Huw Griffiths

I've never been to the NEWGOG show - well, to be honest, I've never been inside the Lysaght, either. What's this show normally like - much in the way of layouts - trade support - demonstrators - that sort of stuff?

I couldn't agree more. This site has always been an excelllent resource - and 10 years is something of an achievement. I agree completely about some of the "politics" on certain other forum sites. I'm still a member (albeit, effectively, in name only) on one of the sites in question - a UK site where, amongst the rubbish, they also have some useful stuff and some decent members. I still look there very occasionally - but have never really felt at home there. I don't think I'm alone in my experiences of the site in question. Last year, I was on a shuttle bus, returning from a show - and some RMweb members were chatting about forum sites in general. One guy commented about a site - which he branded as "NOT RMweb.co.uk" - a USP which probably only really appeals to individuals who've been shown the door here. He went on to say that a lot of people had joined the site in question - quickly become disillusioned with the openly hostile atmosphere and all the "pleasantries" there - and returned here, saying that they "had friends on RMweb". I know the feeling - except that I never left RMweb - and I have no intention of doing so. Since I have no wish to "rock the boat", I'm not about to name names - but I know such nonsense does go on in a number of places. While on the subject of "pleasantries" elsewhere on the web, they were actually among the triggers which led to me finding and joining RMweb (and, at the same time, FreeRails {a US site} - I still enjoy the privilege of being on both these sites): I was looking to find some model railway related information, for a planned personal project. Web searches for information and pictures threw up interesting links to both of these sites. I had already been on some Yahoo groups - some of which were (and still are) well run. However, I had become increasingly frustrated by threads on certain groups being overrun with waffle - discussions going off on (sometimes very) odd tangents - ad hominem attacks - and ineffective, biased or non existent moderation. About the same time, I was visiting a local model railway show - and got chatting to one, thoroughly decent, guy who was exhibiting a layout. I found out that he was (and still is) a member of RMweb - and decided that if he was, in any way, typical of the members here, I really wished to join ASAP. This was a bit of an issue at the time, because the site was down for a few days. By the time the site went back up, I'd become aware of another trigger - which, for me, was effectively the "tipping point". The final trigger was one individual who'd just been "invited to leave" this site. I won't go into the reasons for this - or who the individual is - but they were whingeing on a number of other forum sites - and their own personal website - about how "hard done by" they felt. It quickly became apparent to me that Andy had been more than justified in showing this individual the door. I liked the fact that he was prepared to take effective action against trouble makers. As far as I'm concerned, a site (such as RMweb) where trouble makers get stopped in their tracks is the sort of site I wish to be a member of. At this point, I think I should stress that, I'm actually a member of a number of forum sites. A lot of them are well run - run by decent people, whom I've got time for - and a privilege to be involved with - even if I only visit some of them when I'm trying to find out something specific to their subject "areas". They are not the target of my criticism. Unfortunately, there are also a minority of sites where ad hominem attacks against sites like this (and the people running them) are not only tolerated but actively encouraged. We all know such nonsense goes on routinely on some rogue sites - it doesn't go on here. If it even starts, Andy and the mods are ready to deal with the individuals responsible - and that's one of the things that make this site a safe, welcoming, environment. Another thing I really like here is the way in which, if people have questions, they also get answers - useful, helpful, answers - offered in a pleasant, non judgmental, way. People here seem willing to help - and supportive of other people here - which says a lot about most of the members here. It also says a lot about this site - and all the people who run it - that this sort of mindset has always been actively encouraged here. RMweb has always been a well run virtual club - and an excellent resource. I'm glad that, 10 years ago, Andy had the vision to set this site up. I'm glad that he's also had the tenacity to keep it going for this time. I hope this site continues - not just to survive - but also to grow and thrive. Well done, Andy - thanks for everything over the last 10 years - here's to the future. All the best, Huw.

On a slightly less cynical note than my previous suggestions: Rule 13: If you're modifying RTR models or kits, you can almost guarantee that some parts (or bit of them) will get damaged - enough to make them unusable in the build. Eg If you need to "cut & shut" coaches or DMUs - and cut along the edges of windows or doors - you'll lose some material from the waste side of the cut - if you are actually able to reuse this piece elsewhere, you'll first need to add extra bits of material to rebuild the edge - it might be better just to cut this section back to something you can use elsewhere! Rule 14: A number of the pieces you discard as a result of such damage might turn out to have other uses (possibly even unexpected uses). Taking the cut & shut coaches in the previous paragraph as an example, you might find that discarded bodyshell, side, or end, sections turn out to be useful as jigs for working out the dimensions of (and positions of cutouts in) new interiors to fit into the coaches you're working on. Huw.

