Model Rail 215 November 2015

[Barry Ten]

I thought it was a good issue and enjoyed the focus on aircraft. I liked seeing the Dragon Rapides as I don't think anyone's ever made a more beautiful flying machine, and I'm quite tempted by that die-cast one. I wish there was a plastic kit in one of the larger scales. Since Chris mentioned the various kits for the DC3 in his article, I thought I'd throw my 1/48th Revell/Monogram "Berlin Airlift" one in, in case anyone's interested. I've since finished it and added a light touch of weathering. It's an old kit with raised panel lines and not too many fiddly parts, but pretty satisfying to build as it all fits really nicely.

 

 

Once again, cheers for the issue. Personally I'd love to see more of this sort of crossover modelling as there's surely much to be learned on all sides.

[Ross34]

I thought it was a good issue

Once again, cheers for the issue. Personally I'd love to see more of this sort of crossover modelling as there's surely much to be learned on all sides.

Without a shadow of doubt. Railway modelling (especially in the UK I would suggest) is particularly insular in this respect. The finish obtained by the model aircraft guys is stunning. The weathering by the military modelling fraternity is often light years ahead of the stuff you see at exhibitions or in the mags.

Telford plastic model show is on soon...if you can get to it I would urge you to go and chat to some of the people ...it's an eye opener.

[stewartingram]

I'm sorry I just don't get the aircraft bit, just like I didn't get the Battleship /seascape in last months edition. I do get that there will be non railway content in context , to get an overall railway scene. Here again though I don't get the aircraft thing. The reality is that airfields are usually very large installations and can't be corner fillers for a layout . You also do not get aircraft parked up against fences , which could conceivably be a corner filler, but just not correct. Really railways and aircraft don't mix, unless you are doing Gatwick airport

I have to disagree with this one. I have a passing interest in aircraft; Grandad took me to a good few air displays in the 50s & 60s, I lived in Cambridgeshire amongst many airfields, and of I course I have done the Airfix kit thing. But I have no need for an airfield on my layout, however the articles were interesting to me, as much as ANY scenic feature is relevant. Important point is YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYBODY ALL OF THE TIME.

As for not parking aircraft near perimeter fences - TOSH.

RAF Wyton, plenty of Canberra and Valiants, later Victor tankers, right up to the fenceline. Actually whilst waiting at the crossroad traffic lights/barriers at the end of the runway there for a Canberra to take off; it crashed on takeoff, landing adjacent to one of the roads, right next to planes parked next to the hedge. Not nice.

USAF Alconbury. NO perimeter fence (though later on one was erected after CND got more active). Large aircraft parked right up to the edge of the field, adjacent to the main A road.

USAF Mildenhall and Lakenheath, fenced but aircraft right up to the fence. They even provided a parking area outside the fence to view the loading of aircraft at Mildenhall.

RAF Upwood, right next to the road. Saw my only active Stirling parked there.

RAF Duxford, Waterbeach, etc

USAF Chelveston, etc.

 

Stewart

 

Stewart

[dibber25]

I have to disagree with this one. I have a passing interest in aircraft; Grandad took me to a good few air displays in the 50s & 60s, I lived in Cambridgeshire amongst many airfields, and of I course I have done the Airfix kit thing. But I have no need for an airfield on my layout, however the articles were interesting to me, as much as ANY scenic feature is relevant. Important point is YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYBODY ALL OF THE TIME.

As for not parking aircraft near perimeter fences - TOSH.

RAF Wyton, plenty of Canberra and Valiants, later Victor tankers, right up to the fenceline. Actually whilst waiting at the crossroad traffic lights/barriers at the end of the runway there for a Canberra to take off; it crashed on takeoff, landing adjacent to one of the roads, right next to planes parked next to the hedge. Not nice.

USAF Alconbury. NO perimeter fence (though later on one was erected after CND got more active). Large aircraft parked right up to the edge of the field, adjacent to the main A road.

USAF Mildenhall and Lakenheath, fenced but aircraft right up to the fence. They even provided a parking area outside the fence to view the loading of aircraft at Mildenhall.

RAF Upwood, right next to the road. Saw my only active Stirling parked there.

RAF Duxford, Waterbeach, etc

USAF Chelveston, etc.

