August 2006 RMC - good stuff.

Folks:
In what is becoming a habit, I have bought the August 06 RMC and found it had actual content...if this continues I just may take the drastic
step of subscribing...
The article on modifying a Mantua 2-8-2 was excellent. It's the kind of thing that used to inspire me when I read my collection of back issues. Turning parts with a hand drill! Reshaping and tapering the boiler with a fracking hand file! Wow. I take off my hat to that Bailey guy. He's got big brass ones. I mean, just think about filing all that zamac. That's amazing. But...that's the best part of an article like this. If somebody was able to do it, then other people can too...it makes you want to try to do something similar. That's what hobby magazines are for, dangnabit. The articles on plugging a $47.95 flashing beacon unit into a $199.95 AC4400CWBBQ are all well and good but once in a while the soul craves a good bit of blacksmithing.
By the way, is it true that late Tyco 62" drivers were filled in between the spokes? What is the current Model Power reissue like?
One minor criticism is the lack of mention of a suitable currently-made gearbox to replace the Mellor unit used...NWSL has plenty of good candidates, though.
The automobile article is a good bit of basic stuff, and addressed an occasional failing of model pikes -- the cars are from only the modeled decade and all too new and shiny. Gotta have yer old beaters.
Finally, the O scale Southern layout was decent -- but the locomotives were wonderful. They look absolutely right for neglected late-era steam power - they have the perfect dull, dirty brown-black that old machinery gets. The author should do a weathering article, seriously. The appearance of two engines in one scene going different directions was actually a minor shock -- seeing two very real-looking models in a situation rather uncommon on the prototype. I just can't stress how good the weathering was, given the era.
Cordially yours: Gerard P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 Jul 2006 07:08:46 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@gannon.edu wrote:

Amen!
One minor - but probably temporary - improvement in MR reviews: the Sept review of the Precision Craft 2-8-8-2 finally added locomotive overall length to the specifications.
It would be nice - for turntable planning - if they'd go back and publish a table of model locomotive lengths. But then, I suppose that the answer would be just to buy Walther's 18" model!
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The driver mold probably got damaged and there was a little bit taken off of the area in the spokes. Flash was always a problem with them and it has probably gotten worse with the age of the dies. Remember that this driver was introduced in the '50s. If the dies are still the original ones, they are old!
-- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gannon.edu wrote:

I thought that while the basic premise behind that was good (and kinda common-sense), some of his pictures illustrating it were terrible - his layout is set in 1970, and yet there's nothing but 1950s (and 1940s) vehicles in the picture - heck, by then the early 1960s Falcons and Impalas (available as models from Eko ) would have been the beaters, even in coal mining terrority. So in his own article he broken his rule: vehicles from that decade are most common, older vehicles are beaters (or, nowadays, classic show cars). Trucks get two decades of use (and usually don't get washed often...)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sir Ray wrote:

Ray:
Well, he did mention that there was a wider range of vehicles out there in the years before road salt and bare-roads snow removal, and I think his larger point was that older vehicles should be included, but you're right; this wasn't completely clear from the article.
Cordially yours: Gerard P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gannon.edu wrote:

See, I took away the exact opposite from that little article What I got was: a.) Don't use shiny toylike vehicles like Hot-Wheels (albiet, some matchbox truck cabs are quite usable if repainted and detailed) - This is a good rule b.) Don't use cars 20+ years older in everyday service, particularly if represented in new condition (admittedly we have a number of 'classic' cars (mostly 60s/70s muscle cars) on the road today, but they are greatly outnumbered by more recent vehicles - as an aside, it does seem, at least in NY, those muscle cars are much more visible on the road than even late 50s/early 60s vehicles which were made in similar numbers and are only a decade older - I guess those Chevelles and Barracudas hit some sort of 'collector sweetspot' ). In other words, those Model As will work fine on his 1940 module, but not so much on his 1970 module. c.) Finally, I guess he's saying a poor area will have older, crappier looking vehicles in everyday service than a more wealthy area - now, while this was true for a lot of the 20th century, in the past decades or so there has been better rust-protection and finishes, and decade-old cars look better than their ancestors did in the past (of course, with flimsier construction - er, I mean crash-absorbant construction, cars probably get totalled more readily in accidents, and you have less chances for the bondo/primer/mis-matched color bodywork. (Heh, HO scale dings, dents, and scratches) 'Course, I could be reading way too much into it (a symptom of reading the 1-87 scale vehicle modelers website and yahoo group)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.