Wright writes.....

[Northmoor]

7 minutes ago, Anglian said:

 

I'm not sure that's really fair to other owners. 

 

My father and I are working through a painstaking total restoration of his classic that he has owned for 62 years. We've retained most of the original parts, only needing to replace five metal panels and part of the ash frame. It will be painted by a professional. The instruments are currently being recalibrated by a professional.

 

Once completed we'll take what will then appear to be a close to mint car to various shows and rallies. If somebody suggests that all we've done is gone out and bought it I will take great delight in telling them that they are very mistaken in their assumption. I'll also invite them to get under our car to see for themselves the level of detail that we've gone to.

 

In my experience of going to many classic car events I'd estimate about 1/3 of the owners I've spoken to have restored the car themselves, often to a high standard. Many more have owned and maintained their cars themselves for many years.

 

I agree although I don't think this is necessarily the point Tony was making.  Cars are not like railway modelling, where if you have the will to do so, there is no skill, from building baseboards to creating operating signals, that cannot be learned given enough time.  Realistically, most classic car owners are not going to have the space or be able to justify the expense of building a car body spraying facility (and learn to spray properly), for instance, or to build their own wiring looms from scratch.  There are (too many IMO) people who buy expensive classic cars with little intention of driving them but keep them as investments and won't do anything that could possibly harm their value.  Then we are back to the behaviour we mentioned on here recently, where some people are unable to appreciate the value of anything except its cash value.

 

Having grown up with Morris Minors I am a keen follower of the classic car world, but an activity I have never been able to relate to (and this is where E-types often come in) is Concours competitions.  These seem to be very little to do with the car as a interesting machine and much more a "Who-has-polished-their-car-the-most-anally-retentively" contest.  At shows I prefer to admire the cars a friend describes as "Lived-in", where the seats are a bit worn, there might be some slight corrosion on the chrome, but the owner clearly loves actually driving the car.  Enzo Ferrari himself described the E-type as the most beautiful car ever made, but for me a USED E-type is the greatest of all.

[Tony Wright]

14 hours ago, CXW1 said:

 

Hello Tony,

 

Well, as you mentioned it, I would love to get you started on golf given that ‘abhor’ is a very strong word to describe something that I enjoy and play regularly (or at least I would if I were permitted to at the moment). You really must dislike golf to suggest it is abhorrent. 

 

Admittedly there are still probably some nasty old boys who frequent some stuffy ‘old school tie’ establishments, but not all golf clubs are like that. At least none of the golf clubs that allow the likes of me in are like that. Perhaps the game has a reputation which, in the main, is no longer accurate, just like magazines dating from before I was born?

 

My other main interest is of course scratchbuilding 4mm scale ex-Hull and Barnsley Railway locomotives from bits of brass. Is this any less odd than hitting a small ball around a big field into 18 holes? As far as I am concerned both activities are rather strange and eccentric when you strip them down to their component parts, but I also view them as being as harmless as each other to wider society.  Each to their own and all that….

 

All the best,

 

Chris

 

 

Good morning Chris,

 

My choice of word to describe my relationship with golf was entirely apposite, I assure you. A personal choice, of course.

 

I'll explain. I used to play the game, but no more. Why not? Because it exposed facets of my (admittedly dubious) character which are best not shown. I played mainly with teacher mates, after school or during holidays (not during summer weekends, because they were reserved for cricket). I've never played a game where it's so easy to cheat! Not that I ever cheated (there was no need, what does it matter if your score is 150 or 175?). My 'partners' (from another school) would disappear into Amazonia, only to announce 'Found ball!', whereupon it would sail back into view, straight back to the fairway (they couldn't possibly have thrown it, could they?). Then, counting up at a hole, they always had at least two fewer shots than I, and my mate, had taken. 

 

I've never found a game so frustrating. So frustrating that my number of clubs reduced each time, either through their being broken or 'lost at sea'! 

