BRM June 2014 Issue

[Trebor]

Hurra, of I go down to smiffs, well I do have to have something to read for my boring 5hr flight to turkey on monday. only downside is I will want to read it before I go, then I am bound to forget to pick it up when I leave for the airport...

[Horsetan]

Hurra, off I go down to smiffs, well I do have to have something to read for my boring 5hr flight to turkey on monday. only downside is I will want to read it before I go, then I am bound to forget to pick it up when I leave for the airport...

 

Not Spain this year?

[Trebor]

Not Spain this year?

not this early, no. Tenerife may be on the card early august when its proper hot...

 

regards

[S.A.C Martin]

I received my subscriber copy to today and was less than impressed with the full page letter picking holes in my Glen Roy article.

 

I may have a few things wrong but so does almost every layout on the Exhibition Circuit and published in magazines.

 

Just waiting to see her layout published in BRM.

 

VERY disgruntled of swad.

 

I've read the letter and there's a few issues with this post.

 

Firstly the letter occupies about three quarters of the page, with a photograph taking up some space too. Secondly the whole piece is prefaced as "observations" rather than criticisms and is informative, constructive and in no way antagonistic.

 

Far be it from me to suggest this, but I wonder if the fact it was written by someone who is presumably a woman modeller has provoked this rather over the top response?

 

Otherwise I cannot see the problem. Railway modellers as an unwritten rule are always looking to improve the accuracy of their models and layouts, so why is putting forward some frankly very enlightening and informative information pertaining to the history of the area suddenly not acceptable?

 

I am all for putting things in the best possible and constructive manner, but to my eyes that is exactly what "Jane" did in BRM this month and find it rather unfair that she is being criticised for doing exactly that which - on this forum in particular - has been something modellers have called out for for years.

[CathcartCircle]

Great to see the article on Fence Houses. When I saw it in the flesh so to speak at MR Scotland this year I was most impressed so it was enlightening to read the background on the layout!

[S.A.C Martin]

Sorry, my above post should read "a third of a page" not "three quarters" which is a wild overestimate.

[Stubby47]

A question for Howard, about the Cobalt switch article.

 

There is a small panel on P78 headed 'Creating the frog gap'.

 

Why do the wires need to be cut which join the frog rails to the moving blades ? If the wires are cut, isn't that section of rail only powered by the blade being in contact with the main rail, which is a major source of problems?

 

I've used electrofrog points with a SPDT switch to change the frog polarity, and it all works fine. What difference is there when using Cobalt switch to change the frog polarity ?

Cheers

Stu

[S.A.C Martin]

Words fail me Mickey. Have you actually read the letter in question and understand the context in which it was written?

 

People used to write into magazines all the time to offer help, information and share ideas.

 

Nothing different has happened here, except the layout owner has taken exception to the letter (and to be frank, I'm sorry but like all of us, if you put your work in the public domain it is therefore in the public domain to be discussed and critiqued).

 

I applaud Jane for writing in and BRM for publishing it. It was an informative and interesting read and I personally learned things I didn't know. Which surely is the point of railway modelling - the research is never truly over?

[Andrew P]

Glen Roy was built as with all my Layout's,

Firstly to PLEASE ME,

and Secondly to please Exhibition goers.

 

I DO NOT BUILD MUSEUM QUALITY LAYOUTS and the Layout was built from out of the box items that anyone can use to give flavour of a Scottish Layout in the Late 60's to the 80's.

 

Observation is one thing but nit picking from someone who so far as we know has never had a Layout published is a bit rich.

 

Good or bad, either way I feel that it should NOT have been published.

Just my opinion.

[S.A.C Martin]

You're entitled to your opinion Andrew and I support the aims of your layout.

 

However information is there to be shared, and I think the term nitpicking is extremely harsh in light of the detailed and comprehensive letter that someone took the time to consider and write in, primarily for your benefit and mutual improvement.

 

There is nothing antagonistic in the letter and to suggest it shouldn't be published is somewhat narrow minded in my view. If you are not prepared to take public criticism, however constructively put (as it has been here) then don't write articles and publish them or put the layout out for public view.

 

No one will ever achieve universal acclaim. So why get wound up over - of all things - a letter into a magazine that does much to inform as it does to offer help and improve the quality of your work.

[S.A.C Martin]

Yet somehow the letter we speak of did something more heinous than siny relating information for the mutual improvement of modellers modelling the Scottish region?

 

I've not spoken to anyone in particular on this matter Mickey but I imagine that like minded individuals will see this storm in a teacup for exactly that it is.

[micknich2003]

What's all the fuss about? Stick a "Castle" chimney on a "LMS 4F" and you would never hear the end of it. Jane has made a similar comment or observation. End of story.

[Andrew P]

I sure have ...Id not comment on something I know nothing of would I...Ill leave that to lesser forums me owd......... funny how you got a friend to agree with you aint it

Cheers Mickey, (not a friend and we are NOT related, hahaha) for the support I have received at the Derby Show his weekend and from the MANY PM's that have come though has made me realise just how much support I have here on the RM Web for the Layouts I build and the Threads I have.

 

Thanks again.

[lightengine]

Constructive criticism can always be accepted, but surely it is hard to define in what context something is written.

Sometimes information is given because the person giving it is/thinks they are more knowledgeable about the subject. It can be construed that its not very relevant.

How many times do we see layouts where buildings show lack of being fixed to the base board, floating above platforms. This seldom happens in real life. Do people write in to condemn this?

