dibber25 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Model Rail 153 February 2011 Contents Model of the Year 2010 - launch of poll Reviews - Bachmann Class 70, Hornby '2884' 2-8-0, Heljan 'O' Class 33 Layout - Ardlorn Ferry 'N' gauge signalbox 'weathering' Hornby Class 86 revamp Peter Marriott mini-layout in 'N' Airfix wagon revamp Supertest: Colour light signals Points made easy Layout: Glenuig Masterplan; Road to the Isles 1;76 lorry conversion Plus all the regulars including George's Diary and Backscene. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyk Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 My sub copy arrived this morning, not had time to have other than a quick glance, but the decrepit signal box article looked very good and the second part of the N gauge mini-layout is very inspiring! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Here's a scan of the contents page... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 24, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 24, 2011 I'm rather intrigued by several things in the Supertest of colour light signals. It was interesting to note that the new style Berko signals weren't marked for 'realism' (perhaps an oversight, or was it because of the errors on the signal such as the peculiar 'phone cabinet etc?) while 'ease of use' doesn't seem to have been quantified in any at all - surely as long as the correct number of wires come out of the bottom the answer would be 100% as their presence allows the signal to be controlled - by something else - to illuminate the correct aspect or other indications? I fully appreciate the Knightwing signal is not illuminated but that apart it struck me as odd that as it is the most accurate portrayal of the first (1990s) wholly standardised BR colour light signals out of those reviewed this was not mentioned. In a similar vein there is a most peculiar comment about the Eckon 'light aspects' (sic) not having 'the delayed fading action of some other brands' - I sincerely hope they don't have a 'fading action' because when one lamp is illuminated you hardly want any sort of 'fading' from another lamp in that signal. Until recent developments of LEDs etc the lamps in colour light signals were simply high quality bulbs, turn them on and they light up, turn them off and they go out and any 'fading' had to be as near instantaneous as made no difference in order to meet the spec (for very obvious reasons when a signal changed from green to red). The Trainstronics signals do look quite good but they are very dated in appearance with the position light route indicator in particular looking like something rarely installed after the early 1970s and the straight post signal structure itself being a sort of amalgam of various features from signals installed before the mid-late 1980s although the numberplates are modern - yes, such signals are around but in rapidly decreasing numbers although with a bit of work something could be made of the basic structure to get in nearer to the practice of some Regions But the real howler is 'Signalling Jargon Explained' - and sorry but it really should have been written after a spot of research. An 'aspect' is not (an) 'individual illuminated bulb fitted to a signal' but 'an indication which the signal can show' (e.g. a red aspect = stop), and I can point to hundreds of three aspect signals which do not carry 'three lights' - but they can still show three different aspects. This really went wrong with position light signals which contrary to what was stated can only only show either two aspects or no aspect at all, and the danger indication quoted is now out-of-date with most gpls converted to show double reds instead of red & white. And the white diamond does not necessarily mean there is a track circuit - it is there to modify or qualify the particular Rules. It is regrettable that many newcomers might use this article as a first introduction to colour light signal and be immediately misled by inaccurate explanation of very basic terminology. So overall not as good as it could and should have been with something of a selling short on the 'realism' angle I'm sorry to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 If you compare them with the LED types it is evident that signals (or even traffic lights) with incandescent lamps do fade up and down over maybe half a second as they are switched on and off. I read somewhere that the same effect on car brake lights allows the driver behind to get their brakes on one car length sooner, though I'm not sure I believe this. I guess the signals referred to simulate this fading using a PWM or similar circuit to drive the LEDs. Edit: changed "bulbs" to "lamps". As this is a signalling thread no doubt a pedant will be along soon... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natalie Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Edit: changed "bulbs" to "lamps". As this is a signalling thread no doubt a pedant will be along soon... An interesting choice of words there Edwin! Why is someone correcting an error in a signalling thread 'a pedant'? Would this comment also apply to someone correcting an error about a loco or some rolling stock? Surely it is better to accept any corrections in the good grace that they are offered but more importantly not to make errors in terminolgy in any subject (however innocent- I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else makes deliberate errors)in the first place as this is what introduces confusion into a subject and can make it appear more difficult than it really is and may inadvertently discourage someone from finding out more about that subject? It is often believed that signalling is complicated and a dark art (as an ex BR and now GCR signalman I would disagree..)