Mad Carew Too

Well, like it or not, the steps in the new pictures are misaligned, and, I'm afraid, I too found the effect comic! I am sure it was a simple mistake, easily rectified, and irrelevant to whatever accuracy merits or demerits the models might have upon release, but I am bound to agree with the point that it is probably best to check these things before posting point of sale pictures intended to entice! An interesting link was posted to a critique on the Model rail forum. I followed it. I note the author has been "rubbished" as a result, but I also note that, if you strip away his negative tone, a number of accuracy points are raised. These may or may not hold water, and they may or may not have been amended by Graham Muz and his team in the intervening period. What I don't think does us credit is to discredit the points raised by attacking the man who posted them, instead of having an answer to these points. It is really not good enough, I feel, to dismiss every query or concern over accuracy as negative whinging, rather than deal with the points, and, here, I fear that distrust of Mr Swain's motives has led people to dismiss his points out of hand. They may, or may not, have some merit. Again, and we had all this over Oxford's Dean Goods, people need to be a bit more honest. It seems odd, to me, that there should be so much resistance to feedback that is concerned with ensuring that a RTR release is as accurate as it reasonably can be, and that avoidable and unnecessary mistakes are avoided. Logically, it seems to me, that to object to such feedback, one must be of the view that "wow, that's so pretty, and, if it's pretty enough, the accuracy can hang!". Well, that is certainly a point of view, and I respect that. What I don't see is much respect for the view that holds "hang on, chaps, if we could just avoid this inaccuracy or that, this good model could be a great one". Sadly, I don't see much respect on RMWeb for the people who hold that view, either. Not for the first time I express the wish that temperatures do not rise.

Great work on those country folk. Nicely toned, showing that less is more where colour is concerned. Pondering on your Indian sowars. I don't know the regiment concerned, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the artist of the Camp advert had taken inspiration fro this picture, which, I believe shows troops in the earlier - Tell El Kebir - campaign of 1882 against the Egyptians, which you mention.

Of course, this gets me thinking of how cavalry was conveyed by Indian Broad Gauge. Fascinating stuff!

Indeed fascinating stuff. I note the similarity between the German coach at Usambara and the British Ugandan railway coaches to the turn of the century Indian stock I have been looking at, though quit a difference in gauge. Great work on the WN 4-wheelers.

Whereas, I would never go into business with anyone who refused to enter into a shareholder agreement! Lawyers are a symptom of human nature, not the cause of the problems. In my experience very often the sensible and mature arrangements lawyers pen can avoid conflict, bullying or exploitation. Good governance and a proper basis of agreement is not a sign of weakness or symptom of failure.

At the moment I am simply wishing that the GW Toad will be accurate and issue free to an extent yet to be achieved with Oxford's steam-age releases. If they get that right, and I hope they will, then I might trust them with my hopes and dreams!

I think we have to accept that "Victoria" is pure, improbable, fiction. The more I look into this, the more improbable the whole film becomes. Yes, a major and widespread tribal rising is a possible scenario, it happened in 1897, but it is the block houses and frontier forts in the passes that were attacked. The idea that a major garrison town, set back some distance from the frontier, would be attacked is improbable. Some tribal cavalry made a demonstration before the walls of one such town in 1897, but were promptly chased off. Although narrow gauge railways were built after the last major tribal conflagration, to aid communication with some of the frontier posts, nothing like the Haserabad set up in the film, notionally part of the NWR's Broad Gauge network, was seen within Jezail range of the frontier. Given that, I am thinking of a garrison town setting that is not the end of the line, as Haserabad was in the film, but some distance away. I see it as somewhat like Quetta, perhaps with elements of Kohat and other garrison towns. If possible, and space permits, my "Haserabad" would be the centre of a highly fictionalised NWF scenario, which compresses 100s of miles to present the journey from the frontier to rather less potentially turbulent lands. In one direction the double-track line climbs from Haserabad to a fortified tunnel, the other side of which is a ravine, with blockhouse, leading to the fortified terminal station. The inspiration is the Bolan Pass. Ideally I would have a station, based on Shela Bagh hard by the grand southern portal, based on the Khojak Tunnel. On the other side the ravine would lead to the terminal station, on the Afghan border. This would be something like Sanzal/Chaman, with a prominent blockhouse. In the other direction, the line travels across the great Indus River via a version of Attock Bridge. As if all this was not (over) ambitious enough, an alternative, single-track, route to Haserabad from the south would be provided, dramatically blast into the cliffs and crossing a ravine, like Chappa Rift. So the next challenge would be condensing this into a practical plan, without axing too much along the way....

They turned out well. Very subtle. Where are you going to put them?

Challenge accepted! Off to put my Scotch and Rye down and lie down ... see you on the permanent way!

Thank you for showing interest in this stalled project, and for those words of advice and encouragement; both are very important to me. I think you are quite right in everything you say and I feel quite inspired having read it. Merry Christmas!

