RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted July 6, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 6, 2011 Update: 8 pages: recent news, including latest Bachmann DMU pre. Pro. shots and Dapol Western CAD. Tetley Mills: 12 pages ; Dave Shakespeare shares highlights and lessons from his layout’s lengthly life (trying saying that after a few beers) Pannier Parade: 4 pages: Phil Parker details up a Bachmann 57xx for 20 quid. Brake Vans: 4 pages: Evan Green-Hughes takes a look at 1:1 scale brake vans Parker’s Guide: 4 pages: Phil Parker builds the Cambrian OO GWR shunter’s truck. The Harwich Boat Train: 2 pages: Pip Dunn recalls the operation of these trains with EE type 3s as per the HM/Bachmann limited edition D6711. 2 pages of letters. Gallery: 12 pages: some shots of previously featured layouts to commemorate this 50th edition. Clinic: 2 pages: fixing stuff Reviews: 20 pages: Includes Dapol ‘Hall’ (with ‘Reality Check’), OO works Midland 2F and MR/Dapol Sentinel. Littleton Parkway: 8 pages: Ron Kington tells how the layout morphed into its current form to attract a new audience; OO 1995-2000 period. Railway realism: 4 pages: Dining on the rails, Evan Green-Hughes looks back to happier days when on-board food service was an everyday part of the railway scene. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graveand Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Congratulations on reaching 50 issues. When Hornby Magazine first started I did not think it would reach the end of the first year. But I think it gave a good kick to the rest of the mags to improve. RM and MR much improved due to the competition. BRM still the same and getting left behind in my opinion only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 8, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 8, 2011 Bought my copy today and pleased to see it's reached the well deserved half century with some good articles and content. But I find one thing in HM very frustrating - the writings of Evan Green-Hughes who in this issue has written about freight brake vans and stated that their demise was due to the introduction of the continuous air brake on freight trains when, Freightliner vehicles and MGRs apart there were very few air braked vehicles in general freight service when brake vans were abolished on continuously braked freights in 1968. this sort of poor research only serves to confuse newcomers to the hobby. And, as seems to have become a regular thing with HM, inaccurate captioning of prototype photos has struck again although on a more minor scale this time with an Up train described as Down on page 72 ( and the picture is not at Pangbourne station either but about a mile west) and the train in the picture on page 73 actually approaching West Drayton and getting on for 2 miles beyond Hayes. Nit picking I know but indicative perhaps of a lack of detail attention in editing picture captions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted July 8, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted July 8, 2011 Bought my copy today and pleased to see it's reached the well deserved half century with some good articles and content. But I find one thing in HM very frustrating - the writings of Evan Green-Hughes who in this issue has written about freight brake vans and stated that their demise was due to the introduction of the continuous air brake on freight trains when, Freightliner vehicles and MGRs apart there were very few air braked vehicles in general freight service when brake vans were abolished on continuously braked freights in 1968. this sort of poor research only serves to confuse newcomers to the hobby. That raised an eyebrow when I read it, I'm no expert but I thought that the principal reason for the demise of the brake van was the agreement that guards could travel in the rear cab of locomotives on continuously (largely vacuum) braked freight by the 1968 date. Lots of good photos of layout though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 ... I thought that the principal reason for the demise of the brake van was the agreement that guards could travel in the rear cab of locomotives on continuously (largely vacuum) braked freight by the 1968 date. It was, it must have come up ten or a dozen times on here over the last few years. I'm very much with Mike on this. I do like the mag, but you kinda wonder what the point is trying to set the record straight when one ill-considered article in an influential magazine can potentially undo it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted July 8, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted July 8, 2011 I'm very much with Mike on this. You kinda wonder what the point is trying to set the record straight when one ill-considered article in an influential magazine can potentially undo it all. Indeed, I'd rather they concentrate on the modelling stuff, particularly the photo intensive layout features and the like of Phil's 'tweaks for twenty quid' articles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerner Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I'm glad other people agree with me that Mr. Evan-Green's articles at times can be a bit skimpy and misleading. If you are going to that type of article then it is of the utmost importance that it is correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted July 8, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 8, 2011 I'm wondering what the point of showing us Dapol's CAD images is, or at least of devoting two pages to what is basically a computer graphic of something that doesn't exist yet. I've been a keen reader of HM since the first issue, and do like the overall "feel" and presentation; there's a friendly vibe to it that I like. But lately there does seem to be a lot of disposable content, even before one gets into matters of accuracy in historical articles. I also wasn't a fan of the recent survey of forthcoming diesel models - was there really a need to devote so much space to that, when all the information is a couple of keystrokes away on the web? Just to reiterate, there's a lot to like about HM but at a time when I'm looking seriously at my dwindling shelf space and wondering if I really need all these train mags in my life, I'd like to see a bit more focus on actual modelling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted July 9, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted July 9, 2011 I've been a keen reader of HM since the first issue, and do like the overall "feel" and presentation; there's a friendly vibe to it that I like. But lately there does seem to be a lot of disposable content, even before one gets into matters of accuracy in historical articles. I also wasn't a fan of the recent survey of forthcoming diesel models - was there really a need to devote so much space to that, when all the information is a couple of keystrokes away on the web? Whilst I did think the tabular data in those diesel articles is a useful summary, the rest of it did strike me as being 'filler', IMHO anyway: I agree about the level of disposable content generally over the last year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torn-on-the-platform Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 there's a friendly vibe to it that I like. This is why I buy HM. The presentation is fantastic and I feel that the standard of photography is excellent. The reviews used to come under criticism for ignoring the negative aspects of models. This is something that they have improved, giving fair, balanced reviews. However, I do now find the reviews frustratingly stale, especially when it is for a re-released model. Here it will usually say something along the lines of: 'It may not be up to the current detailing standards but it is a good representation of the prototype. It would be a welcome addition to any *insert period and region* layout'. The reviews are however, excellent for photos. I find it is the best way to see new products without actually seeing them in the flesh! I also wasn't a fan of the recent survey of forthcoming diesel models - was there really a need to devote so much space to that, when all the information is a couple of keystrokes away on the web? I was disappointed by steam and diesel surveys too. There was nothing new in the steam survey to me, all the info is available in previous HM magazines! Let alone online. I did learn a few things by reading the diesel survey, but this is because they are not my main interest. The layout articles and the news section are usually fantastic. I agree on the CAD point, but it is interesting to at least know how far along the line the new model is. I also buy HM for simple modelling tips for the future, to keep as reference. There isn't always something for me, but its always worth a look. The Phil Parker articles this month look good for me this month! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Shame no-one noticed that if you change a Pannier's identity the buffer beams should be part of the deal "Hello, I'm 5775 - 7702, no - 5775...." Anyway, good shot of a V2 at Fountainhall in the perplexing and frustrating brake van feature. And as for the 40 on Speedlink at Culreoch!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 . And as for the 40 on Speedlink at Culreoch!!!!! Wont go away that one, will it I wrote a lovely caption for that, 'chasing the sun' I think it was. Didnt get used though Decided to get mine from my LMS today rather than Smiffs, it came with a free April issue of 'Vintage Roadscene' B) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted July 9, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 9, 2011 Shame no-one noticed that if you change a Pannier's identity the buffer beams should be part of the deal "Hello, I'm 5775 - 7702, no - 5775...." Yeah that was a bit disappointing, as replacing transfers is quite a good thing to show new comers to the hobby. The other things that I thought perhaps could have been mentioned are; spare lamp brackets on the running plate, handrail above the front step and removing the moulded lamp brackets on the rear of the loco. But other wise not bad as general improvements and the sanding gear I thought was very good. Regards, Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Anybody notice the pannier's been crewed up as a left hooker*? Dave. *I make the empirical assumption that all GW locos were RHD! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 9, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 9, 2011 Anybody notice the pannier's been crewed up as a left hooker*? Dave. *I make the empirical assumption that all GW locos were RHD! I generously ascribed that to the Fireman operating an injector steam valve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