- could it be that the often confused explantions you see are a contributing factor in this? Discuss (in a new thread!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mod2 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Why is someone correcting an error in a signalling thread 'a pedant'? Would this comment also apply to someone correcting an error about a loco or some rolling stock? (snip) Discuss (in a new thread!) Certainly not in this one - thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerner Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Likewise in the reveiw of the 2884 2-8-0 I wondered what the phrase (when talking about performance) the "haulage capacity is not scaled down". yet there is no mention of what the model did pull. or what they thought it ought to pull. I did enjoy though the two Scottish layouts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I'm sure that we were told that this issue would contain ordering details for the Sentinel, but a fairly quick flick through doesn't seem to find it. Can anyone enlighten me? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted January 24, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24, 2011 Haven't fully digested it yet, but the artcle on upgrading the 'Airfix' high open looks really useful - accurate as far as I can tell, and with lots of relevant information all in one place. I've got a couple of swapmeet orphans stashed away somewhere; this may provide the inspiration to get on with them... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted January 24, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 24, 2011 It is regrettable that many newcomers might use this article as a first introduction to colour light signal and be immediately misled by inaccurate explanation of very basic terminology.[/i] Ho hum, another batch of "but it's been printed in xxxx discussions at some stage then" - pity the knowledgeable members of the forum couldn't have been utilised as proof readers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 I'm sure that we were told that this issue would contain ordering details for the Sentinel, but a fairly quick flick through doesn't seem to find it. Can anyone enlighten me? Sorry, but we can't provide ordering details until we get (or know when we're going get) the models. We're in the hands of the supplier but I would, personally, expect it to be some while yet. We have not yet seen painted pre-production samples. Once we see those we will then need to OK production (assuming they are OK). They then have to be made (?? weeks) and shipped from China (up to six weeks) and cleared through UK Customs (?? weeks). So, I wouldn't expect them for a while yet. CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Ho hum, another batch of "but it's been printed in xxxx discussions at some stage then" - pity the knowledgeable members of the forum couldn't have been utilised as proof readers Not quite sure how that could be arranged. Also, there's an important aspect of 'the buck stops here' where editorial matters are concerned. We can't say "well we asked Joe Bloggs to check it and he said it was OK." If we've slipped up, we'll do our best to publish a correction - usually through a letter on the Model Mail pages. CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted January 25, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2011 Not quite sure how that could be arranged. Chris, I don't want to get into an argument with you but there are some very knowledgeable people on here (and I do include myself) and a PM is all that's required to get assistance. Quite a few people can testify that works for me, as I am happy to help. I've been here for a good few years now, and I'm not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to signalling matters To me that's a benefit of the forum, a wealth of knowledge available with a posting, or a PM, whether you are an individual seeking assistance or a magazine seeking advice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamouti Ben Yafo Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Ho hum, another batch of "but it's been printed in xxxx discussions at some stage then" - pity the knowledgeable members of the forum couldn't have been utilised as proof readers Proof reading seems a problem in the majority of magazines (at least, the leisure interest titles which I read), I'm afraid. Spelling - not too bad; as WPs are now surely universal, this is no surprise. Grammar - not so good. Punctuation? - its probably the wor'st area in most magazine's, is'nt it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiltedsignaller Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 As is always the case, another EXCELLENT read. Naturally, I homed in on the Scottish interest first. I love the idea of modelling the entire Mallaig extension in the loft; what a superb photograph of Glenfinnan viaduct! However, I should point out that the swing bridge featured is at the OTHER end of the Caledonian Canal at Clachnaharry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 25, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2011 Not quite sure how that could be arranged. Also, there's an important aspect of 'the buck stops here' where editorial matters are concerned. We can't say "well we asked Joe Bloggs to check it and he said it was OK." If we've slipped up, we'll do our best to publish a