MRJ 208
djparkins said:
I thought the first letter in the Reader's Letters column in this issue also makes some good points that relate to this subject.
I agree, a good kit well-made will always out-do RTR in terms of finesse, but I suppose the point may that on a "working layout", i.e. one biased more towards operation, then it is debatable whether it is worth the extra time and effort: it depends on one's own personal balance, really, between building and operating - and indeed waffling on forums*!
*I hold to the view that forums do not prevent/distract anyone from modelling: if they wanted to do some modelling enough, they would do it rather than finding a useful distraction...
CME & Bottlewasher said:
Some mags seem very reticent in publishing such corrections, I dont know why (I suppose over work, compitence and/or ego could come into play?).
Some of it may be pressures of time and work, but a lot isn't. Magazines have an almost automatic credibility in the market place, as we always assume their editorial teams to be experts in their fields - why else would they be chosen - but an ability to deliver on the business demands of being an editor is probably more important. Obviously a strong interest in and awareness of the hobby is required. For them to print a correction would, in some eyes, erode that credibility. I take an alternative view: for them to acknowledge errors and print the correction would make me believe in them more, for I would know that if they had missed something, then it would be subject to the appropriate redress later on.
As an example, many years ago a drawing appeared in a certain model railway magazine of the GER/LNER Buckjumper. Unfortunately, not only did it have components of several different variants of the J67/69 incorporated into it, but some from the J65 and J66, and one or two items which were not found on any of those classes but do appear on some other drawings produced in the 50s! I remember seeing it and thinking it didn't look right - and I am no expert on the subject - but I am aware that Lyn Brooks of the GERS did write them a letter listing all of the mistakes. It would have taken up two full pages of the magazine, so they didn't print it. In consequence, I simply cannot take as credible any drawings produced by that particular "draughtsman", and I find the mealy-mouthed disclaimer of, "This drawing is a composite drawing taking details of many engines over the class's history, and cannot be guaranteed to be accurate for any single engine" to be disingenuous to say the least.
The sad thing, in this particular case, is that if the magazine/draughtsman concerned had contacted Lyn Brooks themselves before publishing the drawing (as Iain Rice and MRJ did) then he would have been more than helpful to them.
For the record, I don't expect any source to be 100% accurate, but I do expect them to make reasonable checks and print corrections for factual inaccuracies. Since books are somewhat different in that a correction cannot be printed two months later, or updated on a website, my expectations for thoroughness are higher. I don't think that makes me a rivet counter, either.
I have learned the hard way at work that the best thing to do when you make a boob, is to put your hand up to it and sort it out. Example conversation with CEO, which completely took the wind out of his sails:
"Simon, have you completed the report on X?"
"Er, no."
[CEO raises eyebrows and looks on expectantly as I try to think up an excuse.]
"Well... ...the simple truth is that I forgot. I'll do it as soon as I finish this."
[CEO looks slightly bemused, laughs and goes to lunch.]
Enough - I am distracting myself from having a bath (just done the gardening!) and then getting into my playroom whilst the rest of the family are out until the evening.
, I will have to check this issue out too ..........I'm intrigued by the Western :scratch:, is it the same one that a link was posted to a while ago ?
to start with. 