Yup.

Rule 9: If you really - really - want a model of some unusual prototype, then you'll have to build it yourself. Rule 10: If you are forced down the road of building your own loco / rolling stock / multiple unit, you'll find that decent drawings - and most of the parts you need - are next to impossible to find (and prohibitively expensive if you do manage to find them) - and none of the parts fit together properly. Rule 11: If / when you finally finish your build, you'll find a well known RTR manufacturer offering a more accurate version of the same model at about a tenth of what it cost you to build your version. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that said RTR model will actually have been supplied to any shops ... . Rule 12: Who said there only had to be 10 of these rules? Huw.

Don't tell me - the match is a "friendly". Huw.

Modelling? What's that? Wait a second - I think it involves buiding something - an alien concept for some of us. No - I don't think it will ever catch on ... . Huw.

Very important skill this electronics soldering - as I know only too well (but then I would say that - I've been into electronics for most of my life - and it was a key skill in a former job). No - keep those things for preparing stuff to be soldered together - far better than fibreglass scratch brushes - if they rub their faces after using one of those things, they might well be scarred. Joking aside, it's just as well model railway shows don't include demos on this subject - some of us could send just about anyone off to sleep in next to no time. Anyway, returning to the original topic of this thread, a number of people seem to have disappeared from this site in recent months - I just hope there's nothing wrong. Huw.

I agree - the site is well worth a look (as are the US forum sites linked to on his site). Over the years, Harold Minkwitz has posted a lot of fascinating stuff about modelling in a couple of "narrow gauge" scales - which often seem to involve the use of modified RTR and kits, originally sold for use in other scales, generally running on HO track modified to look "narrow gauge". His favoured scales seem to be On30 (which probably needs no introduction here) - and what he refers to as 55n3 (1:55 - or about 5.5mm / foot - prototype track gauge of 3 feet). His site includes links to 2 well known US forum sites, both of which include rather good On30 sections - Railroad Line and FreeRails (there's a lot of good stuff on both sites - which can be viewed without needing to register). Both of these forum sites include a lot of (usually relatively cheap) HO RTR mechanisms being hacked about and fitted with new bodies - sometimes scratchbuilt - sometimes kits - stuff intended for one scale being adapted to another scale seems a lot more commonplace than it might be on here. (Military vehicle kits often seem to feature as donors for these conversions - a number of which can only be described as amazing.) At this point, I should probably mention that I've actually been a member of both sites for a number of years (only posted a few times on Railroad Line - much more active on FreeRails, which I joined about the same time as I joined RMweb - but I haven't been very active on either recently, due to other commitments). Returning to your layout, I like the idea of effectively splitting one layout into 2 sides, based on different countries, eras etc. This trick has actually been tried elsewhere (I can remember a coffee table tram layout in a Model Railroader layouts "special" - OK, rather a large, homebrew, coffee table - split into 4 sections, to represent different seasons). This approach to layout building allows you to run different stock on the track at different times - giving you 2 completely different layouts in the space of 1 - with either half using the other as a fiddle yard - very clever and (if well executed) very effective. Needless to say, I'll be following this with interest. Regards, Huw.

"Never mind how much effort goes in to a layouts scenery, if there isn't a train operating then visitors won't hang around. Some will only pause to make their exasperation clear to everyone within a 40 foot radius before moving on." Only 40 feet? No chance. We're not that tolerant - more like 40 metres, if you ask me!! Oh - and, by the way, we also want 2 trains passing each other - NOW - in plain view - and in opposite directions - or it's not a proper layout!!! "As any layout owner will tell you, operating at a show is very different to operating at home. The model has to work for 8 hours a day without pause. If a loco fails, you really need something to replace it with straight away or the crowd gets restless. Poking around and fixing things isn't an option

I saw "Owen's Bridge" at "Warley" on Saturday - it looked good - and it also seemed to run fine when I was there. Your idea of having a second Simplex makes sense - as it provides an insurance policy.

