BRM June 2014 Issue

[black and decker boy]

Publishing and exhibiting opens us to all forms of review. Fellow modellers will observe at shows, read articles or blogs etc. many will aire their thoughts privately but will often remain silent in those public domains (less so at shows where comments can often be overheard indirectly or even sometimes when directly aimed). None of us are producing layouts beyond compare and usually, myself and my club comrades are most definitely included in this, have room to learn and improve. Isn't that our aim as we grow and build new layouts - to learn from the last one and other modellers and avoid the same mistakes?

 

We received such constructive criticism on one of our layouts last year. We were mixing our rolling stock too much so our early period stock (1958 to 1960) was causing offense when running with our later stock (1960 to 1962). We had thought we could get away with a 4 year running period but took the insight offered onboard, without taking umbridge, and made a Few changes to our fleet. We actually thanked the correspondent for their views as well.

 

It's a dangerous world where we shout down someone for wanting to offer insights when made in an non-confrontational manner. It is even more odious to cast aspersions that the insights are even more heinous and unworthy because the person offering them is a woman and therefore seems to be considered most unlikely to have built a layout.

[Grafarman]

I'm not going to get involved with the debate over whether a letter containing constructive criticism should have been published or not but did wonder if anyone had found the N gauge layout in the June issue which is loudly proclaimed about on the cover - I've not found it yet!

 

Jerry 

 

Picky picky - after all anything in 2mm:ft is under the 'N' umbrella isn't it...?!!

 

(tongue removed from cheek - yes, they really should have labelled it 2mmFS...)

 

 

 

David

[queensquare]

Picky picky - after all anything in 2mm:ft is under the 'N' umbrella isn't it...?!!

 

(tongue removed from cheek - yes, they really should have labelled it 2mmFS...)

 

 

 

David

 

If you have a low opinion of your readers intelligence it is - like everything in 4mm including P4 and EM is OO

 

First rule of journalism - don't knowingly mislead or under estimate your readers, it'll end up biting you on the bum.

 

Jerry

[Howard Smith]

Howard,

Thanks for your reply.

The only difference I can see between letting the frog polarity decide the whole blade polarity

 

Stu,

No, it is the blade polarity that decides the frog polarity, not the other way around. The frog polarity is set in accordance with the direction of point blades.

 

 

or fixing the blade polarity to the nearby rail is the chance of a wheel touching the non-used blade as it passes, thus causing a short.

 

This is an impossible situation, in case you haven't grasped what I was saying I have attached a quick sketch for your benefit. 

 

 

 

 

I understand how the cobalt motor being used for the SPDT switch saves lengths of wire. I'm using the switches to also change the point using wire-in-tube, so the electrical cable run is not that long.

Otherwise, either method would appear to achieve exactly the same result.

 

The wire in tube method works too, there are only a handful of methods to wire a point reliably without using lots of wire, the method I used being one of them. The cobalt lever does achieve exactly the same thing as a surface mounted DPDT switch on a control panel, but as I wrote in the article, it's just a more tactile way of switching points...

 

Regards,

Howard

[Barry Ten]

Stu,

No, it is the blade polarity that decides the frog polarity, not the other way around. The frog polarity is set in accordance with the direction of point blades.

 

 

This is an impossible situation, in case you haven't grasped what I was saying I have attached a quick sketch for your benefit. 

 

track.jpg

 

 

 

The wire in tube method works too, there are only a handful of methods to wire a point reliably without using lots of wire, the method I used being one of them. The cobalt lever does achieve exactly the same thing as a surface mounted DPDT switch on a control panel, but as I wrote in the article, it's just a more tactile way of switching points...

 

Regards,

Howard

 

Like Stubby I was also puzzled here, and I think it's because the article doesn't mention electrically bonding the two adjacent rails.

[Dicky W]

I'm not going to get involved with the debate over whether a letter containing constructive criticism should have been published or not but did wonder if anyone had found the N gauge layout in the June issue which is loudly proclaimed about on the cover - I've not found it yet!

 

Jerry

Hi Jerry

 

It could be considered a heinous crime in some circles but it's Fence Houses that is down as N gauge, simply because to a person picking the magazine up for the first time, 2FS might not mean anything.....

