cctransuk

When first introduced, the PALVANs would have worked mainly in block trains to distribution depots, and then were returned to the factory. The CIRCUIT marking meant that the wagon was to be confined to that routing, to the best of my knowledge. A single PALVAN in a mixed goods train would have been unusual in the early days of their use. CJI.

PALVANs were designed for a new traffic - manufactured goods loaded on pallets. As such, they were constructed for, and allocated to specific traffic flows - hence their RETURN TO .... markings. Later, they were used for other routes, and the original markings were painted-out, and perhaps relettered. If your modelling period coincides with the introduction of PALVANS, the markings are appropriate; if later, an obvious painting-out would probably be correct. CJI.

Probably best if we don't get into the FOR / AGAINST debate - it always descends into acrimony. For that reason, I won't oppose the opinion above. CJI.

Yes! CJI.

It MAY be the three-quarter angle of the images, but the chassis of these tank wagons appear to be overlong; (at least by comparison with the 4mm. scale versions). CJI.

Quite - we used to be told how to build models, not just tinker with them. CJI.

IZAL pallet vans were not the same diagram as the standard pallet vans - they were longer. However, if you want Rule 1 IZAL vans, I can supply the transfers. John Isherwood, Cambridge Custom Transfers.

Since we are never going to know what is, and what is not in the licencing agreement, arguing one speculation against another is a waste of everyone's time! CJI.

Diesel / electric headcodes - usually easy to amend if so desired; sometimes with provision of alternatives. D/E loco tail lamps - in my experience, where illumination is provided, extinguishing is either switchable of easily achieved. The significant difference here is that the lamps are on a steam locomotive. Where the owners of steam locos bother to fit lamps, they almost invariably wish them to be correct for the train in question - viz. Tony Wright! CJI.

Not unexpectedly, you have responded to a personal viewpoint with totally 'over the top' extrapolations of what I actually posted. I suggested that a useful review should confine itself to reporting basic facts about the subject that would assist most potential purchasers. I made no reference to ridiculous minutae such as the orientation of boltheads - please point out where I suggested any such thing. Most members here realise that our moderators have a personal interest in publishing, but should that preclude any form of indirect criticism of that profession? As a local government engineer, I was regularly criticised in both the local and national press, including TV, for the perceived deficiences of my work, but that comes with the territory. Try arriving at your place of work to find your effigy hanging from a lampost! Please - a little less personal sensitivity! CJI.

Firstly, I would point out that current postings in this thread relate to the value of published reviews in general - you seem to be taking comments personally. My statement is based on reading model railway reviews in magazines for well over sixty years. In that time, I have read many, many reviews of dire products which studiously chose to omit the obvious deficiencies. How can it be that, over all that time, that I have never read an adverse review of a product from a producer who advertised in that magazine? Now I will concede that I cannot 'prove' that protection of advertising revenue is a factor at play, but I think that the volume of evidence available to me justifies the conclusion to which I have come. Finally, aggressive reactions such as your opening remark belong in the playground; and they did not intimidate me then, either! CJI.

I find that slant on the subject to be a bit disingenuous. A genuine review SHOULD be simply that - an unbiased commentary on the pros and cons of a product, by a person with sufficient knowledge of the subject to make a judgement. I can see no justification for 'slanting' the comments for a perceived audience - the readership is capable of making its own judgement as to whether they should purchase from the facts presented. Of course, with any 'review' being published in periodicals which rely on advertising revenue from the product producers, any adverse comments will inevitably be omitted, or at least 'softened', so as not to prejudice future advertising revenue. CJI.

Surprising, I agree - though nowadays I only subscribe to MRJ. CJI.

Way out-of-date - but I coupled my Kitmaster Blue Pullman rake with 2mm. dia. rare earth magnets set into the gangway buffing plates - two of opposing poles in each plate. Works like a dream! CJI.

No chance, moy luvver - fishermen's or cowmen's smocks would be more appropriate for a southwestern event! CJI.