I'm not convinced about a rotating magnet - as I'm not sure it would be needed. My suspicion is that the couplings probably contain a bar magnet - but it's probably mounted sideways, the same way round on every coupling. I don't know which way round the magnet is (though it would probably be possible to check, using a magnetic compass). However, just to illustrate what I mean, let's say each coupling has its magnet's North pole on the left - and South on the right, as you look at the end (like in your photo of a loco) - something like this: ******************************** ******************************** ********************************** N * * S N * * S N * * S **** LOCO **** **** WAGON **** **** WAGON **** S * * N S * * N S * * N ******************************** ********************************* *********************************** The first wagon you pick up has its couplers with their magnets arranged the same way round - so, when you couple the loco and wagon together, a North on the loco faces a South on the wagon - and a South on the loco faces a North on the wagon. The couplings at the other ends of the loco - and the wagon (and any other wagons in the set, for that matter) are all the same - and they all work together in the same way. Obviously, the poles on the coupling magnets might be the other way round - as long as they're all the same as each other, it doesn't matter. As for the rattling noise, it could just be that the magnets are slightly smaller than the space they fit into - so they rattle about slightly. Whatever's going on inside - and whatever's fitted inside them - you can be certain that there's nothing complicated. Let's face it - they're toys - they need to be cheap to make - and they need to be robust. The most effective way of achieving this is to keep everything as simple as possible. Huw.

Do you have any old O-16.5 or On30 locos or stock kicking around - perhaps "Harlech Castle", or something similar?

I also like the "driver's eye" view offered to passengers - something which BR unfortunately forgot when they built the Pacers, Sprinters and Turbo units. It doesn't matter whether I'm travelling on a train or a bus - I always like to be able to see where I'm going.

The railbus sounds like quite a good reason to me. Let's face it - it's not a Pacer, is it?

Howard, Many thanks for your kind remarks. With regard to my kit, I actually intended to bring it with me - to the model tram show and to RMweb Live - to assist with questions / explanations. For various reasons, this didn't work out on either day. I'm afraid the photos of my kit might be a short while coming - if only because I need to charge up the batteries on the camera. While I think of it, there's also the little matter of working out how to post photos from it - so I'll try to work that one through, even if it involves further delay. If nothing else, this should provide me with an excuse to post photos in the "test" section of this website - I just can't say when this will happen. I know - "excuses ... excuses ..." - it's just that these ones happen to be true. In the meantime, I'll try to describe what I think the score is: Photos will follow, in due course - but I know that Ian Fisher posted a picture of one of these kits, at a slightly later stage of the build sequence: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/71887-mark-hughes-wm-metrolink-tram-kits/ In Ian's photo, you might notice some raised strips, at the top and bottom of the centre door - one end of these strips doubles as the lugs holding the bodyshell sections together prior to soldering (or, more likely in my case, Aralditing). You might also notice a bodyside half section - visible behind the assembled section and in front of the tin of paint. One thing that complicates these kits is the fact that these sections need to be trimmed before assembly - for length - and so the lugs can be fitted to the corresponding slots on another section. This wouldn't be too much of a problem - were it not for the fact that both sides of the join need to be trimmed very aggressively - and I found out that it's easy to go too far with the file. This resulted in some rather fragile areas, by the joins. At this point, I was unsure how to rescue the situation - so I decided to put the kit to one side - then think about it - and ask questions at shows, where a number of viable sounding suggestions have been made on how to proceed. When I finally get the courage to continue with the build, I'm sure the first step will involve some rather careful cleaning of the pieces. I suspect that I'm most likely to follow this by adding a strip of brass shim behind where the pieces need to be joined - then fix the pieces onto this. I might also use some scraps of PCB material - with the copper cladding removed - as packing, while I fix the sides together. I'm not sure about this one, though - I suspect it would be more useful with soldering than with glue assembly. If I opt for Araldite, this might allow me to use Sellotape, or insulating tape, for holding things together during assembly - something I've got plenty of experience of through a previous job (which involved installing strain gauges - loads of the things.) As for the choice of solder or glue, I'm not really sure. A lot of people swear by soldering - and point out that it can give strong joints. However, I've never had much luck with soldering whitemetal - and I've also heard some horror stories about some of the large bodyside sections on these kits sucking heat out of joints - so Araldite is starting to look very tempting. Time will tell. However, my kit wasn't really at the centre of my thoughts when I mentioned the "kit rescue" concept. Although I'm obviously grateful for any ideas etc with my kit, I was actually thinking more about model railway kits in general - many of which are built in similar ways. After all, I'm sure that other people - building models of completely different prototypes - must have encountered weak panel joints. They've probably also had some bother soldering whitemetal. A lot of people have posted comments on sites like this - or asked questions at shows - asking how to deal with various problems they've encountered with their kits. These kits seem to be of a wide range of prototypes - but many of the problems seem to recur with many of them - and I was wondering if there might be some way of showing us how to deal with some of the more frequent problems. Anyway, until I can get the camera up and running - and, more importantly, I can work out how to use it, I'm afraid my photos will need to wait. Edit: Since posting the above comments, I've had chance to take some photos of my kit - and post them in the "test" section of this site. I've also taken the chance to "tidy up" some of my comments - in an effort to clarify what I was trying to say - whilst trying not to alter the basic message. I think it's just as well that, to date, I've made no attempt to solder together the sides of my articulated tram kit - I'm just not convinced that I would have done a very good job of it. (I won't bore you with my reasons for saying this.) There's also the issue of how aggressively the sides on my kit need to be trimmed above the windows - to allow the lugs above them to fit. My photos show that there isn't much "stock" left above the windows - which creates the risks of window frames getting melted, or detail getting smothered by molten low melt solder when doing the joints. For these reasons, I very much doubt if I'll be fixing these parts together using low melt solder - I suspect that metal loaded epoxy adhesive (with metal epoxy filler, if needed) would be less likely to damage the window frames when I finally summon the courage to get on with building this kit. In all honesty, "finally" is probably the operative term - in a sense, it already is, as I actually got this kit in 1998! Since then, it's been pulled out - looked at - and then shelved - on a number of occasions. I'm sure this kit will, eventually, get built - I just don't know when, that's all! I'm sure that many of your readers have also got kits with similar histories. Although this kit's currently on the back burner, it probably won't surprise you to learn that I've got other projects on the go - experiments / proof of concepts - none of them exactly exciting. Some of these projects fall within the usual scope of this website - some of them definitely don't. However, if any of them lead anywhere, I should now be in a position to post pictures in an appropriate section of this site (and / or FreeRails - where I'm also a member) - time will tell. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing progress on your project - and other projects in BRM. Many thanks. Regards, Huw.

