I can get to this part of it:
"
So railpage.com.au seems to be up.
Paul
The workings - and non-workings - of Railpage are a mystery to me. So ignore the URLs for it, and use the URLs listed below instead.
The workings - and non-workings - of Railpage are a mystery to me. So ignore the URLs for it, and use the URLs listed below instead.
So I've posted the images to another site. The Bridge Street yard rendering and trackplan are at:
Mark, let me be the first to say "I was wrong."
Initially, the way you were ducking Terry, I thought you were all talk and no substance. I was wrong and I apologize sir.
After seeing your track plans and the tender you are detailing, I can see that you (a) know drafting and (b) you do good work on models.
I never claimed to know drafting, what would an ex Disc Jockey, Videographer and Computer technician and DVD producer know about drafting. LOL
Thank you, Mark, for showing us.
I know, it shouldn't be necessary to brag about what one is doing in modelling terms, so I understand your reluctance. But often a few drawings and photos are a lot more convincing than mere words.
My pleasure, Erik.
I had a look at your website, and was very impressed - the kit for the covered van looks superb.
No harm done, Will. You certainly gave as good as you got! :-)
Well, I can't blame you for thinking that. I only do it to annoy him. As I say, no harm done.
Thank you.
Well, there's four areas of expertise that I don't have. I trust we can still be friends?
All the best,
Mark.
So we have a layout plan, but no layout.
Reminds me of the track plan of my layout when I was still at school, basic and simple.
The fact's are out. Your layout is not worth publishing on the web yet. It is still basically a test track. When you have an operating layout better than the layouts you have criticised, then you may know what you are talking about expert.
Don't apologise to Mark, until he apologies for all the disgusting things he said about you and your modelling skills. Mark is mostly all talk.His layout is mostly on paper. What he has at the moment is a model train collection and bits of his old layout.
According to Mark the expert's standard his models are no good, after all he has said Models on both my website and James McInernery's Layout are of low standard. James's layout is a prize wining layout, yet there is nothing about Marks tender that makes it superior in any way to the models on our layouts. At least James and I don't find modelling a prototype which looks like a dunny on a tender is worth the effort.
Get a life. Terry. Or is it that you have no life beyond fighting DCC and Mark? Better to spend time talking up your approach to reliable trackwork.
Terry, go fight your wars another place.
More lies from Mark. Try the following quote from AMRM July/August 1981 page
Considering your usual exaggerations and story telling skills, nothing you say can be believed.
Then what are your formal qualifications other than experienced broom pusher and story teller? Technical documentation does not necessarily involve complex engineering drawing, requiring an engineering certificate/diploma. I was producing engineering drawings to the Australian Standard when still at school, aged 15. I was involved in up dating technical documentation in my
2nd year of employment. Minimal engineering design knowledge was required to do these tasks. I also have worked to many technical standards, and written many procedures to various standards. You have forgotten that you have minimal if any engineering design experience, nothing but a broom pusher to pen pusher, relying on story telling to survive.. Technical writer does not equate to engineering expert.
Eric,
Until I get an appropriate apology from Mark, I will continue to extract satisfaction. On another topic I often discuss, track standards, I note you are modelling proto 45 and have published some dimensions for track and wheels. Unfortunately your numbers, like many standards on the web, don't ad up. It's interesting the wheel flange dimensions are the same as HO finescale, therefore an equal flangeway standard is using a 1mm to 1.05mm will work or an easier to make 1.1mm to 1.2mm could also work. However the original P-45 standard uses 1.1mm to 1.15mm flangeways and a different check to what you use. This will mean your models are incompatible with others who use the original Proto-45. The original Proto-45 used a 30.84mm track check gauge, and a 30.85mm wheel track gauge..
Using your web page fig 3 dimensions, your maximum track gauge is 32.1mm. Minimum flangeways are 0.9mm and 1mm. Therefore your maximum check face to check face dimension is 30.2mm. Your minimum wheel back to back from fig 2 is 30.15mm. Fig 4 produces a maximum check to check dimension of 30.1mm, so the second dimensions are OK so far, however your track check gauge for both does not allow for much error or poor designed flanges.
Marks fault for telling us about how good he is. At the end of the day all we get is no current layout of any consequence.
It's far better than your incomplete tender in HO., a model based on a prototype that looks like a toilet mounted on top of the tender. Why would you bother modelling such a prototype when your local prototype is far more visually superior.
Erik, I'm sorry to have caused you to become a target of Flynn's - I see that he has posted a "critique" of your work. You truly have my sympathy.
Cheers,
Mark.
That's quite funny, Terry.
What you actually tell me is that the prototype Danish State Railways track and wheel standards does not work. My Proto:45 standards are (within +/-0.005mm on the model) the prototype standards scaled down to
1/45 scale.
Don't be sorry Mark, I think I can live with that.
Eric,
According to Terry, no exact scale wheel and track setup will work - despite the fact that they have been in existence and proved to work for up to 40 years or so. Been there and argued with him some years ago.
He gets worried when people talk about thousands of an inch, and he'll probably go apoplectic at the mention of five thousandths of a millimetre :-)
Jim.
Oh, I see.
Then I'd better not mention that I will soon have to adjust my 0-25mm micrometer as it's approximately 0.0025mm off.
Other than your own self serving satisfaction, who else is satisfied by this stuff?
You are not going to get any apology from Newton, much less an apology suitable or acceptable to you.
Newton has demonstrated what he is.
Should you choose to persist in this farce until the world operates as you insist it should, you, too, will demonstrate what you are.
What do you wish to demonstrate yourself to be?
I what I will do should you choose to continue this pointless bashing.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.