One of the very strange syndromes suffered by some in the model railway world is the 'expectation' of things, which for some reason MUST be included in a model railway display. This does seem to conflict with nature.... in other words, what is really outside of the window.
Cliffhanger was built as a working diorama and is carefully modelled on a small section of the Devon/Somerset cliffs. The area was photograhically surveyed using over 1000 shots, all taken by myself while flying close and low to the cliffs. The photos were taken on June 6th, so colour rendering is exact. I confess that the display was more strongly lit than I would prefer but that was necessary to counteract the ghastly sodium lights at the NEC which distort all colours.
The viewing point of the display is actually 'airbourne' over the sea. More or less, exactly the view that I enjoyed in my aircraft. The cliffs are scale height and there is no linear compression as is almost always the case in model railways. The funicular and lido were added along with the railway of course. While there are waterfalls similar to that portrayed along that bit of coast, I added mine where there is none.
The forest is one of the very few that is natural and the timber has never been harvested. It is the only place in the UK where sessile oaks (Quercus petraea) descend down to the sea due to the protection afforded by Countisbury Head from prevailing Westerly winds.
The colours and heights of tress are excatly as they exist and yes, the forest is huge when fully modelled in 4mm scale. I am very excited by botany and it was important to me to 'get it right'. The trees have very small colour differences but they are all the same species.
This is a screen shot from Google earth in July when the trees are slightly darker.
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.009.cd2.com%2Fimages70%2F14.jpg&hash=7e20f5ecd863382100760687ac69b418016a57ae)
So for those who are disappointed, I am sorry that I did not include a goods yard, engine shed, ship, fairground and a village. This is how the real world looks and this is how small a narrow gauge railway can appear (which was the whole point of the diorama).
County Gate is a conventional 'table top' layout. Cliffhanger is a working scale diorama. Not the same animal at all. This is how God made this little bit of the World!
Thank you
JdF
Firstly John let me say I was not at Warley so I have not seen your layout myself, but it sounds like you were a bit disappointed with some responses to Cliffhanger.
I wonder if this was from
"I wonder if this was from
If you are going to exhibit there is no point in bothering about adverse comments from other "experts" within the fraternity especially those posted with relative anonymity on fora (if this is a word). I thoroughly enjoyed it and so did all those around me with cameras waiting for the train(s) to pass. It was obvious that the cliff faces and trees had been carefully researched
I thought all the L and B layouts were great and, in my personal opinion, only let down by generally only average performing locos. Even the double header on County Gates had to be rescued by "the hand of God" much to the chagrin of those waiting patiently camera in hand for the train to traverse the bridge. I hope Peco do produce a loco to match the stock and it runs quietly and smoothly. Modelling the L and B will never be quite the same again of course
Peter Smith
"Even the double header on County Gates had to be rescued by "the hand of God"
That was rare though..... a brush failed on Taw. The loco had clocked over 14 real miles however! I am giving it a big talking to as we speak.
"I hope Peco do produce a loco to match the stock and it runs quietly and smoothly"
I have a better chance of becoming an international sex symbol! ;D
Quote from: petersmith1942 on November 27, 2012, 15:47
If you are going to exhibit there is no point in bothering about adverse comments from other "experts" within the fraternity...........
Peter Smith
I totally agree with this Peter. If we paid any head to all the adverse comments about Meanderbahn over the years from other modellers it would never be exhibited again and we would get very wound up indeed!
I know of one modeller who stopped exhibiting altogether because of a couple of comments from others about how unrealistic his model railway looked to them. A bit of an over reaction if you ask me.
At the end of the day we all like critical acclaim from our peers but model railways are a very personal things, almost like a painting or a sculpture, some will give it praise others will be critical, but as long as the
As someone who felt disappointment when I saw Cliffhanger at Warley, I'll bite.
Firstly let me say, John, I really like County Gate, as I've told you several times, and I was expecting similar from Cliffhanger to be of a similar level. I wasn't expecting a goods yard, marshalling yard, ship, GWR branchline transfer, model of central London etc, but I just felt there wasn't enough to grab my attention whilst there were no trains running, sorry. Perhaps running one train into the loop from one end, then the other would help break things up, or running them slightly quicker within the fiddle yard. Running them both into the scenic section together lead to lots of time waiting in between, and at the end of the day a layout is at an exhibition to entertain.
You've mentioned to me before that you were interested in my opinion on your work, and I've said nothing that I wasn't prepared to say to you directly at Warley on Sunday, but at the time I think you were trying to get County Gate running, so I couldn't. I've had criticism of my work by you, I'd only expect you to take it as graciously as I did.
