Ian J.

I was on the default theme. Having changed it to the Premium theme the square is now yellow, though I think the plus is still the dark blue rather than black.

Use the blue '+' in the light blue square on the left of the word 'Quote' at the bottom of each post. Click it for each post you want to be in your reply, before you compose the reply. You should get a box in the bottom right of your browser showing you how many posts you're quoting. Click the words in that box and the quotes should be in the reply box ready for you to compose your reply around them.

I think the reason we 'harp on' is because we want to hear from KR that they acknowledge the design/construction/running/etc issues, they are fixing them, and hope to do better in future. The fact we've not heard that suggests, just perhaps, that they're not listening, and as such that doesn't bode well for their future projects.

That's because it's on an http://, rather than https://, location. Re Bachmann scrum, from my patchy memory I think last time in 2019 the sell off area for Bachmann was separate from their main stand, and at or near the back of the hall with little to mark it out as so, and much smaller.

I've always felt a circa for the year, as in c.1961, would be better. It's short, to the point, and has enough accuracy to settle most arguments.

I wonder if there will be any to buy by/at the Warley show...?

This is all so flake-y...

It's the one next to the green one... 😉

Why am I thinking of a bowl of petunias...? 🤔

Unfortunately they're not suitable for the same reason as the PL11 (hole for tiebar lug in adaptor), while also only being viable surface side when mounted at 90°. I don't have space for that. Here's some pics of where things have to be, and illustrating the hole to hole problem with a PL11 and Code 83 tiebar: I have wondered if I could somehow tie off the PL11 to the tiebar in some way, but I'm not confident it would be possible to do something without it being 'loose' (like a wire tie of some kind).

What manufacturer/type of surface point motor were you using? And was it connecting to Peco Code 83 turnouts?

Hi all, Hopefully someone has knowledge to help me out. For my S&P fiddleyard I'm using Peco Code 83 trackwork, because the turnout geometry was the closest fit for the boards. However, in a few places there isn't space under the boards for underside point motors, so I'll need to use surface mount motors. The problem is that Peco's surface mount motor (PL11?) has a hole to fit over the crossbar lugs on U.K. outline Peco turnouts. Their code 83 turnouts have a hole instead of a lug, so the PL11 is not directly compatible. I'm wondering what surface mount point motors (switch machines in U.S. parlance) would be suitable for these turnouts? I've searched online and couldn't find any clear pictures of anything showing me how Americans would fit point motors to their turnouts. I think that Atlas might do something, but I can't tell if it's suitable for Peco Code 83 turnouts. TIA

The problem is that to my eyes and brain, the colour has a strong green hue, while to yours it's brown. If it had been a correct shade of brown it should be brown to both of us. Consequently, if I had wanted these (which, fortunately, I don't) I'd have to reject them based on the 'brown' being wrong. But it illustrates that with colour perception one person's view can be sufficiently different to another's that while one is happy, the other is not, in fact, happy.

How you do know when there's two elephants in your fridge? You can't close the door! 🤪

And that old chestnut is aired again. The distance between the wheels being 'wrong' has nothing to do with the body dimension accuracy, and that argument really needs to be put in the bin where it belongs.

Progress update. I'm currently working through MK's 'Southern Coaches' book, compiling a list of unique vehicles as best I can and allocating them unique IDs for use in the final database, as well as splitting out build, number and diagram records. This is to act as the 'foundation' for how Sets are formed and, due to the level of detail necessary, will take quite a while, especially as I have other things to do in my personal life as well as work during the day. Consequently this project can't have anything like all of my attention. Currently the basic unique vehicle list has Continental, Ironclad and Thanet stock. Next is the early Maunsell stock. I'm not entirely sure of the Table 1 values and what they equate to, they seem to overlap later tables. I think due to them being the pre-group stock, they might be covered in more detail in MK's more recent book 'Southern Coaches Survey: Pre-Grouping and Mark 1 Stock'. Once I get that book I hope I'll be able to assess Table 1 more readily.

The SEmG spreadsheet isn't complete, and also has errors. I have started a personal project to improve it by getting the data into better form for easier interrogation, but it's going to be a long haul as there's quite a lot wrong and consequently I'll have to go back to sources to straighten things out.

Cracker jokes are indestructible. They last forever... 🤣

LL has arrived 🙂:

Got mine 🙂: All seems OK with the slide bars too.

I'm currently waiting on an IW&D from RoS. I'm looking forward to it 🙂

Re Access, a lot depends on where you're coming from when you approach it. If you come from a full RDBMS background, it's going to feel limiting, awkward, problematic, etc, because so much of what it can do isn't on a par with such a system, and too much is done for you and the code for that is hidden (the way the forms update for instance). But a lot can be done with it if you know what you're doing and accept that it has some serious limitations, particularly in multi-user mode when the back end file is on a network. But above all, now, it's just so woefully out of date in the way its interface design elements work. You can tell Microsoft really don't like it and wish it would just go away, as there haven't been any significant improvements since 2010, and there are bugs galore in the 64 bit VBA code, particularly in the very useful but 'unofficial' undocumented functionality.

I think the problem is that while the facts of the data cannot be copyrighted, there may be an issue with U.K. courts on the subject of the time and effort ('sweat of the brow') to gather and collate the data, and that's as against its presentation in the Gould and King books (which is covered by copyright). Of course, I could go and get the data again myself and that bypasses the issue, but one of the points made in the jstor article was that it might be unreasonable and perhaps even unwanted that new interpretations of facts have to be re-discovered by later users of said data. However, until there is legal clarification, I stand by not making the data file publicly available. An Access file as a pure data file is openly readable by pretty much any system designed to connect to databases. What isn't compatible on other OSes are the interface elements (forms, reports, queries, etc). Their design and structure might be readable via DDL statements, but they can't run without the Access program which I think only runs on Windows.

OK, so I've read through the jstor article, and it's saying, unlike U.S. law, it's unclear just how U.K. courts decide on 'sweat of the brow'. It was written nearly thirty years ago in 1995, so there may well have been changes and clarifications in the meantime, not least of which is various revisions of copyright law in the E.U. (which may still apply here) and internationally with things like the Berne Convention, so I can't take its conclusions as a given. For now, without any further knowledge of what may have changed in the meantime, I'll take it that, even though the facts themselves may not have copyright, there may be issues over 'sweat of the brow' in U.K. law on the work to collect facts together, and as such won't publish the Access database itself. If further clarification of the legal position comes to light that could show all would be OK, I'll reconsider then.

From some internet searching this morning, it appears that U.S. copyright law is quite clear that facts can't have copyright, but I'm not so sure yet about U.K. law. There is an article that I can't view the whole of as it requires a log in (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24866738) that discusses the issue. I obviously can't tell if it has a resolution, but I haven't been able to find anything regarding the issue as it pertains to U.K. law.