I'm really looking forward to the magazine articles. This model looked amazing at RMweb Live - and there's obviously been a lot of progress since. I don't know how many RMweb members would agree with my viewpoint but, if I'm reading a magazine, I find it far more interesting to see "work in progress" articles than photos of the finished model. Some people might point out that a lot more work has gone into the finished article than the part-way-there photos - and they'd be right, if everything's done to the same high standard. However, if nobody gets to see the intermediate stages, some people might be tempted to cut loads of corners, so the finished result might not be quite as good. Well, having seen this model when you were working on it, I know you weren't cutting corners. Anyway, even if a modeller were cutting corners to get a result, documenting the build process and showing what's been done (and how it's been done) might allow us to learn - what's really been done - why - how - and do the results justify the means? After all, this stuff is all part of the learning process, which is vital for any of us to be able to build better models. In a similar vein, while I was at the show, I wondered whether there might be scope for a regular "Kit Rescue" feature in BRM. On the surface, this might look like laziness - after all, I'm sure that many of us have part-built kits, which we've put to one side and forgotten about, because we encountered problems which we couldn't solve easily. Well, my suggestion wasn't about getting somebody else to build one (or more) of my obscure kits for me, with a magazine picking up the tab. The way I see it, it doesn't make a lot of odds what prototype a kit is supposed to be based on. At a couple of recent shows, I've mentioned about some Mark Hughes whitemetal kit of a Metrolink T68 articulated tram - on which I managed to damage a join between 2 side panels, when I tried to fit them together for glueing. I'm sure that loads of people might be thinking that they don't have one of these kits - they probably don't - but they might have encountered similar issues, or done something very similar, with some WM loco kit they've attempted. They might also have encountered issues when building kits of other subject - and in other materials - etched brass - resin - styrene - wood. I know that, in time, I should be able to fix my kit - I don't know exactly how - but I'm sure it will happen, eventually. If nothing else, I'm sure that a number of the helpful suggestions I've got from various people at shows will give me enough clues to point me in roughly the right direction. In other words, I'm not really talking about my kit - or any of the other stuff I've somehow managed to mangle, whilst trying to assemble or refurbish them. However, I'm sure that there must be loads of other people out there, who've made similar mistakes - I'd quite like the chance to learn from them. By now, I'm sure some people might have worked out that I used to work in a university - as a labrat - and my job involved setting up, running and supervising practical classes. I made mistakes - everyone does - thankfully, I didn't make too many and the ones I made weren't too serious. The students I supervised also made mistakes - again, nobody was killed or seriously injured - but I learnt from everyone's mistakes and I tried to ensure that my students did likewise. I also learnt from different ideas some of the students came up with - and I generally enjoyed the learning process. However, the biggest lesson I learnt was to always be ready to learn, even if some of the lessons - some of the learning opportunities - don't come from the most obvious directions. This is the real reason for my suggestion - whether it's actually workable - whether anyone wishes to pick up the idea and run with it - remains to be seen. Time will tell. Anyway, returning to your model - it looks excellent - and I'm looking forward to seeing progress on it. Regards, Huw.