 

Stewart

 

Stewart

I think it may also depend on the period you're modelling. I would guess that after the Greenham Common stuff in the 1960s, perimeters were well protected. However, close to where I live, at Polebrook where the USAAF 351st Bomb Group's B17s were based, the plan clearly shows hard stands on the opposite side of the lane (to Hemington village) from the airfield. The bank and wall for the gun testing area is still in a farm field there, and you can still clearly see the concrete either side of the road where the taxiways crossed the lane. To me, such things show that you can 'suggest' an airfield on your layout without needing huge amounts of space. Indeed, I've actually done so on my own layout - we just didn't manage to squeeze the pictures into a very full issue. It's currently set up in civilian mode with a Bristol Superfreighter loading Oxford Diecast cars. (CJL)

[ColinK]

I bought this issue specifically for the article on 'Reely Grate, a fantastic layout and Mike is a realy great bloke. I found the artices on cement terminals and modern mainline useful.

 

I enjoyed the whole magazine. Quite happy to have aircraft included. Railway modelling magazines do have articles on road vehicles and canals, so aircraft are fine.

[scottishlocos]

All

 

I bought this issue yesterday mainly because of the Aeroplanes! Interest has never been higher with the final season of Vulcan XH558 the visit last year of a Canadian Lancaster and the Battle of Britain memorial.

 

I enjoyed the layout articles shows what can be done in a large space with Bee Lane and small space Reely Grate and also Peter's workbench with the pipework hopfeully be doing something similar to this in N gauge soon.

 

The only thing I would say is more jets could have featured and more could have been said about where railways and airfields mix my local former RAF base at Leuchars had it''s own railway sidings inside the base until the late 1980's early 1990's one of the airshows there in the 80's had Union of South Africa in steam on one of these sidings.

Also in the editorial locomotives named after aircraft were mentioned but no mention of the late lamented Tinsley TMD unofficial namers after RAF jets.

 

These are only minor niggles and could be addressed in a follow up article. Overall a really good issue well done Richard Chris and team. Somebody said lack of N gauge but I think MR has Ben Ando not sure if any other mag has specific N gauge writer.

 

Dave

[tersono]

Who would ever want to edit a magazine, as it seems you are probably not going to satisfy everyone. 

 

 

Speaking as someone who edits a magazine for a living (albeit nothing to do with railways), you have a point

[Barry Ten]

One thing in favour of building aircraft (or any non-railway subject, really) is that, unless you're incorporating them into some huge diorama, each project is a thing unto itself and it's very satisfying when you put the last decal on and tear up the box! Often when we're building railway models, they're intended as parts of a larger whole - wagons in a train, locomotives in a motive power stud, buildings in a town - etc, and you're really only tackling a small part of a much larger project, which might take years to finish. In contrast you can build a plane in a weekend and it doesn't need to fit it into any pre-conceived period or scale, you can just build it because you like the look of it.

 

The only downside with these things is that you quickly run out of shelf space and unlike trains, they don't fit neatly back into their boxes.

[Pacific231G]

Aircraft are fine but are we going to get a 1:76 debate of the magnitude of SF

 

Edit

 

As opposed to 1:72 of your average aircraft kit.

Just put the edge of the airfield at the front of the layout, you'd need an awfully large layout to model any more of it, with the track behind it  and use the difference in scale as forced perspective. There are plenty of promising prototypes you could use.

 

At Southend Airport - sorry London Southend Airport- the railway to Southend Victoria passes immediately in front of the main (now the only)  06-24 runway and, though 24 has a displaced threshold, the centre line for its taxiway is only 40 metres from the railway. The Vulcan XL246 preserved there is even closer at 25 metres from the railway line.

 

I don't have a copyright free picture of it but the late Andy Hart did a very nice diorama based on Le Touquet with the two car MU from or for Paris crossing the apron next to a couple of light aircraft and the plane from Gatwick (a 111 ISTR) It's the only airfield where I've taxied an aircraft over a railway line (very carefully!!) though by then it had long closed.

The line was a short branch off the Paris-Boulogne-Calais main line used by the Silver Arrow service  (London Vic- Gatwick- Le Touquet- Paris Nord) The line crossed the now closed secondary runway 25-07 before the 25 displaced threshold then crossed the main apron to reach a single platform alongside the terminal building. Publicity shots with the train in front of the the plane implied that you stepped straight from one to the other but the "station" was groundside and pasengers had to go via the terminal. I'd always assumed the branch was originally for fuel etc but it was actually built specially for the Silver Arrow service. If you look on Google earth you can trace it quite easily though most of the track on the actual airfield has now been lifted.