 

I also found the supposed 'etiquette' to be anything but that. Aren't slow players supposed to call faster players through? On one rare occasion, my mate and I had hit a purple patch. By that I mean a run of par scores, including a three (though never a birdie). We were flying, only to come up behind two of the slowest golfers I've ever encountered. They were old gits, too. They were on the green of a par five ahead of us, so my mate and I teed off (I presume that's allowed?). Both shots were crackers - long and straight, within another couple of shots of the green. Such was our arrogance that we declined to take our second shots, in case (lo and behold) we actually made it to the green. So, we watched and waited. And waited and waited and waited............. Address the ball. Stop, walk to the opposite side of the hole. Dangle a putter, walk back, re-address. Check again. Putt, and miss! Go through the same procedure............. Then have a chat (still in the middle of the green), compare scores, then, eventually crawl off the green. 

 

Fuming, my mate and I had then lost it. He's sent a screamer off to the left, out of bounds. I topped mine and it dribbled about 30'. Bad language, fury and a wish to kill the pair in front was the outcome. After that, any chance of a round in the 90s was gone forever (anything below 100 was brilliant!). 

 

No, not for me. I don't have the right temperament. Anyway, how can it be right that an inferior player can beat a better one, even though he/she has taken more shots? 

 

When I played cricket, I'd accept at times the fact that my immediate opponent (batsman) was better than I was (bowler). I didn't then expect him to be 'handicapped' each over by him having to not use his bat for the last ball. He used his skill to better me. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

13 hours ago, Paddy said:

Hi Tony,

 

Your musings seem to indicate that you have some rather rude people visiting LB.  I am surprised you bother wasting your time on such folks.  Personally, I would have thought anyone would be honoured to see LB in the “flesh” and spend time in your company.

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

Good morning Paddy,

 

The 'rude' ones are very much in a minority, I assure you.

 

As for 'spending time in my company', most visitors are, thankfully, very tolerant. 

 

In conversation with a dear old friend yesterday, he suggested not every gets my (perverse) sense of humour at times. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dragonboy]

14 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

Now, in terms of constructional articles, I do find the modern picture-heavy style easier to follow than the text-heavy approach, in the sense that it is much easier to see what the words are meant to be describing - especially if there's a big helpful arrow pointing at the part being mentioned.  A nearly-all-words article that says "position the sprocket wangler carefully behind the widget futtock" is not much help to a modeller who doesn't explicitly know what either looks like, let alone what they do.  So some change is undoubtedly for the better!

It’s where to fit the Floggletoggle that always flummoxes me. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Ray Chessum said:

I think that you will find that the 'Grumpy Old Gits 'club is already in exisstance , it was formed by myself, Tony Wright and two other friends whilst operating LB a few years ago

It's expanding as well, Ray.

 

Don't forget George, and the 'not quite so old' Geoff. Both fully paid-up members now.

 

Let's hope we can all get together again before too long. I miss the operating sessions....................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[CXW1]

5 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Chris,

 

My choice of word to describe my relationship with golf was entirely apposite, I assure you. A personal choice, of course.

 

I'll explain. I used to play the game, but no more. Why not? Because it exposed facets of my (admittedly dubious) character which are best not shown. I played mainly with teacher mates, after school of during holidays (not during summer weekends, because they were reserved for cricket. I've never played a game where it's so easy to cheat! Not that I ever cheated (there was no need, what does it matter if your score is 150 or 175?). My 'partners' (from another school) would disappear into Amazonia, only to announce 'Found ball!', whererupon it would sail back into view, straight back to the fairway (they couldn't possibly have thrown it, could they?). Then, counting up at a hole, they always had at least two fewer shots than I, and my mate, had taken. 

 

I've never found a game so frustrating. So frustrating that my number of clubs reduced each time, either through their being broken or 'lost at sea'! 

