with sealed copies in my local Sainsburys but was not supplied with my subscription copy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I wonder what happened to the "bits box in the bag" that is still advertised on the web site? Not a problem but I do wonder why magazines (on all subjects) catch themselves out by having web sites that advertise something that is not in or with the magazine.

I got the bits box when I bought my copy. It's a bit small, mind you, and I can't fit my garden railway maintenance kit into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not impressed. This magazine is getting very repetitive with the same old things rehashed. All the boat lacked was the sticky back plastic and it could have been on Blue Peter. Richard Foster's renumbering was a mess. It looked like the varnish was applied with a wallpaper brush. Also the slate wagons look to high to go under the winding house.

 

 

They do seem to be getting very sloppy. I felt a bit mean giving the G6 'Masterclass' a bit of a pasting the last time round.

But this time there was more than one rushed and rather sketchy project.

On the incline house, the slate wagons had nowhere to go when they got to the top of the incline, assuming they climbed safely over the sharp join at the top of the incline, which Peter Marriott admitted hadn't been done correctly. OK it was a diorama and not a working model, but there still needed to be a realistic way of showing how the original operated. No attempt had been made to weather the very plasticky r-t-r slate wagon.

As noted above, the ship was very Blue Peter. I would suggest that they leave this project to Model Boats magazine. There is a shortage of suitable hulls for model railway scales, but recent issues of MB have had at least one fairly simple and cost effective method, using insulation foam covered in stretchy material and filler. The hard bits with ships are all the fiddly parts, like winches, ventilator cowls and the rigging. The dockyard photos were an odd selection of very large scale port installations, with precious little inspiration for the spaces most modellers' would have room for. SDJR's modest Highbridge Wharf would take a space of 10m x 3m if modelled in 4mm scale.

Finally the swing bridge was a scrap book of confusing drawings, miscellaneous photos and a half-done model, which if my first impression is right, without making up a rough cardboard imitation, would result in a very narrow channel for the river traffic. I live near a swing bridge and the MR one seems to have some serious flaws in its design. Had they finished it, they might have proved me wrong!

Why did we need Richard Foster's rather lumpy renumbering article when a few pages earlier George Dent had done a much better job, using basically the same technique?

They all seem in a rush to get things done for the print deadline.

Brixcombe was on the other hand excellent - what a comparison.

By the wayThe Brighton Toy and Model Museum has a good model of the Hastings East Lift - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/79074-brighton-toy-model-museum-hastings-east-hill-lift-model-242013/

Hi to both of you,  From your responses I can only assume you've looked at the pictures and not read the text.  It seems you both regularly read Model Rail and therefore would know that a lot of my work is  of a design nature and place great emphasis on the value of a mock-up.  I have been concerned for modellers for some time in so much as a lack of ready made hulls.  The one in the article was cheap and relatively easy to make, anything above deck was to intended to give an idea of how a finished ship might look in its various configurations, and I suspect there are few railway modellers taking Model Boats!  As far as the swing bridge is concerned Copperhouse Inlet at Hayle is very narrow and one of the photo's, not published, showed an impression of how this would look. It does work and will be including the necessary survey notes and mocked up images in a future publication.  Quantifying design is very hard to do but what I can  tell you is that both these projects took a great deal of time to work through for the intended benefit of the modelling readership.  On the question of repetition,  it would take too long to list all the cutting edge subjects I've covered, but as a taster; circular fiddle yards, magnetic bus operation, figures with magnetic bases, changing figure poses, introducing a second interest (ships, cars, film and so on), time delay circuits, how to design creative layouts for all abilities and resources, cooling tower from a pair of plantpots...et al.  It is always with great sadness to receive such ill informed comments and suggest closer reading or perhaps even an exploratory discussion next time?  Regards Paul

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi to both of you,  From your responses I can only assume you've looked at the pictures and not read the text.  It seems you both regularly read Model Rail and therefore would know that a lot of my work is  of a design nature and place great emphasis on the value of a mock-up.  I have been concerned for modellers for some time in so much as a lack of ready made hulls.  The one in the article was cheap and relatively easy to make, anything above deck was to intended to give an idea of how a finished ship might look in its various configurations, and I suspect there are few railway modellers taking Model Boats!  As far as the swing bridge is concerned Copperhouse Inlet at Hayle is very narrow and one of the photo's, not published, showed an impression of how this would look. It does work and will be including the necessary survey notes and mocked up images in a future publication.  Quantifying design is very hard to do but what I can  tell you is that both these projects took a great deal of time to work through for the intended benefit of the modelling readership.  On the question of repetition,  it would take too long to list all the cutting edge subjects I've covered, but as a taster; circular fiddle yards, magnetic bus operation, figures with magnetic bases, changing figure poses, introducing a second interest (ships, cars, film and so on), time delay circuits, how to design creative layouts for all abilities and resources, cooling tower from a pair of plantpots...et al.  It is always with great sadness to receive such ill informed comments and suggest closer reading or perhaps even an exploratory discussion next time?  Regards Paul

Thank you for the coolness of your response, Paul. I would have thought after the recent unpleasantness over my 'G6' article, and my response, that the writers might have taken the hint and reined-in their temptation to gratuitous nastiness, but not a bit of it. I'm thinking that we should withdraw from this forum. I did so once in the past but was persuaded back. If I didn't post up the contents every month, there would be nothing to prompt the spite. I've always told those who write for magazines that they are doing the modelling equivalent of sticking their head above the parapet and there will always be someone there to snipe at it. After 50+ years in the business, you get used to it but it doesn't make it any less hurtful. I wonder if these gentlemen have ever put forward any of their work for publication? (CJL)

Edited by dibber25
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hello Paul,

 

I must apologize to you for an unwarranted attack on your modelling skills. I maintain that the photos weren't very helpful, but otherwise I was way out of order so I shall hide my posting, although it will remain in your response. I hope that not too many people will have seen my comments, or that they won't be influenced by them if they have.

Thank you for the efforts that you and your colleagues put into producing the magazine. I shall in future be better mannered and more thoughtful in any comments I make.

Regards

Phil Sutters

Edited by phil_sutters
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I much preferred the older Model Rail articles where a 'general guide' on something is given and shown in lots of different circumstances (e.g showing how to strip paint/prime a model/apply decals/sound fit and which methods to use in different cases).

 

I am not a fan of articles which are written by someone who is doing something for the first time and writing about their experience (going DCC, building a layout). I would much rather read something written by someone who has a thorough understanding of a topic or skill (e.g George Dent on Airbrushing).

 

One thing Model Rail has always been great at is inspiration and layout plans. I want to build the subject of Model Rail's 'Masterplan' almost monthly and these articles are always well researched and a pleasure to read with well drawn plans to suit everyone.

 

For this reason I continue to enjoy my Subscription

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paul,

 

I must apologize to you for an unwarranted attack on your modelling skills. I maintain that the photos weren't very helpful, but otherwise I was way out of order so I shall hide my posting, although it will remain in your response. I hope that not too many people will have seen my comments, or that they won't be influenced by them if they have.

Thank you for the efforts that you and your colleagues put into producing the magazine. I shall in future be better mannered and more thoughtful in any comments I make.

Regards

Phil Sutters

Hi Phil, Thank you for your heart-felt apology, it's much appreciated.  Having thought about what you said I'll put a note in on the bridge next time saying you can increase the water span by moving the pivot  point nearer to one end. In the event of undertaking such a modification you'll need to make a new circular running plate (like the real thing at Hayle) for the wheel sets to run on.  I avoided this comment first time around because it takes the project slightly beyond entry-level. Regards Paul

Edited by Dzine
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...