 

RAF Brize Norton also had a taxiway that crossed the Oxford-Fairford branch. 

 

At Gisborne NZ an active railway line still crosses the main runway and there are sets of red lights to stop aircraft from landing when the signals are cleared for a train.

[Budgie]

At Gisborne NZ an active railway line still crosses the main runway and there are sets of red lights to stop aircraft from landing when the signals are cleared for a train.

When I read that I thought "you can't stop aircraft when they're flying; they'll fall out of the sky". I suppose when the red lights are on they go around again.

[PhilJ W]

When I read that I thought "you can't stop aircraft when they're flying; they'll fall out of the sky". I suppose when the red lights are on they go around again.

Unless its a helicopter.

[kiltedsignaller]

Next month my 2FS layout kyle of Lochalsh will appear - its essentially dirty blue diesels, coaches and freight which are all N gauge rolling stock slightly tweaked to run on the Easitrac system - hope thats a nod back to some of the concerns above...

I shall look forward to that with especial interest...

[dana]

model rail On Pocketmags.com  ? where and what category please , I am only aware of Hornby magazine and BRM (which ihave a subscripition  ) being available.

[bcnPete]

model rail On Pocketmags.com  ? where and what category please , I am only aware of Hornby magazine and BRM (which ihave a subscripition  ) being available.

Try typing Model Rail in the search heading - it comes up as the first entry.

 

I have it on the iPad/iPhone so if you type in Model Rail in the app search you should have it...Railway Modeller and Rail Express are also on it too

 

Hope this helps...

[Jongudmund]

No, it doesn't. It simply means I dont like his editorial style.

 

I assumed the personal comment about Ben was a joke because it would be quite rude otherwise. But apparently you were serious. In which case I think that is out of line.

[JCL]

model rail On Pocketmags.com  ? where and what category please , I am only aware of Hornby magazine and BRM (which ihave a subscripition  ) being available.

Hi there, try Great Magazines and not Pocketmags for Model Rail: http://www.greatmagazines.co.uk/rail-magazines

 

Railway Modeller is with Exact Editions here: https://www.exacteditions.com/read/railwaymodeller

 

Reading the help page, I'm guessing that Model Rail can only be viewed on a smartphone or tablet, and BRM, Hornby and RM can be viewed on these and on a Windows PC or Apple Mac via an Internet browser.

 

Cheers

 

Jason

[mevaman]

Hi I am currently reading MR via pocketmags. I have it both on my iPad and iPhone 6.

[mevaman]

Just reading the 02 review again and have noted that the population of a large town in Cornwall have had great offence. The spelling is Camborne and not Cambourne.

 

I come from Redruth, the arch enemy of Camborne, so really should not care about the offence caused!!

 

Andrew

[Legend]

Just seen a video posted over on Kernow 02 thread from Model Rail saying that issue with erratic running was due to back to back being out. It then says it's simple to check and change this. I wouldn't have a clue. I wonder if that might be the basis of a magazine article, not specifically on the O2 , although you could use that as an example. How exactly do you adjust back to back on some models?

[JCL]

Hi Andrew, I've learned something new today. Thanks for replying again.

[Fat Controller]

Just put the edge of the airfield at the front of the layout, you'd need an awfully large layout to model any more of it, with the track behind it  and use the difference in scale as forced perspective. There are plenty of promising prototypes you could use.

 

At Southend Airport - sorry London Southend Airport- the railway to Southend Victoria passes immediately in front of the main (now the only)  06-24 runway and, though 24 has a displaced threshold, the centre line for its taxiway is only 40 metres from the railway. The Vulcan XL246 preserved there is even closer at 25 metres from the railway line.

 

I don't have a copyright free picture of it but the late Andy Hart did a very nice diorama based on Le Touquet with the two car MU from or for Paris crossing the apron next to a couple of light aircraft and the plane from Gatwick (a 111 ISTR) It's the only airfield where I've taxied an aircraft over a railway line (very carefully!!) though by then it had long closed.

The line was a short branch off the Paris-Boulogne-Calais main line used by the Silver Arrow service  (London Vic- Gatwick- Le Touquet- Paris Nord) The line crossed the now closed secondary runway 25-07 before the 25 displaced threshold then crossed the main apron to reach a single platform alongside the terminal building. Publicity shots with the train in front of the the plane implied that you stepped straight from one to the other but the "station" was groundside and pasengers had to go via the terminal. I'd always assumed the branch was originally for fuel etc but it was actually built specially for the Silver Arrow service. If you look on Google earth you can trace it quite easily though most of the track on the actual airfield has now been lifted.

