Quote from: Formerly NtasticShop on February 09, 2016, 12:53:47 PM
I can read it in context of comments made elsewhere as well ( http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102639-county-rolling-stock-kickstarter-n-gauge-rtr-mermaid/ see post 24). This is as he took my money for an advert in the NGS Journal while thinking the astute would not back it as DJM is working on one.
I also get other comments and feedback about CRS still existing, muddying the water does not help. I am not surprised your the first to respond in his defense.

I have said my view from where I sit, it will be interesting to see the line up of the new 2mm Society sorry I meant N Gauge Society committee.

Richard

You know full well my views on the Mermaid and that it was a project that I supported.

As for your comment about me defending Grahame - I make no secret of the fact that he is my friend!

I'm not sure what has annoyed you about the NGS Committee such that you feel the need to make jibes about 2mm - I can't think of anyone on the Committee that models in 2mm FS (though I am a member (possibly others are as well) so that I can buy some of the track components and wagons parts). I don't really see the problem with including 2mm FS in the NGS Journal particularly when many 2mm layouts utilise N gauge products (and vice versa).  If you have a problem please bring it up with the NGS Committee (committee@ngaugesociety etc).

Cheers,

Mike

(NGS Product Development Officer)

Quote from: Formerly NtasticShop on February 09, 2016, 11:10:01 AM
The sudden increase of 2mm fine scale articles was also noticeable and will only increase.

I must admit that I agree with you here. I don't think 2mm finescale has any business being in the N Gauge Society journal. The Journal is meant to be a showcase for N Gauge modelling. I don't have any problem including 2mm modelling generally; for example I'd have no problem with an article about scratchbuilding something like a station or goods shed that happened to be on a 2mm finescale layout. But once you start talking about building track to finescale standards and adjusting wheel back-to-back dimensions, I think you've crossed the line. So looking at the Fencehouses layout (as lovely as it is) the entire page (!) about finescale track was promoting something OTHER than N gauge.

Please Grahame, don't do this. I find it hard to imagine that the Editor couldn't find another N gauge layout somewhere in Britain (heck, the world!) that would have shown off the N gauge hobby to its advantage. Going down the 2mm finescale avenue is basically saying "N gauge is nice, but if you're serious about modelling, you should be doing this -- 2 mm finescale -- instead of commercial N gauge track". Just don't open this can of worms Grahame, and instead solicit articles from NGS members about their layouts.

Quote from: Formerly NtasticShop on February 09, 2016, 11:10:01 AM
Comments below refer to how much free publicity DJM seem to get, yet have manufactured nothing in N Gauge yet.

Dave Jones has a massive amount of goodwill in the hobby, off the back of some really good work done during his tenure at Dapol. Some great models made during his time, and his connection with the actual hobby seems to be unique, at least in the UK. I think we all have high expectations that his upcoming models will be at least as good as the best Dapol stuff, perhaps better.

But you're right, this goodwill is based on expectations rather than anything more solid. I'm sure it is very annoying for those who've been plugging away at the hobby for years, producing kits and other doodads, who don't get anything like the attention DJM has been getting.

FWIW, if I was Dave Jones I'd probably be breaking out in cold sweats during the night worrying about all these projects I've got going at once and whether they'll live up to their potential! High expectations go both ways -- just think about how excited some of us were when we heard George Lucas was producing a prequel series to the beloved 'Star Wars' trilogy of the 1970s/80s...

My thanks to any and all the businesses working in the British N gauge hobby, large and small, established and new. I'm sure it's hard to please everyone all of the time, and make a healthy profit at the same time. 

Cheers, NeMo

Quote from: NeMo on February 09, 2016, 05:39:28 PM
I must admit that I agree with you here. I don't think 2mm finescale has any business being in the N Gauge Society journal.

So where do you draw the line?  As I said many 2mm FS layouts run N gauge stock. The scenic sections of my layout will almost certainly use Easitrac (as I had some before Finetrax appeared) and Wayne's Finetrax points ie a mix of 9.42mm and 9mm track. People have long complained (unfairly IMHO) that the 2mm FS attitude is elitist, are we now going to be so parochial that 0.42mm in the track and 2% in the scale is going to be excluded? Sounds like shooting ourselves in the foot!

From memory wasn't the Fencehouses spread a few photos (with much of it running N gauge stock!)?

