Ian J.

OT - I always find it slightly amazing that our manufacturers call the models 'finescale' representations of the prototypes, but when different brands are put alongside each other, the differences are sometimes quite considerable. It makes me wonder about the ability to accurately represent a given prototype, even allowing for some degree of need for design and manufacturing interpretation.

New hi-spec Mark 2 Ds wouldn't go amiss.

I'm thinking I could do with a rake or two of these, so would be happy with re-runs in early/mid 80s guises.

MC and HNY to all. Well done for getting through this year. Hopefully next year will be a little easier.

I can see why people are turning to cars that sit higher, for at least two reasons: One, would be the higher ride height allows better visibility over lower height cars; Two, would be (and this applies to me) where trying to get down into a lower height car when you have a back problem can be very uncomfortable. The higher ride height allows for more comfortable access into the vehicle, especially when doing so from a pavement. If I have a choice, I think my next car has to be something that rides higher, whether new or secondhand.

Mention was made of a bishop (albeit with a pogo stick) so that triggered the Blackadder memory...

Very sad to hear this news. R.I.P.

All took place in Bath & Wells, apparently...

I've just watched the Pats@Raiders game on NFL GamePass. It looked to me at the time that the Pats players were trying to keep a run game extended. However, it ended in one of the two most likely outcomes: either the play ends up dead; or the ball gets picked off. So it didn't work, at least for the Pats.

We know the world can't be flat, as the cats would have pushed everything over the edge by now...

I must be ill. I only have two Pecketts (an 0-4-0ST and an 0-6-0ST) However, I and my small shunting fleet seem to have caught a Dock Authority livery virus...

IIRC, I think we may have had this conversation sometime previously. I personally feel that the usage of a cut-off date is a bit too much of a blunt instrument. However, I'm not going to complain, you and the team have chosen what you need to do, and it's you and they that have to manage it. I would do the poll quite differently, but as I don't have the time, resources or energy to actually put something into play then I'll leave this particular part of the subject alone.

Templot is good for things like that 🙂 As a side note to the topic's original intent, I'm finding I'm going to be mixing Code 75 into my fiddleyard's otherwise Code 83 track, due to an 'odd' happening that the Code 83 turnouts I was going to use for a crossover wouldn't line up properly, but by changing one of them to a Code 75, it actually works better. However, I have to boost the Code 75 turnout up a bit higher than the Code 83, as the tops of the rail heads don't match up.

The issue with the Hornby Mk2e I think relates to errors in the model, making it unacceptable to many potential buyers. I think there might be a need, on a case-by-case basis, to review whether to include some items regardless of when they were last released, if the items concerned could reasonably be considered not of sufficient fidelity to prototype.

"I'll be back... "...you can be Beethoven."

Interesting thoughts, Mike. I think I can add something to them, in that I think it seems to come down to return on investment, where there is some level of rigid investment amount on a project. Maybe KR and Heljan (and perhaps Dapol) suffer from it. They set a budget, and if things aren't done properly in the research and design phases, there isn't enough budget to correct them and finish the projects, so they opt to reach a certain point in R&D then just go to tooling regardless. I think this probably does affect their eventual ROI, but in both of two ways. By spending less and producing a model just about adequate for a sufficiently sized sub set of the potential buyers, they can probably break even, maybe turn a small profit. However, by allowing errors to get through, extra profit becomes limited due to the models not being of sufficient accuracy for the remainder of the potential buyers. The likes of Accurascale, Revolution, Rapido, Cavalex, SLW, etc, seem to be more of a mind that initial investment needs to be enough to make sure the models are of sufficient accuracy to appeal to the majority of potential buyers, and get more sales in both the short and longer terms.

I think what needs to be stressed is what Brian has already said - differentiation is the key to picking out things that are popular, and so we only fail ourselves if we vote for everything in a section. I certainly haven't done that. I mostly look at SR and BR(S) Western Section stuff, specifically that would have run in the Bournemouth/Poole area, and even then I'm careful to pick out the things that actually matter to me, as not everything would. That keeps my votes tightly limited and as such allows them to count towards items that might rise above others. I'm still hoping the U class will get done, even though I'm now looking at putting together my own CAD for doing 3D print versions, as the various 'manufacturers' still seem to be averse to it so much.

The first tranch of turnouts is laid 🙂

Done. I thought we weren't doing the annual wish list poll any more, though?

Women smell nice. Men just smell.

OK, logged out, cleared browser history entirely, logged back in and can now access the things I couldn't before. Panic over.

Getting 'lots' of blocks from accessing topics all of a sudden, Forum Jokes, Things That Make You, my own activity stream, don't know how many more.

Define 'soon'? 😉

I think he meant 'hate'.

Except that, to the best of my understanding, KR do seem to be selling their models as faithful representations of a given prototype, not 'something that looks like a given prototype'.