Gents,

Now things have calmed down from what became petty squabbling in some cases.

A point made on here is very pertinent:

Quote from: Only Me on February 10, 2016, 10:56:58 AM
this is where a private area on the NGF for NGS members would come into its own as this kind of discussion should be discussed by members of the N Gauge Society.

While not yet a member I will be once the Christmas credit card bill is settled. But comments made on here in the open have made me look carefully the fact some individuals were happy to mention names and positions held and there disregard for them is actually rather saddening.
It could give a prospective members like myself a bad image of the NGS and therefore not join as it may well be perceived as in fighting breaking out in the open.

Thankfully calm has ensued and the topic has regained a more mature tone but it sets a dangerous president for people to be willing to make these sorts of comments in the open!

Every time the journal comes out I read the plea for articles and wonder if there is anything on my workbench that I could write up into an interesting article.  Maybe it is a lack of confidence on my part but I don't think there is anything I've done that would be worth putting in a magazine; and I don't have enough knowledge of real railway matters to come up with something sufficiently informative in the vein of the milk or parcels train articles.

I took the plunge and wrote an article (first one) after the appeal before Christmas, on something I was doing at the time, really easy process to submit it.  Pleasantly surprised to find it published in this journal.  Definitely encourage others to do the same, unfortunately my workbench progresses at snail's pace.

Regarding the digital/paper subject, I agree with Philip (N-Gauge-US) that a lower priced digital only option would be nice for overseas members, much as I prefer print copies.

I came back to the NGS after a 8 year hiatus, and my 1st issue of the Journal was also the 1st with Grahame as editor. Comparing it (and ones after) to those I had from '06, the change is remarkable, and much improved, making a Journal better than it already was. Grahame has his detractors, and he and I have exchanged somewhat testy messages via forums and the Yahoo group in the past, but have also exchanged friendlier ones, as well. Many people b***ch about him, don't like him for whatever reason, criticize him for whatever, but I have yet to read of anyone of these folks jumping up and saying they could do better.

I find the whinging about the 2mmfs content amusing, like little kids saying "Noo, you can't bring that sort of sand into this sandbox!". In a hobby where the vast majority are quietly doing their thing in OO, those into the smaller scale are a niche. To say that N and 2mm should be kept totally separate is silly. As has been pointed out, many N gauge modelers utilize 2mm items, and many 2mm modellers use N gauge items.

If having a few pages of 2mm content in the Journal means I get a larger issue, verses a thinner one due to lack of strictly N gauge content, that works for me. Those who object, then perhaps they should consider providing some of that N gauge only content. I'm sure Grahame would rather just wear his editor cap, than have to wear it and a content writer cap.

I think all hands-on hobbies are shrinking with regards to folks involved in them. At least it seems so in the model railway hobby, the military modelling hobby, and the miniature dollhouse hobby, from what I read in forums and magazines. If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense for folks in N gauge and folks in 2mm to be more tolerant of each other, and try and share/combine interests, than to insist both are completely different and should not be mixed?

Just thinking out loud.

Jim

Quote from: JimF on February 21, 2016, 10:38:10 AM
Regarding the digital/paper subject, I agree with Philip (N-Gauge-US) that a lower priced digital only option would be nice for overseas members, much as I prefer print copies.

Agreed, and I'd assume Grahame is using Quark, InDesign or something similar that exports to PDF very easily. Indeed, if he's using a Mac, he need only Print to PDF to get the job done adequately well. Plus, for those of us who write for the Journal, receiving PDF versions of our article for "proofing" before the thing is actually printed would be a really big improvement.

Quote from: JimF on February 21, 2016, 10:38:10 AM
I came back to the NGS after a 8 year hiatus, and my 1st issue of the Journal was also the 1st with Grahame as editor. Comparing it (and ones after) to those I had from '06, the change is remarkable, and much improved, making a Journal better than it already was.

Don't disagree compared with issues from the 90s and 00s, but please do look at some from the time Richard Bardsley as well. The Journal was excellent under his editorship too. The focus was perhaps a different, Grahame favouring "how to" articles above all else, whereas Richard had a more pot-luck approach that, you could argue, lacked focus even if it reflected the contributions made my the NGS membership.

Quote from: JimF on February 21, 2016, 10:38:10 AM
I find the whinging about the 2mmfs content amusing, like little kids saying "Noo, you can't bring that sort of sand into this sandbox!".

My concern about 2mm finescale in the N Gauge Society Journal is simply that it's a different gauge and is therefore of less interest to me, as a paying member, than actual N gauge. There is a 2mm finescale journal, plus multi-scale commercial model railway magazines. Had the article been about 2mm modelling of something scenic or whatever, it wouldn't have irritated me. But promoting a 2mm finescale layout instead of an N gauge one seems, at best, a mis-use of NGS Journal space, and the page of text on 2mm finescale track totally irrelevant.

