Having been the owner/editor of a club magazine in the past (different subject matter, but reliant on the input of the more skilled members and the editor for content) I can understand the amount of work that can be involved and the potential difficulty in sourcing enough good content. I usually ended up writing a lot of the content for mine.

While I suspect the supply of good and interesting content is a bit better for the NGS, it's still a tricky job to balance between what you as an editor see as necessary for the magazine and what you're being sent. So I can certainly understand why a lot of it is Graham's work. I really hope to see a lot more content that's not his though!

The 2mm layout feature was interesting and does look very nice. With the option of N gauge finescale track now, it did give an idea of something we *could* do in N (even if we don't want to) and as I tend to read articles on other people's layouts for inspiration for things to do on mine, rather than copy the whole thing, I don't mind the odd one that's 2mm track. I also like articles on the simpler layouts that focus on running as much as modelling, so hopefully it'll stay a good mix and there'll be some inspirational N gauge ones in there too without much need to show 2mm ones (or at least keeping them to "here's a pic" rather than a full feature). Hopefully I'll be able to contribute something useful to the NGS Journal at some point.

One thing I have noticed over the years is that in both hobbyist clubs/societies and internet forums, there's *always* a point where a difference of opinion becomes anything from a squabble to a full on religious war. It's human nature and I usually just step back and let it blow over. Sometimes people will forget they're doing it for the passion or interest and take their ball away but at the end of the day, it's not great to see public arguments over it all. Especially when it's a relatively struggling hobby in commercial terms and generating new interest.

There's a lot more to be said/argued on it all, but is it really necessary?

I am not sure what the Scalefour Society has to do with this ( I could guess)but as possibly the only member of the Society on here I think it worth mentioning that  the Society does indeed showcase other scales at the annual Scaleforum as part of the wider appeal of "finescale" modelling.
Probably not OO though, granted
Good modelling is good modelling regardless of the track gauge the trains run on, or even the scale involved.

The trains themselves, and even the whole railway infrastructure, are but just a small part of what creates the overall picture we are trying to portray.

Okay I'll go for it and say my piece, the bigger picture as I see it from what I hear and this could be wrong.

The current committee I have no major issues with ((excluding conflicts of interests, editor (who I thought I got on with)) and some staying posts for far to long), but I am hearing thinks on the grapevine about a potential new chairman who is a 2mm fs modeler. I suspect he wants to get his hands on the NGS pot of cash to develop 2m fs (1:152) products. I am have been advised against buying one NGS kit because it is to small as it was developed by this individual when he was the NGS kit development officer some years ago. This is why I am so concerned by the stead creep of 2mm articles as it is a warning of what is to come.

Remember this may be fact or fiction, I may, just may have been misinformed but I have heard this from several different sources.

Quote from: Dr Al on February 09, 2016, 09:06:32 PM
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?

I come to a much more simple conclusion ie that there isn't being sufficient content supplied. No need to try and extrapolate that into there being no space for others. I know from talking to Grahame that while he tries at times to group articles into similar themed issues at other times he is struggling for content - he is not sitting on masses of content.

Quote from: NeMo on February 09, 2016, 05:59:07 PM
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.  But if it isn't running on commercial N gauge track, then keep it out of the NGS Journal.

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.

I have no idea what DEMU has to do with it (as that definitely isn't scale specific, in fact it is more about modelling the D&E prototype regardless of scale!).

That aside, I'm not looking for a grey area that doesn't exist - I've given you two real examples (N stock running on 9.42mm track and a combination of 9.42mm/9mm track), I can offer you a third which by your definition shouldn't appear in the NGS Journal (handbuilt 9mm track).

Cheers, Mike

Quote from: Formerly NtasticShop on February 09, 2016, 09:40:09 PM
The current committee I have no major issues with ((excluding conflicts of interests, editor (who I thought I got on with)) and some staying posts for far to long), but I am hearing thinks on the grapevine about a potential new chairman who is a 2mm fs modeler. I suspect he wants to get his hands on the NGS pot of cash to develop 2m fs (1:152) products. I am have been advised against buying one NGS kit because it is to small as it was developed by this individual when he was the NGS kit development officer some years ago. This is why I am so concerned by the stead creep of 2mm articles as it is a warning of what is to come.

Richard

I don't know who told you that, but it is complete fiction. I'm pretty sure I know the full list of nominees for chairman and none of them fit that description.  In fact hasn't there only been 2 kit development officers of the NGS? Andy Calvert and Ben?