 

RAF Brize Norton also had a taxiway that crossed the Oxford-Fairford branch. 

 

At Gisborne NZ an active railway line still crosses the main runway and there are sets of red lights to stop aircraft from landing when the signals are cleared for a train.

The line from Patchway towards Avonmouth crosses the principle taxiway at Filton. At several locations where the ends of runways are close to railways, there have been signals that can be replaced by the control tower- the IRSE journal's featured a few. They can't have been used that often, as a former colleague who'd been at RAF Valley claimed never to have seen the one there in use during his sojourn there.

[The Stationmaster]

The line from Patchway towards Avonmouth crosses the principle taxiway at Filton. At several locations where the ends of runways are close to railways, there have been signals that can be replaced by the control tower- the IRSE journal's featured a few. They can't have been used that often, as a former colleague who'd been at RAF Valley claimed never to have seen the one there in use during his sojourn there.

Actually the one at Filton is on the taxiway/access to some hangars which are basically workshops/factory buildings.  It was widened (aircraft wise that is) in the early 1990s when I was developing the coal scheme and British Aerospace were bidding for major overhaul work on BA 747s but they didn't get the contract although the crossing was widened.  It is equipped as a 'level crossing' with 'barriers which are long beams that can be rolled back to open up for aircraft access but which normally completely close the crossing to aircraft movement.

[rue_d_etropal]

just got my copy today. Only just back from abroad so eagerly waited. Overall a very good issue. I prefer it to last one. still could do with some drawings, despite hat Chris says. It is something in old magazines  I go back to years later, and the French magazine Voie Libre always has a pull out of scale drawings. The drawing might not be of interest now , but often are useful later on.

I still find 3 pages too much for a revue of a new loco. Maybe if it as combined with an article on the prototype, including drawings.

As for variety of articles, I am very broad minded in my interests in railways and their surroundings, so most articles will interest me, unless I feel I have seen something similar recently. Highly technical articles on building , say a brass loco kit, will leave me cold, and DCC artlcles tend to be ignored. I have tried DCC, know what it can and can not do, and it now seems to be getting complicated, when it started out as the 'easy option'.

One thing I would like to see in UK magazines is the inclusion of articles on non British railways. I know it has been tried, but squashed by the loud crowd who think railways stop at the channel. Oddly enough WW1 themed layouts have got through, but I made a point of having my WW1 layout in CM, as based on the guidelines it was a continental model railway. If you are going to have that sort of rule or guideline, then it should be kept to, and not bent to satisfy those who wanted something in their British orientated magazine. Sure to stir up something there, I hope.

An idea for an article, how about bricks, or more importantly the different brick bonds and which ones people should have on their models. All too often , period buildings have modern stretcher bond, although I have come across some older buildings with this bond.

Good to see updates on USA tank loco. The Dawson-Hall buildings look interesting, but I take it the surfaces are printed, not laser cut. I do prefer the 3D look, but that can be a challenge, especially hen using laser cutting. I know Chris said he was not aware of the LCUT model buildings, so I would still like to see something using these versatile laser cut kits. Only problem I have it the LCUT buildings is the brick bond, and I have discussed this with them, and fully understand the difficulties of doing anything other than stretcher bond.

 

Paper quality does not bother me. I have found that in hot weather it makes no difference as ink still can come off on fingers, and I am more interested in the content not what is printed on. Arguments for better quality paper , increasing cost, can damage the viability of a good quality magazine such as Model Rail.

[JCL]

I've only scanned it, but I really like the issue as a once in a while thing. It made a change to the normal content.

 

I'm also enjoying the fact that the layout photography now. For most of this year, for some reason, photos were very washed out and while there were no proper blacks, certain colours were very saturated. I put it down to the digital app I'm using, but the issue didn't really affect the non-layout photos. Anyway, whatever it was, it all seems to have gone away and I'm enjoying reading my copies again.

 

cheers.

 

Jason

[dibber25]

Just seen a video posted over on Kernow 02 thread from Model Rail saying that issue with erratic running was due to back to back being out. It then says it's simple to check and change this. I wouldn't have a clue. I wonder if that might be the basis of a magazine article, not specifically on the O2 , although you could use that as an example. How exactly do you adjust back to back on some models?

I'm already working on just such an article. (CJL)