Basically, you may as well argue that bringing your cat to a dog show is fine because they're both pet mammals that eat meat.

Quote from: JimF on February 21, 2016, 10:38:10 AM
If having a few pages of 2mm content in the Journal means I get a larger issue, verses a thinner one due to lack of strictly N gauge content, that works for me. Those who object, then perhaps they should consider providing some of that N gauge only content. I'm sure Grahame would rather just wear his editor cap, than have to wear it and a content writer cap.

Your point about filling the Journal is a valid opinion, but one I disagree with if it means N gauge content has to make space for. As for your second point, I do write for the NGS Journal, quite regularly, and get along fine with Grahame, so this absolutely isn't a personal dig at him.

Quote from: JimF on February 21, 2016, 10:38:10 AM
I think all hands-on hobbies are shrinking with regards to folks involved in them. At least it seems so in the model railway hobby, the military modelling hobby, and the miniature dollhouse hobby, from what I read in forums and magazines. If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense for folks in N gauge and folks in 2mm to be more tolerant of each other, and try and share/combine interests, than to insist both are completely different and should not be mixed?

Perfectly valid point about collaboration, but to stress again, there are plenty of model railway clubs that do that, and all the commercial magazines are multi-scale and multi-gauge magazines. But if I join the N Gauge Society, it's not unreasonable to assume any and all discussion of track will confine itself to N gauge track. Not 2mm finescale track. No problems at all with 2mm scenics, motor cars, buildings, etc. But "purity", I'd argue, is important so far as the track goes!

Likewise, thinking aloud! NeMo

Not being sure how to break up the msg into multi quotes (and sure I'd make a hash of it if I tried), I'll just reply point by point

A) The pdf proofing copy to a author is a good idea, if it is something easily done by the editor, and not more work for a voluntary position. As for the complete Journal, I would think someone else could handle that, after the Journal had been completed. I am only familiar with one group that has a digital edition, the Gauge O Group, and it is digitized and put on the website by someone other than the editor.

B) Here's a great example of one word missing from a text, that can, in cases, lead to all sorts issues. What I had meant to type was "making a GREAT Journal better than it already was". Mr. Bardsley was the editor when I was a member from '04 through '06, and I felt at that time the Journal was well worth the cost of my overseas membership.

C) I disagree with the "cat to a dog show" comment. I think it's more like bringing a bulldog to a collie dog show. Not the same, but I'd wager most of the collie owners would still admire the bulldog. As for the 'different gauge' thing? Personally, I think that has been more of a detriment to the popularity of UK rail modelling, in any scale, than any other single thing. I have tried to get friends interested in UR rail modelling, and have had a few show some interest. Untill they start reading about all the variations in the track gauge of the different scales. And, at how close minded and parochial about it many seem to be. That kills the interest pretty quick. I know, it will never change. Just a shame, as the UK rail hobby would be much more vibrant, I think, if it could.

D) Only Grahame would be able to say whether N gauge content was left out of a issue, to make room for 2mm content, but I would wager that is not the case. More a case of using what he has had submitted. I can see, and understand, if he put a bit of 2mm into a issue to maintain a 'theme' for the issue, and keep the bit of N gauge content aside, for a future issue.

E) I'm not talking about collaboration (or even tolerance) between folks working in N/2mm and other scales, just those in the former. Not all care to belong to a club, and many who would, don't have one nearby. As for the commercial press, unless I have missed some major earth shaking change, almost all are much more focused on 4mm than the smaller or larger scales. And even among strictly N 9mm gauge folks, I have seen heated discussions on forums between those who are happy with the look and wheel tolerances of plain old Peco track and those who feel the need for better appearance and tolerances. Should the Journal exclude content regarding the latter?

Just for the record, I have the start of 2 structure build articles 2 articles filed away, that may end up in the Journal one day. However, modelling has be non existent here for almost a year, due to all sorts of things. Hopefully back on track soon.

Jim

Quote from: NeMo on February 21, 2016, 11:46:25 AM
My concern about 2mm finescale in the N Gauge Society Journal is simply that it's a different gauge and is therefore of less interest to me, as a paying member, than actual N gauge. There is a 2mm finescale journal, plus multi-scale commercial model railway magazines. Had the article been about 2mm modelling of something scenic or whatever, it wouldn't have irritated me. But promoting a 2mm finescale layout instead of an N gauge one seems, at best, a mis-use of NGS Journal space, and the page of text on 2mm finescale track totally irrelevant.

Does that mean then that articles on broad-gauge and narrow gauge railways shouldn't be printed in the Journal as they use a gauge different to 9mm?

