manatbandq@hotmail.com

When does one become the other?

Am I wrong to denigrate HVR2 as too "train set"?

MBQ

Paul Boyd

manatbandq@hotmail.com said the following on 30/07/2007 10:38:
> When does one become the other?
>
> Am I wrong to denigrate HVR2 as too "train set"?

Ah - philosophy on a Monday morning!

To me, "train set" conjures up an image of an 8 by 4 board with
concentric ovals of track, improbable sidings and stations, Flying
Scotsman hurtling around 12" radius curves pulling two coaches through
random tunnels with a smell of ozone in the air. Above all, a train set
is fun to play with and I want one!

Going up a level, there are also those layouts that to me are still
train sets, but the builder has higher aspirations and you can see
they've observed the real thing and tried to replicate it. These are
the ones that use RTR stock straight out of the boxes, with Peco or
Hornby track, but the whole premise has been made more realistic by
careful layout and a move towards realistic scenery. I'm not
criticising, if that's how it comes across!

A model railway is where the builder has made every effort possible to
replicate the real thing to every last detail, using commercial
offerings as a means to the end, rather than the end itself. Some
effort must have been made to improve the stock, even if it remains OO,
and the track should not be the HO scale stuff already mentioned.
Scenery should be realistic enough to make the audience believe they are
really there, and that rules out bog-brush pine trees!

Does that help answer the question, or does it open up even more? Note
that I didn't even insist on using the correct gauge for your chosen
scale :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

beamendsltd

In message <1185788324.858952.289550@22g2000hsm.googlegroups. com>
"manatbandq@hotmail.com" <manatbandq@hotmail.com> wrote:

> When does one become the other?

When the owners perception decides, or never - they could be
the same thing?

>
> Am I wrong to denigrate HVR2 as too "train set"?

Like any activity really, people unintentionally tend to use
terms that could be interpreted as somewhat derogatry. We all
stared somewhere! I hate it when customers come in and feel
they need to be embarrassed by not knowing "simple" things -
it wasn't that long ago I was asking (or rather was affraid to
ask) the very same questions.

>
> MBQ
>

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
I have become... comfortably numb

Fred X

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:38:44 +0100, manatbandq@hotmail.com <manatbandq@hotmail.com> wrote:

> When does one become the other?
>
> Am I wrong to denigrate HVR2 as too "train set"?
>

I've always thought that both version of Hornby's Virtual
Railway would have been more accurately labelled as a
Virtual Train Set as they aren't sophisticated enough to
allow a decent model railway to be built unfortunately.

Fred X

Dragon Heart

On 30 Jul, 10:38, "manatba...@hotmail.com" <manatba...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> When does one become the other?
>
> Am I wrong to denigrate HVR2 as too "train set"?


I don't think it matters what you call it as long as you and / or your
children enjoy it. That's why, as a family, we enjoy visiting model
railway exhibitions. I recall one layout called 'Under the bed', cus
that's where the young chap kept it. It was a fairly simple layout
made from new and second hand items ( just like my son's ). The main
thing was the young man enjoyed himself and he was able to mix with
other more experienced model makers. He may go on to build a super,
fully detailed layout and win awards or simply pass the layout onto
his own children.

A good model train / car / tram / boat / plane etc. retailer will
happily cater for all levels of customer.

As for HVR2, I had version 1 and could not get on with it. On a
visit to Woolworth's saw the Microsoft Train Simulator on offer for
£4, I set it up on the PC and downloaded some more routes and
loco's, including some from Thomas. It is very good in my opinion
and my son enjoys it on a rainy day. Some may say its a lazy mans
railway but I can travel on my favourite 'Sea View' route one minute
using a rocket rail sledge and the next on the Orient Express.

There are many free to download models of loco's, rolling stock,
buildings and scenery that you could build almost any layout.

I was eagerly awaiting version 2 but I understand this has been
abandoned.

Are you wrong to denigrate HVR2 as too "train set" ? Despite what
others may say it's not a sin to enjoy it, you could even use it or
other simulators like Trainz to pre plan your physical layout.

If your that worried about it I suggest you get out more, get
yourself a dog ... which reminds me I also got a copy of the dog
simulation Dogz 4.

