Phil Parker

5 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I would very much like to see such a right. I think it's reasonable to have some limits on it, but it very definitely needs to exist IMO.

And this is how the "red tape" and regulations that people moan about are created...

1 minute ago, Craigw said:

I don't wish to spoil your amusement, but I live in Australia and if I was modelling 3mm scale it would be to 14.2mm gauge.

But TT:120 isn't 3mm scale.

And having built models in 14.2 gauge, it would be hard work to fit all those waggly bits in allowing for clearance. I suspect you'd end up making compromises, possibly even pushing the cylinders out a little! I found 0-6-0's hard enough by the time they were given the essential compensation.

4 minutes ago, teletougos said:

I just hope someone puts the 08 on a bit of track with the coach coupled to it, and takes a good side-on shot & uploads here.  Then we don't need to juggle suppositions.   

Unless you can get a perfectly aligned image to compare with a prototype photo that is shot from exactly the same position, and counteract the distortion put in by the camera lens, then the comparison won't work. I've been here before with people drawing lines on pictures I've posted on here before ignoring the angles the model photos have been taken. It never ends well.

What is it that scares you about numbers and measurements? That is the way to be sure. Anything else is subjective.

1 hour ago, teletougos said:

The only way to do that would be to put the two models, the 08 and the coach in question, beside each other and take a photo, wouldn't it ? And compare that to a photo of  real 08 coupled to the same kind of coach ? Or am I missing something?

I imagine something based on accurate measurements would be a better bet than photos, which are subject to issues with angles and the effects of lenses. However, since it's not become a massive topic, I'm inclined to believe that Hornby has got it righter then random people on the web.

54 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

I was accused of inventing them when I alluded to them as examples ofr prejudice. It was suggested I could not provide any evidence they had ever been said., Rather reluctantly I have provided the evidence I didn't make them up

All you have proved is that some loon on social media said something. Something no one else had read, or cared about. You haven't proved it to be true, but keep repeating it. If you are going to spread every baseless allegation from random corners of the internet, then RMweb is going to become very full, very quickly. Stop it.

1 minute ago, Ravenser said:

Quite. I'm 99.999% certain they're utter nonsense.

And yet you are desperate to post this allegation here. 

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

I'd rather not start this hare running on here,

Yes you would. This is just another pointless dig, from someone who keeps moaning about people being negative about TT:120. 

There's a simple cure for that. 

10 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I always wonder what the H&S is like in the offices of media companies, given that they spend a lot of their time telling us all that H&S is a bad thing. 

Not all of them, mainly the papers desperate to scare you into buying.

I do remember a fun session on the Jeremy Vine show many years ago. He had the boss of the H&S organisation in, and proceeded to berate him because the newly fitted-out toilets all had little warning stickers alerting users to very hot water coming out of the hot tap. Vine was as outraged as only someone who hasn't bothered to do any research or thinking can be. The H&S man said, "I don't know why they are they. It's not something we require." He had to repeat this to Vine several times until it sunk in...

3 minutes ago, Combe Martin said:

Have a nice holiday, and dont forget your still at work !.

Sorry. No.

Andy is on holiday. You know he is on holiday. Generously, he has answered a few questions, but you have decided that your continuing diatribe about tank wagons is more important than his time off. Trying to make a joke (being generous, I assume this is what you are doing) doesn't make you deciding that your needs are more important than his valid. Good grief - it's just toy trains!

@rapidoandy If you'd like, we can lock the thread until you are back home.

7 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

Well worth  visit if you’re in the area. 
https://www.canalmuseum.org.uk

Worth a visit for the lovely Bantam tugboat. http://philsworkbench.blogspot.com/search/label/Bantam Tug

25 minutes ago, Legend said:

those interested in model railways might not be interested in these diesels that killed off their beloved steam

Because railway modellers are only interested in steam? You need to get out more, the fashionable area is now blue diesel, and there are lot more layouts representing this era.

12 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

@rapidoandy, you mentioned that one of the biggest costs is assembly. Has self assembly by the purchaser been considered? or is that not viable.

ViTrains provided handrails and a few other parts separate, just needing cutting from a fret and pushing into pre-made holes. Modellers screamed this was too difficult, and I got paid for writing an article showing how to fit them.

A bigger problem would be packing all those bits so they arrive safely. You can't just lob them in a plastic bag. A couple of years ago, I built Accucraft's Peckett kit for Garden Rail. The effort required to pack all the bits showed why the price difference between this and the RTR version was minimal!