A lot can be learnt from 2FS models. Personally, I'd like to have read about how the structures on Fence Houses were build, or how the weathering was applied to the stock (much of it re-wheeled RTR!) rather than, for example read about Off-Scene Train Storage.

I think I must have a different Journal to NeMo's as the finer track article in my copy talks mostly about track from Atlas, Micro Engineering and FiNetrax. Easitrac is mentioned in one paragraph. Incidental, FiNetrax was developed for N gauge from the 2FS Easitrac, and now developments made by FiNetrax has made there way back in to the 9.42mm product!

There is mention of the 2mm Scale Association book "Track" - this is recommended reading for all railway modellers in any scale; It's quite popular with 4mm and 7mm scale modellers despite the difference in scales.

Both N Gauge and 2FS benefit from each other and both have a place in the NGS Journal! (and TINGS in my opinion).


Happy modelling.

Steven B.

Quote from: Steven B on February 21, 2016, 05:21:52 PM

Both N Gauge and 2FS benefit from each other and both have a place in the NGS Journal! (and TINGS in my opinion).

Happy modelling.

Steven B.

Hi

I think that sums it up for me.

If you stick to just n gauge subjects then you will miss techniques used by other people working in different disciplines and I don't just mean model railways.

Cheers

Paul

Being someone who has authored-or co-authored- a small number of articles for the 'Journal', all I can say is 'write one and submit it'; it will be up to the current editor as to whether it has a place in the magazine or not; and don't be surprised if it takes several months to appear.
Some of my early pieces are now well out of date due to new models from the Trade; but they were mainly written in the vein of 'I wanted to do so-and-so to create a whatever, and this is how I did it', even if by today's standard the models are now considered crude. As most of my articles were written about 15-20 years ago, I didn't even have the luxury of a word processor or email-typewriters and Royal Mail was the only way!
I was just hoping that the articles written might inspire someone to have a go at a similar model themselves; I use many articles by others in the 'Journal' to do just that.
Build something, then tell the rest of the Society how you did it!
Martyn

Quote from: Steven B on February 21, 2016, 05:21:52 PM
Does that mean then that articles on broad-gauge and narrow gauge railways shouldn't be printed in the Journal as they use a gauge different to 9mm?

Correct. There are several excellent magazines for narrow gauge modellers, such as 'Narrow Gauge & Industrial Railway Modelling Review', to which I'd direct you if you're interested in that sort of thing. Periodically covered in the usual commercial magazines as well. Not sure about broad gauge though.

Of course there's wiggle room. If the 2mm scale narrow (or broad) gauge was part of an N-gauge layout, I'd have no problems with that at all. Or if the article was about fitting DCC decoders into narrow spaces, then that'd be cool too. Maybe the article was about modelling Victorian stations, in which case, yay, useful stuff.

But I personally didn't join (and let me stress, pay for) an N-gauge magazine to read about other scales and gauges. I can buy 'Railway Modeller' for that.

Quote from: Steven B on February 21, 2016, 05:21:52 PM
A lot can be learnt from 2FS models. Personally, I'd like to have read about how the structures on Fence Houses were build, or how the weathering was applied to the stock (much of it re-wheeled RTR!) rather than, for example read about Off-Scene Train Storage.

Agree 100%. So long as the article focuses on practical stuff that's merely 2mm in scale and has nothing to do with the track gauge, that's fine by me.

Quote from: Steven B on February 21, 2016, 05:21:52 PM
I think I must have a different Journal to NeMo's as the finer track article in my copy talks mostly about track from Atlas, Micro Engineering and FiNetrax. Easitrac is mentioned in one paragraph.

You're quite right. But it's the old slippery slope argument. So we're cool about half a page of 2mm FS in the N Gauge Society Journal. But what about two pages? What about four, and a two-page article on back-to-back measurements using EM track and models? That's surely useful to everyone. What about a P4 article on re-wheeling rolling stock? Surely useful to kit-builders? Perhaps you can see my point now, even if you don't agree.

Cheers, NeMo

Well, I 'paid', as well, so I could get a quality magazine that focused on modeling in 1/148 scale. In the US, there are 2 (at least, there was, haven't checked in a while) bi-monthly magazines devoted to 1/160 N scale. I was looking for the equivalent for UK modelling.

If there were to appear a article about a narrow gauge layout, done in 1/148, great. If someone did a layout in broad gauge in 1/148, again, great. If a article about Fencehouses appeared as Steven B mentioned, regarding building the structures, even better, as I like doing structures.

Seeing 2 or more pages of 2mm content, or or EM content, or P4, because a issue of the Journal had a bit of 2mm content is, I think, a little overboard.

