 |
Contents Listing - Articles & Features in this issue
CHILDS ERCAL by John Bancroft
REVAMPING DIE-CAST ROAD VEHICLES by Gordon Gravett
THE UBIQUITOUS ‘57’ by Iain Rice
MRJ PORTFOLIO
PEN TOR ROAD’S ‘FOU R-HOLER’ by Stewart Hine
SMALL SUPPLIERS FORUM
NO. 1 SHOP
BLOCK WORKING WITH COMPUTERS by Ian D. Everett
LETTERS
MISCELLANEA
DIARY
Cover photo: John Bancroft's North Staffordshire ‘D’ Tank on his Childs Ercal layout.
Article Snippets
Confusion Reigns:
The editorial in the last issue - entitled, you may recall, ‘Let’s Make it Easier’ - drew one of the largest responses of any editorial to date. I’m rather more used to having these random jottings ignored (as some of them no doubt deserve to be).
Apart from a couple of etchers, who entirely missed the point and thought it a thinly-veiled attack on etchers as a breed, most letters were supportive of the editorial’s thrust - that detailed and accurate models do not necessarily have to come from complex and difficult kits. Interestingly, the majority of correspondents affirming this view claimed to be experienced in other modelling disciplines, notably military and aviation but including everything from automotive to science fiction (a new and big money area known by a variety of names - TV-and-film-rclated, Horror, Fantasy, etc. - which is drawing huge numbers of ‘baby boomers’ into modelling for the first time, presumably to the detriment of model railways). Their message was one we know to be true - that there are cottage industrialists and kit producers using and mixing standard technologies innovatively, to market kits which are reasonably simple to build into accurate models. It’s an idea which readily translates to model railways,as makers like Impetus and Eric Underhill have demonstrated.
However, the overwhelming impression left by those letters was of confusion - about what finescale modellers really want to achieve and how much, or how little, time and effort is required to get them there. So many modellers, it seems to us, are now bogged down with doing what they think is expected of them - by their fellow modellers, by the predatory ‘experts’ and yes, by the makers of virtually unbuildable kits — that they have lost sight of the fact that model railways are representational, and that you can ‘represent’ prototype fidelity without necessarily getting involved with every last nut and bolt (unless, of course, that is what gives you pleasure). Producing a truly convincing model is more a matter of selection than slavish replication, and whilst it takes a certain cast of mind and a degree of practice to know what to select and what not to select, it can be done by anyone.
We’ll be looking at this philosophy in much greater depth before long, and offering some help to those readers who are having trouble pointing themselves in the right direction. There will be some suggestions on how kit manufacturers can help, too. Bob Barlow
The editorial in the last issue - entitled, you may recall, ‘Let’s Make it Easier’ - drew one of the largest responses of any editorial to date. I’m rather more used to having these random jottings ignored (as some of them no doubt deserve to be).
Apart from a couple of etchers, who entirely missed the point and thought it a thinly-veiled attack on etchers as a breed, most letters were supportive of the editorial’s thrust - that detailed and accurate models do not necessarily have to come from complex and difficult kits. Interestingly, the majority of correspondents affirming this view claimed to be experienced in other modelling disciplines, notably military and aviation but including everything from automotive to science fiction (a new and big money area known by a variety of names - TV-and-film-rclated, Horror, Fantasy, etc. - which is drawing huge numbers of ‘baby boomers’ into modelling for the first time, presumably to the detriment of model railways). Their message was one we know to be true - that there are cottage industrialists and kit producers using and mixing standard technologies innovatively, to market kits which are reasonably simple to build into accurate models. It’s an idea which readily translates to model railways,as makers like Impetus and Eric Underhill have demonstrated.
However, the overwhelming impression left by those letters was of confusion - about what finescale modellers really want to achieve and how much, or how little, time and effort is required to get them there. So many modellers, it seems to us, are now bogged down with doing what they think is expected of them - by their fellow modellers, by the predatory ‘experts’ and yes, by the makers of virtually unbuildable kits — that they have lost sight of the fact that model railways are representational, and that you can ‘represent’ prototype fidelity without necessarily getting involved with every last nut and bolt (unless, of course, that is what gives you pleasure). Producing a truly convincing model is more a matter of selection than slavish replication, and whilst it takes a certain cast of mind and a degree of practice to know what to select and what not to select, it can be done by anyone.
We’ll be looking at this philosophy in much greater depth before long, and offering some help to those readers who are having trouble pointing themselves in the right direction. There will be some suggestions on how kit manufacturers can help, too. Bob Barlow
