Wright writes.....

[rowanj]

I do so wish I could build an "average" layout as good as LB, or locos as "average" as Tony's. I suppose I'll have to settle for "adequate" with aspirations to reach the level of "pretty reasonable". In my next life,I'm going to aim for " unique " and "inspirational"

 

In the last analysis, do these words really matter?Surely,if a layout interests,amuses,or inspires an individual, it has served a real purpose for the hobby. I put LB in that category, and am not willing to be accused of having low standards.. Average ..not to me.

Edited January 27, 2019 by rowanj

[Clive Mortimore]

I have been asked by a friend who is not a member of RMWebb is anyone can provide a copy of instructions for an OO Golden Age models A4 Sir Nigel Gresley “F” function list as he has lost his. Many thanks.

 

Brian

Hi Brian

 

Has your friend considered contacting Golden Age themselves?

[Headstock]

Phil,

 

It's because I was considering the likes of the finest layouts ever constructed in my calculation that I considered Little Bytham as being 'average'. Certainly, among the group which built it, the modelling 'achieved' overall is 'average' by the standards of that group. Looking at some of their other work, some of it has been better, some of it not as good. That's certainly true in my own case, and locos I've built on commission in the past, in some cases, would have a greater amount of detail added - thus becoming above average for my standards. 

 

I'm not being precious or arrogant about this, just realistic. As I've said on many occasions, it's been my privilege to photograph layouts and models which I consider as good as anything achievable, anywhere. Pendon would be included in that list. Everything on Pendon could be considered way above average, and only the highest standards of modelling are acceptable to the team. 

 

I'd certainly put Buckingham as way, way above average; perhaps not with regard to some of the individual pieces in/on it (compared to today's standards, especially liveries), but in terms of its modelling philosophy and the fact that it's all the work of one man, over many decades. 

 

This 'one-man' approach is something I've always admired (mainly because it's not me), where an individual modeller does everything for himself/herself. Granted, compared with the very best in the individual disciplines, he/she might not achieve those lofty heights, but where, as in the likes of Buckingham, the whole thing comes together 'perfectly' then there is no higher praise one can give - hence Buckingham's richly-deserved status as being above average. 

 

Strangely (or is it so strange?), I've photographed some layouts which have been made entirely by a team of commissioned professionals, yet they never capture 'realism' Though the individual standards might be above average, the end result isn't. That might sound daft, but one (which I only ever did a recce on, prior to what became an abandoned photo shoot) had locos and stock built by the best, but after the 'Bournemouth Belle' had romped by behind a rebuilt Merchant Navy (a magnificent ensemble), the next train going by was an A3 in LNER green with a full teak rake (equally magnificent) - and so on. In terms of its being 'realistic', the whole scene was below average and not as convincing as, say, a layout running (modified) RTR stock where the geography and the timescale were consistent, and thus accurate. 

 

As for 'making the same comparison', may I put it like this, please? If, at one end, we have the boxed train set owner, who merely puts it all together on the floor and runs whatever he/she likes, and at the other we have the likes of Pendon, what would be in the middle so to speak? How about an OO layout, based on a prototype/prototype practice, where a fair bit of research had taken place and much (in every area) has had to be built, either individually or as part of a team? I think that would be fair. Average, in other words.

 

It could be that angels and pins come together again here, and the whole discussion becomes irrelevant. Perhaps I can finish like this............. Speaking for myself, I always strive to build the best model I can. Some, inevitably, turn out better or worse than others - not huge differences, but I know them. I thus attain my average standard in the main. Compared to a newcomer to kit-building, I'd like to think I was above average, but compared to the likes of the late John Hayes, well! I know my place, and my layout's place - sitting nicely in the middle, or haven't we been here before?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I can't except the notion that Little Bytham is an example of average modeling, even twenty years ago you would have been on dodgy ground making such a case. As the hobby continues to deskill, Little Bytham will continue to move up the 'pecking order' and not represent what the average railway modeler is capable of producing. How many other groups are there out there that could produce a little Bytham? The whole project would come to a halt as soon as the first Thompson pacific was required.

[Tony Wright]

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I can't except the notion that Little Bytham is an example of average modeling, even twenty years ago you would have been on dodgy ground making such a case. As the hobby continues to deskill, Little Bytham will continue to move up the 'pecking order' and not represent what the average railway modeler is capable of producing. How many other groups are there out there that could produce a little Bytham? The whole project would come to a halt as soon as the first Thompson pacific was required.