Chris

MartinS

Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote:

> As for HVR2, I had version 1 and could not get on with it. On a
> visit to Woolworth's saw the Microsoft Train Simulator on offer for
> œ4, I set it up on the PC and downloaded some more routes and
> loco's, including some from Thomas. It is very good in my opinion
> and my son enjoys it on a rainy day. Some may say its a lazy mans
> railway but I can travel on my favourite 'Sea View' route one minute
> using a rocket rail sledge and the next on the Orient Express.
>
> There are many free to download models of loco's, rolling stock,
> buildings and scenery that you could build almost any layout.
>
> I was eagerly awaiting version 2 but I understand this has been
> abandoned.

Have your tried BVE (freeware)? Not as many bells and whistles as MTS,
but the driving experience is more realistic.

--
Martin S.

John Turner

<manatbandq@hotmail.com> wrote

> When does one become the other?

In my opinion a train set becomes a model railway when one attempts to
recreate (near) prototype track layouts and methods of operation.

John.

David Cantrell

On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 02:38:44AM -0700, manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:

> When does one become the other?

A model railway becomes a train set when the viewer is a boring
rivet-counting snob.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

Blessed are the pessimists, for they test their backups

simon

"David Cantrell" <david@cantrell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20070731133633.GD17357@bytemark.barnyard.co.u k...
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 02:38:44AM -0700, manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> When does one become the other?
>
> A model railway becomes a train set when the viewer is a boring
> rivet-counting snob.
>
> --
> David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information
>
> Blessed are the pessimists, for they test their backups

Thats the one "You have a trainset, I have a model railway".

But perhaps when you take the track, train and controller out of the box.
Lay the track approx as per illustration - or on trakmat - then you have a
trainset.

When you start trying a differnt configuration, add some fairly relevant
buildings plus scenery then you are moving towards a model railway.

There is a transition rather than a fixed point from one to another. Also it
depends on the modeller, a child or lady would not be expected to progress
as far from the basic trainset to reach the model railway stage compared to
what we expect from a man.

Cheers,
Simon

kim

"simon" <simon@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:haidnauPILZgJzLbnZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "David Cantrell" <david@cantrell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:20070731133633.GD17357@bytemark.barnyard.co.u k...
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 02:38:44AM -0700, manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> When does one become the other?
>>
>> A model railway becomes a train set when the viewer is a boring
>> rivet-counting snob.
>>
>> --
>> David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information
>>
>> Blessed are the pessimists, for they test their backups
>
> Thats the one "You have a trainset, I have a model railway".
>
> But perhaps when you take the track, train and controller out of the box.
> Lay the track approx as per illustration - or on trakmat - then you have a
> trainset.
>
> When you start trying a differnt configuration, add some fairly relevant
> buildings plus scenery then you are moving towards a model railway.
>
> There is a transition rather than a fixed point from one to another. Also
> it depends on the modeller, a child or lady would not be expected to
> progress as far from the basic trainset to reach the model railway stage
> compared to what we expect from a man.

I'm really glad it was you said that and not me )

(kim)

John Turner

"Paul Boyd" wrote

>A model railway is where the builder has made every effort possible to
>replicate the real thing to every last detail, using commercial offerings
>as a means to the end, rather than the end itself. Some effort must have
>been made to improve the stock, even if it remains OO, and the track should
>not be the HO scale stuff already mentioned. Scenery should be realistic
>enough to make the audience believe they are really there, and that rules
>out bog-brush pine trees!

I remember many years ago a sizeable O-gauge garden railway with clockwork
as the sole means of power - Crewechester I think it was called. It was
operated in a truly railway like manner, despite its primary means of
propulsion, and being an outdoor layout it was sadly lacking in credible
scenery.

I'd claim that as a model railway, despite the fact that it probably fell
down on many of your criteria.

John.

gppsoftware@gppsoftware.com

On Jul 30, 7:38 pm, "manatba...@hotmail.com" <manatba...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> When does one become the other?
>
> Am I wrong to denigrate HVR2 as too "train set"?
>
> MBQ

A 'model' is one where an attempt has been made to recreate the real
thing in terms of appearance, operation, construction etc and it is
usually achieved with research of the real thing, usually pictures and
diagrams.

A 'trainset' is one where no such attempt is made.