 

Richard

[Howard Smith]

Like Stubby I was also puzzled here, and I think it's because the article doesn't mention electrically bonding the two adjacent rails.

 

True, but even so, this isn't required in order for the point to function properly, after all, Peco use the method of trusting the contact between blades and rails to convey electricity.

The rails in the point article weren't bonded as the piece was just a demonstration for the use of the lever and motor, hence why I didn’t mention it, but when testing with an ohmmeter, the electrical contact was present as Peco intended it to be. Electrically bonding the two rails using wire is just a better method as it is a fail-safe – especially when painting and realistically weathering track.

Hope this helps,

Howard

[Barry Ten]

True, but even so, this isn't required in order for the point to function properly, after all, Peco use the method of trusting the contact between blades and rails to convey electricity.

The rails in the point article weren't bonded as the piece was just a demonstration for the use of the lever and motor, hence why I didn’t mention it, but when testing with an ohmmeter, the electrical contact was present as Peco intended it to be. Electrically bonding the two rails using wire is just a better method as it is a fail-safe – especially when painting and realistically weathering track.

Hope this helps,

Howard

 

That's exactly right, but without the bonding, there's no requirement for isolating the frog as you stipulate must be done. In fact, in the absence of bonds, cutting the rails now makes things worse, not better, since the switch blades are now totally reliant on contact against the stock blades, rather than also receiving power from the frog. If you do get a bit of paint or dirt between the rails, the entire blade will now be electrically dead. Your ohmmetre confirms that you do have electrical contact, but that's only because the blades are clean and unpainted.

 

I accept that if you were doing this for your own project, you'd have added the bonds - but a beginner wouldn't know that and there's nothing in the text to guide them, so they could well end up being confused.

[Phil Parker]

That's exactly right, but without the bonding, there's no requirement for isolating the frog as you stipulate must be done. In fact, in the absence of bonds, cutting the rails now makes things worse, not better, since the switch blades are now totally reliant on contact against the stock blades, rather than also receiving power from the frog. If you do get a bit of paint or dirt between the rails, the entire blade will now be electrically dead. Your ohmmetre confirms that you do have electrical contact, but that's only because the blades are clean and unpainted.

 

I accept that if you were doing this for your own project, you'd have added the bonds - but a beginner wouldn't know that and there's nothing in the text to guide them, so they could well end up being confused.

 

Beginners have enough of a problem with wiring without insisting they bond rail joins and add extra switching for frogs. The Peco system will work, but it does rely on clean connections between stock and switch rails. Keep these clean and you'll be fine. We've got Edgeworth through a few shows now with just this basic set-up.

 

On an exhibition layout, I'd be inclinded to do the extra work for added reliability but then I'm not really a beginner. I'm also not scared of attacking an expensive RTR point or even building my own. I once had someone explain to me that the ONLY way to use a 35 quid O gauge Peco point was to cut it up into pieces and re-build the thing. He was wrong as the Peco points in front of me were busy proving but at the time, the gentleman was most insistant. A beginner faced with this would have taken up stamp collecting.

 

It all comes down to how far you feel any article mentioning pointwork needs to go. There are books with entire chapters devoted to the subject but that's not going to appeal withing the page of a magazine. Out of the box, the Peco version works.

[chrisf]

Hi Jerry

 

It could be considered a heinous crime in some circles but it's Fence Houses that is down as N gauge, simply because to a person picking the magazine up for the first time, 2FS might not mean anything.....

 

Richard

 

I think that Fence Houses is a well enough known layout for that not to be true!  Surely an accurate description is better than a misleading one.

 

Chris

[Howard Smith]

That's exactly right, but without the bonding, there's no requirement for isolating the frog as you stipulate must be done. In fact, in the absence of bonds, cutting the rails now makes things worse, not better, since the switch blades are now totally reliant on contact against the stock blades, rather than also receiving power from the frog.

 

I think it was Stu that said in a post before "The only difference I can see between letting the frog polarity decide the whole blade polarity or fixing the blade polarity to the nearby rail is the chance of a wheel touching the non-used blade as it passes, thus causing a short."