It's very kind of you to say these things, Andrew,

 

However, I've no wish to labour the case. In terms of what one sees at many shows and in the general media now, the likes of Little Bytham, and LSGC, could well be seen as 'above average', in that just about everything in and on them has been made - by modellers. That needs qualifying, of course, in that I've seen too many examples of layouts where everything has been made, but made badly. 

 

What I've also found interesting is that some layouts are visually 'above average', but, seeing them in the flesh, they don't run well. Since I'd put good running of equal importance as good appearance, and we try to replicate the real railway's running, then the running on some of these 'good looking' layouts is way below average, because on the real railways, stuff doesn't fall off all the time. Thus, despite their attractive (static) appearance, I'd put such layouts in the overall 'below average' category. 

 

I think it's a fair thing to say that the hobby is becoming less-skilled, in the artisan, hand-craft sense. It's cause and effect, of course. There's more out there which is good enough at source, so why build? Or, some might say 'I've got enough money (having worked all my life), so I'll get someone/several to build it all for me, since I don't have the skills'. 

 

It could be argued that it's becoming more-skilled in some aspects. For instance, in the use of computers for designing models, and then having them printed. I'm astonished at the likes of Steve's (Atso) achievements in that respect. 

 

Average or not, it's important (to me) that we make things ourselves, whether as individuals or in groups. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Lecorbusier]

Average !!!!!!!

 

Hmmm ! ... I hesitate to cry tosh in such company ..... oh what the hell ...... TOSH!

 

 

I will accept that if we are talking high level finescale modelling at its best, then LB might be judged average rather than exceptional .... indeed from what you say (though I do not have the requisite knowledge or experience to comment) even at the lower end of average.

 

But an average layout ..... TOSH!

 

Indeed I have yet to see a layout with a full feature in the MRJ which could be described as average .... this alone suggests to me that your peers have judged it above average.

 

As individuals we are all too well aware of our own shortcomings, and anyone who makes anything will more often than not be dissatisfied by what they produce as the mistakes/faults/fudges/bodges will loom disproportionately large and the real quality and excellence will tend to be taken for granted. 

 

LBs trackwork by Norman Solomon might be average when measured against his output .... but within the hobby can any of his trackwork be described as average? I would suggest not.

 

Whatever you say, I'm afraid that is my view ... which is not the same as saying one's eye is either uncritical or lacking in discernment - but rather that that critique starts at a given level that is already way above average.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Lecorbusier

[Northmoor]

Sorry Tony, while I/we appreciate your sincere modesty, LB is absolutely not "average" amongst model railways.

 

Consider how few of the nation's model railways ever get published in the press.  Most of the remainder are probably not much more than a track pack on a board and some RTP buildings (and if that's what the owner wants, fine). Of those which have been published, LB is probably still amongst an elite group. Whether assuming mean or median, LB will be somewhere amongst the best 1% of model railways.  

 

That's why we're reading this thread! 

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for all the recent comments.

 

TOSH it is then; what a wonderful description. Completely apposite. 

 

I think Tim Lee sums it up very well. If a layout is published in the MRJ, it must be of a high standard. And, the MRJ is certainly not average. 

 

Come to think of it, both Stoke Summit and Charwelton were published in the MRJ as well, and subsequent articles on the trains. 

 

As for modesty, the opposite is pomposity, which I abhor.

 

I think that's it really. 

 

Regards to all,

 

Tony. 

[Staffordshire]

    There are still people out there who can create a fantastic model from the older kits,  lucky I know a couple .... 

[The Stationmaster]

 

 

Dsc_7696.jpg

 

Has anyone made a model of this (yes, a model of me has been made)? Very natural colours I think, on a bright day. If anyone ever makes a 'bucket list', have 'visit Sydney' at the very top! 

 

 

 

Talking of bucket lists here's a photo I took on the way to work one morning almost 14 years ago - from the station platform at Circular Quay (being paid to be there is definitely an ideal way to tick off items on a bucket list)

 

Edited January 27, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[Lecorbusier]

Talking of bucket lists here's a photo I took on the way to work one morning almost 14 years ago - from the station platform at Circular Quay (being paid to be there is definitely an ideal way to tick off items on a bucket list)

 

123_DS~1 copy.jpg

 

That would be almost as good as the Original!

 

[MJI]

Please forgive me, Martin,

 

But I haven't a clue what you're talking about. 

