BBC Four - James May's Big Trouble in Model Britain

[Chamby]

When a book has been printed, it becomes a fixed item.  Yes, errata can be acknowledged, but it is a firm reference source that cannot be changed until it may perhaps be reprinted.

 

Electronic media can be edited at any time.  Therefore, you can read it one day and it says one thing, some time later it may have been updated and it says something else.  It is therefore less permanent.

 

I used to oversee a team that produced and distributed administration guidelines for schools relating to a statutory annual activity.  Printed copies were sent out each year to every school, as a master reference source for all matters relating to administering this activity properly.  Everyone used the same, fixed reference source.  Then government policy mandated that the guidelines were delivered online.  This now meant they could be updated and corrected throughout the year by the authors, and they were.   However for the schools, it suddenly created a new dilemma....  Print a copy off yourself for reference, it could become superseded very quickly indeed.

 

That is why printed matter seems more tangible.   It is not just about having something physically in your hands... it’s because it will read the same tomorrow, as it does today.  Of course, that doesn’t make it any more prone to error, but at least it gives you a fixed reference trail that everyone can refer to!

 

Phil

[Ian J.]

6 hours ago, south_tyne said:

...I don't think it is as simple as that. I am in my early 30s and love books, real books, and steer clear of e-books to be honest. Not that I am adverse to technology at all, it's just that I like having the physical item to pour over. I am not at all as precious with music, I am happy to use digital formats; I haven't played a CD in years and all of my collection has now been packed away in the loft. I am really not a material person at all, and live quite a minimalistic and (some tell me!) simplistic lifestyle, but buying the odd reference book remains my one personal indulgence.

 

Having said that, I may use e-books in the future but I would only do it for fiction. I am a massive reader of European thrillers, borrowing from my local library, but would be tempted to do this using an e-book reader one day, if it becomes easier. Certainly my branch library already offers such a service, although I admit I haven't been tempted to use it yet. What I would miss is the opportunity to browse, spend time picking and choosing my books, based on the blurb and even frivolous things like a cover that stands out! However, I certainly wouldn't want to use one for non-fiction and reference books. I would always want to stick to the physical book. Just personal preference but I think my fiction reading is purely for entertainment and escapism, my non-fiction reading, whilst also for interest and enjoyment, is principally to learn things, so I come at it with a different approach and attitude.

 

Now I may be the exception to the rule but I don't just think it's an age thing. Granted I am probably not the same generation as your daughter, I imagine teenagers and those in their 20s have embraced this technology with far more gusto, but I will stick to real books and their wonderful, unique feel (and even smell!) for now! ...

 

I'm something of the reverse - I'm nearly fifty, yet I would prefer books to be electronic where possible, and even more so the reference works. I think experience has taught me that books are heavy (I've had to move my collection round quite a few times, and now I'm older I'm not looking forward to the next time) and they are inconvenient to do searches through to find fragments of information. Electronic books, if done well, are less heavy, obviously, but also eminently searchable. Music on the other hand I like to have a good quality source for so I don't like to only have a compressed MP3 download (although I do have those for my on-the-move listening). I would accept high definition downloads though, if they were readily available across all genres (including soundtracks which are my main 'thing'). Streaming is out of the question because the quality is the proverbial ****.

[south_tyne]

44 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

 

I'm something of the reverse - I'm nearly fifty, yet I would prefer books to be electronic where possible, and even more so the reference works. I think experience has taught me that books are heavy (I've had to move my collection round quite a few times, and now I'm older I'm not looking forward to the next time) and they are inconvenient to do searches through to find fragments of information. Electronic books, if done well, are less heavy, obviously, but also eminently searchable. Music on the other hand I like to have a good quality source for so I don't like to only have a compressed MP3 download (although I do have those for my on-the-move listening). I would accept high definition downloads though, if they were readily available across all genres (including soundtracks which are my main 'thing'). Streaming is out of the question because the quality is the proverbial ****.

 

All of which just proves that it is horses for courses and we utilise and access books, films, music, radio, television, magazines etc in the way that suits us best. The advantage of 21st life, in an affluent country such as the UK, is that we have this choice available to us. 

 

I do know what you mean about music, I am a musician myself so do understand the quality issues, I think it is just something relating to storage and space for me. Younger people don't think anything about downloading and streaming nowadays though. A young Wolves player (Morgan Gibbs-White) was on the Premier League show a couple of weeks ago and when asked the staple question of "what was the first CD you ever bought?" answered with "I've never bought one of even owned one!" A little scary but indicative of life now. Anyway, I digress......