Sadly, I can see this thread upsetting those who make no attempt to
'model' prototype, but still consider their layouts as 'model'
railways. Sorry guys, but whether your layout is a model or not has no
relationship with the age/maturity of its owners/users. It's about the
physical layout itself and whether any attempt to model a prototype
has been made.

Graham Plowman

Greg Procter

gppsoftware@gppsoftware.com wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 7:38 pm, "manatba...@hotmail.com" <manatba...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > When does one become the other?
> >
> > Am I wrong to denigrate HVR2 as too "train set"?
> >
> > MBQ
>
> A 'model' is one where an attempt has been made to recreate the real
> thing in terms of appearance, operation, construction etc and it is
> usually achieved with research of the real thing, usually pictures and
> diagrams.
>
> A 'trainset' is one where no such attempt is made.
>
> Sadly, I can see this thread upsetting those who make no attempt to
> 'model' prototype, but still consider their layouts as 'model'
> railways. Sorry guys, but whether your layout is a model or not has no
> relationship with the age/maturity of its owners/users. It's about the
> physical layout itself and whether any attempt to model a prototype
> has been made.
>
> Graham Plowman

"Model railway" is the term under discussion and you've included
"appearance" and "operation" as factors. (I'd include "construction etc"
under "appearance")
So a collection (for want of a better word) that appears to replicate a
railway in appearance but fails to replicate operation would be in
question, so a collection that replicates railway operation but fails in
appearance would be it's equal.

Regards,
Greg.P.

theoldsalt

"simon" <simon@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:haidnauPILZgJzLbnZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d@bt.com...
>

<< Snip >>

> depends on the modeller, a child or lady would not be expected to progress
> as far from the basic trainset to reach the model railway stage compared
> to what we expect from a man.
>


WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Time for bed said Zebedee :-)

Martin Wynne

Hi,

> When does one become the other?

You'll never get any agreement using words. What you need are
some numbers!

"A model railway has all visible running lines of 3 chains radius
or greater. Otherwise it's a train set."

With the aid of this definition you can easily classify any given
layout
beyond argument, and I commend this rule to the house. <g>

In 4mm scale, 3 chains is 31".
In 7mm scale, 3 chains is 54".

regards,

Martin.

Paul Boyd

John Turner said the following on 31/07/2007 23:59:

> Crewechester I think it was called.
>
> I'd claim that as a model railway, despite the fact that it probably fell
> down on many of your criteria.

Ah - but there are always exceptions to every rule. I would also rate
Crewchester as a model railway, as I would those huge, fun roundy roundy
live steam affairs you see at Warley and other places (although they're
borderline train sets!!!!)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd

simon said the following on 31/07/2007 23:42:
> a child or lady would not be expected to progress
> as far from the basic trainset to reach the model railway stage compared to
> what we expect from a man.

Ouch!!!!!!!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

manatbandq@hotmail.com

On Aug 1, 1:52 am, Martin Wynne <___gro...@templot.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > When does one become the other?
>
> You'll never get any agreement using words. What you need are
> some numbers!
>
> "A model railway has all visible running lines of 3 chains radius
> or greater. Otherwise it's a train set."
>
> With the aid of this definition you can easily classify any given
> layout
> beyond argument, and I commend this rule to the house. <g>
>
> In 4mm scale, 3 chains is 31".
> In 7mm scale, 3 chains is 54".
>
> regards,
>
> Martin.

Is it really that tight a radius?

MBQ

John Turner

"simon" wrote

> There is a transition rather than a fixed point from one to another. Also
> it depends on the modeller, a child or lady would not be expected to
> progress as far from the basic trainset to reach the model railway stage
> compared to what we expect from a man.

Some woman (can't remember her name) built a very creditable model of
Bournemouth Centrail in the 1960s. Vivienee something???

John.

Graeme

In message <13b0dqvftc0mf6e@news.supernews.com>, John Turner
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>
>Some woman (can't remember her name) built a very creditable model of
>Bournemouth Centrail in the 1960s. Vivienee something???
>
Yes, I clearly remember that layout, from the Constructor, IIRC.
Vivienne who? What became of the layout?
--
Graeme

Jim Guthrie

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:48:43 +0100, Graeme <Graeme@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>>Some woman (can't remember her name) built a very creditable model of
>>Bournemouth Centrail in the 1960s. Vivienee something???
>>
>Yes, I clearly remember that layout, from the Constructor, IIRC.
>Vivienne who? What became of the layout?