Quote from: NeMo on February 09, 2016, 05:39:28 PM
But once you start talking about building track to finescale standards and adjusting wheel back-to-back dimensions, I think you've crossed the line. So looking at the Fencehouses layout (as lovely as it is) the entire page (!) about finescale track was promoting something OTHER than N gauge.

Adjusting wheel back to backs is (often unfortunately) a necessary part and parcel of getting any track and wheels to work well unless the manufacturers stick to standards.

Cheers, Mike

Quote from: red_death on February 09, 2016, 05:49:20 PM
So where do you draw the line?

Easy. Using back-to-back gauges to fix a problem with something derailing is fine. No issues there. But if you need to use a gauge (and make adjustments if necessary) to every piece of stock to ensure it runs on a layout then you have crossed the line. It's not commercial N gauge any longer.

I think you're looking for a grey area that doesn't exist so that it allows 2mm finescale stuff to be published in the NGS Journal. The 2mm finescale folk have their own society and magazine where they can publish all the photos they want to Fencehouses, St Ruth, and all the other great 2mm finescale layouts. But if it isn't running on commercial N gauge track, then keep it out of the NGS Journal. The clue is in the name: "The N Gauge Journal". Otherwise you may as well stick EM, P4, S or anything else finescale in its pages on the basis of "much that can be learnt by the average N gauge enthusiast" as the Editor of the NGS Journal put it at the top of the Fencehouses article.

Basically, I don't want the NGS to become DEMU Lite. I pay my £16 a year for N gauge stuff. Not 2mm finescale. End of story. If I want to look at other scales and gauges, I'll buy a copy of 'Railway Modeller' thank you very much.

Cheers, NeMo

I enjoyed the 2FS features, ironically I thought the NGS Journal this edition was a better advert for the scale than the current  2mm Association mag...
Fence Houses is great inspiration whatever scale you model in

Quote from: red_death on February 09, 2016, 05:49:20 PM

So where do you draw the line?

I have absolutely no wish to get drawn into any argument, but I'd just like to point out there's a big difference between an N gauge layout using out-of-gauge track (the clue is in the name!) and a 2mm finescale layout that actually features on the 2mm scale association website:

http://www.2mm.org.uk/layouts/fencehouses/index.html

No axe to grind, just saying 

I have to agree at being surprised to find 5 pages (8.3%) of the article content devoted to a 2mmFS subject. Nice subject, no doubt, but I agree it's simply not relevant (I wonder what the 2mm Scale Association think). Personally I like the subject and era of that model so these don't grate much, but I can see others who don't being more perplexed at the inclusion as seems to be coming across.

Is this simply a reflection that the NGS is now in dire straights in terms of content? To update content source of the article pages of some previous journals, and below are the number of article pages, and the number written by the editor:

1/16 article pages are pp19-79 of which 26 pages by editor spanning 3 main articles, 1 smaller, multiple (large!) photo spreads and additional info pages. Thats 43% of the content. It's interesting too that only PGF is a relatively unknown/new author - the other main articles seem to be NGS regulars.
6/15 pp19-76 of which 24 pages by editor spanning 2 main articles, 1 smaller, and several photo spreads. (42%)
5/15 pp19-80 of which 16 pages by editor spanning 3 main articles and 1 smaller photo spread (26%)
4/15 pp21-78 of which 20 pages by editor spanning 3 main articles and center spread words (35%)
3/15 pp20-78 of which 11 pages by editor spanning 2 main articles, 1 smaller articles and center spread words (18%)
2/15 pp20-79 of which 17 pages by editor spanning 2 main articles, 2 smaller articles and center spread words (28%)
1/15 pp18-79 of which 19 pages by editor spanning 3 main articles and center spread words (31%)
6/14 pp20-80 of which 18 pages by editor spanning 2 main articles, 1 smaller articles and center spread words (30%)
4/14 pp19-81 of which 18 pages by editor spanning 2 main articles, 3 smaller articles and center spread words (29%)

See below for previous editor data contrast. It's been raised before but it's worth updating with latest as the trend here is quite steadily upwards indicating serious problems on the horizon for diverse multi-author content which is surely the entire point of the publication - for Society members to share their modelling, achievements, ideas, projects, layouts, and even failures.