 

I also found the supposed 'etiquette' to be anything but that. Aren't slow players supposed to call faster players through? On one rare occasion, my mate and I had hit a purple patch. By that I mean a run of par scores, including a three (though never a birdie). We were flying, only to come up behind two of the slowest golfers I've ever encountered. They were old gits, too. They were on the green of a par five ahead of us, so my mate and I teed off (I presume that's allowed?). Both shots were crackers - long and straight, within another couple of shots of the green. Such was our arrogance that we declined to take our second shots, in case (lo and behold) we actually made it to the green. So, we watched and waited. And waited and waited and waited............. Address the ball. Stop, walk to the opposite side of the hole. Dangle a putter, walk back, re-address. Check again. Putt, and miss! Go through the same procedure............. Then have a chat (still in the middle of the green), compare scores, then, eventually crawl off the green. 

 

Fuming, my mate and I had then lost it. He's sent a screamer off to the left, out of bounds. I topped mine and it dribbled about 30'. Bad language, fury and a wish to kill the pair in front was the outcome. After that, any chance of a round in the 90s was gone forever (anything below 100 was brilliant!). 

 

No, not for me. I don't have the right temperament. Anyway, how can it be right that an inferior player can beat a better one, even though he/she has taken more shots? 

 

When I played cricket, I'd accept at times the fact that my immediate opponent (batsman) was better than I was (bowler). I didn't then expect him to be 'handicapped' each over by him having to not use his bat for the last ball. He used his skill to better me. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Tony,

 

Unfortunately much of what you mention still goes on.

 

Fortunately I am in a position where I can play during the week when it is quiet and we can usually whizz round without any issues. Try and play in a Saturday competition or a Sunday afternoon and it can be a different matter though. 

 

I used to play lots of cricket at a decent level but my back/knees/ankles prevent me from doing so now (or at least to any reasonable standard). Golf has effectively become a substitute for cricket, but it is no direct replacement. What comes after golf? Bowls?

 

I was just slightly surprised at the use of the word 'abhor'. I tend to use this in the same sentence as something like mindless vandalism or suchlike as opposed to a harmless game enjoyed by many. However, given your personal experiences I can see where you are coming from.

 

Let's park this and get back to some modelling.....

 

Thanks

 

Chris

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

17 minutes ago, dibateg said:

I fully concur with the comments regarding the annoying recapping  on documentaries - but the other thing that profoundly irritates me is the loud, dramatic and unnecessary music that often seems to drown out the narrator . Several times I've given up and turned over or off.....

 

I've though of a model one upmanship on Tony W - 'My engines are bigger than yours!' . Strange how people think..

 

My view is that there is room for everyone - from Hornby tinplate hurtling round to exquisitely detail models of the the highest standard. Not all model will interest me, but they all form some part of creative activity to a degree.

 

I was interested to see the discussion regarding Buckingham. I grew up when most of the layouts featured in the magazines were Great Western ( or it seemed to me ), there was very little North Eastern. The articles on Buckingham appeared, although it was not the era I am interested in, it was Great Central.... and I found it......wonderful. It was inspiring and still is and I'm so glad that Tony has custody of it. I have had opportunity to run it and that is something that I never would have though remotely possible in my youth.

 

Regards

Tony

 

Thanks Tony. I am glad you "got" the layout even though it isn't your period or scale anymore.

 

It does have a sort of magical quality to it even now, after I have had it for nearly 10 years.

 

It is like a modern pilot being given a Spitfire to play with. It may be a bit primitive compared to modern jets but what an experience!

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

46 minutes ago, Anglian said:

 

I'm not sure that's really fair to other owners. 

 

My father and I are working through a painstaking total restoration of his classic that he has owned for 62 years. We've retained most of the original parts, only needing to replace five metal panels and part of the ash frame. It will be painted by a professional. The instruments are currently being recalibrated by a professional.

 

Once completed we'll take what will then appear to be a close to mint car to various shows and rallies. If somebody suggests that all we've done is gone out and bought it I will take great delight in telling them that they are very mistaken in their assumption. I'll also invite them to get under our car to see for themselves the level of detail that we've gone to.

 

In my experience of going to many classic car events I'd estimate about 1/3 of the owners I've spoken to have restored the car themselves, often to a high standard. Many more have owned and maintained their cars themselves for many years.