 

For instance, I have a letterbox - in which post is delivered! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

OK

 

There are three ways of doing widescreen.

 

The proper way, the rubbish way and the acceptable way

 

Proper way is normal HDTV. stuff as Blu Ray, some broadcast HDTV and most current generation video game machines.

 

1920 x 1080 for 16 x 9, this is square pixels, looks really good.

 

The acceptable way was how Freeview works with standard definition, as per BBC1 2 and so on. Also the Proper way of doing widescreen films on DVD in the UK

 

720 across and 576 down used as 16 x 9, however the pixels would be rectangular, but this is the best picture you can get for detail from standard definition.

 

This is called Anamorphic Widescreen

 

The rubbish way is letterboxing, or why the Titanic DVD was rubbish.

 

The whole picture is 720x568 but as 4x3, old squarer TVs, like the old PAL broadcasts pre digital TV.

 

For a widescreen film they put large black bars top and bottom so it looks OK on a 4x3 TV, but DVD players can easily down scale anamorphic to fit 4x3. But wiht widescrren TVs you have to zoom in and get worse picture quality, you only get 426 visible lines rather than 568. It looks bad!

 

I hope this is not confusing, any questions just ask.

 

I would rather have questions and people learning than saying who cares.

[MJI]

It's very kind of you to say these things, Andrew,

 

However, I've no wish to labour the case. In terms of what one sees at many shows and in the general media now, the likes of Little Bytham, and LSGC, could well be seen as 'above average', in that just about everything in and on them has been made - by modellers. That needs qualifying, of course, in that I've seen too many examples of layouts where everything has been made, but made badly. 

 

What I've also found interesting is that some layouts are visually 'above average', but, seeing them in the flesh, they don't run well. Since I'd put good running of equal importance as good appearance, and we try to replicate the real railway's running, then the running on some of these 'good looking' layouts is way below average, because on the real railways, stuff doesn't fall off all the time. Thus, despite their attractive (static) appearance, I'd put such layouts in the overall 'below average' category. 

 

I think it's a fair thing to say that the hobby is becoming less-skilled, in the artisan, hand-craft sense. It's cause and effect, of course. There's more out there which is good enough at source, so why build? Or, some might say 'I've got enough money (having worked all my life), so I'll get someone/several to build it all for me, since I don't have the skills'. 

 

It could be argued that it's becoming more-skilled in some aspects. For instance, in the use of computers for designing models, and then having them printed. I'm astonished at the likes of Steve's (Atso) achievements in that respect. 

 

Average or not, it's important (to me) that we make things ourselves, whether as individuals or in groups. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Changing of skills really, the biggest skills hurdle I ever had was at work around 18 or so years ago, if anyone wants to learn about some very basic programming methodoligies please ask.

[MJI]

Thanks for all the recent comments.

 

TOSH it is then; what a wonderful description. Completely apposite. 

 

I think Tim Lee sums it up very well. If a layout is published in the MRJ, it must be of a high standard. And, the MRJ is certainly not average. 

 

Come to think of it, both Stoke Summit and Charwelton were published in the MRJ as well, and subsequent articles on the trains. 

 

As for modesty, the opposite is pomposity, which I abhor.

 

I think that's it really. 

 

Regards to all,

 

Tony. 

 

Got to say this Tony but the more you learn the more you realise that you do not know.

 

I have learnt so much I feel incredibly stupid sometimes.

 

[Tony Wright]

OK

 

There are three ways of doing widescreen.

 

The proper way, the rubbish way and the acceptable way

 

Proper way is normal HDTV. stuff as Blu Ray, some broadcast HDTV and most current generation video game machines.

 

1920 x 1080 for 16 x 9, this is square pixels, looks really good.

 

The acceptable way was how Freeview works with standard definition, as per BBC1 2 and so on. Also the Proper way of doing widescreen films on DVD in the UK

 

720 across and 576 down used as 16 x 9, however the pixels would be rectangular, but this is the best picture you can get for detail from standard definition.

 

This is called Anamorphic Widescreen

 

The rubbish way is letterboxing, or why the Titanic DVD was rubbish.

 

The whole picture is 720x568 but as 4x3, old squarer TVs, like the old PAL broadcasts pre digital TV.

 

For a widescreen film they put large black bars top and bottom so it looks OK on a 4x3 TV, but DVD players can easily down scale anamorphic to fit 4x3. But wiht widescrren TVs you have to zoom in and get worse picture quality, you only get 426 visible lines rather than 568. It looks bad!