 

I think magazines is one area where there is lots of opportunity for digital formats. How many modellers have boxes of hundreds, if not thousands, of periodicals cluttering up their homes which, to to be frank are worthless. 

 

I was recently reading an article by Marie Kondo, a lady who is a champion of de-cluttering your life and has been quite prominent in the media recently. She contests that nobody needs more than 30 books in their life. Increasingly I am thinking she may be right.

 

The way we access, use and store information is changing, but in my opinion that is only a good thing.  

Edited March 31, 2019 by south_tyne
Rubbish spelling

[jjb1970]

50 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

 

I'm something of the reverse - I'm nearly fifty, yet I would prefer books to be electronic where possible, and even more so the reference works. I think experience has taught me that books are heavy (I've had to move my collection round quite a few times, and now I'm older I'm not looking forward to the next time) and they are inconvenient to do searches through to find fragments of information. Electronic books, if done well, are less heavy, obviously, but also eminently searchable. Music on the other hand I like to have a good quality source for so I don't like to only have a compressed MP3 download (although I do have those for my on-the-move listening). I would accept high definition downloads though, if they were readily available across all genres (including soundtracks which are my main 'thing'). Streaming is out of the question because the quality is the proverbial ****.

 

I like physical books as objects and if there are photographs then these tend to work better in printed form. However for reading I prefer my e-reader. Another good thing about e-books is that if you travel a lot then you can take a library with you when travelling. 

For music all my CDs are ripped to FLAC and archived, but kept in case I need to repeat ripping them. The only optical music discs I play are blu ray multi channel ones, I am quite a fan of multi-channel music when done well. 

[adb968008]

I just thought i’d point out in the last 3 pages, until this,  the word “Hornby” has only been used 4 times in a new post, one of those was a Hornby researcher.

Edited March 31, 2019 by adb968008

[Captain Kernow]

16 minutes ago, south_tyne said:

I was recently reading an article by Marie Kondo, a lady who is a champion of de-cluttering your life and has been quite prominent in the media recently. She contests that nobody needs more than 30 books in their life.  

Yes, but which 30? Certainly every book that has ever been published on the railways of the Forest of Dean!

 

My wife had a Kindle (still got it, and it was even given to her by me!), but doesn't really use it much now and prefers to read real books.

 

I have re-read many of my novels over the years, because they are good works and I still get enjoyment from re-reading them. Plus the fact that increasingly I forget their plots, so it's almost like reading again from new!

 

I do wonder, though, if the long-term effects of staring at display screen equipment has been really, thoroughly evaluated. Most of us have probably only had computers or word processors for 30 years or so, and certainly in the early years, these would only have been used in contexts such as word processing, rather than the way that phones and tablets can dominate the lives of some young people these days.

 

[jjb1970]

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

When a book has been printed, it becomes a fixed item.  Yes, errata can be acknowledged, but it is a firm reference source that cannot be changed until it may perhaps be reprinted.

 

Electronic media can be edited at any time.  Therefore, you can read it one day and it says one thing, some time later it may have been updated and it says something else.  It is therefore less permanent.

 

I used to oversee a team that produced and distributed administration guidelines for schools relating to a statutory annual activity.  Printed copies were sent out each year to every school, as a master reference source for all matters relating to administering this activity properly.  Everyone used the same, fixed reference source.  Then government policy mandated that the guidelines were delivered online.  This now meant they could be updated and corrected throughout the year by the authors, and they were.   However for the schools, it suddenly created a new dilemma....  Print a copy off yourself for reference, it could become superseded very quickly indeed.

 

That is why printed matter seems more tangible.   It is not just about having something physically in your hands... it’s because it will read the same tomorrow, as it does today.  Of course, that doesn’t make it any more prone to error, but at least it gives you a fixed reference trail that everyone can refer to!

 

Phil

 

And yet that is a huge selling point of soft copies. I used to write classification society rules for the design and construction of ships. My bit was engines and emissions stuff. The old Lloyd's Rules in published form cost hundreds of pounds and we're obsolete almost as soon as they were published. Now I am not even sure if they sell hard copies and the soft copies are kept updated and because of the search and cross reference functions much easier to use. There are also good reasons many organisations insist on use of the controlled soft copies. 

[south_tyne]

8 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Yes, but which 30? Certainly every book that has ever been published on the railways of the Forest of Dean!