Vivienne Thonson. I think she also wrote a book about period
modelling.

Jim.

Paul Boyd

manatbandq@hotmail.com said the following on 01/08/2007 08:20:

> Is it really that tight a radius?

Well.... Martin didn't actually specify the gauge, but the Festiniog had
curves of 2 chains, IIRC. ISTR that 6 chains was a normally accepted
minimum for standard gauge though.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Martin Wynne

Hi Paul,

> Well.... Martin didn't actually specify the gauge,
> but the Festiniog had curves of 2 chains, IIRC.
> ISTR that 6 chains was a normally accepted
> minimum for standard gauge though.

under 2 chains = toy train set
under 3 chains = train set
under 4 chains = model railway set
under 5 chains = model railway
over 5 chains = scale model railway

for 3ft narrow gauge, divide by 2.
for 2ft narrow gauge, divide by 3.

These rules shall apply when August 1st falls on a Wednesday.

p.s. could you clarify the difference between IIRC and ISTR ?

<g>

Martin.

David Cantrell

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:04:10PM -0700, gppsoftware@gppsoftware.com wrote:

> A 'model' is one where an attempt has been made to recreate the real
> thing in terms of appearance, operation, construction etc and it is
> usually achieved with research of the real thing, usually pictures and
> diagrams.
>
> A 'trainset' is one where no such attempt is made.
>
> Sadly, I can see this thread upsetting those who make no attempt to
> 'model' prototype, but still consider their layouts as 'model'
> railways.

Thankyou for proving my point.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

You are so cynical. And by "cynical", of course, I mean "correct".
-- Kurt Starsinic

Graeme

In message <46add17a$0$1597$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Paul
Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet.?.invalid> writes
>
>To me, "train set" conjures up an image of an 8 by 4 board with
>concentric ovals of track, improbable sidings and stations, Flying
>Scotsman hurtling around 12" radius curves pulling two coaches through
>random tunnels with a smell of ozone in the air.

Our American friends seem to have descriptions for four levels of 'train
set', particularly when describing 0 gauge, or scale. Top of the range
is the scale model railway, which we all understand.

Second from top is Hi-Rail, which is slightly bemusing, to me. Hi-Rail
layouts are fully scenic, with scale model trains, and are separated
from model railways only by their over scale track, wheel flanges and
couplings. Oh, and the third rail. Several companies manufacture scale
models to run on traditional tubular track. MTH and Atlas, for example.
What I don't quite understand, is why? Why take all the time and
trouble that a real model railway requires, then use three rail track?
Why not just use two rail track, and equipment? Hi-Railers do not run
'traditional' trains, i.e. underscale tinplate, yet put a lot of effort
into disguising the hugely overscale track. Why?

One step up from the train set is Toy Rail, which is the unashamed use
of toy trains, toy tracks, tight radii etc., but with an effort to
achieve a scenic railway too, rather than just a flat board, painted
green. This is my area.

Bottom is the train set, which is, as you say, a flat board, probably
painted green, a couple of ovals of track etc.
--
Graeme Eldred

beamendsltd

In message <1185962613.597022.25930@b79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>
Martin Wynne <___groups@templot.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> > Well.... Martin didn't actually specify the gauge,
> > but the Festiniog had curves of 2 chains, IIRC.
> > ISTR that 6 chains was a normally accepted
> > minimum for standard gauge though.
>
> under 2 chains = toy train set
> under 3 chains = train set
> under 4 chains = model railway set
> under 5 chains = model railway
> over 5 chains = scale model railway
>
> for 3ft narrow gauge, divide by 2.
> for 2ft narrow gauge, divide by 3.
>
> These rules shall apply when August 1st falls on a Wednesday.
>
> p.s. could you clarify the difference between IIRC and ISTR ?

1-off 'I' and 1-off 'C' ?

>
> <g>
>
> Martin.
>

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
I have become... comfortably numb

John Nuttall

<Jim Guthrie> wrote in message
news:l4g0b39m99sjncpo362nlgl2p91ahosrvs@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:48:43 +0100, Graeme <Graeme@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>>Some woman (can't remember her name) built a very creditable model of
>>>Bournemouth Centrail in the 1960s. Vivienee something???
>>>
>>Yes, I clearly remember that layout, from the Constructor, IIRC.
>>Vivienne who? What became of the layout?
>
> Vivienne Thonson. I think she also wrote a book about period
> modelling.
>
> Jim.