 

Good morning Tim,

 

I'm sure you're right.

 

However, I did attend one classic car get together (they don't really interest me) and came across a group of 'Hurrah Henrys' and their 'trophy' female companions who rolled up in mint classics. Had they got their own hands dirty in the restorations? No chance.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[bbishop]

19 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Chris,

 

My choice of word to describe my relationship with golf was entirely apposite, I assure you. A personal choice, of course.

When I played cricket, I'd accept at times the fact that my immediate opponent (batsman) was better than I was (bowler). I didn't then expect him to be 'handicapped' each over by him having to not use his bat for the last ball. He used his skill to better me. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I totally agree with you Tony.  I have a psychological difficulty in hitting a stationary ball, my brain seemed to overanalyse the process.  So golf, snooker and penalty kicks were a complete no-no.  In the event of having to take a penalty kick (soccer or rugby), I would blast it as hard as I could at the centre of the target.  But nothing wrong with my hand - eye co-ordination as the most enjoyable part of wicket keeping was standing up to a fast in-swinger.  Bill

[Tony Wright]

Just to get back to 'image manipulation'. 

 

A couple of shots..............

 

 

The original picture, unaltered. 

 

I personally find the sign and the curtain tops obtrusive, directing my eye away from the principal subject.

 

 

So, cropped and background clutter removed. I've also taken out the joints in the backscene, though nothing else has been altered on the model.

 

Granted, it's more of a 'letterbox' image, but it shows much more what I want to illustrate.  

 

 

[BlackRat]

I'd quite like to see articles on 'problem solving' as opposed to bit by bit articles.

 

I recently had an issue with a GWR Monster which wobbled, everything seemed ok, bogies ran fine by themselves etc.

 

I ended up cutting down a very small spring, and placing it on top of the bogies between the top and the Monster floor.

 

All very low tech I admit, but it worked rather well and the wobble has gone.

 

Now I know how to build one, having built several hundred wagon, van, coach kits over the years from plastic, brass, resin etc but it was a problem to get this one to not wobble.

 

No idea where the springs came from, I've a habit of stripping and dismantling anything before its thrown out or recycled and have an alarmingly large collection of 'useful' bits.

[Jesse Sim]

I love golf, we play the full 18, but don’t remember much after the 6th as we’re normally blind drunk. 
 

 

 

on that note one time my mate drove the golf cart home instead of his car. 
 

 

I think he still has it.....

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

The impact of social media may be that some potential writers choose to use forums or blogs to share their knowledge. They don't have to risk having their material edited of provide print quality photos and the number of "likes" they attract gives the ego a boost.

 

 

Yes, those are undoubtedly some attractions and benefits to using forums, blogs and social media. And may well be an outlet for potential writers.

 

On the flip side you do get paid for magazine contributions, and there is the pride in seeing your article and name printed in a professional publication.

 

[john new]

43 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Just to get back to 'image manipulation'. 

 

A couple of shots..............

 

 

The original picture, unaltered. 

 

I personally find the sign and the curtain tops obtrusive, directing my eye away from the principal subject.

 

 

So, cropped and background clutter removed. I've also taken out the joints in the backscene, though nothing else has been altered on the model.

 

Granted, it's more of a 'letterbox' image, but it shows much more what I want to illustrate.  

 

 

 

As those who may have seen my earlier post on this as someone who quite likes some layout shots, but definitely not all, to show the layout's setting I will also comment, and I hopefully constructively, as LB is a fantastic creation.

 

The top shot - yes I concur re the intrusive elements as the image is mostly layout on a 1/3 to 2/3 split, in itself, showing the photographer's craft.

 

Earlier on in the thread you posted a shot from somewhere behind the spot that was taken from (or with a wider angle lens*) showing more of the room, and in that one the inclusion of the surroundings was useful in setting the overall scale and not as intrusive. In a magazine feature it would have only needed one such "in its' location" type shot. That said, even if you had cropped it to roughly level with the rear backscene top, the fact that image is in the as taken state as to subject matter shows the L angle corner (Left) disguised by a tree, and your use of angles in the right hand corner to smooth the backscene transition.