A number of NGRM members are also members of RMweb - I suspect this might even include some people involved with running NGRM. As far as I'm aware, there's actually nothing scary behind their "join up question". In recent years, a number of forum sites have fallen prey to spammers and the like - so a number of sites have started asking questions like this (which real people, genuinely interested in the subject, are likely to be able to answer - or at least make a reasonable guess). Over time, some sites have also been known to change their questions - sometimes because the wrong people are getting in or getting blocked - sometimes because some questions might have more than one correct answer (or alternative spellings - eg English and Welsh versions of place names). I can't comment about the specific question any site might be using at a given time - but one thought might be to try using all upper case, all lower case, or something like that. However, I'd agree that a blog might not be the best place to ask questions about other sites - if nothing else, there's the fact that a lot of blogs don't always get seen by many people. My thoughts would also involve the "Special Interests - Narrow Gauge" - or "Media - Websites" areas of this site. Huw.

I suspect that some people here might be wishing they'd gone "mad" in that way ... . I'm not convinced that's exactly the right thing to do with Networkers - real or model. They're relatively modern - and structurally sound - probably not ready for a trip to the scrapyard quite yet ... . Huw.

I'd be surprised if the font turned out to be anything other than Akzidenz Grotesk. As already suggested, this font had already been in use for some time before the War. Some people might think this font's name sounds a bit sinister - not according to the identifont.com website: http://www.identifont.com/show?FU. It appears that "Akzidenz" means something along the lines of "trade type" (or "jobbing / general purpose typeface") - while "Grotesk" merely means that this is a "sans serif" font. As for "Helvetica", I believe it was derived from Akzidenz Grotesk some time in the 1950s - for the Haas type foundry - and originally called "Neue Haas Grotesk". I gather that Arial is later still - (1980s?) - with a number of differences from both Akzidenz Grotesk and Neue Haas Grotesk / Helvetica. Changing the subject, that museum sounds good. It could also be interesting if someone were to start a "museums worth visiting" thread somewhere on RMweb. I'd imagine that, apart from being rather good, some of the recommendations might come as surprises to some people.

...and a load of plastic, by the looks of it. Still, it's looking good for its diet. Are you planning on adding flashing LEDs to the roof, to represent the warning lights?

Following a break for food, I've had chance to think about this one from a different angle - which may, or may not, be helpful. You probably know that a lot of stuff in films and TV programmes is shot against a blank backdrop. Is there any sensible way in which something similar could be done for layout photography - perhaps by having some grey* card placed behind the layout (or section of it) - and adding the sky afterwards from a library shot? (* Other colours are available - in TV and film, I believe that blue - and green - backdrops have often been used. However, I might be wrong on this - I've never worked in these areas. I'm sure that some RMweb members would know a lot more about this than I do.) In all honesty, I'm not completely sure what I think about PhotoShop with regard to layout photography. I like things to look much like they do in real life - I'm certainly no fan of some of the obviously fake stuff I've seen in some places. However, I also can't claim to be too happy about obvious distractions in the background behind layouts - stuff like shelf fixings, mains sockets and the like. I'm not sure that it's really possible to please everyone all the time - even pleasing one person all the time isn't too easy. I guess it's a case of being sensible about it and trying to strike a balance - something which has definitely been achieved here. Huw.