Anglian

11 hours ago, great northern said:

My ability when on home turf to get poles growing out of chimneys was, as you see, effortlessly achieved at LB too. That particular pole is a photoshopping nightmare too, as it has a shelf full of locos right behind it, and they blend in with it rather well. I nearly got away with it this time, if you don't blow this up too much. That guarantees that you will, of course.

I think you've done a great job of cutting out the pole and insulators. I noticed some dark spots in the sky, particularly over the corner of the goods shed, around the signal on the right and generally where the models meet the sky.

When you're working in Photoshop one way to spot these is to grab your image and shake it. Your eye will instantly pick up any contrasting spots that are often only a few pixels but that still need to be resolved.

I'd have a look at the track plan for Bredon.

https://www.osbornsmodels.com/peco-setrack-oo-plan-7--bredon---a-classic-scenic-oval-layout-22372-p.asp

Although designed for OO I think the actual layout it fitted 7' x 3' 6" so would easily fit the space you have available once scaled down for an N gauge layout.

It has been discussed here before and the some images posted. It has a good measure of operational interest and I think the original plan differed slightly from that shown in the link in that there was possibly a connection with further storage roads. 

Card or plasticard or you could adapt a kit to suit the space you have.

17 hours ago, MJI said:

I think I may have found a good primer.

 

Tamiya fine surface primer, the car ones are too lumpy, I had a HobbyCraft voucher so primer and No11 knife blades.

 

Sprayed 4 aircons in it and it appears to cover plastic, brass and whatever the frames are (stainless steel?) pretty well.

 

Will have to wait until spring for blue and grey

Some car primers do work but I've found I have to obey a 60/60 rule of thumb. That is less than 60% relative humidity and more than 60 degree temp. The brand I use is Clostermans, available on ebay. Up to about 77 degrees they are good and you can gently waft on very thin coats of acid etch primer in white, grey or black. You have to keep the can moving as the paint flow can be a bit rapid. If it gets too warm the paint dries in the air before it hits the model and then you get too rough a surface. They also do the same primer in a tin but that needs thinning to spray.

I suppose my issue with Burntisland stems from the fact that I've seen three other P4 exhibition layouts and although none were on the same scale all three worked nearly faultlessly. There was one derailment in about two hours of running on one layout, I watched it for so long they gave me a stool and sat me on the operators side. I gathered the derailment was rare – they were genuinely surprised.

Functionality aside I think they could take another look at how they model the water on Burntisland – it wasn't as convincing as I've seen elsewhere. The layout is fabulous though and could be really an amazing tour de force with some further development to ensure it works to showcase its full potential.

There was a fair bit of poor running in evidence at Stevenage, more than I recall at any other show, or at least there was when I was watching trains. One large layout was plagued with problems. It was such an interesting model I had fully expected to spend an hour or even two in front of it. Even though I returned several times through Sunday it seemed as if never a minute went buy without something going wrong. I don't know if this is normal for this layout but it was a great shame and I expect the operators were disappointed as well.

Perhaps ironically, given that smaller scales are sometimes considered to be a bit less reliable, two layouts which did work faultlessly during the time I was watching them were both N gauge – Brinklow and another, the name of which escapes me, but which featured very nice looking FiNetrack with hand built points. The locomotives had sound on board but they were turned down very low, which was actually quite effective and not at all obtrusive. The layout ran very well.

On one 4mm layout I witnessed a member of the team have an all too public meltdown at continued electrical problems and on yet another a locomotive set off without it's tender drawbar connected so the engine was reduced to tugging its tender and train behind it on an all too long leash of electrical  pick-up wires. What was perhaps more amazing was that none of the operators appeared to notice.

As always it was a pleasure to meet with Tony and Mo and also to meet Geoff Haynes for the first time.

It's a curve that leads into another tighter curve so the overall effect is that the entire curve gets progressively tighter, rather than being of a single consistent radius. 

Stunning looking modelling, not just the 1F but the wagons and track as well. I'm always interested in why some modellers choose ply sleepers over plastic – is it purely down to personal preference or are there benefits that I've missed?

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I went today, not a vintage show but a good one.

