cp409067

* I have three "O9" exhibition layouts. I require and use hands off coupling and uncoupling. I find the "OO9" type (an etch one folds up) sold by the Greenwich and District NG Society for "OO9" use excellent. Generally I only have loops on one end of stock and add a delay pin to the other. CP

* Several hours ago I sent an e-mail to the club asking if the exhibition was still on and if a specific layout (which I especially want to see) was able to attend. I have had no reply. Prior to that I had repeatedly checked for info on the club web-site. http://www.altonmrg.co.uk/ However, on this I now see that there has appeared a statement that - "Despite the snow, the February Exhibition 2019 will still open as planned on Saturday morning. Although some advertised traders and layouts are now unable to attend, various traders and layouts are already set-up, with more ready to set up on Saturday morning. Don’t forget that the exhibition is open on both Saturday and Sunday, so if there are difficult road conditions early on Saturday, why not come later or on Sunday instead? Due to the conditions, the vintage bus service has been withdrawn on Saturday. It may run Sunday, dependant on road conditions." I think it would have been helpful and polite had this statement indicated the extent to which booked layouts have been/will be able to attend. As ever an important consideration in these circumstances is not just the weather conditions at the venue - but also the ability of exhibitors to attend. Potential visitors will (of course) need to consider travel from their homes. CP

* Adrian [1] Thank you - I note that (as you say) the builders do indeed describe the layout as "Sm". [2] Quite why they do so is a curiosity - again as you say something to discuss with them. [3] I am left with my usual conviction that the best option is simply to state the scale of the model as a ratio. CP

* May I point out what I believe to be a mistake? The CMRA layout listing (and indeed the article in the January 2019 edition of CM) contains an error. "Koningswaal, Augustus 1933 by the Modelspoorclub Maas en Waal - 1930s Dutch steam tram line in 1:64 scale 16.5mm gauge (Sm)" As the article explains the prototype inspiring the model was 3ft 6ins (1067mm) gauge, and thus the use of "S" scale on 16.5mm track is very close to being accurate. I fear that the unnecessary desire to label all railway modelling by a supposedly convenient shorthand designation (in this case the erroneous "Sm") is to blame. CP

* I notice the exhibition web-site incorrectly has a heading saying that my "Pyn Valley Railway" is "O16.5". Then in smaller print it correctly says it is "O9". CP

* July 1973, pp. 215-216. CP

* With two and a half weeks to go a note of the attending minimum gauge layouts (alphabetical order) is as follows. "Afon Adit" ("O9") - Martin Rich "Allerdale Farm" ("O9") - Mathew Wathen "Berger Hall" (1:24) - Bill Corser "Borth, Aberdovey, and Ynylas Railway" (1:12) - Allen Law and Jez Kirkwood “Castle Works” (1:25) – Andi Nethercoat “Derwent Road” (“O9”) – Bill Floude (RM, Dec 2018) “Hook Basin” (1:25) – Richard Williams (RM, Oct 2012) “Pyn Valley Railway” (1:43.5) – Christopher Payne (RM, Nov 2018) “Scratchey Bottom Halt” (“Gn15”) – Michael Walshaw (BRM, Dec 2018) Selection of micro layouts (various) – Simon Andrews “Yellow Ridge Uranium Mine” (1:24) – Nick Wright (NG&IRMR No 102) ***** I would also draw attention to the other narrow gauge layouts that are listed here (I do not know if this list is up to date). https://www.thewarleyshow.co.uk/narrow.html CP MOMING Co-ordinator

* The posting #13 above from Graham Walters commenting on my post #11 deserves a response as follows. (i) That there were only three exhibits not “connected with model railways, or railways in general” misses the point. The issue is not the number of stands but that they took up a great deal of space in the first hall. (ii) Whatever the term “Modelex” does or does not mean, on the club website - http://www.andovermodelrailwayclub.co.uk/ - it says “Modelex 2018 Model Railway Exhibition”. (iii) That there have in the past been stands not “connected with model railways, or railways in general” I am aware, indeed I was myself an exhibitor with layouts at the event in 2013 and 2014. This year the area (rather than simply the number of stands) non railway related was increased. (iv) I was not therefore criticising the “club for thinking outside the box”, but rather given the empty spaces in the rear hall observing that the proportion of non railway related exhibits was unfortunately too much of the resulting whole. (v) I think I do have an open mind, for when I began seriously exhibiting in the 1990s ideas and techniques from other modelling disciples (specifically military and maritime) had a considerable influence on what I did. (vi) I take no responsibility for what you say occurred on Saturday afternoon. I was there on Sunday, and can assure you that when I exhibit I am more than happy to engage positively and politely with members of the public. (vii) Finally to repeat what I said at the beginning and end of my previous post, I was disappointed by the exhibition and wrote “more in sorrow than in anger”. CP

* I am sorry to say I was disappointed by the exhibition this year. (i) It was clear by the large gaps in the rear hall that a couple of layouts had not arrived. I appreciate that there may well have been perfectly good and understandable reasons for this. (ii) Far too much of the first hall was given over to non railway related exhibits. Is this a model railway exhibition or not? Were it not that I spent some time in interesting conversation with two exhibitors I would have very much felt that that the twenty odd miles drive each way and time spent had been a total waste. That said I really feel that next year I may well decide to give the event a miss. More in sorrow than in anger. CP

* Correction - my "Pyn Valley Railway" (note the name) is "O9". CP

* From the article in question - RM, October 1987, p.399. "Holkham is in north-east Norfolk situated on the coast between Wells-next-the Sea and Brancaster. ..... The model is based on the same area of Norfolk as the prototype, but with poetic licence. It is now a terminal station serving a small seaside resort situated at the end of the main line from Norwich, which is mainly single tracked. A single track branch line also runs in from Wells. ....." ***** The article comprises eight pages including two with colour photographs, and also features on the cover. CP