As Brian has said, a layout is a very personal thing, so won't all agree all the time.
When I have made comments about your work, Tom, it has always been in the spirit of constructive suggestions and I have always stated what I thought was wrong. I have never just posted 'Dunbracken - disappointing'. If you had bothered to explain why in your posts it would have been fine. Let us move on.
The lido and loop, as stated above, are placed in a real bit of landscape which is to scale.
Is there any deficiency concerning the way that bit of landscape is modelled? That is a serious question. I really made the effort to get it right and several people who know the area well, including a person who runs boat trips by that area felt that it was exactly right as did a member of Exmoor Park and the Geological Survey team for that area. Yes, we sought feedback during construction.
This thread could be a useful discussion into how we display model trains. Cliffhanger is another way. Are you suggesting that we should always foreshorten a landscape to 'have more in it'. If this is the case, why?
County Gate is hugely foreshortened from an actual three miles, BTW.
Your comments about the operating sequence are accepted and we shall be evolving the programme. This takes time and it was the first outing for CH. I did not have that time before Warley as I was too busy organising L&B World.
Thank you
JdF
I regret I haven't yet seen Cliffhanger for real. Although judging from the photos the scenery overpowers the railway, this is the situation in the real world. It is different from anything we normally encounter in railway modelling as there is virtually no (well, as you say, little) compression. Viewing the trains as tiny caterpillars on the hillside may be unusual to many visitors who are used to and (like myself) probably even like the challenge of shoehorning an idea into a small space.
Some observers mention a lack of train movement. However, a one minute pause between trains (quoting Blair) isn't unusual in exhibition conditions. When I exhibit Rae Bridge, there is a similar interval between trains. If it takes too long, I run a tram to prevent people from turning away. I suggested to Blair the funicular might be timed to run in between trains. Increasing the presence of operating staff to discuss the layout with the public at the front may help as well.
Despite the criticism, I think Cliffhanger is a remarkable idea that took courage and perseverance to carry out. It certainly isn't my kind of layout, but probably it cannot be regarded as a model railway anyway, instead as a stunning theatrical display in which a train happens to run by.
The actual gap between trains is actually 2.5 minutes on average. The funicular runs independently with 20sec stops at all stations. It is designed not to be seen from the other end of the layout.
It is hard to see detail on the tracks and station although it is there. This is what one experiences looking at a real train from a distance.
This is what the station looks like close up.
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.009.cd2.com%2Fcliffhanger%2Fimages6%2F16.jpg&hash=8b07de5a501e624465268612f933c17655c3cc12)
Cliffhanger was designed to be appealing to the general public and in that it appears to have worked quite well judging from the crowds and comments.
Yes I have seen some close-ups on your website. The detail is there, but the main impression is that awesome hillside. How close can the public come to view the details?
Regarding the 2.5 minute interval between trains, perhaps it would help to reduce that. Despite the fact it isn't the East Coast mainline, the 'theater' function at an exhibition may ask for some compromise. ;D
Having spent most of the exhibition sat between CH and CG, the only negative comments I came across were from people depricating their own efforts in comparison! I think with CH not being what people expext from a layout could be the main reason for their negativity. The arm-chair modeller being unable to think outside the box as it were.
There were plenty of layouts that weren't within my sphere of interest, but rather than being negative towards them, I had a quick look for anything which might have a bit of personal interest and then move on. Constructive criticism. If well put together is generally a good thing, but the attitude of 'I wouldn't build it like that so I'll slag it off' is totally unwarranted and often a sign of jealousy.
As I said to John, CH was, in my opinion breathtaking, and I feel it will also appeal to those who have been brought to a show who are maybe not full rail-aholics (often, but not exclusively a begrudging wife!) The look on many people's faces as they went round the corner to get their first glimpse was often the 'kid on Christmas morning' look of wide-eyed amazement!
As others have hinted at, you can't please everyone all the time, but if you're happy with it, and de-socked by it then you're onto a winner!
Just my five-penneth worth!
Cheers
J
Sorry to respond twice but
1 I really look out these days for something different and Cliffhanger is different and worthwhile
2 From my experience on Sunday 2.5 minutes between movements is too long and I felt the twinges of others frustration, especially those with cameras (cameras used to be annoying only to operators, not so sure now)
3 I am not particularly trivial but whilst waiting for the train I did look for the guess the number of trees competition!So as a genuine enthusiast my mind wandered during the wait
4 there seem to be one or two personal issues spoiling this discussion of a really interesting contribution to the 009 world
5 Clffhanger fitted perfectly into the L and B theme which I really enjoyed even though my first love these days is US narrow gauge. I would never do Land B because I am unfortunately old enough to have seen it modelled virtually to perfection in a larger scale in the pages of RM
Peter Smith
Those cliffs are the highest in the UK and in themselves are IMO worth celebrating.