On 05/05/2024 at 09:53, micklner said:

Totally disagree.

£10!! and hidden in a sealed bag,  is not the way to try and get people to buy anything, especially newcomers to the hobby. There are far too many other modelling magazines in a normal format (no bag) for people to buy.

OK, time for the regular reminder that we find bagged copies sell more than unbagged ones on the newsstand. This has been the case for a long while. Either @AY Mod or myself usually posts this, but people have short memories, or maybe don't want to remember.

Handily, it also stops this:

Spotted in a Smiths, the "gentleman" has stuck the mag on a rack, and is enjoying a jolly good read. For well over 10 minutes. I'm sure he then bought the issue...

There is also a requirement from supermarkets and Smiths that we carry out some promotions during the year. The only way to avoid this, is to take the mags off the shelves. If you reckon you could re-negotiate this, something no magazine has ever managed to do, then please get in touch.

On 05/05/2024 at 09:53, micklner said:

Are one of the two magazines in the sealed bag in trouble ??  If that is correct this will not help in the slightest, judging from the piles sittiing on Smiffs shelves.

At last, some news you will enjoy! Yes, while Garden Rail is doing very nicely thank you, the issue of Engineering in Miniature is the final one, the mag is closing. With three mags all chasing the shrinking model engineering market, Warners took the decision to wind it down. There is a little crossover between GR and EiM so we are doing something with that.

And the piles - well the issue has only just come out, and we tend to send out plenty so people can buy them over the next four weeks. I was in Tesco the other day, and they had piles of baked beans on the shelf, does that mean they don't sell?

Anyway, this pretty much repeats stuff we end up saying every single time a bagged issue goes out. FWIW, thanks to recent promotions since Warley, and a radical redesign, BRM sales are on the up, so maybe we are doing something right?

5 hours ago, Ravenser said:

(I believe there is another layout around, done by one of the Lincolnshire clubs, based on Dawlish though I haven't seen anything about it other than a growl on here about inappropriate stock running)

We have put each video in the free World of Railways newsletter, which is mailed out to over 20,000 people every Friday, so it's not like the thing is hidden.

To help, here's a link to the full set of videos -

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRS9-yJBXTPCqYiELLrUSBP4y98bSNEwH

26 minutes ago, Moonraking Red said:

Perhaps best I not mention the demographic spread of the Friday’s attendance,

A Friday afternoon show is never going have a broad demographic. Some people have to work...

4 hours ago, John M Upton said:

Sorry to say it, but I do miss Traction as a separate mag.  Does the Traction section pull out as a separate part as I am more likely to keep the Traction part and recycle the rest down the line?  I could try it in WHSmiths but I might get very odd looks...

Because there are so many pages, the magazine is perfect bound, so you can't just pull it out of the middle. Run a Stanley knife down the inside of the spine, and it's not difficult to extract any pages required. I've done it many times to reduce my pile and put the results in box files.

9 hours ago, Ravenser said:

The Oxford Diecast stand is a relatively recent innovation at model railway shows so far as I'm aware,

Oxford has traded at Warley for many years. It was the only show they did.

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

I suggested that a useful review should confine itself to reporting basic facts about the subject that would assist most potential purchasers. I made no reference to ridiculous minutae such as the orientation of boltheads - please point out where I suggested any such thing.

Ah, so there are limits to a review even for you. Perhaps a list of exactly what should and shouldn't be included? Lamps obviously are to be commented on. Handrails? Smokebox darts? Markings on gauges in the cab? It's going to be a long list...

But, the people who took the time to complain about bolt orientation don't consider this to be minutae, it matters to them or they wouldn't take the time to check and then get in touch. So who is right? You, or the bolt checkers?

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

Any review is subjective as we each have our own criteria for what is acceptable in terms of fidelity to prototype and detail, where we draw a line for the compromise between cost and detail/features and how we weight whether a model just looks right.

Precisely. Any reviewer writes for their reader, doing their best to give them what they want. If that means big pictures and only a brief overview, that's fine. The same applies to online reviews, which is why they tend to be a bit shouty as this generates clicks indicating a satisfied audience. Even there we have to deal with the preferences of the reviewer who may (for example) have a bee in their bonnet about cast boilers where many couldn't care less as long as it looks right.

