MRJ 235

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

....collected my copy from the newsagent an hour ago and had a flick through over coffee once I got in. Yet again I like the first impressions of its content, drawing me in, and look forward to curling up in the armchair with a beer or two to savour the articles in depth.

 

Nice work with the Editorial Jerry and the 1932 aerial view of Wadebridge is worth the purchase price on its own.

 

Dave

[corneliuslundie]

Thanks Captain. I tend to forget the Taleddig loop because nothing ever seems to be scheduled to take advantage of it - mind you that is true of Welshpool and Newtown at present. Looking forward to the summer 2015 timetable. Any chance of anyone working out how to fit ERTMS to steam locos before I die of old age?

 

Still on QUAI:87, I'd like to see that little loco on the high level line moving. It looks as though the gauge is more than the wheelbase. Crabwise comes to mind. Fascinating.

[Horsetan]

 

The 2FS 4F looks interesting, seeing as I have an old Mike Raithby version buried somewhere....

You should dig it out and build it. That made into a very nice model in the right hands.....

 

Have now managed to get a copy of 235, and it turns out that the article is about the Mike Raithby kit. Interesting.

[Brian Harrap]

 

Still on QUAI:87, I'd like to see that little loco on the high level line moving. It looks as though the gauge is more than the wheelbase. Crabwise comes to mind. Fascinating.

Hello Cornelius, Thank you for your interest. Yes it is a cute little thing and it does run along the top level but, dispite apperances, does not crab - the wheelbase being 33mm.

While I'm at it for those that would like to see the monochrome pics of QUAI:87 in full colour a small indulgence follows:-

[The Stationmaster]

Excellent issue Jerry - some really good stuff in there which will keep me going for quite a while, in fact the story of John Greenwood's railway will do that on its own if truth be told (and no disrespect implied to the other RMweb luminaries who fill the pages) 'Eye In The Sky' .

 

The Aerofilms feature also includes something worth a mention - just look at the way the goods mileage sidings at Wadebridge and Henley are laid out, lots of cart turning  and loading space.

 

The quiz is ... well ... hmm (hint there are only two possible engines which will be able to reach the failed train without breaking any Rules or Signalling Regulations and subsequently there is only one engine which can logically, and legitimately, be got to the train if it is cleared a particular direction, while another engine could be used if it is cleared in the other direction.  But it will be quite a wait in either case although taking the failed train in the only really suitable direction does some certain benefits).   I'll only charge 50% of your prize should you use this information to enable you to win

[Killybegs]

Still waiting for my copy. Patience is a virtue, have it if you can, seldom in a woman, never in .............

[Re6/6]

The quiz is ... well ... hmm (hint there are only two possible engines which will be able to reach the failed train without breaking any Rules or Signalling Regulations and subsequently there is only one engine which can logically, and legitimately, be got to the train if it is cleared a particular direction, while another engine could be used if it is cleared in the other direction.  But it will be quite a wait in either case although taking the failed train in the only really suitable direction does some certain benefits).   I'll only charge 50% of your prize should you use this information to enable you to win

 

Right up your street Mike, I would've thought!

 

I wouldn't know where to start having had no experience of 'control' other than cajoling them to put an unscheduled stop into the platform against the AMO's wishes! Form ones were spoken of!

I had 200+ matelots for a war sailing from Pompey!

[Penlan]

The quiz is ... there are only two possible engines which will be able to reach the failed train without breaking any Rules or Signalling Regulations and subsequently there is only one engine which can logically, and legitimately, be got to the train if it is cleared a particular direction, while another engine could be used if it is cleared in the other direction.  But it will be quite a wait in either case although taking the failed train in the only really suitable direction does some certain benefits.  

Uhmn......  I think this is another Quiz I shall pass by.

I wonder if the 'Golden Bull'* will get a look in...   

.

*Golden Bull, see Plain English Campaign web site.

[The Stationmaster]

Right up your street Mike, I would've thought!

 

I wouldn't know where to start having had no experience of 'control' other than cajoling them to put an unscheduled stop into the platform against the AMO's wishes! Form ones were spoken of!

