Roco started in the early 1960s. I've always wondered why they chose 371mm rather than the more standard
360mm (European HO)
Molds are the expensive part of any plastic product. Once a mold exists it actually costs a tiny fraction of the model railway selling price for the materials. (I specify MR because things like plastic pegs etc are produced in the millions and are priced as low as possible) There are a lot of expensive molds required for a complete range of track but once they exist it requires lots of sales to cover the cost of the molds. Place a big enough order and the cost per item goes way down towards materials and staff costs.
If you really cannot tell the difference between any of the current great leaders then please do not vote. The worst thing you could do is vote for current PM based on better the devil you know - actually based on any reason.
But thanks for the reminder of the song. The missus was suprised when I pointed out that the song in CSI was from the very same group.
Believe me I won't be voting - the only sanction I can see against two lots of self-serving lying toads who have no interest in anyone but single issue pressure groups is to not even register to vote. Judging by the stack of registration forms the lady had the other day I'm not the only one. Perhaps when voter turnout falls sufficiently they may actually start listening to the silent majority (by asking why). In the meantime I expect many more fatuous "reports" from them blaming absolutely anything else except themselves for low turnouts.
As for the song - amazing isn't it that so many 60's/70's protest songs have become relevant again - "Won't Get fooled Again", Dylan's "Hard Rain", "Chimes of Freedom" and "Masters of War" - lets hope "The Times They Are A Changing" will be equally appropriate again - soon, though I doubt it as the UK has lost it's heart and become a nation of 'yes men' who just moan and then roll over and die.
I've always assumed that this was necessary because of OO being to a greater scale (4mm to a foot) as opposed to HO (3.5mm) so a 60ft coach in OO would be 24cm long but only 21cm in HO giving a greater overhang and more chance of buffer locking etc so the smallest practicable OO radius curve was 371mm as opposed to the equivalent HO of 360mm. However since the continental loading guage was larger then British it wasn't necessary to increase the radius to the full 4/3.5 ratio which would have produced a smallest OO radius of 360x4/3.5=411mm
beamends wrote in news:AI-dnRQbSdF5h snipped-for-privacy@bt.com:
But, with respect, haven't you done just that by not voting, ie, moaned, rolled over and died?
Also, it is in the major parties' interests to have low voter turnout. It makes stacking votes so much easier, ie the only people who will end up voting are party members, which is so much easier to organise and manipulate and cheaper than convincing the average punter to show up to a voting booth and vote. After all, if you only have to win over the faithful, you can promise so much less and get away with so much more!
On the other hand, if greater numbers showed up and voted for anyone BUT the major parties you may just possibly achieve 2 things:
A genuinely representative member for your constituency.
A much stronger focus from the major parties who will want the seat back and be prepared to do what it takes to get it - even including representing you.
Where I come from (Australia) voting is compulsory, and it is amazing to see what the major parties here will do to win back a seat from an independant! We get promised rail lines to small regional towns, environmental projects (before it was trendy) and all sorts of things. Some of them even happen!
If you're serious about wanting representation, not voting and being apathetic isn't the way to go...
I don't see it that way - if I vote for another party they will assume I have voted for them and approve of their policies. If I waste my vote on a no-hoper, my vote will be viewed as irrelevant. That makes voting worse than not voting. By not registering to vote at least doing so appears as a statistic available to government - if they choose not to ask why (or, more likely, fool themselves into thinking it's down to the phase of the moon or something) then that just reinforces my belief that they simply do not care about the public.
Which would matter if there was any significant difference between the parties. Apart from flag colour, and the way numbers are presented to support their views, the fundamental policies are effectively the same. It doesn't really matter who wins, there is no viable alternative until such time as politicians wake up and realise that just because someone has access to, and knows how to manipulate, the media they do not necesserily represent the majority (or even significant minority) of voters. It's all sound bites now.
A valid point, but harder (and not recordable) to make that not even registering.
They are equally keen here - only they very, very rarely deliver and no one believes them in the first place - particularly since the expenses scandal (some of them are *still* trying to keep their fingers in the till and not accept responsibility for their actions) their credibility is approaching zero.
I'm not apathetic - but I am disillusioned. I went on both countryside marches (which were NOT about fox hunting, the Blair propaganda machine did well there - the vast majority of us went to warn people about what was happening to individual freedoms, and how right we were), the second of which saw very nearly a million people turn out and the government (with a great deal of aid from the BBC) simply ignored and ridiculed. They did the same with the fuel protesters, claiming intimidation and violence yet were unable to find anyone who had been intimidated.
Blair introduced a new form of "democracy" and it isn't going away. The tactics now being used have very worrying precedents in European history.
Yes, but did they start manufacturing Hornby's setrack at that time, and if so was it at the same time that Hornby switched from Series 3 to Super 6 (or whatever they were called at the time)?