Doing it the way I demonstrated avoids this problem (wheels out of gauge for instance - although admittedly you would have to be going some in order for this to happen).

 

If you do get a bit of paint or dirt between the rails, the entire blade will now be electrically dead. Your ohmmetre confirms that you do have electrical contact, but that's only because the blades are clean and unpainted.

 

As I said. 

 

I accept that if you were doing this for your own project, you'd have added the bonds - but a beginner wouldn't know that and there's nothing in the text to guide them, so they could well end up being confused.

 

That wasn't the intention of the article, the title of which was 'How to use... DCC Concepts point control' - a test of their devices, not 'How to... wire a point'. If there remains an element of confusion I'm sure they will be in contact.

Regards,

Howard

[-missy-]

Hi Jerry

 

It could be considered a heinous crime in some circles but it's Fence Houses that is down as N gauge, simply because to a person picking the magazine up for the first time, 2FS might not mean anything.....

 

Richard

 

Im sorry Richard but thats a shocking attitude really. I would find it hard not to be insulted if my layout was referred to as N gauge in a magazine, and secondly I would be annoyed that you think (as a magazine) it needs to be dumbed down in such a way. I am pretty sure the vast majority of modellers know what 2mm Finescale is. Unless of course, you think the people who by the magazine are dumb enough not to know?

 

Missy.

[Barry Ten]

Beginners have enough of a problem with wiring without insisting they bond rail joins and add extra switching for frogs. The Peco system will work, but it does rely on clean connections between stock and switch rails. Keep these clean and you'll be fine. We've got Edgeworth through a few shows now with just this basic set-up.

 

 

 

 

I agree, Phil - in fact my own layout, which has done quite a few shows, uses Peco points out of the box with no extra switching. So does Albion Yard, on which I'm one of the operators - and it works very reliably.

[Barry Ten]

 

 

That wasn't the intention of the article, the title of which was 'How to use... DCC Concepts point control' - a test of their devices, not 'How to... wire a point'. If there remains an element of confusion I'm sure they will be in contact.

Regards,

Howard

 

Sorry, Howard - but if they can't get their points to work as intended, they'll probably do what most people do - wander away from the hobby in frustration.

 

There are three basic ways to use a Peco point.

 

1) out of the box - see Phil's point. Works well enough if the blade cleanliness is maintained. I used this on Cogirep and Paynestown, both of which attended many shows.

 

2) out of the box, but with additional frog switching. Simply wire an additional feed to the frog, for polarity control. I use this on my N scale home layout, as I find the electrical reliability of point blade contact to be less dependable in N.

 

3) "belt and braces" - soldered bonds to the rails, frog isolated and switched. This is a very sound approach if you want to totally eliminate the possibility of short circuits, and it also removes any possibility of power loss due to the hinges on the Peco blades.

 

The point is, if you're going to add the bonds, you must isolate the frog. If you isolate the frog, you should add bonds to ensure electrical continuity. To advocate isolating the frog, as you do, and then not mention the addition of the bonds, is introducing a confusing half-way house between 2 and 3.

[Phil Parker]

 I am pretty sure the vast majority of modellers know what 2mm Finescale is. Unless of course, you think the people who by the magazine are dumb enough not to know?

 

Missy.

 

Judging by the huge number of times I've had to explain what EM and P4 are, I'd suggest the even more unusual 2mm Finescale would confuse significant numbers of potential readers. If you look at where sales are in the hobby for both publications and modelling materials, it's very much at the beginners end of the market. Research shows that a significant percentage of readers class themselves as "non-modellers" too, so are unlikley to understand the distinction.

 

This isn't "dumbing down", it's just trying to speak to the majority in terms most will understand. It's no different from then the guys on your firms IT Helpdesk insist on using jargon which you don't understand. Is that your fault or theirs?

[queensquare]

Hi Jerry

 

It could be considered a heinous crime in some circles but it's Fence Houses that is down as N gauge, simply because to a person picking the magazine up for the first time, 2FS might not mean anything.....