 

I hope this is not confusing, any questions just ask.

 

I would rather have questions and people learning than saying who cares.

Thanks again, Martin,

 

However, without appearing ungrateful, perhaps I should elaborate on my understanding of current technologies......

 

For one, I don't have blue tooth, blue ray or blue anything - though the TVR I owned was blue.

 

I have a DVD player (somewhere); however, at the moment I don't have a grandchild to show me how to operate it.

 

My mobile phone (if I could remember where I put it) is 13 years old! The last time I made a call on it was last July! 

 

I don't think our telly is widescreen - it's 11 years old.

 

My own computer is even older, and the one I'm using this to post on is nine years old - I'm told that's old in computer lives. 

 

My younger son speaks to some gadget and it then plays music. I have a radio (10 years old) which does the same thing if I switch it on, though I find it difficult to change channels. For some reason it comes on at eight in the morning and switches itself off an hour later. It's a mystery. I long for the one I had as a boy, where one turned a knob and got things like Hilversom (or Hilversome, or Hilversum - I've forgotten how it was spelled). Speaking of radios, the one in my current car (four years old) is totally incomprehensible. Not only that, the onboard computer is also incomprehensible, as is its manual. 

 

My eyesight is probably not good enough to fully-distinguish the number of lines on a telly screen. Didn't it used to be 405 and 625? Regarding tellies, why do adverts play louder? 

 

Anything else? I live in blissful ignorance of modernity. Though I use a digital darkroom, the programme I use is from 2007, which I understand. My cameras are, obviously digital, but I made the mistake once of looking through some of the sub-menus. I had to take one of them back to a camera shop to get it 'back to normal'! The guy who 'fixed' it was certainly young (or old?) enough to be my grandson. Why don't the manufacturers of such complex gadgetry today offer a free grandchild with each purchase? 

 

Do I want to learn? No.

 

But, thanks for trying to explain. It's analogous to giving a lecture on advanced nuclear physics to 3C! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jamie92208]

 

But, thanks for trying to explain. It's analogous to giving a lecture on advanced nuclear physics to 3C! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

My late father, who was a chemistry teacher, once proposed a solution to the problem of 3C or it's equivalent.  He felt that it was time that the lethal dosage of certain chemicals should be tested again to check that the figures were correct.  He proposed that 3C should be lined up and given increasing doses as he worked along the line until they started to fall over.   I thought it was a brilliant idea.

 

Jamie

[CF MRC]

Talking of bucket lists here's a photo I took on the way to work one morning almost 14 years ago - from the station platform at Circular Quay (being paid to be there is definitely an ideal way to tick off items on a bucket list)

 

123_DS~1 copy.jpg

Cecily and I were in Australia in 2006 at a conference and visiting relis. Our last night was at a restaurant at Circular Quays with QE2 moored up alongside. They even laid on a fireworks display for us.

 

Tim

[St Enodoc]

Cecily and I were in Australia in 2006 at a conference and visiting relis. Our last night was at a restaurant at Circular Quays with QE2 moored up alongside. They even laid on a fireworks display for us.

 

Tim

I think that this was the last time QE2 visited Sydney. It was a stage-managed event where QE2 arrived just as QV was leaving.

 

 

 

[Craigw]

Talking of bucket lists here's a photo I took on the way to work one morning almost 14 years ago - from the station platform at Circular Quay (being paid to be there is definitely an ideal way to tick off items on a bucket list)

 

123_DS~1 copy.jpg

 

The Circular Quay station and the Cahill expressway are in a shocking position and effectively barricade the city from the water. When the Harbour tunnel was proposed the original plans included removing the Cahill and it is a great shame that bit never happened. That being said, as someone who has lived in Sydney most of my life, the view when you come into Circular Quay railway station still takes my breath away.

 

Craig W

[MJI]

Thanks again, Martin,

 

However, without appearing ungrateful, perhaps I should elaborate on my understanding of current technologies......

 

For one, I don't have blue tooth, blue ray or blue anything - though the TVR I owned was blue.

 

I have a DVD player (somewhere); however, at the moment I don't have a grandchild to show me how to operate it.

 

My mobile phone (if I could remember where I put it) is 13 years old! The last time I made a call on it was last July! 

 

I don't think our telly is widescreen - it's 11 years old.

 

My own computer is even older, and the one I'm using this to post on is nine years old - I'm told that's old in computer lives. 