Vivien Thompson - Eastbourne, Railway Modeller 1968. See also Railway
Modeller July 2007.

--

Regards

John

kim

"Graeme" <Graeme@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news$0WFkD2BHsGFwVs@nospam.demon.co.uk...
> In message <46add17a$0$1597$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Paul
> Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet.?.invalid> writes
>>
>>To me, "train set" conjures up an image of an 8 by 4 board with concentric
>>ovals of track, improbable sidings and stations, Flying Scotsman hurtling
>>around 12" radius curves pulling two coaches through random tunnels with a
>>smell of ozone in the air.
>
> Our American friends seem to have descriptions for four levels of 'train
> set', particularly when describing 0 gauge, or scale. Top of the range is
> the scale model railway, which we all understand.
>
> Second from top is Hi-Rail, which is slightly bemusing, to me. Hi-Rail
> layouts are fully scenic, with scale model trains, and are separated from
> model railways only by their over scale track, wheel flanges and
> couplings. Oh, and the third rail. Several companies manufacture scale
> models to run on traditional tubular track. MTH and Atlas, for example.
> What I don't quite understand, is why? Why take all the time and trouble
> that a real model railway requires, then use three rail track? Why not
> just use two rail track, and equipment? Hi-Railers do not run
> 'traditional' trains, i.e. underscale tinplate, yet put a lot of effort
> into disguising the hugely overscale track. Why?
>
> One step up from the train set is Toy Rail, which is the unashamed use of
> toy trains, toy tracks, tight radii etc., but with an effort to achieve a
> scenic railway too, rather than just a flat board, painted green. This is
> my area.
>
> Bottom is the train set, which is, as you say, a flat board, probably
> painted green, a couple of ovals of track etc.

I've noticed a lot of American adults run H0 layouts straight from the box
with no attempt at embellishment and with absolutely no embarrassment
whatsoever.

(kim)

Paul Boyd

kim said the following on 01/08/2007 14:39:

> I've noticed a lot of American adults run H0 layouts straight from the box
> with no attempt at embellishment and with absolutely no embarrassment
> whatsoever.

And there's nothing wrong with that at all! I wouldn't want to see it
at a model railway exhibition though :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Greg Procter

John Turner wrote:
>
> "simon" wrote
>
> > There is a transition rather than a fixed point from one to another. Also
> > it depends on the modeller, a child or lady would not be expected to
> > progress as far from the basic trainset to reach the model railway stage
> > compared to what we expect from a man.
>
> Some woman (can't remember her name) built a very creditable model of
> Bournemouth Centrail in the 1960s. Vivienee something???
>
> John.

Vivien Thompson.

Greg Procter

Graeme wrote:
>
> In message <46add17a$0$1597$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Paul
> Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet.?.invalid> writes
> >
> >To me, "train set" conjures up an image of an 8 by 4 board with
> >concentric ovals of track, improbable sidings and stations, Flying
> >Scotsman hurtling around 12" radius curves pulling two coaches through
> >random tunnels with a smell of ozone in the air.
>
> Our American friends seem to have descriptions for four levels of 'train
> set', particularly when describing 0 gauge, or scale. Top of the range
> is the scale model railway, which we all understand.
>
> Second from top is Hi-Rail, which is slightly bemusing, to me. Hi-Rail
> layouts are fully scenic, with scale model trains, and are separated
> from model railways only by their over scale track, wheel flanges and
> couplings. Oh, and the third rail. Several companies manufacture scale
> models to run on traditional tubular track. MTH and Atlas, for example.
> What I don't quite understand, is why? Why take all the time and
> trouble that a real model railway requires, then use three rail track?
> Why not just use two rail track, and equipment? Hi-Railers do not run
> 'traditional' trains, i.e. underscale tinplate, yet put a lot of effort
> into disguising the hugely overscale track. Why?

Hi-Rail as a concept was developed/published in the late 1940s when
isolating wheelsets wasn't as simple as it is today.
Also, round-headed rails require an angled root between tread and
flange, so there's no way that scale wheels can be made to run on
tinplate track.