* Back in the last century - 1992 to be precise - I began building a layout ("Portpyn") in 1:34 scale (near as damn it 9mm/ft) using 16.5mm track (scales 1ft 10ins). Whilst by no means finescale it was a very good experience and proved popular on the exhibition circuit. Later in the 1990s I built another ("St Pierre et la Rue Perrin") in the same scale/gauge combination. This too proved successful with exhibition managers and their public. The size and bulk of the models was very satisfying, especially when compared with "O16.5". I would encourage anyone tempted to work in this or a similar scale (eg. 1:35 or 1:32) to go ahead. As to what to call such work, my answer was simple - "1:34". I would suggest the assumed need for a designation like "OO9" or "O14" is a mistake. Why not simply state the scale and if anyone is interested to know more explain the actual (model) track gauge. CP

* Like me you have a long memory. I agree that July should be blue and August green. In simple terms (for there were some variations), the sequence was 1954 - (November) 1993 BLUE > GREEN > RED starting in January each year (almost forty years). It then changed from Jan 1994 to GREEN > BLUE > RED (less than twenty). CP

* [1] I have no official connection with the organisers and do not speak for them. However, I did exhibit some ten times at Shepton Mallet. [2] I attended on Saturday as a visitor and I think it fair to answer the above question firmly in the negative. [3] I understood the event on Saturday to be an experiment at the same location as the S&D group use for their small bi-annual event held in September. CP

* I have indeed - in fact I built two layouts in 1:34 scale ("Portpyn" and "St Pierre et la rue Perrin") back in the 1990s. I still exhibit them both from time to time. Not being especially skilled I opted for the convenience of using 16.5mm track, wheel sets, and proprietary loco chassis. What made it possible was the availability and adaptability of figures in 1:32 and 1:35 scales. The choice of 1:34 was for various reasons - one being that it fell within that scale range and resulted in track that was a scale 2ins too narrow for British (nominal) 2ft gauge and a little less for French 600mm. For me that was an acceptable compromise. I found the size and bulk of the resulting models very pleasing and the slight novelty when I first did this made the layouts popular with exhibition managers and their paying public. I would encourage anyone considering narrow gauge modelling in the 1:32 - 1:35 scale range to give it a try. CP

* Having no previous awareness of "Warren Road" I very much like the look of it. Thank you for posting the pictures. May I ask if I am correct in assuming it is 12mm gauge rather than 16.5mm? CP

* Translation. "I THINK THIS WAS ORIGINALLY SOME PHOTOS OF NARROW GAUGE RUSTONS IN USE IN FRANCE BUT SINCE NO ONE COMMENTED ON THE POST, AND THE PICTURES NO LONGER SHOWED )THANKS TO PHOTOBUCKET), I DELETED THE TITLE AND THE REDUNDANT LINKS." CP

* [1] Whilst Minitrains 140mm radius curves will fit in the depth of baseboard you have in mind, I doubt a Bachmann "Rheneas" will be able to negotiate them. [2] As far as I know the minimum radius Tracksetta for 9mm track is 9ins radius. CP

* I entirely agree. I find the same problem with recent books published by Wild Swan. In this matter the work of Roy Link (NG&IRMR and books) as referenced in post No 135 to be the superior. CP

* I think this comment is perfectly fair and valid. I seem to recall a correspondence some time ago (and elsewhere on the web) on the subject of exhibition organisers failing to publish in advance lists of layouts attending. The defence was offered that sometimes there are last minute changes – but I do not regard that as justification for withholding the information. There was also a report of an exhibition manager saying that he did not publish lists because he feared some would not attend if they saw again the names of layouts that had been previously exhibited at the event. The time was when publishing lists of layouts attending was not the norm – but that is now long ago. Today those who withhold this information lay themselves open to the suspicion that they have something to hide. Specifically an exhibition that does not provide information about layouts gives the impression (whether justifiably or not) of being a tired old event where the organisers are too lazy to source new layouts or too mean to pay the necessary expenses. In such instances they cannot be surprised if the discerning do not attend. CP

* And MOMING'17 here. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124682-moming17-saturday-5-august-2017/ CP

* Not if you divide 4.5 by 3.5 and multiply by 12 = 15.42857. CP

* That is a curious piece of mathematical calculation. Should it not be 15.43ins? CP

* MOMING'17 The “exhibition within an exhibition” that is the twelfth celebration of MOdelling MINimum Gauge will again be part of the bi-annual Members’ Day held by the Wiltshire Group of the OO9 Society. Saturday 5 August 2017 10.00am - 4.00pm Bouverie Hall, Pewsey, Wiltshire, SN9 5ES Admission (to the whole exhibition) £4.00 ***** Exhibitors for the MOMING part of the event are (at the time of writing) as follows. Layouts Andi Nethercoat: Castle Shed (1:25 scale on 16.5mm track) Bill Corser: Berger Hall (1:24 scale on 16.5mm track) Bill Flude: Derwent Road (“O9”) Christopher Payne: Brink Valley Tramway (“O9”) Richard Williams: Enigma Quay (“O9“) Simon Andrews: micro layouts (three different scales) Specialist traders Avalon Line (Howard Martin) Black Dog Mining Co (Steve Bennett) Minimum Gauge Models (Allen Law) ***** For details of the rest of the exhibition (c.15 layouts) see - http://www.wiltshire009.btck.co.uk/ Christopher Payne (MOMING Co-ordinator)

* There would appear to be two editions - 2003 and 2010 - and hard and softback bindings. There is also a reference to it being in French and English. I would advise contacting a specific supplier to ascertain the exact situation and asking if the English version is a full parallel text or just a summary. CP