autocoach Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Didn't renew my subscription. Missed at least 3 issues over the last year that never arrived and their publisher (Ian Allen) does not accept e-mails from gmail accounts. Nice photography though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
devonseasider Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 No-one going to pick up on the anomoly in the GWR Shunter's Truck article? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted July 10, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 10, 2011 their publisher (Ian Allen) does not accept e-mails from gmail accounts. didn't know that, maybe that's why Mike has gone quiet on me..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 10, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 10, 2011 No-one going to pick up on the anomoly in the GWR Shunter's Truck article? Well the track circuit story in this case is rather suspect to say the least (it would seem to have been nicked from the manufacturer's blurb) and the bit about livery and markings and cleanliness isn't so much anomalous as inadequate and incorrect). And the model itself lacks lamp irons and, of course, numbering and other markings - but then that's not entirely surprising as the only photo I can immediately find on the 'net of one in BR period livery is of an incorrectly coloured and lettered one on the Gloucs & Warks puffer railway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 45156 Posted July 11, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 11, 2011 Well first and foremost, I enjoyed most of the model related articles here, but I do agree with the other comments about the accuracy of the prototype articles (normally by Evan Green-Hughes), not only in this issue, but also in previous issues. I also think that some of the articles are padding, and could be a lot shorter, or omitted. But eh by gum lads, in't Tetley Mills still a cracking layout which is extremely photogenic - but even that one suffered with a caption error with the caption describing the Royal Scot with a Class 2 headlamp code as an express arrival... It's not rocket science to check and double check, but these days proof reading seems to be a thing of the past - and not only in HM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted July 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 11, 2011 It's not rocket science to check and double check, but these days proof reading seems to be a thing of the past - and not only in HM. Mistakes can creep in, no matter how much proof reading is done - I know. Check out my recent Crosti article in HM, there in the text is a reference to Bachmann oval sprung buffers, even the part number is correct for them - only trouble is, I used round ones on the model! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisf Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I would not want to give Evan Green-Hughes a persecution complex but 45156 is absolutely right. I have expressed concern before about lapses from accuracy in HM and other organs. The danger is that those who come after us will stumble across some of these error-ridden magazines and, without knowing any better, believe what they read. Then where will we be? It is not a new problem and probably an impossibility to weed out every mistake but more effort is clearly needed. I think it was the late Donald Boreham, long-time secretary of the Model Railway Club and author of a classic work on narrow-gauge modelling, who put forward the theory that research is best accomplished by publishing any old toffee [or words to that effect] in the sure and certain knowledge that someone Out There will come forward and tell it like it really is. Form an orderly queue .... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted July 11, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 11, 2011 I was interested to see their review of the Hornby Gatwick Express Class 73 describing the livery application as 'first rate and an accurate reproduction'. Oh no it isn't... Several glaring errors on it, much in the spirit of the often inaccurate products released by the long gone company whose mould it originally was... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_Ava_Hay Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I'm glad other people agree with me that Mr. Evan-Green's articles at times can be a bit skimpy and misleading. If you are going to that type of article then it is of the utmost importance that it is correct. Perhaps not. It is a modelling magazine after all. It might be better if theses articles were more relaxed about provenance with phrases like 'believed to be....' or 'attributed as....' Lots of the photos used were taken long before EXIF data and the digital age were but a dream...... Now if the articles were setting themselves up to be a definitive treatise rather than a modelling idea..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted July 11, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted July 11, 2011 Perhaps not. It is a modelling magazine after all. It might be better if theses articles were more relaxed about provenance with phrases like 'believed to be....' or 'attributed as....' I agree, better to be deliberately vague than definitely wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.