One other point that hasn't been noticed is the downright embarrassing (for the NGS) response to the final letter. This was concisely pointing out that basically there were errors in curve radii in previous journal, perhaps, worst "for example 1 inch is quoted as 23mm". The response seems laughable, blaming conversion and rounding (err, how? An inch is 25.4mm, or say 25mm for ease - simple known fact), or finer rounding resolution, but then there is "space and what gets left out"? Really this is comical - say 25 then - takes no more space than 23 - at least you'll only be 2% out, not 20%. Really, manning up and accepting there was an error would have been a far more simple, honest, and upstanding response from the editor.

It's no big deal, mistakes happen, but responding to them as was does the society no favours...

Congrats to PCF for getting his article published.

Cheers,
Alan


Previous editor:
6/13 pp22-85 of which 0 pages by editor
5/13 pp28-93 of which 0 pages by editor
4/13 pp16-91 of which 0 pages by editor
3/13 pp18-88 of which 4 pages by editor spanning 1 article
1/13 pp22-84 of which 0 pages by editor
(Average of 1.2% content)

I do think this attitude toward 2mm Finescale is unfortunate, I'm a member of the 2mm Association and the N gauge society and like to think that both embrace what's best in the 2mm/N family encompassing both gauges. The 2mm Association has numerous members who model to N gauge track and wheel standards and their work is often published in the 2mm magazine  - and even wins pots at the AGM like John Birkette-Smith's beautiful GWR Bulldog which won the Chairmanship Trophy  a couple of years ago.

I model predominantly in 2FS but I'm planning a 1970s blue diesel layout which will be N. That said, the N layout will have hand built track on the visible section as it looks so much better and the pointwork can be tailored to the specific location. By the criteria espoused above because the track is not commercial, albeit 9mm gauge, would that exclude it from the N gauge mag.

I've been commissioned and am currently working on a book for WildSwan on modelling in the 2mm scales which will encompass the very best of N gauge and 2mm modelling. The criteria for inclusion will be great modelling in the 2mm family regardless of the odd half a millimetre in the gauge.

Jerry

Quote from: Dr Al on February 09, 2016, 07:47:51 PM
I have to agree at being surprised to find 5 pages (8.3%) of the article content devoted to a 2mmFS subject. Nice subject, no doubt, but I agree it's simply not relevant (I wonder what the 2mm Society think). Personally I like the subject and era of that model so these don't grate much, but I can see others who don't being more perplexed at the inclusion as seems to be coming across.

I don't know what the 2mm Society thinks but the 2mm Scale Association is thankfully not so blinkered. With your obsession with stats it amazes me that with only three words in the Associations name,  you consistent entry get 33% of them wrong.
It's obvious from many of the comments in this thread that for whatever reason some people don't like Graham. I happen to get on with him very well but, personalities aside, there is little doubt that the magazine is light years ahead of what it was before he became editor.

Jerry

I have to agree with Jerry in both the above posts, and state my looking forwardness to both the book and the BR blue layout mentioned!

Im a member of both the NGS and the 2mm Association - To my (heretical maybe, 4mm scale programmed) mind, I see both options as opposite sides of the same coin, particularly in helping me get a better grasp of what these very small trains are all about.
There is plenty to admire and be inspired by in both..... I think they call it cross-fertilization.

Seriously guys, does this really matter? You are getting irate about 8.3% of the journal!

As an open forum, perhaps the NGS content and magazine should not really be discussed openly especially as a one sided discussion without the input from the society and in such a negative way. As Jerry says, they are similar and modelling can cross between them so why can't we all just get along and enjoy our, and others, modelling!

I get very frustrated by the single minded nonsense that seems to invade the NGF on too many occasions. I am looking forward to reading my Journal - not arrived yet, and no I am not complaining about that, just mentioning that some of you are a step ahead of others.

Anyway, i am off to do some model making to calm down again!!!!

Best wishes
Simon

Ok, just gone down for a cuppa, modelling in the spare room upstairs, and my wife told me the Journal was on the side waiting for me. Just had a brief look through and want to add my comments -

Looks like a VERY good read so congrats to the Journal crew!!

Some great modelling and walk through's as well

Now, the topic of controversy - 'Fencehouses', What a stunning model, very well executed and including a really good explanation as to why it should be included in the journal - 'much of the rolling stock is RTR 1:148 N gauge...'

