Ian J.

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...

51 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Please point out the brown one..........I've only got a Black & White license....,🙂

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).

5 hours ago, Bill Radford said:

I have hidden some surface motors under scenary and have used thin brass wire (00 hand rail thickness) to connect with the point with no problem.

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

8 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

 

 

Sorry but I never fail to be surprised to see the lengths that some on here will go to in order to prove someone wrong. 

 

Putting science to one side, my eyes see these coaches and tell me they are brown. As I rely on my eyes more than colour spectrum analysis, then I am somewhat more content than others appear to be.

 

Tell you what. If it looks green to you, with your colour spectrum what not, then it's green. To me, using the Mk1 eyeball it's brown. 

 

Therefore, we are both happy. 

 

Simples. 

 

Rob. 

 

 

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!

🤪

2 hours ago, JohnR said:

 

I always say the biggest discrepancy is the distance between the wheels, and if you can live with that yuo can live with a few others!

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.

23 hours ago, Tim Dubya said:

So I've pre-ordered Set 314 from Kernow

...

in the green (BR or otherwise) but I can't seem to find any information on this particular set on the SEmG spreadsheet.

Can anyone fill me in on the location/ routes for this set?

 

Cheers

Dubs

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.

I have recently noted I might need a few of these. Any news on the OO versions?

OK, so Freightliner 57 and 66 'required'. Looking at current stock levels it seems FGA/FFA combos might be problem to get hold of, but with Realtrack doing the FSA/FTA combo that appeared to be more common at the time, I will keep an eye on the development of those and get some once they're released. That should be enough for me to represent the trains for S&P.

2 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

It's not the information that's copyrighted in those sources as that, itself, has come from origins elsewhere ...... copying any comments, text or specific formatting might be problematic.

Agreed, but aren't there examples where occasionally information is deliberately in error in a given source so that it can be identified as having come from a particular source? Also, notes are sometimes where information is given, and knowing how to decipher the information from the note isn't always obvious.

Lots of 'traps' to consider...

1 hour ago, Graham_Muz said:

As the source information in the books you mention is in itself tabulated / represented information from other sources (and much of  information in one book is already an expansion of another)  your subsequent collation, combining  and reformatting from multiple sources would not be subject to copyright. 
 

Really? A lot of research work goes into authoring books the likes of Gould's and King's, and I'm sure they (or their estates/publishers/etc.,) wouldn't want to feel that their effort could be negated by the same information appearing in online form for free. If indeed it isn't subject to copyright, I think I would need some kind of confirmation that if I made the Access file available I couldn't be sued.