Cheers, Mike

We had the pleasure of exhibiting Horseblock Lane at the East Ham Finescale show last year, despite being N gauge. I'd like to think we got that invite based  on the criteria Jason mentions. We saw Grahame at the Egham and Staines show last month when exhibiting Deansmoor and he was asking for an article for the Journal straight away. The content issue is not for the want of asking on Grahame's behalf.

A few pictures of 2mm Finescale doesn't distress me as I find it inspiring. Like Mike Hale I'm a member of both NGS and 2mm Association as a way of accessing ideas and detailing parts. I'm happy with the world of N Gauge because I can meet my modelling aims with commercial N gauge stuff in the main in a reasonable period of time, without resorting to watch making techniques that I doubt I could summon the patience to master. But each to their own, I'm off to pen a Journal article in the hope of getting my name in there again!

PS: I'd be interested to know which kit is said to be on the small side....

Quote from: red_death on February 09, 2016, 09:41:20 PM

Quote from: Dr Al on February 09, 2016, 09:06:32 PM
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?

I come to a much more simple conclusion ie that there isn't being sufficient content supplied. No need to try and extrapolate that into there being no space for others. I know from talking to Grahame that while he tries at times to group articles into similar themed issues at other times he is struggling for content - he is not sitting on masses of content.

Thanks - this is valuable information. Clearly there is a major content problem then - i.e. there isn't enough. Maybe the NGS needs to be much more candid in making this clear to its members?

Or is the Journal simply aging beyond its years (in this age of instant gratification, internet forums, post, article and content)? What is the editor doing to address this? Is content and new contributors actively being sought?

Thanks,
Alan

Quote from: red_death on February 09, 2016, 09:45:05 PM

Quote from: Formerly NtasticShop on February 09, 2016, 09:40:09 PM
The current committee I have no major issues with ((excluding conflicts of interests, editor (who I thought I got on with)) and some staying posts for far to long), but I am hearing thinks on the grapevine about a potential new chairman who is a 2mm fs modeler. I suspect he wants to get his hands on the NGS pot of cash to develop 2m fs (1:152) products. I am have been advised against buying one NGS kit because it is to small as it was developed by this individual when he was the NGS kit development officer some years ago. This is why I am so concerned by the stead creep of 2mm articles as it is a warning of what is to come.

Richard

I don't know who told you that, but it is complete fiction. I'm pretty sure I know the full list of nominees for chairman and none of them fit that description.  In fact hasn't there only been 2 kit development officers of the NGS? Andy Calvert and Ben?

Cheers, Mike

Thank you Mike

I wait with interest to see the list of nominees, when do the members get to see this list?

I do believe one other person was involved in the development of at least one kit.

Hello Richard,

I am responsible for collating committee nominations for the election.  All those standing for chairman are, to my definite knowledge, enthusiastic N gauge modellers.

I believe one or two of the very early NGS kits were a little on the small side, but this was because they were etched brass kits shrunk down from 4mm prototypes and literally produced at 50% and were therefore 1:76/2 = 1:152, which happens to be strict 2mm scale.   I do not know if this was intentional, a mistake or simply a function of the limitations in technology at the time.  It also made the kits fiendishly difficult to build, as some of the parts that were small but manageable in 4mm became impossible to handle in 2mm.

One of the kits involved was the Queen Mary brake van, which has of course been superceded by a nice 1:148 RTR model.  One of the reasons for selecting the QM brake was that we felt the existing kit needed to be retired.  All the upcoming kits and RTR items I am involved with are to 1:148 scale.

A few years ago there was some discussion about producing one of the UK models in 1:160 scale for continental NGS members, but this came to nothing.

As far as I am aware there is no plan for a 1:152 scale model under the NGS banner.

I don't disagree that some of those on the Committee are tending to stay in post for too long, and there is a general feeling that three years is probably long enough; however the problem is what happens if there is no replacement volunteer?   In this election there is one committee post for which no nominations were received by the deadline; if the incumbent cannot be persuaded to continue then the another committee member may have to be co-opted until a volunteer comes forward.

Names of all the candidates we have, along with their proposers, seconders and a brief biography/election statement from each will appear in the next journal.

On a personal note, the only thing that is strict 2mm scale about Fencehouses is the track and wheels.  A lot of the stock is to 1:148 scale, originally N-gauge, but nicely detailed or weathered, and of course the ground cover, trees, architecture, woodwork and track plan are just as applicable to N as to 2mm.  In my view its inclusion in the NGS journal is perfectly reasonable.

cheers

Ben A.
(NGS Vice President and Returning Officer)

We are never going to agree but, as I said, I do think it's a shame that some have such strong objections to inspirational but  fractionally different, albeit closely related, models occasionally being shown in the N gauge mag.