 

In the lower version it does show the layout in a better manner but those educational aspects are lost. The assumption from the lower shot, unless you look very closely to see the angle in the painted fields, would be you had used a single piece curved sheet backscene and also that there is more layout to the left and cropped off the image.  In the lower image you also lose the educational value of seeing the cottages as half-relief structures. 

 

There was a lot of comment on changes in magazine content earlier, and I think this type of change is actually the difference between then and now. You are a master of the craft (modelling and photography) and your lower shot undoubtedly shows off the layout in a better presentation than the top one, but in doing so some of the inherent  authenticity of the physical model (as in photo 1) is lost in photo 2. 

 

* possibly a still from the DVD.

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by john new
Typos corrected

[Jamie]

The recent 'bookazine' (effectively a compilation of what would otherwise form individual articles) from the Hornby Magazine publishers on the subject of modelling engineer's wagons is the first publication I've bought in a long time, other than the MRJ.  It opened my eyes a bit as to what the mainstream publishers can still produce, and I would welcome further similar works.

 

Somehow, I don't feel that the internet has yet equalled the printed press.  Forums and facebook type sites offer piecemeal content frequently thinly spread amongst in-jokes and off topic discussion.  All the interesting information may be in there, but the presentation of a well-written article would make it far more coherent. 

 

One interesting side effect of 2020 and its lockdowns is the advent of the virtual exhibition.  These videos offer an opportunity to see a layout in action but with the possibility to be as informative as a written article by narrating what is happening on camera.  Such apparent anomalies as double-headed 4MT/5MT locomotives on two-coach trains or loaded coal going in both directions along a stretch of line could be explained and understood rather than potentially written off as just sloppy modelling.  I have seen a lot of marvellous modelling at exhibitions without having a clue about what was being represented.

[APOLLO]

Classic cars - here's my  "Flying Armchair". Bought in 1982 for £850. I was looking at Jags but even back then good examples were silly money. One drive in this and I was hooked. I learned to drive in Dads 1961 Daimler Majestic 3.8 saloon, so a big saloon was a must.

 

I've never had it "restored" other than a complete respray, and new outer sills both professionally (local back street garage !!). The respray started as just the bottom half, but the guy couldn't get the colour right, so I agreed for him to do the whole lot in 2 pack (yes, should be cellulose), and it's a nice Nissan colour, a tad darker than the original Rover Zircon blue. It will do for me.

 

Over the years, bit by bit she has had new cylinder head gaskets, hydraulic tappets (I did those, all 16 of them), shocks, tyres, exhaust etc. The brake servo went a few years ago, a specialist in Windsor provided a brand new one, along with a new master cylinder. Lots of bits on this car are land Rover bits, the V8 engine is very easy also for service parts. A very easy car to work on, spanners, screwdriver, lump hammer. Points are set with a dwell meter, a micro adjuster on the distributor being fitted (next to the fan blade so be careful !!!).

 

 

Free road tax, no MOT either but I have it fully checked by the local garage every year. 18mpg though (ouch)

 

Fully ready to roll she is tucked up in the garage awaiting spring. I run the engine & back her out once a week, a short spin (to the petrol station !!) if the weather is OK and roads not salty (These cars love salt !!!).

 

I am a member of the Rover P5B club, which going by their bi-monthly mag seems to be a bit too OTT society wise. The mag is useful for info though and being a club member gets me discounted insurance.

 

She will outlive me, and perhaps, the way things are going, the oil companies also !!!! May end up in a museum like HM The Queens example which resides on public view at Sandringham. Photo below taken in 1998.

 

 

Brit15

 

 

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Just to get back to 'image manipulation'. 

 

A couple of shots..............

 

 

The original picture, unaltered. 

 

I personally find the sign and the curtain tops obtrusive, directing my eye away from the principal subject.

 

 

So, cropped and background clutter removed. I've also taken out the joints in the backscene, though nothing else has been altered on the model.