correction - usually through a letter on the Model Mail pages. CHRIS LEIGH I will do so Chris although I shall probably confine it to my comments on terminology and the piece about the Knightwing dummy signals. While I agree with Beast's point about asking those who might have the knowledge and fully understand, I also agree with the practicalities of your response (just where would you stop in the search for 'experts'?), I am more concerned that there appears not to have been any attempt to delve out the basic terminology and contemporary details from the 'net (or the office library?). Perhaps the time element just wasn't in George's favour but such elementary errors did come over as a sign of poor preparation - a pity in a mag which is producing some very good stuff and has clearly been trying to up its game over the years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Proof reading seems a problem in the majority of magazines (at least, the leisure interest titles which I read), I'm afraid. Spelling - not too bad; as WPs are now surely universal, this is no surprise. Grammar - not so good. Punctuation? - its probably the wor'st area in most magazine's, is'nt it! We've been very aware of this just recently. Believe it or not, we usually DO spot the errors (literals, they're called) but, inevitably, AFTER the issue is printed! (Who has noticed noticed the spelling of February on the cover, this month?) Spell checkers are hopelessly inadequate. We do use them, but on their own, they are woefully insufficient. Grammar problems are often a product of inadequate education in the post-1960s (anything goes education system). I was recently told of a Cafe menu offering sausage's and chip's!! We pick up most of the glitches but odd ones slip through. We have agreed that it's the next area that we'll concentrate on improving. So watch something else go wrong as we take our eye off one plate while concentrating on spinning the others! CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted January 25, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2011 Subscription copy plonked on the mat yesterday, One thing I noticed was that the "protective" plastic cover was nowhere near as good as it used to be. Very flimsy, almost like see thru toilet tissue. Another cost saving I guess but luckily it was not raining when postie came round as mine had split. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmnp Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Hi, I'm confused by the Class 70 review in which Ben Jones says about the performance: This weighty train with serious rolling resistance was handled without fuss on level track and gentle inclines. The '70' even managed to haul 28 HAAs up our infamous 1-in-30 incline In several hours of testing ... the '70' didn't put a foot wrong, completing everything it was asked to do with aplomb. Why then after this was model marked down on performance scoring 8/10 There appears to be no explanation I can see in the review. Regards Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Hi, I'm confused by the Class 70 review in which Ben Jones says about the performance: Why then after this was model marked down on performance scoring 8/10 There appears to be no explanation I can see in the review. Regards Richard This is where these rating systems fall down. A comparison is made in the text with the Hornby Class 60 (the Class 70 didn't take quite as big a load as the 60). The class 60 was rated 9/10, so therefore the best you can give the Class 70 is 8/10. That's why I was always reluctant to introduce 'rating' systems into reviews - they are a blunt instrument. Much better to READ the words but the perceived wisdom these days is that folk don't like to read..... End of old codger comment. CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmnp Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I agree with you there Chris, much better to read the article. However, the ratings are useful for an at a glance overview. I have noticed a few instances, in the last few issues, where a model seems to get a glowing review, only to be "marked down" in the ratings panel. Perhaps the time has come for an overhaul of this area? In this specific instance, is it really right to mark the loco down because it couldn't handle as big a load as the 60 up an incline? The reviewer seems to be more than happy with the performance after all. Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Very flimsy, almost like see thru toilet tissue. Can one actually obtain this? And if so, why would one want to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Garry D100 Posted January 25, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2011 Can one actually obtain this? If you go to the right type of shop. And if so, why would one want to? If you have to ask, then you are not moving in the right circles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted January 25, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2011 In this specific instance, is it really right to mark the loco down because it couldn't handle as big a load as the 60 up an incline? The reviewer seems to be more than happy with the performance after all. Richard Personally I take no notice whatsoever of the ratings, they serve no useful purpose that I can see. In this specific case, as Chris has already said; the Class 60 pulled a bigger load and scored 9/10 therefore the 70 scored 8/10. lord knows what happens if someone introduces a model much more powerful than the 60, we'll need to go to 11/10.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.