I had 200+ matelots for a war sailing from Pompey!

My experience of Control (with due apologies to the good Cap'n, and Mr Editor Clifford) is that most of the dealing of this would be sorted before they knew much about it, and a number of Block Regulations (but probably no Rules) would be, er, slightly bent in the process.  Getting an engine onto the train and moving it is easy, but time consuming - it then gets rather awkward unless certain parts of the Block Regulations are, hmm, 'over looked'.  Far more enjoyable to read about Quai 87 or John Greenwood's railway.

[Stubby47]

A ramble, but bear with me...

 

Back in the early 1970s I used to read my father's RM & MRC magazines. Of all the articles I saw, one layout stuck in my mind - Buckingham Great Central. Helicopter view photographs, all in black & white, but the concept of a model of a railway, that went somewhere for a reason, stuck with me.

 

About 17 years ago, I was a temporary member of one of the Plymouth MRCs, when they arranged a trip to meet Rev Denny and see BGC. I had no idea where it was, so was astounded to find out Rev Denny lived in Truro, a mere three miles from my own house.  A visit was duly paid and my boyhood visions were transformed into reality. Since then, I was lucky enough to arrange a second visit, this time with my two lads.

 

About this time, I had been frequenting various model railway exhibitions in Cornwall, one of which had a very neat layout called Wenford Bridge. I remember re-visiting the layout several times, fascinated by the overhead crane and moving road vehicles.

 

So imagine my utter surprise, when reading through MRJ 235, to find that not only was Wenford Bridge part of a much larger model railway, but that John Greenwood lives naught but a stones throw from me (again!).

 

An excellent article, explaining John's history in the hobby, including the creation of the DG couplings (something else I didn't know !) and explanation of how his vision of the North Cornwall line has evolved into a superbly planned layout.

[Horsetan]

....imagine my utter surprise, when reading through MRJ 235, to find that not only was Wenford Bridge part of a much larger model railway, but that John Greenwood lives naught but a stones throw from me (again!).....

 

I can see you very quickly becoming a part of his (bathroom) furniture. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

I found Jerry Clifford's Editorial in MRJ235 and Iain Rice's President's Message in Scalefour News 190 contained a very similar theme, namely a downside to the much wider range and better quality of RTR models available today.

 

JC sees this potentially as a  "straitjacket", restricting a layout builder's plans being limited to what is available RTR. He sees scratchbuilding as the answer to this.

 

IR on the other hand, using his knowledge of the American modelling scene to illustrate his point of view, sees the UK kits and bits suppliers as providing an alternative to the risk of a degree of "sameness" inflicting the models we create.

 

Given the furore that MRJ234 and "Flangegate" created, I am surprised no one has commented on this.

[Siberian Snooper]

I found Jerry Clifford's Editorial in MRJ235 and Iain Rice's President's Message in Scalefour News 190 contained a very similar theme, namely a downside to the much wider range and better quality of RTR models available today.

 

JC sees this potentially as a "straitjacket", restricting a layout builder's plans being limited to what is available RTR. He sees scratchbuilding as the answer to this.

 

IR on the other hand, using his knowledge of the American modelling scene to illustrate his point of view, sees the UK kits and bits suppliers as providing an alternative to the risk of a degree of "sameness" inflicting the models we create.

 

Given the furore that MRJ234 and "Flangegate" created, I am surprised no one has commented on this.

I've just got my copies of MRJ and Scalefour mag so I am not yet to give an in depth response, but I have been hoarding kits for some considerable time and so far only one or two have made it to rtr status. My early attempts at scratch building were abysmal, hence the buy it when you see it mentality. This went awry when I did not buy all the Blacksmiths coaches that I wanted, when Dave Smith had the company.So I purchased one of the silhoutte cutters in the hope that this will help with my scratch building abilities when I get round tuit.

 

Edit for spelling

[backofanenvelope]

Just got my copy from t'local newsagents and what a cracking read.. and sealed my decision to request a years subs for chrimbo. Not one article in there that didn't interest and looking forward to seeing NCR at York next year. Bit bias due to 2FS content but all round excellent job Jerry and all at MRJ Towers.

