Jump to content
 

Model Railway Journal 199


Recommended Posts

mrj199.jpg

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

MRJ 199 has been dispatched from Wild Swan contents include:

Small supplier’s forum

Nunstanton by Trevor Nunn

An LSWR 4 coach close coupled block by Norman Patterson

The joy of S by Simon Dunkley

The S Scale Model Railway Society by Andy May

The attractions of resin casting by Maurice Hopper

A Claud for tight curves by Jas Millham

A revolving traverser by Robin Fielding

The Belfast caboose by Desmond Brown

The tale of two Y7’s by John Holden

Optical wheel quartering by Peter Ross

Letters

Diary

 

There will be plenty of copies on sale at Railex this weekend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, looking forward to that.

 

Is the editor this month prolific in S scale or is there an anniversary or similar?

 

 

Don't know about the editor, whosoever he may be(!) but it IS the S scale societies 64th anniversary year see: http://www.s-scale.org.uk/events.htm

S scale uses a ratio of 1/64th if you maybe wondered why the 64th anniversary is special!

I believe it's the ONLY scale/gauge combination in the world, that is the same throughout the world! i.e. where someone who models standard gauge in the UK is working to the same scale & gauge as someone in the USA, Europe, Australia, wherever.

It's also the oldest (and yet the smallest) of the "scale" societies and has probably the least trade support of any scale, anywhere, also known as the "scratchbuilders scale".

.

I must point out that i am neither a member nor a modeller but i do really admire people and their layouts in this scale! Therefore, i am really looking forward to this issue!

TTFN,

John E.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand issue 200 is more or less done!

Just dropped through the door today - congratulations to the Scalefour society for correctly identifying this as the 200th. issue!

 

Still to digest the contents but looks good on the first run through.

 

Adrian

Link to post
Share on other sites

0 was officially a preview issue wasn't it?

Very true - although the editorial clearly says "This, then, is the first Model Railway Journal" (their emphasis) calling it a pilot issue followed by "the next issue [...] will be No.1" (my emphasis), as far as I'm concerned I have 200 issues of MRJ in my collection, however YMMV.

Adrian

 

n.b. at least providing a suitable distraction from the usual queries about the identity of the editorial contributor - it was Col Mustard in the Study m'lud.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My subscription copy of No 199 hasn't arrived yet. Should I be worried it has gone astray? There is no sign of any contact details for Wild Swan, other than their address and snail mail to enquire if my copy is lost would be so old fashioned. Anyone know any 21st Century means of communicating with Wild Swan?

 

Stan

Link to post
Share on other sites

My subscription copy of No 199 hasn't arrived yet. Should I be worried it has gone astray? There is no sign of any contact details for Wild Swan, other than their address and snail mail to enquire if my copy is lost would be so old fashioned. Anyone know any 21st Century means of communicating with Wild Swan?

 

Stan

I believe a computer was spotted in the Wild Swan office some time ago but this may be a rumour. I know my article needed to be printed out to be shown to Paul.

 

They were certainly all delivered to the MMRS by Monday so I think they should have been sent.

 

David may be able to check for you via his 'Small Suppliers' contacts?

 

 

After reading the turny traverser thingy article i'm kicking myself for throwing the rack rails we had spare out in work.. Will have to scrap some more kit soon to get some more :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good edition, but some of the articles seem oddly unfinished.

 

The one on the LSWR close-coupled coaches in particular just seems to stop in the middle.

 

I suspect that that might have been an editorial decision by Barry Norman. Norman Pattenden certainly wrote a blow by blow, detailed account of how he built his LSWR coaches which probably could have filled a fair chunk of the issue. :D

 

Jim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that that might have been an editorial decision by Barry Norman. Norman Pattenden certainly wrote a blow by blow, detailed account of how he built his LSWR coaches which probably could have filled a fair chunk of the issue. :D

 

Jim.

