Color of Smoke Box

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:38:08 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

You denied sending me e-mail for one. The list goes on, Greg. You are a pathological liar. You can't help yourself. Even with this very post, you deny lying. How sad is that?

-- Ray

Procter, even *I* will concede that you have been known to post useful advice on the odd occasion.

But as you usually do, you're lying - again.

I *don't* abuse you when you post useful information. Never have...

I *do* abuse you when you post nonsense and bullshit on topics you have no knowledge of.

Geezer wrote: [Some locomotives of the London, Brighton, & South Coast were]

Geez:

I must protest. I have an old MODEL ENGINEER in which a letter writer explains that the LBSC's yellow ochre, usually called "Improved Engine Green", was actually put forth by Stroudley as "an improvement /on/ the green" commonly used. Apparently the reason for the green as well as the ochre was to blend well with the scenery - the ochre was inspired by the hues of autumn leaves. Neat stuff, and it certainly makes more sense than calling ochre "green", which is just a bit too illogical even for the English.

Now, Greg P. is wondering why everybody hates rivet counters. I don't think they do; I do think that those of any persuasion in any field who are brittle or unwilling to admit other viewpoints just invite attacks.

Personally, I think a realistic model is far better than a crude one, but that the drive toward perfect appearance has not always been coupled with the drive toward a robust, simple, serviceable design. Furthermore, these expensive, limited-run museum pieces tend to crowd the older, perhaps cruder, but certainly more affordable, eminently usable, and easily kitbashable models out of the spotlight - but they're still there. We should really live and let live, though. The accuracy champions have a lot the rest of us could easily learn - locomotives look silly if you put

3 feedwater heaters on them - and in return, they could receive a bit of training in the values of simplicity and low cost. From what I see here and in the model magazines, we seem to be returning to a more balanced outlook, except of course for the editorials by that guy whose name rhymes with Pony Toaster and is IMHO the MRR equivalent of the tech addict who simply must have the latest of everything to be 'good enough', damn the costs. :)

Cordially yours: Gerard P.

a: I deny that _I_ lied. b: don't go using terms you don't understand - it shows off your stupidity.

Mark, I posted my comments on "rivet counters" and the opposite of dumbing down the hobby - you so far have mounted yet another personal attack on me with no comment on the posting subject.

"Rivet counting" is a subject I have knowledge of.

Regards, Greg.P.

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 07:49:14 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

Denying that you lied is part of the pathology, Greg.

Right about now is a good time to become silent on the issue. Every time you post, you dig a deeper hole, mate.

-- Ray

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 07:59:30 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

Not long ago, you posted what amounted to a lament about the early days of model railroading in New Zealand where the only brands available were very expensive. Those same "non rivet counters" in the hobby who you so easily scorn are the very reason the prices are now more reasonable. Mass production and higher demand always cause a drop in prices eventually.

But then again, it's probably something you know nothing about. Something of which you will lie about now. Go ahead, Greg. You know you want to lie. That's a good lad.

A highly technical skill, that. How many have you counted so far?

-- Ray

I _don't_ scorn non-rivet coumnters, in fact I'm highly tolerant of "non-rivet counters".

What I don't go along with is those "dumb down the hobby" mongers who insist that anyone who goes beyond counting wheels in the pursuit of realism is ... (enter your favouite anal retentive insult) If your standard is such that anything with wheels of the approximate gauge is good enough, that's fine, but don't go attacking those who set their standards higher, as did the post to which I originally responded.

You mean like oil?

If I know nothing of any given subject, how could I lie about it??? Your logic is totally faulty.

Your counting skills don't go that high.

Regards, Greg.P.

Salvé Cant you three give it a rest? you really are like small children, excepting ofcourse that they have an excuse to be infantile, is there something in the water down under that makes oneturn into a class A imbecile? Valé Beowulf

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:10:46 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

Yes. Of course. You demonstrate that daily. Heh.

Rivet counting is an obsessive compulsive disorder. Didn't you know that?

Absolutely! Did you not know that OPEC does its very best to limit the supply side to drive up oil prices? See what I mean about you being ignorant of a subject and pretending to know something about it? You make errors like this all the time and then die in a ditch defending your own ignorance. How special is that?

Except you just tried to pretend you knew about oil prices and how they are driven by supply and demand.

How many is that, Greg? Answer the question. How many have you counted so far?

-- Ray

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:58:23 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and "Beowulf" instead replied:

Tell me when it becomes unbearable to you. I'll consider stopping then. If you offer to pay me, I'll do it sooner. Fair enough?

-- Ray

3 more for the delete filter

As if this were something new!?

LOL! Good point!

So Peter, it's okay when you do it, but not for others?

Peter, I've read Tuplin's "British steam since 1900". It's an interesting work, but not one I would regard as authoritative. For a critique of Tuplin's writings, and his views on locomotive design and practice, see:

> wrote that within the same class of locomotive it was possible for > an engine to have a different rivit pattern, different amount of > boiler tubes and so on, and that further more it didnt make an iota > of difference to the locomotive! it ws the building gang that > constructed the loco that more or less decided where rivits etc where > to be placed +/- an inch :) this from a man who did his > apprenticeship on such a gang for the Great Western Railway

Tuplin tells a good story, but this claim, along with many others he made, needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Even on the GWR, the erecting gang did just that, erect locomotives, nothing more. They didn't manufacture the individual components, as they weren't, generally speaking, machinists. That means that when the engine and tender frames arrived in the erecting shop, the holes for bolts and rivets were already drilled or punched. Likewise the boiler and smokebox would come from the boiler shop, having already been assembled, hydraulically tested and then steam tested. The tender tank and bunker were also previously assembled.

The rivet holes in the individual plates of all these components were marked-out prior to assembly using either drawings or templates, depending on the practice in a particular shop.

So the opportunities for the erecting gang to freelance the location of rivets would have been severely limited. Granted, there would be the odd individual rivet holes that were slightly misaligned, but that's readily fixed with a reamer. Rivet holes being out "+/- an inch" would, in my experience, be highly unusual.

The general procedures for erecting locos did not change much over the years, either in the UK or Australia. When I started my apprenticeship, the procedures used at Eveleigh would have been entirely familiar to Tuplin. Even at the end of commercial steam operations here in 1988, the blokes at South Maitland Railways still built locos in the conventional manner.

Think about that for a moment. Two locos of the same class, one has more tubes than the other. So the heating surfaces differ between the two - you reckon that *won't* make a difference?

Cheers,

Mark.

Haven't you? You are, by your own admission, a rivet counter, aren't you?

So what do you think you are posting when you attack DCC users for allegedly wanting to 'dumb the hobby down'???

No I haven't - I've responded.

Well, I certainly count rivets on photographs when building from plans and photos.

Responding to those who claim DCC is the only way to operate a model railway and claim as a major advantage that everything is simplified. The first part of the sentence is the part I object to, the second my evidence of dumbing down.

Regards, Greg.P.

BTW I actually agreed with your post re Tuplin, loco assembly etc.

Hmm - a fine semantic point, methinks.

I don't think I've ever read any post here that claimed that. What I have read is that those who have gone over to DCC would never go go back, and that for *them* it is the only way *they* would operate their layout now.

To those of us who don't want to be amateur electrical engineers on our days off, it is a huge advantage. I'm mystified why you think rooting around with all of the arcane paraphernalia associated with DC control is advantageous, or even desirable.

It's nothing of the sort. If anything, being liberated from the artificial restrictions and constraints of DC control allows a bloke to operate in a far more sophisticated and complex manner than was ever possible before. Operations on DCC layouts I'm associated with are the complete antithesis of "dumbed down".