Anyway, am off to read more deeply.

best wishes
Simon

Quote from: bridgiesimon on February 09, 2016, 08:42:23 PM
Seriously guys, does this really matter? You are getting irate about 8.3% of the journal!
Simon

I have to agree with Simon. Admittedly I am a relative newcomer to this 'hobby' of ours - but that surely, is what it is, a hobby. I enjoy reading my copy of the Journal, (belated well done to Peter re the article), and do not mind some slight diversification. I quite often buy a computer magazine or two, but do not complain when it contains an article about a printer or a digital camera. I appreciate that a forum, by definition, is an open place for discussion and debate, but one of the things that attracted me to this forum, was the light heartedness that was prevalent, (most of the time  ).  . David.

Quote from: queensquare on February 09, 2016, 08:06:32 PM
I don't know what the 2mm Society thinks but the 2mm Scale Association is thankfully not so blinkered. With your obsession with stats it amazes me that with only three words in the Associations name,  you consistent entry get 33% of them wrong.
It's obvious from many of the comments in this thread that for whatever reason some people don't like Graham. I happen to get on with him very well but, personalities aside, there is little doubt that the magazine is light years ahead of what it was before he became editor.

Fair enough - happy to accept and update any errors....contrasting the editor with his 1inch = 23mm gaffe....

The magazine is better in standard. Nobody's disputing that. But, there is clearly an issue with the content IMHO - 43% by the editor, one article by the previous editor, and one by a regular contributor in one journal makes it feel like there is very little space for articles by others. This seems diametrically opposed to the purpose of the journal IMHO - so I don't feel it's unreasonable to think: why is it so?

As for lightheartedness - fair enough, but as a paying subscriber it's perfectly reasonable to voice a more serious opinion as well.

Cheers,
Alan

Quote from: queensquare on February 09, 2016, 07:53:18 PM
I do think this attitude toward 2mm Finescale is unfortunate, I'm a member of the 2mm Association and the N gauge society and like to think that both embrace what's best in the 2mm/N family encompassing both gauges.

Precisely. You're a member of both associations so you can enjoy both. No need for one association to include material relevant to the other scale/gauge. The "2mm/N family" monicker is meaningless, unless you're going to tell me that the Scalefour Society magazine would be running articles about a particularly nice 00 gauge layout. I'll make my point again: if I wanted to read about other scales and gauges, even 2mm finescale ones, I'd buy a pick-and-mix magazine like 'Railway Modeller' that has a bit of everything. Personally, for my subscription to the NGS, I'd expect a Journal that is 100% tailored to my chosen scale and gauge. Not similar ones. But N gauge. End of story.

Quote from: queensquare on February 09, 2016, 08:06:32 PM
It's obvious from many of the comments in this thread that for whatever reason some people don't like Graham.

Not the case here. I've worked with Grahame several times now, and insofar as one can tell in emails, we get along fine. I had something in this issue of the NGS, and in the last one, and should the situation arise, will happily submit something else to NGS issues in the future.

In any case, I don't think anyone is saying Fencehouses is a bad layout or the article wasn't interesting. The debate, if there's one to be had, is whether an article about a 2mm finescale layout is the best use of space in the NGS Journal. Put another way, was there an N gauge layout that wasn't included to make space for it? If that wasn't the case, and there really wasn't anything the Editor wanted to run from N gauge (as opposed to 2mm finescale) modellers -- then why not? Is the membership not submitting enough material? Can the Editor do anything to improve that situation?

If you want to talk about "cross pollination", perhaps the Editor of the NGS Journal visit the N Gauge Forum and asking people here to write articles for the Journal? There's a lot of NGS members here, many of whom frequently post pictures about their fantastically interesting layouts. I'd love to read more about them in the NGS Journal!

Quote from: queensquare on February 09, 2016, 07:53:18 PM
That said, the N layout will have hand built track on the visible section as it looks so much better and the pointwork can be tailored to the specific location. By the criteria espoused above because the track is not commercial, albeit 9mm gauge, would that exclude it from the N gauge mag.

Obviously not. Provided the layout can have ready-to-run N gauge locos plonked on top of it and expected to run, it's N gauge. Indeed, as a fan of the BR blue era, I'd look forward to reading about this layout and your decision to combine handmade and commercial track in one layout.

Cheers, NeMo