 

Richard

 

I'm sorry Richard but this is nonsense. An honest mistake such as referring to the layout on the plans page as 2mm gauge (??) is one thing but wilfully misleading readers is quite another. Telling potential readers a layout is N gauge only for them to find out on opening the mag that its not, far from educating them will simply further confuse them. I feel that deliberately misleading your readers and assuming they are ill informed is a very poor editorial decision. One of the key roles of a magazine is to educate and inform its readers, not further confuse them.

 

When a similar thing occurred at Model Rail, regarding Alan Whitehouse's Mini MSW, using the same excuse of readers not knowing what 2FS was I contacted the magazine as Highbury was due to appear. I insisted that Highbury either be described accurately or I would pull the article. There was an attempt to try and tell us that they knew more about journalism but with Alan being a BBC journalist of many years standing I'm afraid they were somewhat out of their depth.

 

Most important in all of this is the layout owner who, having chosen to go the extra mile, then has his efforts dismissed as being too difficult for readers to understand.This has nothing to do with one scale or gauge being better than another but about accuracy. If you feel its so difficult to understand why not use 'layouts in 7mm, 4mm and 2mm', at least its accurate.

I know Bob is not best pleased at Fencehouses being described as N. 

 

Jerry 

[Howard Smith]

Sorry, Howard - but if they can't get their points to work as intended, they'll probably do what most people do - wander away from the hobby in frustration.

 

I very much doubt it. If that is the case they can't have been that much into the hobby in the first place. Where are all these people that you mention?

On RMweb posting topics about how to make things work perhaps...

Howard

[queensquare]

I very much doubt it. If that is the case they can't have been that much into the hobby in the first place. Where are all these people that you mention?

On RMweb posting topics about how to make things work perhaps...

Howard

 

According to the editorial team research shows that a significant percentage of readers are non modellers so does it matter

 

Jerry

[Phil Parker]

I'm sorry Richard but this is nonsense. An honest mistake such as referring to the layout on the plans page as 2mm gauge (??) is one thing but wilfully misleading readers is quite another. Telling potential readers a layout is N gauge only for them to find out on opening the mag that its not, far from educating them will simply further confuse them. I feel that deliberately misleading your readers and assuming they are ill informed is a very poor editorial decision. One of the key roles of a magazine is to educate and inform its readers, not further confuse them.

 

When a similar thing occurred at Model Rail, regarding Alan Whitehouse's Mini MSW, using the same excuse of readers not knowing what 2FS was I contacted the magazine as Highbury was due to appear. I insisted that Highbury either be described accurately or I would pull the article. There was an attempt to try and tell us that they knew more about journalism but with Alan being a BBC journalist of many years standing I'm afraid they were somewhat out of their depth.

 

Most important in all of this is the layout owner who, having chosen to go the extra mile, then has his efforts dismissed as being too difficult for readers to understand.This has nothing to do with one scale or gauge being better than another but about accuracy. If you feel its so difficult to understand why not use 'layouts in 7mm, 4mm and 2mm', at least its accurate.

I know Bob is not best pleased at Fencehouses being described as N. 

 

Jerry 

 

It doesn't say Fencehouses is N gauge in the magazine. To quote the information panel on the article: "Scale/Gauge 1:152 scale, 9.42mm gauge 2FS" or the large text at the top of the page, "Building a layout almost 40' long would be enough for most people, but Bob Jones' decision to model in 2mm Finescale (2FS) made the challenge even greater." The flash on the top of the page says "2mm Scale wheras on New Bryford it says "OO Gauge".

 

For added information, there is a Key Details panel with the title, "Why 2FS" where the differences are explained.

[queensquare]

It doesn't say Fencehouses is N gauge in the magazine. To quote the information panel on the article: "Scale/Gauge 1:152 scale, 9.42mm gauge 2FS" or the large text at the top of the page, "Building a layout almost 40' long would be enough for most people, but Bob Jones' decision to model in 2mm Finescale (2FS) made the challenge even greater." The flash on the top of the page says "2mm Scale wheras on New Bryford it says "OO Gauge".

 

For added information, there is a Key Details panel with the title, "Why 2FS" where the differences are explained.

 

I agree Phil but the issue is the cover - the first bit any potential reader will see and the cat is out of the bag. Both Ben and Dicky have said that calling Fencehouses N was not a mistake but a deliberate policy.