 

 

I suppose that ability to discriminate and be ruthless is the key. I totally understand what you're saying though, let's face it 30 is a pretty arbitrary number, but there is a case that sometimes quality should trump quantity. I must admit though I in no way practice what I preach.... I have far more than 30 books on my bookshelves...... I have also said that, when my dad goes for the final journey, the only thing I want to inherit is his fine collection of railway books... so ultimately I am a complete hypocrite!! 

 

13 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

 

I do wonder, though, if the long-term effects of staring at display screen equipment has been really, thoroughly evaluated

 

It is worrying. I was reading something recently about Singapore, where a staggeringly high percentage of primary school children now where glasses (something like 85% off hand). They put this down to so much time spent on mobile phones, tablets, computers etc. Let's face it, spending 9 hours a day stuck in front of a screen, as many office workers to, never mind before coming home and staring at the tablet or phone for hours, cannot be good for our eyesight. 

[jjb1970]

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

This is an excellent illustration of how sources work or can lead to problems.  On the basis of his background and training I would expect Colin Binnie to have gone to a reputable source for his information so as written I wouldn't doubt the veracity of the source quoted by 'Edwardian'.

 

But now let's compare them with the figures quoted in Brian Haresnape's 'Stroudley Locomotives' published by Ian Allan in 1985, wherein might lie an interesting tale (the drawing which is the source for these figures is for an A1X).

Length over buffers 26' 1/2"

'Maximum width of engine' 8' 3". (there is no end elevation so it might be across the footsteps at their widest point)

Height to top of chimney 11'  3/16"

 

Now to the interesting bit.  In 1937 the Railway Publishing Company published a book titled 'British Locomotive Types' Which states on the title page in respect of its contents (a selection of loco drawings) 'Compiled by THE RAILWAY GAZETTE from official drawing supplied by the Chief Mechanical Engineers of the for mainline railways'.  By 1939 the book had reached its 4th edition.  The drawings would appear to have been the work of Charles Lake who wrote the foreword as well.  So from a pedigree of a respectable, railway industry publishing house one could perhaps assume a level of accuracy particularly as the railway companies were stated to be the source of the information.

 

But note the height to top of chimney is almost 3 inches different from that quoted in the Binnie book.  And the dimensions quoted in The Railway Publishing Co. book are exactly the same as those quoted in the Ian Allan publication although for those who know that will hardly come as a surprise because that company had been taken over by Ian Allan at some time and and in fact it is the original Charles Lake drawing which appears in Haresnape's book (and in most of the others in the series he wrote which included Stroudley).  And Binnie's book is listed in the bibliography in Brian Haresnape's book.

 

I know from Brian Haresnape's daughter that Alec Swain did a lot of the technical stuff for Brian Haresnape's series although his assistance isn't acknowledged most of the time and knowing Alec - with whom I worked for some years - as a trained loco engineer he would not be one to leave stones unturned and questions unanswered.  In this case the correct answer can be easily established because there are real engines out there to measure but here we have two sources which disagree in respect of a fairly important measurement,  I wonder what it might say on any websites?  And equally I wonder which source reviewers might use to check dimensions on the models (even if it is barely 1mm in 4mm scale)?

 

Indeed, and I think that this is a much more common problem than we would like to imagine. The use of secondary sources becomes more problematic when those sources are themselves informed by secondary sources and so on. The echo chamber effect is a real issue as it can create an impression of there being an overwhelming body of evidence based on a single source which is then repeated in multiple reference books. I don't read that many railway books but I do read a lot of maritime books and am in quite a privileged position in that I can readily access a lot of original sources and archives. A few times I have identified things that didn't seem to be quite right and checked original documents. 

An area where this is painfully apparent is where writers have only ever read secondary interpretations of class rules, admiralty requirements, SOLAS etc and commit some real howlers. To me if a writer is going to write a reference work for which a basic understanding of rules and regulations is important then it does not impress if they can't make the effort to familiarise themselves with the actual rules and regulations. 

['CHARD]

I've amassed such a library of reference 'essentials' that I'm hoping to move a substantial slice to my workplace, not just for the practicality of space, but to afford colleagues the opportunity to access the industry gold within. After all, that's what the standard reference works are for (MkI and MkII bibles, Loco Allocation histories, gradient profiles, Standard BR wagons, etc etc...)

[Roddy Angus]

Is it about time to change the name of this topic?

 

Roddy

[newbryford]

47 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I just thought i’d point out in the last 3 pages, until this,  the word “Hornby” has only been used 4 times in a new post, one of those was a Hornby researcher.

 

I used the "H" word in my last post - I thought I'd got away with it...…………..