I had intended to travel by train, but the issues on the Met and the GN line encouraged me to go by car. Parking the car was an horrendous experience, cheap enough but horrendous. All the parks close to the venue were full and I had a 20 minute walk to the show after driving around to find a car park. If the railway is out in future I think I'll give it a miss, sorry.

I agree it was a good show. Sorry to read you had a problem with parking but I wouldn't give up on it. If you look at a map of the town centre there are quite a few car parks – I use one that is within five minutes walk. If you have sat nav it's even easier to get parked.

15 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Advocating that manufacturers should send swatches of known colour systems such as RAL to their factories sounds fine and dandy, but there's only one slight snag. They don't do it.

 

There are plenty of online colour converters (e.g. rgb to hex, RAL, CYMK, NCS, Pantone etc), so rgb is as good a colour language as another. Note though that RAL is a limited range, and the nearest r79 g45 b36 (for example) comes to is RAL 8016 'mahogany brown', which RAL describe as 'close but distinguishable'.

 

The issue of monitor variation is very valid, but the nub of the matter is that in terms of talking to each other, whether it is modellers here on a forum, or manufacturers trying to communicate with a factory, 'r79 g45 b36' provides a far better means for a more informed and objective discussion than "well, it's a sort of mahogany brown".

 

It rather depends on what the production facility do with the RGB information you send. If they simply plug those RGB or hex values into their computer and do a visual match based on what they see on their screen then there is every chance it'll all go wrong.

I write this from experience in working remotely with a factory based in China – we sent Pantone (PMS) numbers but they still got it wrong and I think this was because they viewed the PMS colour on screen, where it becomes an RGB colour. Even if they'd had PMS plug-ins loaded on their system it simply wouldn't be exact enough. The problem is basically that you are going from additive to subtractive colour and that introduces all sorts of variables. Had they had physical PMS swatches in front of them I think it would have been accurate and I never did get to the bottom of how they made the error.

Perceived colour changes depending on the gloss/matt qualities, so for example when printing onto paper or card there are different PMS systems as different ink values are required. Getting colour on products right is exacting and by definition RGB/hex is not exacting enough because paints and inks are not defined by RGB values/hex, as these are measures of light.

Depending on what source you chose for your RGB to ink/paint conversion will give you different results and therein lies yet another problem. You therefore eliminate potential issues by not using RGB or hex at all since it introduces the need for interpretation/colour conversion. You specify in terms of the method of production so the factory might like RAL, Federal Standard or Methuen paint codes. The other way of generating an exact paint match can be achieved with digital sampling. So for example, Hornby could have their trial models airbrushed here in various close tones so they can decide how much to lighten or desaturate the real colour, to account for the size of the model. Their final shade may very well not exactly match any known colour swatch for paint so they can sample the colour digitally and provide a breakdown of how that colour can be recreated using paint pigments.

I don't know how Hornby work but if I were them I'd be expecting a livery sample to sign-off. It might be that Hornby made the mistake and not the factory. 

A quick bit of research tells me that the level of gloss can also be defined in Gloss Units although how easy this is to measure on a small model I don't know.

The issue with quoting RGB colours as a precise point of reference is these values will vary from monitor to monitor. It also depends on which image of the model you use and how you take your colour sample. Using Photoshop I get a quite different result to you and depending on where on a image I click and what size sample I take gives further variation. For these reasons the only way to accurately reference a colour is to use a known swatch system such as RAL. This is why I'm so amazed that Hornby got the wrong colour as they should have sent colour references backed up by swatches to the factory. I'm not sure how they work but I'd have assumed they would have been supplied with pre-production samples to sign-off.

Not sure on the LSWR question. On the second matter none have yet been released but they are due 'soon'.

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That still sounds like trial by combat to me.

Possibly closer to 'ordeal by fire'?

Tony,

I was wondering today if you've started building the new exhibition layout you discussed on these pages some time ago?

 

1 hour ago, bart2day said:

 

Three manufacturers now have been burned by producing models that have been staples in Hornby’s range for years: Rails of Sheffield (Terrier), Hattons (Class 66) and Cavalex (91) and then complained afterwards that TS ‘spiteful’. Maybe it will actually teach them to manufacturer one of the dozens of locos/units that have never been produced in model form before rather than constantly retooling the same old locos from other manufacturers ranges’.