Nah, that's not trolling. That's trolling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc The 14XX, good though I am sure it is, has stuttered into life with a couple of issues. Fair enough to hope the vastly more complex King will have a smoother ride and be a better product, and not be abandoned in the attempt. It does, after all, have to top an excellent Hornby version, and that is quite a hill to climb. I would be amazed if there have not been some concerns or even second thoughts along the way. But there we are. The only "issue" I can see is the discourtesy repeatedly extended to anyone who makes constructive criticism of a large manufacturer's or retailer's product. I would hate to see a grumpy but vocal minority drive this site from a credible source of prototype information and useful assessment of RTR output to a vapid shop window. It seems to me that there are clearly certain people who now are 'gunning' for Edwardian and will leap on pretty much everything he posts, and, frankly, I question the tone from the top on that score. We all make the odd ill-judged comment, but generally his posts appear to be measured, constructive and well-informed, or, acknowledge the limits of his knowledge. He has consistently posted from a pro-manufacturer standpoint, too. I admire him for sticking to his principles in the face of some pretty unattractive behaviour and trying to bring informed debate to RTR topics. I know that helps me. I also know of a number of people who are reluctant to contribute such information or constructive criticism because they know they will get shouted down, and a number who have simply moved on because of it. I think the site is/will be the poorer for this, and I dislike the site operates to impose conformity on some issues. There, that's enough of this. Things seem to have been patched up for now, and that is good. It is, after all, the season of peace and goodwill. I hope people resist the temptation to put down fellows members when the New Year rolls round. Grown men have better things to do than argue about trains! One of the things that attracted me to RMWeb is that it was a friendly site. Let's not lose that or see it qualified as friendly only to those who toe the line, whatever the line is. So I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And remember ... none of this is really worth losing our tempers over ..... Best wishes to all.

Thank you! I, too, feel much more comfortable modelling in 4mm. S is a 3/16th to 1 foot. This is a little shy of 5mm to 1 foot. I suspect that will be too large for most nominally 1/72nd figures. The S Gauge Society suggests that 28mm wargames figures are suitable (http://www.s-scale.org.uk/figures.htm). If so, these will be very noticeably bigger than 1/72nd. This is a minefield, however, as the nominal scale expressed in millimetres (which refers to the distance from the sole of the foot to the eyes, and not to the overall height of the figure) can be misleading as there is plenty of "scale creep" in the wargames world. For 4mm, quite a few nominally 1/76 figures are too tall. Edwardian explored this at some point on his Castle Aching topic, comparing Mike Pett figures with Dapol and Staddens,the latter being scrupulously to scale. Some nominally 1/72 figures can be more like 1/76, e.g. some of the older Airfix military figure sets, though the trend is towards being taller than the nominal scale. Where does that leave us? Well I am pretty relaxed at the prospect of using 1/72nd figures for 4mm. For the military side of the North West Frontier, I would be cautious about the Red Box, as their colonial era figures are very crude. For Pathan tribesmen, the best set is the Esci 'Muslim Warriors', though I think they are out of production and most of the set are for the Sudan! For British and Indian Army, I would recommend HaT Industrie figures. Though they don't do any British Infantry, the majority of infantry in any formation were Indian. Edwardian and I have both swapped heads with the WW1 Indian infantry, which, are another option for the 1900s, and, again, in his Castle Aching topic, he posted comparison shots including the HaT WW1 figures. I think he posted a comparison shot of one of these 1/72 plastic figures with Stadden's 1/76 Edwardian civilians, which might be a useful comparison for you?. For 1/72 wargames figures, see http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/PeriodList.aspx?period=34 and http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=2015 I am inclining to a mini-project in 4mm, based on metre gauge in Rajasthan, rather than NWF, and using 12mm track, even though not a perfect match. I have not yet looked into narrow gauge. My main aim remains Indian Broad Gauge, but I remain daunted and short on sufficient prototype information for the period. Best of luck with your endeavours!

Well, apparently, harder than you'd think! Alternatively, leave as is and super-detail the track with Geoscenics Ash600, 200g for £10: http://www.geoscenics.co.uk/railway.html

Well, it is a pity that Fat Lieutenant's style might have detracted from his message, because, I, too, thought they were reasonable points. There is no need to inflame the highly inflammable "pro" lobby, not least because the cold water buckets seldom seem to be emptied in their direction. Really, Season of Good Will, guys. I gather that these are the production models, so, much as I am surprised to find that the production model omits the ash-pan and has those untidy hand-rails, it seems that it is what it is. As Andy Y and Edwardian said, people will or will not buy this model, no doubt having considered their needs and the various pros and cons of the finished product. What I find disappointing is the militant tendency to rubbish the quite sensible queries raised about the model; reasoned critique should not cause others to kick off. As tomparryharry said "Kicking off on here makes us look like a bunch of yokels". So, it is what it is. Buy or don't buy. But, let's not be rude to one another about it.

Fair enough points, and important to make them. Generally, yes, one would respect the decision. I wonder, though, because Hattons evidently felt that models in the 1932-1934 and 1935-1942 liveries would sell. It is the suspicion that they may have calculated that enough sales to pre-war orientated modellers would nevertheless ensue, either through ignorance or deliberate compromise blindness on behalf of modellers (not that I would criticise any modeller's decision to buy one and run on a pre-war layout, it's a personal choice). A 517 would be lovely!