[Horsetan]

....Given the furore that MRJ234 and "Flangegate" created, I am surprised no one has commented on this.

If you look at the Letters page, you will find a web link to a notorious Hitler parody video.....

[Budgie]

Does that count as an example of Godwin's law?

[Captain Kernow]

I found Jerry Clifford's Editorial in MRJ235 and Iain Rice's President's Message in Scalefour News 190 contained a very similar theme, namely a downside to the much wider range and better quality of RTR models available today.

 

JC sees this potentially as a  "straitjacket", restricting a layout builder's plans being limited to what is available RTR. He sees scratchbuilding as the answer to this.

 

IR on the other hand, using his knowledge of the American modelling scene to illustrate his point of view, sees the UK kits and bits suppliers as providing an alternative to the risk of a degree of "sameness" inflicting the models we create.

 

Given the furore that MRJ234 and "Flangegate" created, I am surprised no one has commented on this.

I think they both make good points. There's room for both schools of thought, perhaps a mix is the answer?

[johnarcher]

I think they both make good points. There's room for both schools of thought, perhaps a mix is the answer?

I hope there's room for all schools of thought, however, as has been said here before, maybe there's the risk that the amount and quality of r-t-r doesn't leave enough demand to support the makers of 'kits and bits', thus actually reducing the number of schools of thought that are supported?

[2ManySpams]

Indeed Mickey, it's all about balance and the trade off between time and cost.

 

If you spend all your modelling time making stuff then your finished layout will be unique and highly rewarding ('i made that') but it will take a fair while to achieve - particularly if you've a full time job and family etc.

 

If you take the shortcut and buy finished items (whether it's mass produced RTR or one off commission) you get there sooner but there's not the sense of emotional investment with the item.

 

However...a bit of mix and match gets you there sooner but still enables a goodly amount of personal input/satisfaction/acheivement from actually making stuff.

 

Everyone's mix is different and it depends on the availability of free time/money, personal drive/confidence to give making stuff a go and a heap of other numerous factors.

 

What I can't abide are the fundamentalist attitudes in each 'camp'. On one hand we have folk who want everything done for then by the manufacturers and nicely packaged up ready to use straight from the box or bag. They won't be happy until their demands for every single item on their wants list is produced.

 

On the other hand there's those that have no time for RTR and preach from the pulpit of the lathe and rivet press. Unless it's been hand sculpted using a block of metal and 14 complex processes it's not worthy of being considered a model.

 

There's always going to be intolerance and mis-understanding between folk in the extreme polarised ends of these camps. It really doesn't have to be like this though and there's really no need for the 'my way/opinion is the only way/opinion' mentality that IMO is coming across more and more in threads.

 

I like to think I respect good looking layouts irrespective of the route taken to get there and I hope some folk can appreciate what I'm working on even if they would do it differently or their interests don't match mine.

 

Live and let live, keep a broad and open mind, enjoy what you do and learn from/appreciate what others do.

[johnarcher]

As you say everyone's mix is different.

Personally I like to make, but I suppose I save time (and space and maybe money by not having an elaborate workshop) by using kits.

I certainly don't say others should do the same. I have never bought any item of r-t-r (but only because I like to make things, it's not a moral principle), but, for instance, I have seen weathering jobs applied to r-t-r stock that I think are brilliant modelling.

 

As I said above I just hope no one approach dominates the 4mm market, so the supplies are always there for everyone's preferred approach.

I haven't seen MRJ 235 yet, but from the post above I suspect that the article was not so much about whether r-t-r is a bad thing in itself (an old debate here?) as about whether it is becoming so dominant in 4mm that the market may not support some of those supplies, the 'kits and bits'.

[queensquare]

Just to clarify, the editorial was not about arguing that scratch building is somehow superior. My key point was that modellers will often choose their subject according to what is available commercially and that this could be seen as limiting - the straight jacket comment. I suggested that a better approach is that modellers should choose whatever subject took their fancy and use whatever is available to achieve that end - be it RTR, kit or scratch. I championed scratch building because it is liberating in the sense that you can build whatever you want without being restrained in any way by what is available commercially. As Chris says, a mix and match approach is best. If a particular prototype I want is available, or can be adapted from, RTR or a kit then I will happily use it but if not then scratch building comes into its own. As I said, with scratch building the world is your oyster.