I think this might be the case already with Rails of Sheffield announcing the SECR D Class. A type that has never been available as a RTR model before and that has consistently scored high in the wish list type polls.

Wow what an announcement. To have either the Thompson Pacific or the Hush Hush announced would be amazing to have both in one year plus the Coronation train and the APT is nearly unbelievable.

A few wagons to tempt me and the LSWR T9, which is quite enough for one year.

This is the inverse illusion. Rather than your mind seeing something that doesn't really exist, your mind can't see something that does exist. This is why things often turn up right in front of you, happens to me endlessly. 

Self-inflicted modelling related injuries is a whole topic in itself. Don't ever use a hot melt glue gun wearing shorts.

With regards to long term health care if you are ever suspicious about spots, or moles or anything similar that you've just noticed get it checked out at your GP as soon as you can.

Did anybody else go the Bicester Scramble today? It's the first time I've been – what an event, I can't wait for the next one now.

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Maybe it is the lighting or my eyesight but the planking on the new one looks to have quite wide groove lines between the planks and the planks themselves seem to have a slightly rounded edge profile, whereas the older ones have slightly narrower plank grooves and the planks look flatter. If you look at a real brake van, the groove lines are tiny in comparison. The actual arrangement of the planks looks fine.

 

I am quite prepared to hear that I am imagining things! I do that sort of thing often but I usually have a good eye for small differences in things. I once told Malcolm, after he had cut out a footplate for a loco, that he needed to square it up because it was slightly wider at one end. He refused to accept it and ended up getting his digital vernier on it. Even after he measured it, he refused to accept that I had spotted a 0.3mm difference over around 150mm length with my naked eyes but it stuck out like a sore thumb to me!

I agree regarding the planking.

The human eye is capable of detecting a difference of 0.05mm, perhaps even less. I wonder how thin or slight a blemish our finger tips can register.

2 hours ago, Denbridge said:

Maybe I'm just old fashioned. I well remember that if a suitable model was ever released, one had no option but to repaint it should you wish the livery to be correct. That is, of course after removing and replacing all the moulded detailing, rewheeling or perhaps a new chassis. Model Railways have come on in leaps and bounds, with fantastic detail at incredibly cheap prices in real terms. Perhaps as has been postulated on here many times, it is to the detriment of the creative aspects of this wonderful hobby.

I think you're right in that the current crop of RTR stock is one aspect of railway modelling that is turning folks away from building their own. However, an alternative view is that those of a creative mindset will be directing their time elsewhere to address other aspects of railway modelling, perhaps to a higher standard than may be the case if they had needed to build rolling stock as well.

As an example, Tony has poured a lifetime into building locomotives and coaching stock. A. N. Other modeller may spend the same amount of time building baseboards, track, buildings and trees from raw materials and components but make much use of RTR stock. Both are very much railway modellers, in the truest sense of the word, they just choose to focus on different aspects of the whole.

I think modellers like Peter Denny who built every element of his entire layout from raw materials and I presume some components, have always been a rare breed. 

Any level of fading or weathering would need to be consistently applied to all parts of the model, as it is the livery is depicting ex-works condition. I think people are right to return them, without doing so where is the onus on Hornby to correct their mistake or to ensure the same issue doesn't occur on other future models.

4 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Odd that they need to send them back. Do folk no longer look at what they are buying and think 'hang on that's not the colour I want' and decide not to procede with the purchase? ;-)

 

Alternatively, they could buy on the understanding that they need to repaint. But I guess that will need some modelling effort.

I think folks bought them expecting the livery of the actual model to be correct even though the computer renderings of the forthcoming model weren't accurate. It's beyond me how they got it so wrong. 

I don't see why anybody should expect to have to repaint a brand new model that should have been supplied in the correct livery in the first place. 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Just received from Hornby for photography and review (among many other items) are examples of the firm's latest OO brake vans.......................

 

 

And an ex-L&SWR 20T brake van, in Southern Railway guise. As far as I know, nobody has ever made this type RTR. 

 

 

It's a lovely model but it's shame they got the colour so wrong. I understand from the dedicated thread about this model that some folks are sending them back. In my view exactly the right thing to do so Hornby become aware of just how wrong they've got it. I'll order a LSWR one once they release it in the correct livery.

I'm sure you're right.