Whether the said policeman is wearing the incorrect uniform does not really detract from the overall layout. After all, how many prototype trains run around with Sprat & Winkle couplings? But we see this as permissible in modelling.

 

But I guess if we had a police modelling scene and an incorrectly detailed loco was placed in it the rail modellers would write to the police modelling magazine pointing out the errors.

 

I suppose we could argue that sawdust leaves on a tree do not properly represent the correct shape of a plane tree leaf. It's a representation!

 

Jane might have an outstanding layout. Perhaps we will get a chance to compare it.

[Brian D]

Before I take sides in "The Great Letter Debate" I suppose I better buy the mag and read the letter. Oh, hang on a minute, perhaps that was why it was published - to make occasional BRM buyers like me actually buy this issue via this media/controversy. Just a thought. It is very rare I think to see a letter criticising a "fellow" (if that is the right word in this increasingly PC world) modeller's efforts but I will have to d*mn well buy the mag and read the bl**dy letter now to decide whether this is indeed a case of criticism or a case of helpful advice.

[S.A.C Martin]

It's irrelevant whether she has a layout or not.

 

She wrote in to offer observations on a subject she is knowledgeable about to a magazine, as is her right because they have a letters page.

 

I dislike the line of reasoning that seems to be prevailing - that it should not have been published because the layout owner takes exception to criticism. What about other Scottish region modellers who would like to get these details right?

 

One day we will lament the loss of the sharing of knowledge and constructive criticism in our hobby, for fear of offending anyone

 

Though I must confess Andrew P, I don't understand why you are offended - Jane was clearly interested enough by your article to care to write in and offer her views. I'd love to have that level of interest in my own work. I would see this as a positive letter rather than something negative. Certainly her letter does not have a negative tone to it.

[Howard Smith]

A question for Howard, about the Cobalt switch article.

 

There is a small panel on P78 headed 'Creating the frog gap'.

 

Why do the wires need to be cut which join the frog rails to the moving blades ? If the wires are cut, isn't that section of rail only powered by the blade being in contact with the main rail, which is a major source of problems?

 

I've used electrofrog points with a SPDT switch to change the frog polarity, and it all works fine. What difference is there when using Cobalt switch to change the frog polarity ?

Cheers

Stu

 

 

Hello Stu,

   Thanks for asking, perhaps I should have made it a little clearer - here is how I do it:

 

Peco points although well designed are inherently poor at reliable connections between the blades and rails as you mention, especially after painting the rails - there is always a little bit of paint that gets in there and even if you are careful, over time track rubber deposits do accumulate. Yes you can clean them often and tweak them to ensure good contacts, but having scratch-built many points, I use a different method:

 

I solder each point blade to a short piece of wire, connected respectively to their adjacent outer rails (the ones leading from the point toe), effectively rendering the contact between point blade and rail only one of mechanical and not electrical intent. Gone are the woes of the cleaning. However due to the nature of the Electrofrog points, the frogs are connected to the point blade rails, effectively creating a short. The solution is just to cut the thin wires underneath as mentionned in the article. Simple, effective and done in a matter of seconds (to somebody capable of soldering).

 

You mention that you use SPDT switches to change the frog polarity, well effectively the Cobalt switch uses a DPDT switch to reverse polarity to the Cobalt point motor alone. The polarity of the frog is changed via one of the two integrated SPDT switches in the Cobalt motor.

The result is that the length of your wiring to change the frog polarity is only as long as your point (using feed from point toe to point motor switches) and alleviates the need to carry wires all the way to a separate SPDT switch on a control panel somewhere.

 

(Just like a tortoise motor, the Cobalt motors are slow action stallers and require constant current in order to maintain pressure between blade and rail - the same principle is applied to these as well).

 

I hope this helps Stu,

Regards,

Howard

[S.A.C Martin]

Whatever you say Simon...I konw you dot like "robust debate" me old flower, but you do give it out somewhat

Mickey, I've not made this personal at all, why do you feel the need to? We're more than capable, I would hope, as adults capable of having a discussion without resorting to such tactics.

Whatever you say Simon...I konw you dot like "robust debate" me old flower, but you do give it out somewhat

Mickey, I've not made this personal at all, why do you feel the need to? We're more than capable, I would hope, as adults capable of having a discussion without resorting to such tactics.

[Andrew P]

Mickey, I've not made this personal at all, why do you feel the need to? We're more than capable, I would hope, as adults capable of having a discussion without resorting to such tactics.

 

Mickey, I've not made this personal at all, why do you feel the need to? We're more than capable, I would hope, as adults capable of having a discussion without resorting to such tactics.

So much so that you had to say it twice Martin.

 

Lets agree to differ on this one and for the sake of R M Web and BRM drop it.

[S.A.C Martin]

iPhone posting does sometimes do that I'm afraid! Happy to agree to disagree.

[Stubby47]

Howard,

Thanks for your reply.

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.

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

 

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.

Cheers

Stu

[Mod4]

Lets agree to differ on this one and for the sake of R M Web and BRM drop it.

Yes please I think enough has now been said by all on the matter of the letter. Let's remain civil and continue to discuss the rest of the content of this issue of the magazine.

Thank you from me and my diodes.

[Horsetan]

....I DO NOT BUILD MUSEUM QUALITY LAYOUTS ....

There's no need to shout.

 

Good or bad, either way I feel that it should NOT have been published.

Just my opinion.

Ever considered becoming a censor?

[queensquare]

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 

[lightengine]

I cannot seem to access any of the extra photos. What am I not doing right?