grahame Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 (edited) I received an email last week saying it was on its way and it turned up in the post today. Contents include Layout - Pen Y Bryn (OO) Layout - Porth Emmet (OO). Built from off the shelf parts by Chris Nevard for display in Kernow's new Guildford shop. Layout - Weydon Priors (OO) Modelling a garden Improving resin buildings Building a gothic structure - an impressive and interesting modelling project Airbrushing skills (part 3) Masterclass - castle steam loco Detailing a hall Masterplan - Scottish branch lines The usual round up of news, reviews, letters, etc I do tend to enjoy Model Rail with its emphasis on step-by-step 'how to' modelling projects. Just a shame about the poor quality paper. G Edited April 10, 2019 by grahame 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted April 10, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 10, 2019 Half the pages on my copy are stuck together across the top due to misaligned cutting so its barely readable without tearing it to shreds. I have emailed Model Rail to request a replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold D9020 Nimbus Posted April 11, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 11, 2019 There's an obvious blunder in the Hornby "Terrier" review where it refers to the loco derailing on "first radius points" not being surprising because it has a minimum of second radius. There is no such thing as first radius points—the "Setrack" points in OO are second radius. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said: There's an obvious blunder in the Hornby "Terrier" review where it refers to the loco derailing on "first radius points" not being surprising because it has a minimum of second radius. There is no such thing as first radius points—the "Setrack" points in OO are second radius. Perhaps the loco was being tested on Triang Series 3 track? If it'll get over those frogs, it'll get over anything modern! Exit stage left, pursued by a Terrier..... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tetsudofan Posted April 11, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 11, 2019 Agree completely with what Grahame about the poor quality paper used for the magazine. Have mentioned it to the renewals people every time I speak to them but nothing changes. Have gone "gold" here so will be able to look at the digital copies of BRM as part of the package. Have not looked at any digital magazines before so if I decide that I can live with digital maybe I'll drop MR and look at digital BRM instead. It'll be a pity as I've been with MR since it started when they used proper paper for the magazine. Keith 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravensdmufan Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 16 hours ago, John M Upton said: Half the pages on my copy are stuck together across the top due to misaligned cutting so its barely readable without tearing it to shreds. I have emailed Model Rail to request a replacement. I also got bad quality paper .... again. And worse it gets. From such a large publisher (Bauer Media have over 600 magazine titles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauer_Media_Group ) with their buying power, it should be a lot better. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redkiterail Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 the problem is model rail is in the same grouping as weekly magazines with the same paper supply if we can convince the mangers to put model rail with the automotive titles which have better paper quality Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted April 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 11, 2019 Model Rail just confirmed a fresh copy is in the post to me now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravensdmufan Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Redkiterail said: the problem is model rail is in the same grouping as weekly magazines with the same paper supply if we can convince the mangers to put model rail with the automotive titles which have better paper quality Yes, that is definitely what it deserves. To have it printed on the same paper as weekly "throw-aways" doesn't make sense. I used to keep all my Models Rails from No.1 in 1998, but don't bother now because the paper got so bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 It's something that Steam Railway sufferers with as well unfortunately. Jason 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrus Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 Sorry to take a different view but I don't have a problem with the paper quality! If you save the magazines then they take up less space and doesn't it help to save the planet by needing fewer trees and less fuel for transporting copies to retail outlets? I know digital copy is even more environmentally friendly but I prefer paper - even the thin stuff. The only downside I'm aware of is if you want to rip out pages to keep individual articles. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted April 13, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 13, 2019 Well done to Model Rail. My replacement copy arrived yesterday so now I can happily read the other half! Just as well, good issue I think. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butler Henderson Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 On 11/04/2019 at 15:02, D9020 Nimbus said: There's an obvious blunder in the Hornby "Terrier" review where it refers to the loco derailing on "first radius points" not being surprising because it has a minimum of second radius. There is no such thing as first radius points—the "Setrack" points in OO are second radius. The same error appears in the review on the Warship which states "although intended for Radius 2 curves and larger, it passed over several small radius points without incident". Would disagree with the "top tip" on page 44 - IMO card buildings always stand out as being not quite right when mixed in with plastic and resin ones Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 I will check when I'm next in the office (I'm currently off sick) . I was under the impression that the test track included the sharpest available radii. Personally, I wouldn't operate a large locomotive like the Warship over Setrack curves and points but I still consider my comment that it negotiates them successfully, to be valid. I've watched a few models that are intended for Setrack use come to grief on them. (CJL) 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted April 13, 2019 Author Share Posted April 13, 2019 7 hours ago, Butler Henderson said: Would disagree with the "top tip" on page 44 - IMO card buildings always stand out as being not quite right when mixed in with plastic and resin ones I disagree with that and think the tip is valid. It all depends on finishing. With a consistant level of finishing (detailing, paint effect, colour, weathering, etc) card and plastic buildings can live happily side by side on a layout. G 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted April 24, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 24, 2019 On 13/04/2019 at 10:59, John M Upton said: Well done to Model Rail. My replacement copy arrived yesterday so now I can happily read the other half! Just as well, good issue I think. Okay, this is odd. Another copy just turned up, delivered by Whistl this time. So now I have two good ones plus the original dud. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cary hill Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 Model Rail strikes again - I only bought this issue because, on flicking through, I saw the article on "correcting" Bachmann's Muddlified Hall using a Brassmasters detailing kit. Unfortunately it seems to end at step 13 on page 63 with the red arrow inviting you to turn the page, but page 64 is the start of a thoroughly depressing article about creating a 1964 Castle Class wreck. All a pity really as 6999 "Capel Dewi Hall", the end result of the project, was the last steam locomotive to take the family to Paignton and deposit us on the platform at about 4.30 a.m and I can clearly remember thanking the driver/fireman and locomotive's "foreign" name. Still never mind I've already got a Bachmann Muddlified Hall, a Brassmasters kit and the appropriate nameplates.........so I suppose wasting £4.40 on an apparently incomplete magazine doesn't stop me........ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 21 hours ago, cary hill said: Model Rail strikes again - I only bought this issue because, on flicking through, I saw the article on "correcting" Bachmann's Muddlified Hall using a Brassmasters detailing kit. Unfortunately it seems to end at step 13 on page 63 with the red arrow inviting you to turn the page, but page 64 is the start of a thoroughly depressing article about creating a 1964 Castle Class wreck. All a pity really as 6999 "Capel Dewi Hall", the end result of the project, was the last steam locomotive to take the family to Paignton and deposit us on the platform at about 4.30 a.m and I can clearly remember thanking the driver/fireman and locomotive's "foreign" name. Still never mind I've already got a Bachmann Muddlified Hall, a Brassmasters kit and the appropriate nameplates.........so I suppose wasting £4.40 on an apparently incomplete magazine doesn't stop me........ I'll check on Monday but I think the article is complete - it should just have an end-stop rather than a turn arrow, that's all. Sorry you didn't like my 'castle' article. (CJL) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 On 27/04/2019 at 20:11, dibber25 said: I'll check on Monday but I think the article is complete - it should just have an end-stop rather than a turn arrow, that's all. Sorry you didn't like my 'castle' article. (CJL) Yep, it's just got a turn arrow instead of an end-stop. The article is complete. (CJL) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now