Let's face it, RMwebbers can't decide what they want. Lots of detail, or less bits to get knocked off? There are people in both camps

. Ultimately, we can't be right for everyone.

9 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

I find that slant on the subject to be a bit disingenuous. A genuine review SHOULD be simply that - an unbiased commentary on the pros and cons of a product, by a person with sufficient knowledge of the subject to make a judgement.

 

I can see no justification for 'slanting' the comments for a perceived audience - the readership is capable of making its own judgement as to whether they should purchase from the facts presented.

Every single model can be criticised to death. It's the wrong gauge, the body isn't made of metal, the prime mover is an electric motor. Should all those be mentioned loudly? Why not?

If that's too common, how about bolt heads - lined up or at different angles? I know two different manufacturers who have differing opinions on this, driven by comments from customers. Now you can argue that the reviewer should check this detail out against prototype images from a known date, but that's going to take a lot of time and push the cost of the review up. And you are still competing against internet reviewers who do no research and just scream abuse.

"by a person with sufficient knowledge of the subject to make a judgement." - why only one? Because the chances are if you wait for the "experts" to all agree, the review would never go out.

Maybe there needs to be no words. Just photos as "the readership is capable of making its own judgement as to whether they should purchase from the facts presented."

1 hour ago, maico said:

It's called a straight through review, no knocking copy. So, 'a wealth of detail, runs fine on our layout', and other hackneyed Cliché.

In HM mag's defence, they are reviewing it for the people they see as their readers (the people who buy the mag), not a group (who probably don't buy any mag) desperate for a good slagging off of any model. Despite reservations on here, there will be people who are perfectly happy with the model - or don't they count?

1 hour ago, spamcan61 said:

It'll be interesting to read the RM review, as they seem to have the pickiest reviews these days.

I suspect @AY Mod might have something to say about this!

6 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Any further but honest posted assessment on this forum might lead to a mod’s suspension. 

Presumably, because there has been no criticism of the model so far on this thread...

3 minutes ago, Phil Himsworth said:

Whoever had the idea for the paint-a-racing-car for kids was an absolute genius, my totally-train-agnostic daughter loved it and has been playing with her car since yesterday. There were a few kids outside the hall yesterday zooming them about on the smooth floors, presumably waiting for parents still inside :-)

Pine car racing is huge in the USA - Scout groups organise races as well as others. I'd not seen it before until I visited the Bachmann MCC store, and now really fancy a go myself!

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinewood_derby

Could this be the push that makes it as popular in the UK?

Spotted on the stand today.

16 minutes ago, rapidoandy said:

Obviously I shall be calling in to the Canadian office, hopefully watching some passing trains

Unavoidable. When I visited a few years ago, the place emptied every time they heard a train passing behind the offices.

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

There is a potential problem with this.  All is OK if the layout is operated from the front as space at the front of the layout will (should be) factored into the planning, however if operating from the rear the effective front of the layout will be a couple of feet forward impinging into the gangway. This may still be OK if it's in one of those spaces where the layout itself can be pushed back or where the gangway widens out but things don't always work out that way. 

 

I feel it would be worth indicating the intention to do this to the show organiser in the hope that this can be worked into the floorplan.

Sorry, I didn't bother giving the full discussion between myself and the exhibition organiser. In over 100 shows, it wasn't an issue, but if I was bringing barriers, I'd normally let them know.

The extra space for a rear-operated layout was less than a foot. If your show is so tightly packed that this makes a difference, there is a bigger problem.

49 minutes ago, Neil said:

A further thought.  As an exhibitor, there may be a few pertinent questions to ask of the organiser before accepting an invite. Do you provide barriers? How busy (how many through the door per day) is the exhibition? What is the character of the exhibition; is it aimed at the general public, is it a specialist event or is it a bit of both?  No guarantee that all risk will be averted but at least you'll have a better idea of what to expect.

The only question I used to ask was "Do you provide barriers?" - if the answer was no, and I really wanted to go, I'd borrow a couple from the club and take them with me. Generally though, it was no barriers, no attendance. People will lean on something, and if it's not a barrier, then it will be the layout, no matter how much scenery gets squashed.

As for the rest, I don't care if you rub yourself down with a damp copy of MRJ every morning, uninvited poking of my layout is a capital crime. In my experience, "enthusiasts" are no better than the general public, and older people no better than children, in their respect for the models on display.