Perhaps wanting a magazine that narrowly focuses on just N 'gauge' track (itself a compromise) and nothing else is just something most do not seem to want, based on many of the comments so far.

Jim F

Quote from: NeMo on February 21, 2016, 06:52:04 PM

Quote from: Steven B on February 21, 2016, 05:21:52 PM
Does that mean then that articles on broad-gauge and narrow gauge railways shouldn't be printed in the Journal as they use a gauge different to 9mm?

Correct. There are several excellent magazines for narrow gauge modellers, such as 'Narrow Gauge & Industrial Railway Modelling Review', to which I'd direct you if you're interested in that sort of thing. Periodically covered in the usual commercial magazines as well. Not sure about broad gauge though.

Cheers, NeMo

I agreed earlier about the increase in 2mmfs articles in this issue but would expect to see Nn3 and Broad Gauge if done to 1:148 scale(British N Gauge) or 1:160 or 1:150  ie 9mm  track gauge equivalent. 2mm is 1:152 and not 9mm is complete different, some 2mm modelers may choose to compromise and re-wheel RTR stock others don't. A 2mmfs kit built Van is noticeable smaller than a British N Gauge RTR version made to modern standards.

This is not anything like comparing 2 types of sand, it annoys the hell out of me every year when I see 2mmfs models in the NGS competition amazing models yes but not N Gauge. I would suggest that that the models have to be displayed on Code 55 track and next to a Stove R. That would certainly show up how small some of the locos and such have been.

Quote from: Formerly NtasticShop on February 21, 2016, 07:32:47 PM
This is not anything like comparing 2 types of sand, it annoys the hell out of me every year when I see 2mmfs models in the NGS competition amazing models yes but not N Gauge. I would suggest that that the models have to be displayed on Code 55 track and next to a Stove R. That would certainly show up how small some of the locos and such have been.

Hi

So my entry in 2009 should not have been allowed then as it used as a base the BH Enterprises coach shell which are actually to 2mm scale.

Cheers

Paul

My view on the inclusion of some quality small scale modelling that happens to be 2mm scale, is that some (or maybe many) N gaugers may wish to do 2FS at some point in their modelling life - There is a natural affinity to the two scales, that isnt there with EM, P4 or any other.

Quote from: JimF on February 21, 2016, 07:25:16 PM
Well, I 'paid', as well, so I could get a quality magazine that focused on modeling in 1/148 scale. In the US, there are 2 (at least, there was, haven't checked in a while) bi-monthly magazines devoted to 1/160 N scale. I was looking for the equivalent for UK modelling.

I think you're making my point for me. In the US there is no real distinction between N gauge and 2mm scale modelling. It's all 1/160th scale, and the commercial N gauge track is essentially the right gauge for 2mm scale models.

In the UK that is NOT the situation at all. There's N gauge, which is 1/148th scale modelling using 1/160th scale track (i.e., 9 mm track). If you're an N gauge modeller you're accepting the "narrow" track because it's cheap and reliable, even though it's out of scale. If you're a 2mm finescale modeller, at the very least you're using 9.42mm track, and quite possibly modelling to 1/158th scale rather than 1/160th.

If the N Gauge Society Journal includes 2mm finescale as well, that introduces a dichotomy. I'd argue, a philosophical one, which is this: is N gauge modelling a stepping stone to 2mm finescale or an end in itself.

Quote from: JimF on February 21, 2016, 07:25:16 PM
Perhaps wanting a magazine that narrowly focuses on just N 'gauge' track (itself a compromise) and nothing else is just something most do not seem to want, based on many of the comments so far.

I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion at all from this thread, nor the converse.

Quote from: Formerly NtasticShop on February 21, 2016, 07:32:47 PM
This is not anything like comparing 2 types of sand, it annoys the hell out of me every year when I see 2mmfs models in the NGS competition amazing models yes but not N Gauge. I would suggest that that the models have to be displayed on Code 55 track and next to a Stove R. That would certainly show up how small some of the locos and such have been.

Exactly. It gives the opinion than 2mm finescale is "better" and what "serious" modellers should be gravitating towards as their skills develop. N gauge for beginners; 2mm finescale for experts.

Instead I want the NGS to focus on what can be done with commercial, kit-built, or scratch-built N gauge models. I've nothing against other scales and gauges at all, but if they're included in the NGS Journal, there must be a strong reason to do so. Not just to fill up pages or because they happen to be pretty models.

If 2mm finescale models are winning NGS awards, I honestly think that's a rather sad state of affairs. Much better to give the prizes to models that run on 9mm track, even if they're objectively not quite as well made. If nothing else, the job of the NGS is to show what can be done in this gauge. It doesn't need to showcase the 2mm finescale side of the hobby; it has its own society and journal.

Cheers, NeMo