 

 

[south_tyne]

10 minutes ago, Roddy Angus said:

Is it about time to change the name of this topic?

 

Roddy

 

Or split it? It's really interesting chat but has somewhat drifted away from the original context of two hours of television about Hornby!

[The Stationmaster]

1 minute ago, south_tyne said:

 

Or split it? It's really interesting chat but has somewhat drifted away from the original context of two hours of television about Hornby!

Books last for as long as they are properluy looked after (one of the original source references on my bookshelves includes some of the costs incurred in narrowing the gauge on the GWR, another is a set of minute books which started in 1911;  another dates from the 17th century but doesn't mention railways so is less frequently consulted).  Sources on the 'net are generally there for ever (if you can find them) and as JJB has said in many cases can be continuously updated.

 

But television programmes are essentially transient.  Granted some people may record them and keep them for a long time and there are catch-up services (which often have a limited life) but for most folk they are here today and gone tomorrow and can't even be re-used to wrap chips. 

 

And RMweb threads quite often evolve and develop - like this one has.  To probably a more interesting level than some of the childish nonsense that was used to make the original subject of thos thread 'more entertaining' rather than offering real information.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Perhaps those who are strong advocates of all things internet, the disposal of hard copy bools, DVDs, etc. can explain why the acquisition of physical models such as those that created the drama in the James May programme, seem to be more popular than ever. I assume that to be the case, judging by the "frothing" that accompanies new release announcements. Then there are the critiques of new models that appear, drawing no doubt in some cases, upon dubiously sourced information in books as well as the internet. Surely, if "electronic" information is the way forward, shouldn't we be taking up "virtual"  modelling (I know that some RMweb members already have, but it isn't for me).

 

Earlier in this topic, people have talked about buying new, secondhand, recycling old models, etc. and that there seemed to be no limit to the demand at the present. Therefore ownership of physical models would appear to be on the increase and sales of RTR models seems buoyant, whether you buy them new or second hand. The former is more important to Hornby and the other new modeller suppliers. How they go about producing and promoting new models is what this is all about. But, as with peoples views on books, the internet, etc. there are many different opinions about that. 

[Pacific231G]

On 31/03/2019 at 10:33, The Stationmaster said:

Books last for as long as they are properluy looked after (one of the original source references on my bookshelves includes some of the costs incurred in narrowing the gauge on the GWR, another is a set of minute books which started in 1911;  another dates from the 17th century but doesn't mention railways so is less frequently consulted).  Sources on the 'net are generally there for ever (if you can find them) and as JJB has said in many cases can be continuously updated.

 

But television programmes are essentially transient.  Granted some people may record them and keep them for a long time and there are catch-up services (which often have a limited life) but for most folk they are here today and gone tomorrow and can't even be re-used to wrap chips. 

 

And RMweb threads quite often evolve and develop - like this one has.  To probably a more interesting level than some of the childish nonsense that was used to make the original subject of thos thread 'more entertaining' rather than offering real information.

I've spent most of my career making factual (and I believe factually accurate) television programmes some of which were watched by over a million people, yet the day I had my first article published in the FT (in a fairly obscure technology section) I was as excited as an excited person with something very exciting to be excited about.

 

The printed page does bestow a certain immortality.  Only a fraction of all the television ever made still exists in any recoverable form yet everything that gets published, even in specialist periodicals but particularly in books,  should still be in the BL in hundreds of years time.

 

Looking at our hobby, the modellers of the past who are best remembered are those who were able to write about their modelling. Most of us have heard of and probably read John Ahern, Peter Denny, John Charman,  Phillip Hancock, Frank Dyer  and others whose celebrity as modellers was well deserved but largely derived from their articles.  Outside Gauge O circles though, how many modellers now have ever heard of Bill Banwell and Frank Applegate. Yet their Maybank layout, and its appearances at all but one of the MRC Easter shows between 1933 and 1939,  introduced the modelling world to the terminus to fiddle yard layout and inspired a generation of post war modellers (including a young Cyril Freezer who described it as the first modern layout).

 

With that truly groundbreaking layout, a compact main line terminus operated to a timetable,  they probably did as much as anyone to foster the move from railway models to model railways but, because they weren't writers (I've only been able to find one short article by Bill Banwell and the major description of Maybank in MRN in 1934 was written by someone else) they've been all but forgotten. After the war they both built more conventional O gauge garden railways but in a period when O gauge had become far more of a minority interest than it is now.  The fact that Maybank was built while both were still teenagers makes it all the more remarkable.