 

Granted, it's more of a 'letterbox' image, but it shows much more what I want to illustrate.  

 

 

 

They are both fine with me. They show different aspects of the layout. One shows it in its surroundings, the other is to make it look as much like the real thing as possible. Which is "best" depends very much on what you want to show from them.

 

Photo 3, (the one you haven't put on!) which is photo 1 with the backscene cloned all the way to the top and the grass bottom left cloned out to the corner is the one I am not keen on. I am not saying that it is wrong, or shouldn't be done, just that I am not so keen on what I see as fairly obvious fakery and deception. Neither of your photos has any obvious fakery involved. If they have any at all, it is subtle and understated, unlike much of what appears in magazines. From a reasonable height, the chances of seeing sky through the arch of a bridge, or going down behind where the horizon should be are pretty slim in most locations, yet it appears often on models.

 

So I would enjoy looking at either of those but I probably prefer the second one as the format makes the composition more unusual and the whole picture is full of railway interest rather than just two thirds of the frame.

 

 

[Geep7]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Just to get back to 'image manipulation'. 

 

A couple of shots..............

 

 

The original picture, unaltered. 

 

I personally find the sign and the curtain tops obtrusive, directing my eye away from the principal subject.

 

 

So, cropped and background clutter removed. I've also taken out the joints in the backscene, though nothing else has been altered on the model.

 

Granted, it's more of a 'letterbox' image, but it shows much more what I want to illustrate.  

 

 

This is the usually most that I do to my own layout images for my website. It's mostly been forced on me, as rather than having it's own dedicated space, my layout was, until recently, shared in another room space, namely the master bedroom (my wife must be a saint to have put up with it for so long!).

 

Having said that, for my website's gallery pages, I would still do the same for the photos, with perhaps the unaltered images, as per the top photo, left for the 'under construction' pages. I guess it all depends on the context. If you are showing a photo of a layout for an article about the layout, then an altered image probably would be appropriate. If it's an article about it's construction methods, then an unaltered photo would be more appropriate.

[LNERandBR]

I concur that the second of the two images is best. My eyes are also drawn to the distracting background of the sign and curtain.

 

However, I would not be adverse to seeing wide angle shots of the entire room in publications, from either end if possible. That shows us the layout in it's home and how it's been designed to fit it. That's educational for anyone planning their own layout and wanting to know how to make the most of the space they have possible.

 

Fiddle Yards are also one of the things I often think are missing from article pictures and track plans.

[Richard E]

5 hours ago, Northmoor said:

 

I agree although I don't think this is necessarily the point Tony was making.  Cars are not like railway modelling, where if you have the will to do so, there is no skill, from building baseboards to creating operating signals, that cannot be learned given enough time.  Realistically, most classic car owners are not going to have the space or be able to justify the expense of building a car body spraying facility (and learn to spray properly), for instance, or to build their own wiring looms from scratch.  There are (too many IMO) people who buy expensive classic cars with little intention of driving them but keep them as investments and won't do anything that could possibly harm their value.  Then we are back to the behaviour we mentioned on here recently, where some people are unable to appreciate the value of anything except its cash value.

 

Having grown up with Morris Minors I am a keen follower of the classic car world, but an activity I have never been able to relate to (and this is where E-types often come in) is Concours competitions.  These seem to be very little to do with the car as a interesting machine and much more a "Who-has-polished-their-car-the-most-anally-retentively" contest.  At shows I prefer to admire the cars a friend describes as "Lived-in", where the seats are a bit worn, there might be some slight corrosion on the chrome, but the owner clearly loves actually driving the car.  Enzo Ferrari himself described the E-type as the most beautiful car ever made, but for me a USED E-type is the greatest of all.

 

I've done both jobs mentioned, my sons Imp on its first restoration was sprayed at home by me, when we did it a second time, 11 years later, I built a bespoke wiring loom for it as it now has a fuel injected BMW motorcycle engine in it now. It was red when I painted it, it's now in an Audi white.

