Jump to content

highpeak

Members
  • Content Count

    890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

438 Good

Profile Information

  • Location
    Connecticut, USA
  • Interests
    Railways in the Peak District of Derbyshire and Northern New England. North Western Road Car buses. Coaching and refereeing football.
  1. I've read some ill-informed rubbish on this site but this thread has to rank up there with the best. Keep it up chaps.
  2. There's the difference between "corrective" and "preventive". You can really confuse people when you ask for a pencil with one on the end. And we had perhaps better not explore the difference in the slang meaning of the name of a lady associated with gaslight.
  3. A tipple here refers to a preferred beverage, typically some sort of alcohol.
  4. We'll sit and wait for the flood of pictures showing OO-P compliant stock running on layouts then alongside HO stuff. Any compromises in the track will be ignored because compromises are OK if they suit Andy's purpose. BTW, Joe Fugate's "self-promoting" article? Bit rich that, coming from you. I did see though that you credit him with the idea on your website for the kit of parts you sell to use CV track bases as a jig. Very generous of you.
  5. You have quite a habit of drawing false conclusions from posts with which you disagree. I did not say British OO gauge as a whole concept was BS. I said your proposal to adopt the P4 standard for wheels while retaining the compromised gauge standard and then to run the "improved" British-prototype models on track that would presumably not resemble any kind of British track was BS. There's quite a difference there which you choose to ignore. In other threads liberally scattered on the site (mostly in North American and Handbuilt track) you have been adamant that track deserves to be modeled accurately regardless of any other criteria, yet in this thread you don't seem to care what the track looks like as long as the models can negotiate it. For instance, you've lambasted Joe Fugate's method of turnout construction because it involves compromises that to you are not acceptable (post 11 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94425-a-different-idea-for-a-switching-layout/). What you are now promoting would appear to involve similar compromises at least in respect of some of the locomotives and rolling stock that would be operated over it, which is why I think most people are not accepting the idea.
  6. I think a fairly large percentage of the 3,321 views (at the time of posting) of this thread are from people bemused at the concept of marrying a scale 4mm wheel profile with a scale 3.5mm track gauge. There have been a couple of posts, one of them mine, noting that the slimmer wheel tread would look odd when set to 16.5mm track back to back in a 4mm scale bogie, but nowhere near as odd as British rolling stock running on presumably US track. You have in other places gone to great lengths to propose that track be modeled as accurately as the rolling stock, and yet in this thread you throw all that out the window in support of a completely bastardized track standard. Which leads me to agree entirely with Gordon. I would in fact go further and state that you are taking BS to new levels, and I don't mean British Standards either.
  7. I think if you put a P4 wheel set in most commercial 4mm or 3.5mm truck frames and set the wheel set to 16.5 gauge it would look a little odd because the eye would register (from the 3/4 view) a noticeable gap between the face of the wheel and the frame that isn't there when the wheel is over scale and set to a narrower gauge or when the scale wheel is set to a scale gauge. The same thing would happen with HO scale steam engines. The compromise in HO is in the engine, not the track. I have a 2-8-2 freight engine that looks reasonable enough until you measure it and discover that the engine is a scale one foot too wide over the cylinders. If you reduce the wheels to a thinner scale tread size, I would imagine it will look a bit silly because the compromise in the width of the engine will suddenly be very visible, whereas the eye is fooled a bit by the over scale wheels.
  8. I am not normally a big fan of FSM kits as they always look too busy if built as depicted in the adverts, Bar Mills fall into the same trap and end up as caricatures. Here I think you have struck an excellent line between detail and fussiness, good rendition of an engine house that has work to do but doesn't look like somebody dumped parts and tools all over the place or never swept the floor in years.
  9. I would imagine for your prototype/period rail would typically be in 39ft. lengths. Earlier periods had used 30 and then 33ft lengths, some roads had used longer rails but discovered handling could be a problem when a lot of track maintenance required manual labor. The Norfolk and Western was starting to use continuous welded rail in the 1950s, see http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1950/09/03/page/48/article/the-welded-rail Rails worn at the ends could be cropped to remove the wear typical at joints, so you might find shorter lengths especially on secondary lines. Source: NMRA reprint of Railway Track and Maintenance manual from the late 1920s, and the Chicago Tribune article, which I thought displayed a reasonably technical grasp of the topic. There are a number of sources for joint bars including Andy Reichert's Proto 87 stores and Details West. Central Valley makes some nice parts for adding detail to turnouts. A little work allied with observations from period photographs can go a long way to improving RTR track.
  10. I don't like the graffiti scene but that is an extremely well-executed rendition. I hope the "artist" doesn't come after you seeking royalties or something.
  11. A benefit of being an old f*rt is a long memory and, if you are lucky, some useful back issues of railway magazines. Now I think my googling skills are good enough to identify Mr. Angry, and my magazine collection happens to include a 1993 Railway Modeller where this gentleman described a railway layout built for exhibition where he admits that half the stock was out of the box. Some of the rest simply received a swipe of a paintbrush to weather it. I will credit him with having made some progress in the intervening years, but he really should pause a moment to see where he came from before launching forth on a tirade aimed at those who buy RTR products. His literary style at the time is perhaps described as "cringeworthy", the progress of time has moved him on to "abrasive and rude".
  12. It really isn't that difficult and shouldn't have anything to do with what you might have paid for. I support a time and attendance system. The company I work for has plants across the United States. Every clock we have is defined with its UTC offset. The server is defined with its UTC offset. We are able to determine exactly when somebody punched in or out. The system can also deal with cell phone usage for punching in and out and has both geo-sensing (we know where you were when you punched) and geo-fencing (you can't punch if you aren't where we want you to be) capabilities. Quite why this would be a problem with phone calls escapes me.
  13. I wish I had understood this a few years ago. Still, I suppose it was good practice and useful experience in the long run.
  14. I think you have to be deliberately obtuse to fail to see the point Martin is making. If I took a stick and dipped it in a bucket of track grease, which end are you going to grab hold of? It's about as obvious.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.