The ultimate exponent of this philosophy is my good friend John Greenwood. John wanted to model Wadebridge and the North Cornwall line in 2 mm finescale. When he started almost nothing was available so he made it, including things like wheels and motors. This wasn't out of some evangelical belief that scratch building was better but out of necessity. John happily uses commercial kits and modified RTR when it suits. At this years Warley he was admiring the new N class soon to be available from Farish and the Maunsell coaches from Dapol, both of which are eminently suitable for Wadebridge and modifying them to suit would take a fraction of the time the scratch built examples he already has took.

I've not seen Ian Rice's article but I will ask him about it when I see him next or try to track down a copy.

 

Jerry

[Jol Wilkinson]

As you say everyone's mix is different.

Personally I like to make, but I suppose I save time (and space and maybe money by not having an elaborate workshop) by using kits.

I certainly don't say others should do the same. I have never bought any item of r-t-r (but only because I like to make things, it's not a moral principle), but, for instance, I have seen weathering jobs applied to r-t-r stock that I think are brilliant modelling.

 

As I said above I just hope no one approach dominates the 4mm market, so the supplies are always there for everyone's preferred approach.

I haven't seen MRJ 235 yet, but from the post above I suspect that the article was not so much about whether r-t-r is a bad thing in itself (an old debate here?) as about whether it is becoming so dominant in 4mm that the market may not support some of those supplies, the 'kits and bits'.

John,

 

I think your second paragraph fairly well sums up what Iain Rice was saying. During a recent visit to his publishers in the USA they discussed the "state" of the hobby on both sides of the pond. He states that a (the?) major difference is the "almost complete extinction of of kits as a means of providing key ingredients for a model railway in the USA, and a consequent total reliance on RTR". I was surprised by this as I had thought that there were kits available, at least for wagons (correct terminology?).

 

It appears that both Iain and Jerry Clifford are making the point that, good though today's products from the RTR producers are, if you let yourself be constrained by using only what is available from them, then there will be less variety in the models we create and the enjoyment from "crafting" something yourself will be lost.

 

Jol

[2ManySpams]

Jerry, I think you'll find that these days there are some folk on forums that can take exception with even a single word. I thought your editorial was balanced and thought provoking. As such you've bound to have given the argumentative amoungst us something to get upset about*. Just be grateful you didn't mention flanges!

 

(*General observation, not aimed at anyone in particular)

[queensquare]

Thanks to the good offices of both Chris and Jol I have just read Ian Rice's Christmas message in the P4 mag and whilst I only build stuff in 4mm for customers I have to say I agree entirely with what Ian has to say. Our conclusions are remarkably similar, essentially, take advantage of some free time over Christmas and experience the pleasure to be had from making stuff.

 

I'm back to sitting on my hands where this thread is concerned :-))

 

Jerry

[garethashenden]

John,

 

I think your second paragraph fairly well sums up what Iain Rice was saying. During a recent visit to his publishers in the USA they discussed the "state" of the hobby on both sides of the pond. He states that a (the?) major difference is the "almost complete extinction of of kits as a means of providing key ingredients for a model railway in the USA, and a consequent total reliance on RTR". I was surprised by this as I had thought that there were kits available, at least for wagons (correct terminology?).

 

It appears that both Iain and Jerry Clifford are making the point that, good though today's products from the RTR producers are, if you let yourself be constrained by using only what is available from them, then there will be less variety in the models we create and the enjoyment from "crafting" something yourself will be lost.

 

Jol

Cars, not wagons. Boxcar, flatcar, etc. It is true that there a very few kits available. There is one "large" manufacturer of resin kits for freight cars, but they're not the easiest to build and with time a lot of their inventory has been released RTR. The are passenger car kits as well, for smaller Class 1 railroads, but again some of the more distinctive and better selling kits are now available RTR.