 

My younger son speaks to some gadget and it then plays music. I have a radio (10 years old) which does the same thing if I switch it on, though I find it difficult to change channels. For some reason it comes on at eight in the morning and switches itself off an hour later. It's a mystery. I long for the one I had as a boy, where one turned a knob and got things like Hilversom (or Hilversome, or Hilversum - I've forgotten how it was spelled). Speaking of radios, the one in my current car (four years old) is totally incomprehensible. Not only that, the onboard computer is also incomprehensible, as is its manual. 

 

My eyesight is probably not good enough to fully-distinguish the number of lines on a telly screen. Didn't it used to be 405 and 625? Regarding tellies, why do adverts play louder? 

 

Anything else? I live in blissful ignorance of modernity. Though I use a digital darkroom, the programme I use is from 2007, which I understand. My cameras are, obviously digital, but I made the mistake once of looking through some of the sub-menus. I had to take one of them back to a camera shop to get it 'back to normal'! The guy who 'fixed' it was certainly young (or old?) enough to be my grandson. Why don't the manufacturers of such complex gadgetry today offer a free grandchild with each purchase? 

 

Do I want to learn? No.

 

But, thanks for trying to explain. It's analogous to giving a lecture on advanced nuclear physics to 3C! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Don't worry 10 year old PC here, was so powerful when built it is still relevant.

 

Blue stuff, hmm, blue car, blue Diesels, all the games boxes are blue, my fleece is blue, my bathroom is blue, I think it is my favourte colour, I actually like the BR corporate image livery.

 

 

However a lot of reasons I have got into AV are related

1) I love films

2) I loved videoing trains and really wanted a video camera for GWR150, but got one end of 1985 early 1986 not sure when.

3) I have done videos of railways, done the VCR to VCR editing and also PC editing, PC is easier once you get the hang of it.

 

 

Annoying gadgets

 

1) Smartphones drive me bonkers.

2) I detest the latest version of WIndows but may have to have it next year as my work PC is nearly a decade old as well.

3) My car radio is illogical, it took me half an hour to cancel sat nav after it got triggered during a repair, kept wanting to go to Solihull.

 

As to widescreen TV, I had one in 1999, the year my twins were born, and about 10 years later an LCD panel TV. I buy top end quality kit but rarely.

 

Bought the widescreen for DVDs and digital TV, also my old TV was wearing out. Bought current for HDTV, size and the widescreen tube was just starting to fade.

 

Now to modern gadgets they can be good but it depends on how good the user interface is, some companies are excellent some are rubbish. In general modern mobile phones interfaces are quite poor. Many small digital cameras are bonkers. Latest Windows is appalling. One reason I like Sony stuff is that their user interfaces are usually OK.

 

As to my vision, yes getting old, I run in three modes, no glasses, computer glasses and normal glasses, as extremely short sighted, but my issue is hearing, I have bad tinnitus since an ear infection and I have found to listen to stuff I need really good qualty kit now. I find modern digital phones can be difficult to hear on, and compressed audio on cheap devices painfull. we all get old and lose some inputs but they work well enough.

 

My wife wanted the PC today so said to go on games to get me off the PC, but I wanted to model instead, so annoyed her anyway with a large pile of Airfix air conditioned coaches spread over the table. In blue (and grey).

 

I hope I am not boring everyone here!

[Craigw]

Just to continue on the Sydney theme a little more, I went on a cruise with my wife in August 2017. The cruise left Sydney around sunset and the view as we left the harbour was simply wonderful. This is the view from one of the decks at the stern. 

 

Craig w

[Tony Wright]

Don't worry 10 year old PC here, was so powerful when built it is still relevant.

 

Blue stuff, hmm, blue car, blue Diesels, all the games boxes are blue, my fleece is blue, my bathroom is blue, I think it is my favourte colour, I actually like the BR corporate image livery.

 

 

However a lot of reasons I have got into AV are related

1) I love films

2) I loved videoing trains and really wanted a video camera for GWR150, but got one end of 1985 early 1986 not sure when.

3) I have done videos of railways, done the VCR to VCR editing and also PC editing, PC is easier once you get the hang of it.

 

 

Annoying gadgets

 

1) Smartphones drive me bonkers.

2) I detest the latest version of WIndows but may have to have it next year as my work PC is nearly a decade old as well.

3) My car radio is illogical, it took me half an hour to cancel sat nav after it got triggered during a repair, kept wanting to go to Solihull.