Regarding S4, I have exhibited my 2mm layout at both expo-EM and the S4 Society AGM as guest layout. What I find is that both these groups  above all wish to promote good quality modelling, majoring in their own favoured standards, but embracing good modelling whatever the scale. 

Jerry

Quote from: Dr Al on February 09, 2016, 09:50:28 PM
Thanks - this is valuable information. Clearly there is a major content problem then - i.e. there isn't enough. Maybe the NGS needs to be much more candid in making this clear to its members?

Or is the Journal simply aging beyond its years (in this age of instant gratification, internet forums, post, article and content)? What is the editor doing to address this? Is content and new contributors actively being sought?

Hi Alan

I'm not sure that the NGS could be much more candid - pretty much every issue contains a plea for articles!

I think that at times people are reluctant to write up what they have contributed on online forums (to me both online and written offer different advantages - personally I find that I can contribute bits and pieces here and there online but that when I get time to sit down and write an article I try to collate lots of bits and pieces into a consolidated article).

Cheers, Mike

Quote from: queensquare on February 09, 2016, 10:56:27 PM
We are never going to agree but, as I said, I do think it's a shame that some have such strong objections to inspirational but  fractionally different, albeit closely related, models occasionally being shown in the N gauge mag.

Regarding S4, I have exhibited my 2mm layout at both expo-EM and the S4 Society AGM as guest layout. What I find is that both these groups  above all wish to promote good quality modelling, majoring in their own favoured standards, but embracing good modelling whatever the scale. 

Jerry

I know its a  regular sortta typo, but its P4 :O
I feel bad now ive said that someone I esteem  as Jerry C but its meant for the record

I was tipped off by a member to read the posts on this thread, and although reading the posts from yesterday made me think "oh no, here we go", I'm glad to see sensible answers and no tempers in the later posts!

Just to reiterate what has been said before, the NGS Committee doesn't mind threads/posts on here about certain NGS issues, but if I feel that the thread is going in the wrong direction, or if the NGS instruct me to act then I will do so.

Keep supporting the Journal and the Society, as the hobby needs it.   

Something that struck me reading through these posts is the difficulty that the NGS is having in getting submissions (no editor wants to write nearly half the magazine. If nothing else, it's embarrassing, let alone exhausting). As Mike pointed out, often we aren't as comfortable sitting down to write an article as we would be a post. There are a few reasons for this:

1. Posts are quick and easy to write
2. You can be wrong in a post and someone will correct you, no harm done.
3. Posts are meant to be part of a conversation so you are not expected to say everything important there is to say.

Unfortunately, articles are subject to a great deal more scrutiny and held to a much higher standard. That is not to say that many of the members here are not MORE than capable of writing a very good article, but rather that the stakes may seem much higher.

The forum offers us a wonderful tool for writing articles however: crowd-sourced knowledge from a variety of experts. I think that if those of you who are NGS members are serious about wanting more articles, a good way to go about it would be to start a thread on here, posting a skeleton outline of what you want to cover or a rough draft and getting feedback from other forum members about it. Even an article you feel barely informed enough to write about might come together easily if you started asking for help on here. I have gotten marvelously detailed advice from members on here more times than I can count and if I were going to write an article for the NGS I can't imagine trying to do it without the input all of you so readily give.

I think both the 43% Editor Created contend and the 2mm offerings are a reflection of a lack of member generated articles on relevant topics, not an indication that the journal wants to move towards 2mm or to become a soap box for the editor. If you want to see less editor written material and less/no 2mm content, the answer is simple, help contribute, even if you just request that someone ELSE write an article on it for the NGS (in fact a thread entitled: "What articles would you like to read in the NGS Journal?" Might be well in order for just the purpose of uniting writers and information-seeking would-be readers)! I think if the editor had had a stack of n gauge articles and photographs on his desk to choose from, we would not have seen more than perhaps a single article by him and probably would have seen nothing 2mm of note. If we want the next journal to be like that, let's get our pens out and join PCF and NeMo in representing the NGF in print!

 

Quote from: JasonBz on February 10, 2016, 01:31:07 AM

I know its a  regular sortta typo, but its P4 :O
I feel bad now ive said that someone I esteem  as Jerry C but its meant for the record
[/quote]

Fair cop, albeit partially, as it's the Scalefour  or S4 Society promoting P4 standards.

Cheers Jerry