>
> One step up from the train set is Toy Rail, which is the unashamed use
> of toy trains, toy tracks, tight radii etc., but with an effort to
> achieve a scenic railway too, rather than just a flat board, painted
> green. This is my area.
>
> Bottom is the train set, which is, as you say, a flat board, probably
> painted green, a couple of ovals of track etc.
> --
> Graeme Eldred

Christopher A.Lee

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:43:52 +1200, Greg Procter <procter@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

>Graeme wrote:
>>
>> In message <46add17a$0$1597$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Paul
>> Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet.?.invalid> writes
>> >
>> >To me, "train set" conjures up an image of an 8 by 4 board with
>> >concentric ovals of track, improbable sidings and stations, Flying
>> >Scotsman hurtling around 12" radius curves pulling two coaches through
>> >random tunnels with a smell of ozone in the air.
>>
>> Our American friends seem to have descriptions for four levels of 'train
>> set', particularly when describing 0 gauge, or scale. Top of the range
>> is the scale model railway, which we all understand.
>>
>> Second from top is Hi-Rail, which is slightly bemusing, to me. Hi-Rail
>> layouts are fully scenic, with scale model trains, and are separated
>> from model railways only by their over scale track, wheel flanges and
>> couplings. Oh, and the third rail. Several companies manufacture scale
>> models to run on traditional tubular track. MTH and Atlas, for example.
>> What I don't quite understand, is why? Why take all the time and
>> trouble that a real model railway requires, then use three rail track?
>> Why not just use two rail track, and equipment? Hi-Railers do not run
>> 'traditional' trains, i.e. underscale tinplate, yet put a lot of effort
>> into disguising the hugely overscale track. Why?
>
>Hi-Rail as a concept was developed/published in the late 1940s when
>isolating wheelsets wasn't as simple as it is today.
>Also, round-headed rails require an angled root between tread and
>flange, so there's no way that scale wheels can be made to run on
>tinplate track.

It's the old Lionel 3-rail AC system.

It goes round tighter curves than the closer-to-scale 2 rail, which is
still expected to go round tighter curves than British O-scale.

Atlas say they make and sell three times as many 3-rail models as
2-rail.
>
>>
>> One step up from the train set is Toy Rail, which is the unashamed use
>> of toy trains, toy tracks, tight radii etc., but with an effort to
>> achieve a scenic railway too, rather than just a flat board, painted
>> green. This is my area.
>>
>> Bottom is the train set, which is, as you say, a flat board, probably
>> painted green, a couple of ovals of track etc.
>> --
>> Graeme Eldred

John Turner

"Greg Procter" wrote

> Vivien Thompson.

That's the woman, and a very creditable modeller she was too, in fact a bit
of a trailblazer for her time.

John.

David Costigan

"beamendsltd" <beamendsltd@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:beec8cb4f%beamendsltd@btconnect.com...
> In message <1185962613.597022.25930@b79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>
> Martin Wynne <___groups@templot.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > > Well.... Martin didn't actually specify the gauge,
> > > but the Festiniog had curves of 2 chains, IIRC.
> > > ISTR that 6 chains was a normally accepted
> > > minimum for standard gauge though.
> >
> > under 2 chains = toy train set
> > under 3 chains = train set
> > under 4 chains = model railway set
> > under 5 chains = model railway
> > over 5 chains = scale model railway
> >
> > for 3ft narrow gauge, divide by 2.
> > for 2ft narrow gauge, divide by 3.
> >
> > These rules shall apply when August 1st falls on a Wednesday.
> >
> > p.s. could you clarify the difference between IIRC and ISTR ?
>
> 1-off 'I' and 1-off 'C' ?
>
> >
> > <g>
> >
> > Martin.
> >
>
> Richard
>
> --
> www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
> I have become... comfortably numb

At the risk of appearing to be "age-ist" I have always thought that the
younger person would play with a train set, whereas the more advanced in
years and those who had decided to develop the train set would operate a
model railway.

David Costigan

Greg Procter

John Turner wrote:
>
> "Greg Procter" wrote
>
> > Vivien Thompson.
>
> That's the woman, and a very creditable modeller she was too, in fact a bit
> of a trailblazer for her time.

I reread the book recently - fabulous buildings etc, the rolling stock
was true to period and location and the track layout was based on the
prototype, if foreshortened. I often wonder if that approach to track
layout might give rather boring operation(?)

Greg.P.