I've just got an inkling that the code 100 setrack manufacture pre-dated Roco's involvement.
Series 1. (original Rovex grey ballast single ended) Series 2. or "Standard" (Grey ballast based, reversible) Series 3. (High rail black wide spaced sleepers.) Series 4. Code 100? (split end sleepers) Series 6. Code 100 matching Peco etc.
Don't know what happened to Series 5.(???)
Roco started in 1959, making plastic toys and producing their own designs for US firm(s) (AHM?) They started some Euro wagons and Mini-Tanks by the early 1960s. (I have a catalogue printed 1962) Track came soon after that, but not as far as I'm aware sold as "Roco" in Europe. Locos came in the late 1960s (V160 Diesel and E44 electric) The year before Roewa collapsed (1972?) they had a catalogue with DB locos, coaches, wagons and track.
I don't know when Series 6 was introduced but it's some coincidence that the geometry matches Roco's track and Roco was largely existing on outside work.
Wonder if it was left as a "space" in case former Hornby Dublo 2 rail track was going to be continued? Or is that what Super 4 was based on. I had a Tri-ang set* but ISTR that my mate who had a Dublo set had much finer track.
*series 3 so almost anything looked better,though in later years it was utilized for an experiment with 7mm narrow gauge in which role it didn't look too bad.
I'm sure that it was "Super 4" and "System 6" - I can remember by dad bringing home a couple of "converter sections" for the two types that allowed me to use Peco track with my then massive collection of Super 4. I never did buy any System 6!
I want to state some of my thoughts on the direction of this thread
I was a local councillor for 10 years until the council was disbanded by the government last year.
My party was labour (before you hang me for war crimes, I was low rank who rarely followed orders).
We where constantly bombarded by rule changes and directives that made no sense, moved us away from socialism and cost us dearly (in votes and members). One memorable was one where the regional director pushed through all women seats (this person was on record of calling the defeat of labour in the Scottish parliament a victory as there was more women elected than lost). The members who had been in these seats who where dumped purely for being male promptly resigned, stood as independent and therefore split the vote (as result we lost the new council)
Of course I have been to many election counts at my first there were three invalid/spoilt votes for the whole council (2 blank and one calling for the council chief to be hung).
At my last count (about 2 and a half years ago) there was around 60 to 70 spoilt votes.
All of these are shown to the candidates and agents to see if it can be determined which way the voter was thinking (e.g. ticks or the numbers 1,2,3 etc)
But watching the ego of some people deflate as the more personal comments where read was amazing. Since the agent was also the leader of the local party you could also see him deciding on what dead wood and liabilities needed to be dropped or shunted to the no hope seats.
So my advise is if you feel that you should not vote, go to the polling station and write on the paper why, it will be read by the candidates.
But theres a fundamental difference between the main parties. They may have some of same aims but will use radically different methods to achieve them. take reducing the difference between haves and have nots. Labour will hit the haves and say improve conditions for have nots. But actually they reduce everyone to lowest common denominator. So increase cost of independent education, ensure even spread of types of pupils to all schools. All schools equally ruined, dumb down exams and it all appears equal. Better off pay for better drugs that NHS doesnt provide so hit them with extra costs so fewer people can afford them - more equality as more people cant have better drugs. But as far as I'm aware theres very few people want equality, nearly everyone wants to be in the haves. But lets make it all equal, for example the lottery. Buy ticket for GBP1. Say 5p for admin costs, 30p for charities/good causes and everyone gets 65p back. Thats fair. Of course that
30p will mean 10p to administer pay out to good causes as need to make sure its distributed properly. Got to make sure anyone that gets it follows socialist rules (inclusive tests ....). Then lots can go to build huge paper statues, curious street acting - not opera of course.
Here in NZ Lines Bros only ever produced Series 3. I think Standard had previously been imported from the UK too go with NZ trains. I don't thing any Super 4 was produced here. By that time I was buying Graham Farish and Peco and model trains so I lost track of Lines-NZ products.
"Andrew Carr" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@linserver.carr.dk:
Interesting thoughts. However, the showing the votes to the candidates thing must be a UK concept (yes I am aware this is a UK newsgroup) as having worked at quite a few Australian elections now including supervising a booth, I doubt that happens here as it would be seen as a potential conflict of interest. The vote count is certainly scrutinised by party scrutineers, but they are not allowed to touch votes, merely keep an eye on things and ensure the count is fair.
My mother works in the electoral commission, I might ask her what happens higher up, maybe in close call seats where the votes are recounted that more attention is paid to invalid votes and what might be written on them, but I'd still be surprised.
That's interesting - I didn't know that candidates got to see the spoilt ballot papers. So there is, in effect a "none of the above box". Food for thought.
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.