This was Maybank at the 1937 MRC show but its first exhibition appearance had been in 1932. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Pacific231G

[Edwardian]

18 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

This is an excellent illustration of how sources work or can lead to problems.  On the basis of his background and training I would expect Colin Binnie to have gone to a reputable source for his information so as written I wouldn't doubt the veracity of the source quoted by 'Edwardian'.

 

But now let's compare them with the figures quoted in Brian Haresnape's 'Stroudley Locomotives' published by Ian Allan in 1985, wherein might lie an interesting tale (the drawing which is the source for these figures is for an A1X).

Length over buffers 26' 1/2"

'Maximum width of engine' 8' 3". (there is no end elevation so it might be across the footsteps at their widest point)

Height to top of chimney 11'  3/16"

 

Now to the interesting bit.  In 1937 the Railway Publishing Company published a book titled 'British Locomotive Types' Which states on the title page in respect of its contents (a selection of loco drawings) 'Compiled by THE RAILWAY GAZETTE from official drawing supplied by the Chief Mechanical Engineers of the for mainline railways'.  By 1939 the book had reached its 4th edition.  The drawings would appear to have been the work of Charles Lake who wrote the foreword as well.  So from a pedigree of a respectable, railway industry publishing house one could perhaps assume a level of accuracy particularly as the railway companies were stated to be the source of the information.

 

But note the height to top of chimney is almost 3 inches different from that quoted in the Binnie book.  And the dimensions quoted in The Railway Publishing Co. book are exactly the same as those quoted in the Ian Allan publication although for those who know that will hardly come as a surprise because that company had been taken over by Ian Allan at some time and and in fact it is the original Charles Lake drawing which appears in Haresnape's book (and in most of the others in the series he wrote which included Stroudley).  And Binnie's book is listed in the bibliography in Brian Haresnape's book.

 

I know from Brian Haresnape's daughter that Alec Swain did a lot of the technical stuff for Brian Haresnape's series although his assistance isn't acknowledged most of the time and knowing Alec - with whom I worked for some years - as a trained loco engineer he would not be one to leave stones unturned and questions unanswered.  In this case the correct answer can be easily established because there are real engines out there to measure but here we have two sources which disagree in respect of a fairly important measurement,  I wonder what it might say on any websites?  And equally I wonder which source reviewers might use to check dimensions on the models (even if it is barely 1mm in 4mm scale)?

 

Possibly the SR measurements reflect a Marsh chimney?

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Edwardian
spelling!

[jjb1970]

Metrology is an interesting subject in itself and a discipline which too few ever study. Certainly if comparing different measurements then you have to understand what you are trying to measure and the basis of the measurements taken. 

[The Stationmaster]

21 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Possibly the SR measurements reflect a Marsh chimney?

 

 

 

It could be.  There probably as many theories (or reasons) to explain it as there are potential reasons for there being too different measurements.  

 

And of course there is always room for typesetting errors, proof reading omissions and so on, or just plain errors (where I and CJL can in one instance in a printed magazine lay claim to almost equal guilt although the error was mine in the first place - a particular issue of Locos Illustrated).   Equally, particularly with captions, it strange how errors can slip past the most knowledgeable eyes - I picked up one when proof checking  all the captions for a Wild Swan book and it said the picture had been taken from a particular side of a bridge when it had in fact been taken from the other side.   Easy to spot the difference as there were signals on one side and none on the other - but the error in the caption had not only been missed by the author but also by the person who had taken the photo when he was checking the captions; all three of us knew the spot fairly/very well.

[jjb1970]

23 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Perhaps those who are strong advocates of all things internet, the disposal of hard copy bools, DVDs, etc. can explain why the acquisition of physical models such as those that created the drama in the James May programme, seem to be more popular than ever. I assume that to be the case, judging by the "frothing" that accompanies new release announcements. Then there are the critiques of new models that appear, drawing no doubt in some cases, upon dubiously sourced information in books as well as the internet. Surely, if "electronic" information is the way forward, shouldn't we be taking up "virtual"  modelling (I know that some RMweb members already have, but it isn't for me).

 

Earlier in this topic, people have talked about buying new, secondhand, recycling old models, etc. and that there seemed to be no limit to the demand at the present. Therefore ownership of physical models would appear to be on the increase and sales of RTR models seems buoyant, whether you buy them new or second hand. The former is more important to Hornby and the other new modeller suppliers. How they go about producing and promoting new models is what this is all about. But, as with peoples views on books, the internet, etc. there are many different opinions about that. 

