New Layout

: : That's what groups like this are for.

You sure are not the brightest button around are you...

: > : >

: > [ re "Historical Railway Modelling" by David Jenkinson. ] : >

: > : > Then it's a rather inappropriately named book! : > : : > : Sound modelling advice is sound modelling advice, regardless of : > era. : >

: > Put it this way, how many would-be NR/TOC era modellers might be : > put off the books due to the impression given by the title, : > thinking that it relates to railway periods long past?... : >

: If they were then who would be the first to put them right. By the time you : read this I will have written it in the past - its history :-)

But not "Historic", what Gordon Brown did yesterday may well be History but it has yet to become "Historic", when BR introduced the HST is wasn't historic - bar the factual date - only later did we realise that the event was an epoch making event, when Mallard broke the world steam train record is was not historic - bar the factual date of the event - had the LMS or another countries railway exceeded Mallards speed the events of the 3 July 1938 would have been a footnote in history rather than "Historic" IYSWIM.

Railway history starts an instant before "now" and stretches back to the first connection of rail and wheels.

I think you may have "History" and "Historic" confused! The moment the Mallard topped the speed attained by the Deutsche Reichsbahn BR 05 was a historic moment. It didn't become history until it was reported. BTW the Mallard's record was considerably slower than the DRG's World Record speed which stood until the SNCF took it in the 1950s.

Greg.P.

Back to the snide personal comments again. What exactly is your problem, Jerry?

I really don't give a shit if someone is put off the book by it's title. It's up to the author (now sadly departed) or publisher to decide on a target audience.

The book was recommended and I seconded that recommendation as containing some useful general modelling advice, regardless of the era being modelled. It only seems to be you who has an issue with that.

If you can suggest a modern era book, with an appropriate title, with the same level of useful information, then please do so.

MBQ

Spot on!

MBQ

: : I think you may have "History" and "Historic" confused!

No I have not, your comment above is "History", it's part of the history of this group, but it's certain not an epoch making event (a significant occurrence), "Historic" ...

: : Back to the snide personal comments again. What : exactly is your problem, Jerry?

Try reading the thread again! Everyone else is talking about buying a certain book (and the appropriateness of it's title) then you decide to bring up the irrelevance of web-forums/Usenet into the discussion - go figure - so what are you MBQ, just thick or a troll?

Well I have to disagree here. Looking in the magazines and visiting exhibitions, I never give layouts using Code100 Peco track a second glance. The scene of your railway is set by the track. There is more of it than anything else on most layouts (I exclude Pendon and similar 'scenic' outfits) and the sight of what is often quite good quality rolling stock trundling on track which just doesn't look right always turns me off. Peco is fine for playing trains but in my opinion no layout using it can have real pretensions to being finescale.

Alistair W

...

As am I.

Such groups are indeed very relevant, in the context of this thread, for recommending useful books that may not be an immediate choice from their title. What's your problem with that?

It takes one to know one, so you tell me.

MBQ

:> then you decide to bring up the irrelevance of :> web-forums/Usenet

: Such groups are indeed very relevant,

Not when you're standing in a WHSmith's, Waterstone's or a public library (or even browsing Amazon) there are not. Duh!

Most people do not partake in web-forums, blogs or Usenet anyway.

If I had realised at the outset what proportion of my track and pointwork would be new, I think I'd have gone with Code 75. Code 100 is not horrible or offensive to me, but then I am mainly up for playing trains. If I ever build a model rather than a train set I guess I will scratch build and maybe even go with a finescale protocol. I'm happy playing trains for now though. Guy

I think we're seeing an ancient divide here: the railroad modeller vs the model railroader. The first leans more towards the modelling aspect, the second more towards the operational aspect. Or, the first prefers to model the appearance of the railway, the second wants to model the running of the railway.

Of course, most of us are fairly close to the middle, but we do find those who function best very much on on side or the other. For example, a good friend of mine was infected by the model trains bug four years ago, and in that time has built six (!) layouts in a 15x18ft room, all to about 90% completion of scenery. He's now working on #7, in a much smaller space, and he's decided he wants to try some switching. But the emphasis is still very much on landscape, townscape, and watching trains.

OTOH many years ago, I knew a guy who focussed on building locomotives. He had a layout of sorts - it had a fair amount of track, but its scenery was mostly bare plywood. It was really an elaborate test track.

In any case, it's the people at the extremes of this spectrum that push the hobby. The modellers pioneer push modeling accuracy, the operators prototype operation.

But it would be nice if they didn't look down their noses at those who don't meet their exacting standards.

cheers, wolf k.

Like I said (I restored the bit you snipped), "in the context of this thread"

Someone posted a request for information and a book was recommended.

You seem to be the only one who has a problem with the title of said book.

Given the *main* focus of the book is modelling historic railways (mainly Settle & Carlisle inspired in LMS days) it's actually a very apt title. It still, however, contains a lot of good advice that is relevant to many modellers regardless of scale, era or chosen prototype.

What title would you give the book?

MBQ

As I said, Whhhoooosssshhhh..... MBQ misses the point completely.

But Alistair you are falling into the very trap that the book tries to help the reader to avoid. You are contrading the first part of quote given "should be free from the pedantry which dictates".

Cheers, Simon

De gustibus non est disputandum. Guy

I'm not looking down my nose at anyone. Go back to my first input to this thread. A decision has to be made as to what kind of modelling you want to do. A 'model railway' should use the best possible technologies to achieve a realistic result. A 'trainset' need not do this. Mixing the two concepts just produces a muddle. I rest my case.

Alistair W

Some of us have model railways that compromise earlier than you are apparently prepared to. I could say that a model railway can't be built in any space less than 20' long because of the need to follow prototypical curves. I'd be just as wrong as you were, and for the same reason. Modelling begins and ends with compromise, otherwise we'd all be building coal fuelled live steam. Guy