 

 

My Escort Mexico also has a home made bespoke wiring loom fitted using military spec bulkhead wiring connectors. It's been a 'local' car all of its life and carries a Rutland registration. She was originally white but I've always hankered after a Monza Blue car so she changed colour. She is, apart from seats and seat belts a fully period correct modified car which is both tax and MOT exempt although I will still get an MOT on her for peace of mind. She has also had a 4 page feature article on her in Practical Classics. Here she is sitting next to a friends car, both body shells were prepared by the same company.

 

 

And both cars are not Concours 'Trailer Queens', both are used and abused.

 

Anyway enough thread drift for now ...

Edited January 8, 2021 by Richard E
Altered image

[APOLLO]

Wish (jokingly) someone would pinch my Rover - She's insured for ten grand !!

 

Brit15

[micklner]

37 minutes ago, Richard E said:

 

I've done both jobs mentioned, my sons Imp on its first restoration was sprayed at home by me, when we did it a second time, 11 years later, I built a bespoke wiring loom for it as it now has a fuel injected BMW motorcycle engine in it now. It was red when I painted it, it's now in an Audi white.

 

 

My Escort Mexico also has a home made bespoke wiring loom fitted using military spec bulkhead wiring connectors. It's been a 'local' car all of its life and carries a Rutland registration. She was originally white but I've always hankered after a Monza Blue car so she changed colour. She is, apart from seats and seat belts a fully period correct modified car which is both tax and MOT exempt although I will still get an MOT on her for peace of mind. She has also had a 4 page feature article on her in Practical Classics.

 

 

And both cars are not Concours 'Trailer Queens', both are used and abused.

 

Anyway enough thread drift for now ...

Hillman Imp my first ever car , B reg resprayed Ford Aubergine from White. When it did worked it flew , blew Head gaskets reguarly , found out due to Corrosion of the block due to someone before using the wrong antifreeze , the Head gasket after a couple of months of use collapsed into the corroded edge . Sold on on hearing that, and 1966 Mk1 Cortina GT was next which lasted for many years and eventually was scrapped totally rotten underneath. Boring cars ever since.

[Richard E]

36 minutes ago, great central said:

 

Perhaps being a little over cautious but I would suggest at least editing your post to cover the number plates and don't give too much away about your location.

Given the price Escorts can fetch nowadays it could attract the wrong kind of admiration.

As you've quoted the post I can't alter that so no point in editing now. Registration is regularly seen around anyway and has been pictured elsewhere.

[drduncan]

Now I’ve only written a couple or so articles for the model railway press, but in writing them I have I supposed reflected not just what interests me but also how to write about it. (I suppose I should make time to write more.) So to the question to what articles would cause me to buy a magazine...

 

I like to pretend I’m a finescale modeller, so things that reflect a finescale approach and would encourage others to follow suit. So while rtr out of the box often leaves me cold, so too does the fortunately rare ‘hair shirt’ brand of finescale that seems to revel in the impossibility of anyone emulating it. And as someone who is scratching a Broad Gauge itch at the moment I’m very aware I’m probably running close to accusations of hypocrisy.  So while carving driving wheels by hand from mild steel because xxx’s products aren’t good enough shows dedication , I’d prefer to read to someone’s experience in getting xxx’s wheels to retain their tyres/add the crankpin holes that the manufacturer didn’t/stay on the axle. Or what have you.

 

Anything by Iain Rice (and his disciples) as they are thought provoking, full of ideas and prototype info, often humorous, and make finescale believable and achievable.

 

Any article that points out P4 running can be improved by using EM flanges....

 

[Such a shame Bob Barlow’s untimely death led to the closing of the Finescale Modelling Review so soon after it was launched.]

 

DrDuncan

Edited January 8, 2021 by drduncan

[Barclay]

I think that's why I love model railways so much - compared to classic cars they cause less expense, less worry, and less physical pain - I changed the front brakes, oil, and filter in March and could hardly move for a fortnight, but I couldn't leave it as the car being off the road would have niggled at me. If something goes wrong in the miniature world, I just curse and leave it alone for a while!