 

I think it depends on whether you see books primarily as an artefact, or as an information carrier. People collect books and value them as artefacts, in which case the tangible properties of a printed book have great value. If you see books as an information carrier then the carrier format (printed book, hard bound, soft bound, electronic down load, E-book, on-line viewing etc) is less important than the information and people will value whichever carrier works best for them.

 

And of course many people value both. I collect books and have quite a large library of history and maritime books, as well as a few scientific and engineering texts, but when I want to access the information carried by books then nowadays I prefer E-books.

 

So I'm not sure the comparison with models says anything as it is very much an apples and pears comparison. And although the supply side of the hobby is fairly buoyant these days it seems to have found a new level of buoyancy based around a smaller overall market and with increasing use of pre-ordering and crowd funding to de-risk projects. A better comparison might be the music one already noted. There has been a big revival in vinyl (although as a percentage of total music sales vinyl remains a niche), people like vinyl LPs as artefacts, value the cover art, being able to hold something tangible and the whole rigmarole of playing vinyl (handling it, cleaning things, setting up arms and cartridges etc). If you just want to enjoy listening to music then digital (either as optical discs or more commonly now as files on a hard drive, streaming or such like) is a better option.

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

It could be.  There probably as many theories (or reasons) to explain it as there are potential reasons for there being too different measurements.  

 

And of course there is always room for typesetting errors, proof reading omissions and so on, or just plain errors (where I and CJL can in one instance in a printed magazine lay claim to almost equal guilt although the error was mine in the first place - a particular issue of Locos Illustrated).   Equally, particularly with captions, it strange how errors can slip past the most knowledgeable eyes - I picked up one when proof checking  all the captions for a Wild Swan book and it said the picture had been taken from a particular side of a bridge when it had in fact been taken from the other side.   Easy to spot the difference as there were signals on one side and none on the other - but the error in the caption had not only been missed by the author but also by the person who had taken the photo when he was checking the captions; all three of us knew the spot fairly/very well.

 

Binnie seems to have been pretty reliable.  I have been given to understand that he had access to GAs and took measurements from the prototype.  That seems likely as, where I have obtained measurements of the prototype, they are consistent with Binnie's drawings.

 

Less sparse than Binnie's drawings are those of No. 57 Thames by J N Maskelyne published in Locomotives I Have Known.  The drawings of  No. 63 Preston in Tom Middlemass's book look as if they might be derived from the Maskelyne drawings.  Both feature widely spaced spectacles, whereas Binnie appears to have them at the correct distance.   Ian Beattie's drawings I do not have, but have heard them criticised, too. 

 

While even Binnie is no substitute for GAs, measuring the real things and several hundred photographs, I have found his drawings and measurements to be trustworthy thus far. 

 

EDIT: PS - I spend too much of my life staring at damned screens. The last thing I'd ever want is a bloody e-book.  The chance to sit down with a real one is a welcome break!

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Edwardian
Postscript

[The Stationmaster]

5 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Binnie seems to have been pretty reliable.  I have been given to understand that he had access to GAs and took measurements from the prototype.  That seems likely as, where I have obtained measurements of the prototype, they are consistent with Binnie's drawings.

 

Less sparse than Binnie's drawings are those of No. 57 Thames by J N Maskelyne published in Locomotives I Have Known.  The drawings of  No. 63 Preston in Tom Middlemass's book look as if they might be derived from the Maskelyne drawings.  Both feature widely spaced spectacles, whereas Binnie appears to have them at the correct distance.   Ian Beattie's drawings I do not have, but have heard them criticised, too. 

 

While even Binnie is no substitute for GAs, measuring the real things and several hundred photographs, I have found his drawings and measurements to be trustworthy thus far. 

 

EDIT: PS - I spend too much of my life staring at damned screens. The last thing I'd ever want is a bloody e-book.  The chance to sit down with a real one is a welcome break!

 

 

From what I have seen of Ian Beattie's drawings I would recommend care be taken

 

And I agree absolutely regarding e-books (I have plenty of real ones) although Mrs Stationmaster dies read them as well as reading 'real books'

[Mallard60022]

Mike I do hope Mrs S is OK?

Phil

[Edwardian]

Indeed, I trust that rumours of her demise have been greatly exaggerated! 

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Mike I do hope Mrs S is OK?

Phil

 

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Indeed, I trust that rumours of her demise have been greatly exaggerated! 

Ah, well I did mention typesetting errors, I think.  But she is firing on all cylinders thanks - and don't I know it at times.