Practical BRM

I saw the adverts and wondered about buying a copy. Is that recommended?

Well, if it hadn't been sealed in a bag and I could have looked at it, I would have saved my =A36. It's very much aimed at the beginner rather than "how to improve your layout" as it is billed.

Oh, and most of us who aren't working on 00 are working in N at a scale of 1:160. It seesm I'm using the wrong scale!

MBQ

The more of it I read, the worse it gets. The description of "Programming on the Main" in "The digital train Set" is complete b******s.

Some of the articles are written in the first person, but they are all completely anonymous.

MBQ

Its almost worth scanning and posting the rubbish somewhere, ideally with a reasonable search rating. That way those who don't know anything about the topic might be warned not to believe what is written in the comic.

Pedantically, most N gauge modellers are working to 1:160, the major exceptions being the UK and Japan. But looked at from a world wide perspective, OO is a near obselete minority scale. Presumably the comic doesn't recognise this detail ?

Thanks for the warnings about saving our pennies !

Decent magazines credit their authors.

- Nigel

Agreed, but this was a statement specifically about modellers in the UK. Two-thirds 00, which I'm willing to believe, and the majority of the rest in N at 1:160, which must be wrong.

MBQ

As I am essentially a beginner - haven't actually started any scenery etc, just laid track - and as I have n gauge (1:148 of course) I might go mad and give it a try. That's assuming I can get to a W H Smith as the ad I saw says that it is exclusive to them.

Can someone excuse my ignorance and tell me what Practical BRM is please?.. ( I know and read BRM but it doesn't seem at all relevant to this thread.)

I think the subject of the thread is this publication:-

If you read BRM then you will surely have seen it advertised.

It's a special issue a bit like the Christmas Annual, but no where near as good. It's magazine format and displayed with the magazines in WHSmith.

Andrew

I think it's this one:-

I believe this isthe publication in question:-

In the "first etched kit" article, mention of motor/gearboxes sold under the "Porter's Cap" brand name.

No wonder the articles are anonymous!

MBQ

There actually was a motor/gearbox combination with than name. When they first appeared they were described in the Small Suppliers Forum section of Model Railway Journal, issue 93

It had an ingenious flexible gearbox so the motor and transmission could be hidden more easily in small engines.

They're no longer called Porter's Cap but are still available, made by High Level Kits.

Whatever faults the magazine might have, this wasn't one of them.

They existed - this was a range of gearboxes designed by Chris Gibbon of High Level Kits and Pete McParlin of Backwoods Miniatures. Obviously a play on the name of another brand of gearbox, whose name escapes me for a minute :-)

I stand corrected.

MBQ

Quality stuff too. I think they came about because some kits included alternative gearbox sides for the smallest Portescap (1219?) using the original gears, but this (nor surprisingly) voided the guarantee.

"Christopher A. Lee" replied to:

with

But in that case why refer to an obsolete product (or at least why refer to them using obsolete name)? At the very least it seems careless & amateurish to me.

John.

Who knows? People might still call the generic range Porter's Cap which perpetuates what I thought at the time was a clever joke. There could be any number of reasons.

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote

Might make them difficult to source for a newbie?

John.