Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Neutral

About cp409067

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. * I have used the Greenwich couplings on the locos and stock of my "O9" layouts. Using the standard version I have fitted them by gluing AND inserting a pin through one of the holes in the shank. I note that the NEM version does not have holes in the shank. This comment is not a criticism of the NEM type. CP
  2. * As can be seen in the photographs this exhibition takes place in what is not the usual sort of venue. Indeed, I know of no other where one operates a layout (I have been an exhibitor twice) under the gaze of a full size au naturel portrait of she who described herself as "the Protestant whore". Said picture is (fourth shot above) off camera and high above to the right of self in shirtsleeves and braces. Sadly I shall not be able to attend this year as a visitor - I am booked elsewhere. CP
  3. * 20 May is a Monday! CP
  4. * I have three "O9" exhibition layouts. I require and use hands off coupling and uncoupling. I find the "OO9" type (an etch one folds up) sold by the Greenwich and District NG Society for "OO9" use excellent. Generally I only have loops on one end of stock and add a delay pin to the other. CP
  5. * Several hours ago I sent an e-mail to the club asking if the exhibition was still on and if a specific layout (which I especially want to see) was able to attend. I have had no reply. Prior to that I had repeatedly checked for info on the club web-site. http://www.altonmrg.co.uk/ However, on this I now see that there has appeared a statement that - "Despite the snow, the February Exhibition 2019 will still open as planned on Saturday morning. Although some advertised traders and layouts are now unable to attend, various traders and layouts are already set-up, with more ready to set up on Saturday morning. Don’t forget that the exhibition is open on both Saturday and Sunday, so if there are difficult road conditions early on Saturday, why not come later or on Sunday instead? Due to the conditions, the vintage bus service has been withdrawn on Saturday. It may run Sunday, dependant on road conditions." I think it would have been helpful and polite had this statement indicated the extent to which booked layouts have been/will be able to attend. As ever an important consideration in these circumstances is not just the weather conditions at the venue - but also the ability of exhibitors to attend. Potential visitors will (of course) need to consider travel from their homes. CP
  6. * Adrian [1] Thank you - I note that (as you say) the builders do indeed describe the layout as "Sm". [2] Quite why they do so is a curiosity - again as you say something to discuss with them. [3] I am left with my usual conviction that the best option is simply to state the scale of the model as a ratio. CP
  7. * May I point out what I believe to be a mistake? The CMRA layout listing (and indeed the article in the January 2019 edition of CM) contains an error. "Koningswaal, Augustus 1933 by the Modelspoorclub Maas en Waal - 1930s Dutch steam tram line in 1:64 scale 16.5mm gauge (Sm)" As the article explains the prototype inspiring the model was 3ft 6ins (1067mm) gauge, and thus the use of "S" scale on 16.5mm track is very close to being accurate. I fear that the unnecessary desire to label all railway modelling by a supposedly convenient shorthand designation (in this case the erroneous "Sm") is to blame. CP
  8. * I notice the exhibition web-site incorrectly has a heading saying that my "Pyn Valley Railway" is "O16.5". Then in smaller print it correctly says it is "O9". CP
  9. * With two and a half weeks to go a note of the attending minimum gauge layouts (alphabetical order) is as follows. "Afon Adit" ("O9") - Martin Rich "Allerdale Farm" ("O9") - Mathew Wathen "Berger Hall" (1:24) - Bill Corser "Borth, Aberdovey, and Ynylas Railway" (1:12) - Allen Law and Jez Kirkwood “Castle Works” (1:25) – Andi Nethercoat “Derwent Road” (“O9”) – Bill Floude (RM, Dec 2018) “Hook Basin” (1:25) – Richard Williams (RM, Oct 2012) “Pyn Valley Railway” (1:43.5) – Christopher Payne (RM, Nov 2018) “Scratchey Bottom Halt” (“Gn15”) – Michael Walshaw (BRM, Dec 2018) Selection of micro layouts (various) – Simon Andrews “Yellow Ridge Uranium Mine” (1:24) – Nick Wright (NG&IRMR No 102) ***** I would also draw attention to the other narrow gauge layouts that are listed here (I do not know if this list is up to date). https://www.thewarleyshow.co.uk/narrow.html CP MOMING Co-ordinator
  10. * The posting #13 above from Graham Walters commenting on my post #11 deserves a response as follows. (i) That there were only three exhibits not “connected with model railways, or railways in general” misses the point. The issue is not the number of stands but that they took up a great deal of space in the first hall. (ii) Whatever the term “Modelex” does or does not mean, on the club website - http://www.andovermodelrailwayclub.co.uk/ - it says “Modelex 2018 Model Railway Exhibition”. (iii) That there have in the past been stands not “connected with model railways, or railways in general” I am aware, indeed I was myself an exhibitor with layouts at the event in 2013 and 2014. This year the area (rather than simply the number of stands) non railway related was increased. (iv) I was not therefore criticising the “club for thinking outside the box”, but rather given the empty spaces in the rear hall observing that the proportion of non railway related exhibits was unfortunately too much of the resulting whole. (v) I think I do have an open mind, for when I began seriously exhibiting in the 1990s ideas and techniques from other modelling disciples (specifically military and maritime) had a considerable influence on what I did. (vi) I take no responsibility for what you say occurred on Saturday afternoon. I was there on Sunday, and can assure you that when I exhibit I am more than happy to engage positively and politely with members of the public. (vii) Finally to repeat what I said at the beginning and end of my previous post, I was disappointed by the exhibition and wrote “more in sorrow than in anger”. CP
  11. * I am sorry to say I was disappointed by the exhibition this year. (i) It was clear by the large gaps in the rear hall that a couple of layouts had not arrived. I appreciate that there may well have been perfectly good and understandable reasons for this. (ii) Far too much of the first hall was given over to non railway related exhibits. Is this a model railway exhibition or not? Were it not that I spent some time in interesting conversation with two exhibitors I would have very much felt that that the twenty odd miles drive each way and time spent had been a total waste. That said I really feel that next year I may well decide to give the event a miss. More in sorrow than in anger. CP
  12. * Correction - my "Pyn Valley Railway" (note the name) is "O9". CP
  13. * From the article in question - RM, October 1987, p.399. "Holkham is in north-east Norfolk situated on the coast between Wells-next-the Sea and Brancaster. ..... The model is based on the same area of Norfolk as the prototype, but with poetic licence. It is now a terminal station serving a small seaside resort situated at the end of the main line from Norwich, which is mainly single tracked. A single track branch line also runs in from Wells. ....." ***** The article comprises eight pages including two with colour photographs, and also features on the cover. CP
  14. * Back in the last century - 1992 to be precise - I began building a layout ("Portpyn") in 1:34 scale (near as damn it 9mm/ft) using 16.5mm track (scales 1ft 10ins). Whilst by no means finescale it was a very good experience and proved popular on the exhibition circuit. Later in the 1990s I built another ("St Pierre et la Rue Perrin") in the same scale/gauge combination. This too proved successful with exhibition managers and their public. The size and bulk of the models was very satisfying, especially when compared with "O16.5". I would encourage anyone tempted to work in this or a similar scale (eg. 1:35 or 1:32) to go ahead. As to what to call such work, my answer was simple - "1:34". I would suggest the assumed need for a designation like "OO9" or "O14" is a mistake. Why not simply state the scale and if anyone is interested to know more explain the actual (model) track gauge. CP
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.