 

Half an issue on those coaches would have been fine with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old rule in writing press releases was always to put the important stuff first, so that the editor could then cut to to length from the bottom up; seems as if the same rule has been applied here!

 

At the moment, though, the article (excellent though it is!) just stops rather than ends. Sloppy editing, that man! Perhaps he needed the room for his longer-than-usual editorial. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Haven't read it all yet, but in many ways I thought this one was typical of S Scale - impressive in an understated sort of way.

 

Robin Fielding's revolving traverser is a work of genius! (IMHO).

 

Ralph

Lambton58

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Robin Fielding's revolving traverser is a work of genius! (IMHO).

 

 

Agreed! Though a minor quibble would be the lack of a drawing, it's so clever I had to think about it for a while before I could understand how it works!

 

Great issue.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and BRING BACK THE COMPENDIUM, thanks! :yahoo_mini:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I am new to this site and, like Allegheny, am not, as yet, an active modeller. however, I do also have a great admiration for the scratch builders. I knew Norman Pattenden and recall the reason he so liked the S Scale was the almost total absence of ready available modles. I never saw his LSWR coaches but he did show me a working S Scale signal box lever frame he had built. I don't know whether it had interlocking but the catch handles were certainly operative. Can anyone else remember Norman and his models? I believe some, at least, are in good hands.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone else remember Norman and his models? I believe some, at least, are in good hands.

 

All Norman's models went to very good homes and regularly appear on layouts. At his request his models were auctioned to members of the SSMRS and the proceeds were given to the S Scale Society - which went towards funding the the production of new rail and chairs in 2009.

 

Jim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • RMweb Premium

Don't know about the editor, whosoever he may be(!) but it IS the S scale societies 64th anniversary year see: http://www.s-scale.org.uk/events.htm

S scale uses a ratio of 1/64th if you maybe wondered why the 64th anniversary is special!

I believe it's the ONLY scale/gauge combination in the world, that is the same throughout the world! i.e. where someone who models standard gauge in the UK is working to the same scale & gauge as someone in the USA, Europe, Australia, wherever.

It's also the oldest (and yet the smallest) of the "scale" societies and has probably the least trade support of any scale, anywhere, also known as the "scratchbuilders scale".

.

I must point out that i am neither a member nor a modeller but i do really admire people and their layouts in this scale! Therefore, i am really looking forward to this issue!

TTFN,

John E.

 

Just looking again at this issue and on the S Scale Society in particular. In the history of the early days, Andy May states the the decision as to whether 3/16th scale or 5mm scale was to be the standard. He says it was split 50/50 and the final decision depended on whatever the next member to join used.

 

Barry Norman in the same issue (as guest editor - page 158) states that it was decided by the casting vote of the Chairman. So 2 different answers, which one is correct, or is it part of the mystery?

 

Kevin Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking again at this issue and on the S Scale Society in particular. In the history of the early days, Andy May states the the decision as to whether 3/16th scale or 5mm scale was to be the standard. He says it was split 50/50 and the final decision depended on whatever the next member to join used.

 

Barry Norman in the same issue (as guest editor - page 158) states that it was decided by the casting vote of the Chairman. So 2 different answers, which one is correct, or is it part of the mystery?

 

I always understood that Andy May's version was the correct one and that the late Alan Cruikshank was the member who walked through the door and set the scale. In a way, Barry's account could be correct if the vote was hung at a meeting and the chairman took the decision to adopt the scale used by the next new member. I'll do a bit of digging, and the answer might lie in the archives of the Gazette and the newsletters of the time - which are now all archived online by Andy May.

 

I missed that when I read the issue. :D

 

Jim.

S Scale Gazette Editor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always understood that Andy May's version was the correct one and that the late Alan Cruikshank was the member who walked through the door and set the scale. In a way, Barry's account could be correct if the vote was hung at a meeting and the chairman took the decision to adopt the scale used by the next new member.

 

The wisdom of Solomon springs to mind over this story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...