 

Just think, if there was a little faith in the intelligence of your readers and an accurate description had been used this storm in a tea cup would never have occurred

 

Jerry

[61661]

Afternoon all,

I'm only just back into this after a weekend away, so apologies for not responding earlier. I think it's important that some of the points raised on this thread are clarified now. 

 

1) Highland Hiccups: As many of you have already said, and as I pointed out to Andrew P last week before he decided to go public with his thoughts, we felt that Jane Moss's letter was constructive and written in a non-confrontational way intended to help rather than 'score points'. It contains a good deal of useful background information that can help others modelling similar subjects. The magazine, like this forum, is a space for free exchange of ideas, constructive criticism and feedback and we shouldn't seek to censor anyone who has something positive to contribute. In hindsight, perhaps it shouldn't have been made 'Star Letter', but I'm pleased to see that many on here agree with the decision to publish it. And for those who suggest it's been done as a deliberate provocation to shift copies of BRM - I think you're wildly overestimating the influence of those pages. I've never met anyone whose decision to buy was based on the contents of the letters page!

 

2) Fence Houses: Again, this is something that had been discussed directly with Jerry Clifford last week but then has been continued - negatively - in public without including our side of the story. I agree that the use of N on the cover, rather than 2FS was not ideal, but we were careful to use 2FS throughout the article itself. Despite the best efforts of Jerry and his 2mm Scale Association colleagues, it remains relatively unknown amongst the majority of model railway magazine purchasers (if ten years worth of reader surveys are to be believed, and that is a somewhat more scientific measure than purely anecdotal evidence). EM and P4 are considerably better known as they've been going for longer and draw from a much larger pool of 4mm:1ft scale modellers. It's a work in progress but I would that together we can promote and encourage 2FS modelling, especially when people see the standards being achieved by modellers such as Jerry and Bob Jones.
I was involved with the aforementioned exchange when I was at Model Rail and I have to say I remember it somewhat differently. I've known Alan Whitehouse for nearly 15 years and would never attempt to try and tell him (or anyone else for that matter) how to be a journalist. That sort of behaviour just doesn't wash in a hobby market like ours. This is not the tabloid press and I think anyone who's ever met staff from any of the model railway magazines would agree that they're (we're?) a largely personable and cooperative bunch.

Coincidentally, I have received a short, but very nice email from Bob Jones, the genius behind Fence Houses, which I'm sure he won't mind me sharing with you here:

"Just a note to say thanks to you and the team for a great job with the June BRM on Fence Houses. I even bought the digital version and see you included the video link!
Best wishes.

Bob Jones"

 

Have a good evening.

 

Ben
 

[queensquare]

Thanks for the reply Ben, I shall let this drop with just a last couple of points;

 

I find it very hard to believe that 2mm finescale remains relatively unknown amongst the majority of model railway magazine readers although if Model Rail and now BRM pursue a policy of dumbing down in that belief then that situation is unlikely to change.

 

2mm finescale has been around considerably longer than P4 although I agree the 4mm pool of modellers is much larger.

 

I too have had an email from Bob. Like me, he was very pleased with the article, less so with the cover.

 

Apologies for the misunderstanding, the attempt to pull journalistic rank was not you.

 

Jerry

[CathcartCircle]

2mm FS or N? Who cares how it was advertised? It's an amazing layout and the article which described it correctly was really good! "Rivet Counters" will care however and that for me is pretty sad as there are more important things in the world to be worried about!

 

Sits back and awaits the backlash from the "few"

[Andrew P]

Hi Ben, thanks for the reply to Highland Hiccups on here.

 

Unfortunately I had already hit the post in anger button on here before I e-mailed you, but that said I was angry at the time.

Having had time to reflect on the situation I see it was not wise to go quite so public and I'm sure it wont effect our good relationship we have always had in your previous life.

 

Yes I wish it hadn't been published as a Star Letter, and as big, but it has, and as far as I'm concerned its over now and should be dropped from any further comments on R M Web.

 

Thanks again for both Glen Roy and Trebudoc.

All the best,

Andy.

[Geoff Endacott]

When we list Fence Houses as 2mm finescale on the Trainwest website, are we going to have to include a translation for readers of BRM?

 

Geoff Endacott