 

As to widescreen TV, I had one in 1999, the year my twins were born, and about 10 years later an LCD panel TV. I buy top end quality kit but rarely.

 

Bought the widescreen for DVDs and digital TV, also my old TV was wearing out. Bought current for HDTV, size and the widescreen tube was just starting to fade.

 

Now to modern gadgets they can be good but it depends on how good the user interface is, some companies are excellent some are rubbish. In general modern mobile phones interfaces are quite poor. Many small digital cameras are bonkers. Latest Windows is appalling. One reason I like Sony stuff is that their user interfaces are usually OK.

 

As to my vision, yes getting old, I run in three modes, no glasses, computer glasses and normal glasses, as extremely short sighted, but my issue is hearing, I have bad tinnitus since an ear infection and I have found to listen to stuff I need really good qualty kit now. I find modern digital phones can be difficult to hear on, and compressed audio on cheap devices painfull. we all get old and lose some inputs but they work well enough.

 

My wife wanted the PC today so said to go on games to get me off the PC, but I wanted to model instead, so annoyed her anyway with a large pile of Airfix air conditioned coaches spread over the table. In blue (and grey).

 

I hope I am not boring everyone here!

Not boring at all, Martin,

 

Oh, I should have added another comment................

 

I was delighted when neither of my sons showed an interest in computer games, apart from a very few months. They never had any of those weird gadgets which seem to be in so many houses these days, just their computers and the keyboards. One game was called Dungeons & Dragons. 'Want to try dad?' 'What do I do?' The keys were explained. Whichever one I touched, I fell down a bottomless pit! I gave up. 

 

That was years ago. In France, two years ago, an early teen showed me his computer game thingy. Though I like action films, this was the most violent thing I think I've seen on a TV screen. I tried for a minute or two, and was blown to pieces at every turn. I gave up. 

 

I wonder if I'd had access to such technologies in my formative years, would I have taken up railway modelling? I hope so. I know so!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

 

Nothing quite as exotic as the Queens at Circular Quay, I'm afraid. Just a cruise ship.

 

 

Hardly 'exotic' either. Just a damn good kit.  

[Captain Kernow]

Lovely work with the pipes/conduits at the base of the smokebox, Tony. I didn't notice them at first, great to see another loco coming together!

[Markeg]

Great work there Tony.  Enjoyed the recent DVD/video of Little Bytham.  The K3 looks good too. Must get onto some of my Loco kits next(all LNER/ER).

 

For those who are admiring the Sydney Harbour and Tyne Bridge, here is another designed by the same engineer and builder Dorman Long.

 

I have travelled over all three.  The Sydney Harbour and Tyne carry lots of traffic, the Birchenough Bridge in Zimbabwe is in the middle of nowhere.  You come over a crest of a hill and it is very much a shining silver surprise.  I must say its not my photo as my visit was well before digital cameras and have not transferred them over.

 

Mark

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Markeg

[MJI]

Not boring at all, Martin,

 

Oh, I should have added another comment................

 

I was delighted when neither of my sons showed an interest in computer games, apart from a very few months. They never had any of those weird gadgets which seem to be in so many houses these days, just their computers and the keyboards. One game was called Dungeons & Dragons. 'Want to try dad?' 'What do I do?' The keys were explained. Whichever one I touched, I fell down a bottomless pit! I gave up. 

 

That was years ago. In France, two years ago, an early teen showed me his computer game thingy. Though I like action films, this was the most violent thing I think I've seen on a TV screen. I tried for a minute or two, and was blown to pieces at every turn. I gave up. 

 

I wonder if I'd had access to such technologies in my formative years, would I have taken up railway modelling? I hope so. I know so!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I am of the opinion that more hobbies make a person more interesting. Games are more a generational thing than an age thing, you are of the same generation of the first computer gamers, but never had exposure, hence no interest.

 

My generation it hit main stream and now the youngsters with the fast reactions have to watch out for sneaky 50 somethings.

 

A good way of describing it is if you are flaked out in front of TV, do you?

 

1) Watch the latest comings and goings of various fictional people in fictional places doing boring things (soaps)

2) Or shoot hostile aliens in the face (games)

 

As I have little interest in those sort of things I would rather watch a film, a really good documentry (eg Attenborough), or game. But if bright and sunny I would rather keep off the TV and do something else.

 

My main hobby is still modal railways.

 

As to your TVR, still a pity that you sold it. I like interesting cars and TVRs are interesting.