John_Hughes

Just because someone uses a nail-file to tighten a screw doesn't mean that a nail-file is a screwdriver, though of course it would be true to say that such a person would be using a nail-file as a screwdriver in the absence of the correct tool. But do take what I say with a little pinch of salt! I know just how pedantic I'm being. Oh, and in swimming pool, swimming is probably a gerundive, rather than a gerund, though other interpretations are possible.

<pedant mode> Um - speaking as a one-time university linguistics lecturer (and second-language speaker of English), English doesn't have gerunds. It uses present participles as if they were gerunds, which isn't the same thing at all. </pedant mode>

An Irish Government Minister a few years back is supposed to have remarked that the Irish language had no word which conveyed the same sense of urgency as mañana.

I know exactly what you mean, and I partly agree with you; but why does it have to be the standard to aim at? I play the piano tolerably well, but I'm not Glenn Gould and never can be, no matter how hard I work at it; I make decent models that run well, but I'm not Guy Williams either. The work of both (and many others) inspires me to do the best I can commensurate with my abilities at the time and my desire to still actually enjoy playing Mozart or building a 14XX tank or whatever. I model - and play the piano - because I enjoy those things. Life's too short to be able to excel at everything. From time to time, though not very often, I show what I've done on here, and I've had layouts in various exhibitions in the past, and they've generally behaved themselves decently. But I'm not going to set my own bar so high that I have no hope of getting over it, though I admire those whose work puts mine in the shade.

Well, since John Allen was a film industry still photographer of considerable talent, it's not much of a surprise that he took a still photo; back then, anything else would have involved a full lighting rig and a movie camera, and Cliff could only have watched it by projecting it on a wall or screen. But I agree that at shows, for instance, people are usually drawn to the working layouts than to the display cases of static models, however lovely they may be.

A true story, and that man was Cliff Grandt, who went on to found Grandt Line, manufacturer of wonderful details in plastic. Apparently John Allen's actual words were on the lines of, 'Find whatever it is that shows this is a model and see if you can fix it; that'll make you a better modeller,' so they were words of encouragement rather than criticism. Of course, that didn't stop John from having a dinosaur as a switcher, or from carefully staging his photographs so that the out-of-scale bits like couplers didn't show...

And on the line to Banff right up until closure. The Talyllyn did it too until a loop was finally installed at Wharf in early preservation days.

...especially the confession of where it all went pear-shaped before coming out beautifully right in the end. How often such foul-ups happen to all of us!

I don't believe a word of that! Jump in, the water's lovely!

John Ahern's opus - I have a copy to which I refer surprisingly frequently - is certainly a useful book to have, but astonishingly he nowhere refers to the need to make the coupling rod centres precisely match the wheelbase, let alone give any suggestions as to how this can be done. Perhaps this is why the Madder Valley line reputedly didn't run as well as it looked! I'm very much of a jig-man myself, starting with the rods - in fact getting them completely finished in case continued working affects them in any way - and using them to establish the axle locations. Is this less accurate than clamping the blank rods to the blank chassis and drilling pilot holes through both at the same time? I'm not sure that it is, though many people recommend that way of doing things. It's surprising how drills can drift as the various holes are opened out to the final dimensions, and to ream out an axle hole to something over 1/8" when you're starting with a No. 72 drill or similar is something I'd rather not have to do. But we all develop - or borrow - techniques that work for us; there's no absolute single right way.

Certainly not merely a good read, but an edition which I shall find useful for my own modelling - especially the Trevor Potts, Gordon Gravett and Martyn Welch articles. Brilliant, all three of them, and well illustrated too. It seems a shame that the Small Suppliers' Forum has gone missing, and it would have been nice to have a plan for Orford; with a 'scenic area' of 8' by 20" or so it shows just how nice a small 'O' Gauge layout can be. And is it just me, or has the quality of the pictures improved lately? Certainly Orford looks stunning. I confess to a good deal of ambivalence about the Lawrence Boule article on 3D printing. On the one hand it's nice to see the topic given some recognition (even the Continental Modeller has got in on the act, so it's becoming quite mainstream here only about three years after it began to surface in American magazines); but - although it's clearly stated to be the writer's 'personal foray' into 3D printing - I do wonder if it gives too much of an impression that you need to spend megabucks on the dedicated computer, printer and other stuff that the author has acquired before you can make much progress. I'm certainly not alone in knocking up useful parts with nothing more than a bog-standard Windows 10 PC running free design software, and getting Shapeways to print the results for me. That said, Mr. Boule has certainly done some nice work!

It turned up in the usual smart envelope just before lunch, thus giving me time to at least thumb through it. Looks to be excellent and well-worth the wait, as always. I'll try to give it a 'first real read' this evening.

Moor Street looks far more authentic GWR now than it ever did in the 1960s - they've done a wonderful job on it.

I realised that long after I'd posted - and yes, I do have all three, and YES, it's certainly time for another one (or two)!

I certainly agree that the important thing is getting the mag, whether on time or late. I've bought the lot since No. 0, plus the two Compendiums (Compendia?) and have relished just about every issue; and I subscribe, rather than asking my mate Nigel Bird to keep a copy for me, precisely because I want to support them and I know that having the money up front can be very important for a small business. But these things do cut both ways, don't they?

So it's the usual s*d the subscribers, let them wait in the queue attitude, then.

Can I also point out that Brunel was a brilliant maritime engineer, a fact which is often forgotten when talking about his railways and bridges.

Wouldn't it be better to print the frame without the pipes and then add them in wire? Just curious...

Welsh Water / Dŵr Cymru is owned by its customers rather than by some (probably foreign) conglomerate, and operates on a not-for-profit basis; it was acquired from the previous owners a few years ago for just £1.00. Way to go!

I'd say that's smashing work all round!

Thanks for the heads-up on the shop in Y Fenni; like you I'd almost decided it wasn't worth the trip, and it's good to hear that that's changed for the better. I'll have to pop in and spend some money there! Returning to the main topic, MRJ certainly does have its problems - though I was ticked off here a couple of months ago for daring to say so - and I must admit to being a bit fed up with the frequent misprints, the exhibitions advertised in its pages which have flown past by the time it hits the doormat, and the space given over to the vapourings of Mrs. Trellis among other things; but I have the whole set going back to No. 0, and the modelling shown in its pages is second to none. And the current number does have some good stuff in it, which I'm enjoying looking at. From my point of view the major problems with MRJ are of production rather than content. Other opinions are available!

I use the sprung sort - I tried the other type and couldn't get on with it. Horses for courses, I suppose. Yes, tension the blade by fixing one end and then pressing the whole caboodle against your work-bench as you fasten the other end. Oh, and make sure you put the blade in the frame with the teeth pointing the right way; and the right way up.....

Nice - good luck with the project, which is clearly coming along well. But do avail yourself of a piercing saw - it's one of those bits of kit that a lot of people buy rather late in their modeling careers (I was guilty of that!) and then wonder why they didn't get one years before as it's so useful - and despite what you may have read in some places, it's not difficult to use

The constant late arrival of MRJ is merely another indication of how closely it follows prototype practice!

One of Mr. Walschaerts' efforts perhaps, though others used the same trick when producing tank engine versions of tender locomotives, which is what I'd guess this is. The wonderful Dennis Allenden made a beautiful O Gauge model of something similar many years back; it was written up in MRN, probably in '77 or '78.