It is not possible to speed up the train operation as each train has to go back to its correct position before the sequence begins again. We are looking, as stated earlier to change timing a little but nothing can speed up the rear repositioning.
If bookings and further funds allow, we do intend to add a screen with live camera shots from differing angles, including two from the railcars. This will also include behind the scenes shots. This will require some more difficult programming so it is not as simple as it sounds.
We had a few problems running the three layouts as can be imagined. Insufficient time was given at Warley as electricity was not switched on until 8.00 hrs and the public were in before we could get all three running properly. This affected County Gate the most as this is the most complicated. Some of our Desperados were given tasks they had not done before and IMO they did very well indeed. It is so much easier with one layout in show, believe me. This did, at times result in longer delays. Three layouts was a one-off to support the L&B World. The L&B Trust benefitted hugely from the show and it is probable that Warley itself benefitted.
Some of our railcar chassis have to be run several circuits before they are running to specified speeds and this cannot be hurried.
Quote from: pilotfriend on November 27, 2012, 18:57
When I have made comments about your work, Tom, it has always been in the spirit of constructive suggestions and I have always stated what I thought was wrong. I have never just posted 'Dunbracken - disappointing'. If you had bothered to explain why in your posts it would have been fine.
I have to be careful with what I post on the location I posted that comment, I'm sure you are well able to guess why given a recent update to your website! So I felt it best to be brief, like I said, I'd have happily talked to you about it on Sunday but you were busy.
Quote from: pilotfriend on November 27, 2012, 18:57
Is there any deficiency concerning the way that bit of landscape is modelled? That is a serious question. I really made the effort to get it right and several people who know the area well, including a person who runs boat trips by that area felt that it was exactly right as did a member of Exmoor Park and the Geological Survey team for that area. Yes, we sought feedback during construction.
To my mind, no there's nothing wrong with the landscape, it looks like North Devon. I remember that coastline well from when I used to travel along it to go and volunteer in the early days of Woody Bay. The colours did look a bit vibrant, but perhaps that was due to the lighting having to be turned up like you mentioned above, and the trees looked quite uniform in size and colour from the front, but if I remember right, that's reasonably prototypical.
Quote from: pilotfriend on November 27, 2012, 18:57
This thread could be a useful discussion into how we display model trains. Cliffhanger is another way. Are you suggesting that we should always foreshorten a landscape to 'have more in it'. If this is the case, why?
Good idea. I don't think we should foreshorten layouts if avoidable, I'm all for the idea of a 'layout in a landscape', but I think that in the available space there should be enough natural features or buildings (the latter not being appropriate in your case) to keep interest in the areas of the layout where there is no track.
Quote from: pilotfriend on November 27, 2012, 18:57
Your comments about the operating sequence are accepted and we shall be evolving the programme. This takes time and it was the first outing for CH. I did not have that time before Warley as I was too busy organising L&B World.
Fair enough, I think that thing comes in time with a new layout. We had issues first time out with Isle Ornsay, but hopefully it will be better at Barton le Clay and NGSW.
Quote from: pilotfriend on November 27, 2012, 18:57
Let us move on.
Yes, lets.
Quote from: pilotfriend on November 27, 2012, 20:47...If bookings and further funds allow, we do intend to add a screen with live camera shots from differing angles, including two from the railcars. This will also include behind the scenes shots. This will require some more difficult programming so it is not as simple as it sounds....
Now that might be an idea to follow up! It might give people a close-up view of all the detail.
I also have smell (the sea and seaweed) but the NEC is too drafty for it to work so I left that one behind! The draft also affected the waterfall at times which occasionally fell upwards! ;D
If a layout is not foreshortened, and one is modelling an exact location, you get what is actually there. At least I was not modelling the Ghan in OZ! CH is based on my phoney history and it had to be in this position which is about half way between CG and Glenthorne Harbour.
I am a believer in the 'less is more' school and feel that for the public, the working waterfall and lido/funicular are sufficient. For some reason, the ambient sound was too quiet while it was too loud on CG!. Again, it was a question of too much to do with 3 layouts!
With regard to lighting, we were unable to properly view the rig working in my own workshop. The angle of the lights is still too high and I intend to have isolating switches so one or two tubes can be lit.
Parkinsons is slowly overwhelming me and I am not so swift at fixing things as I used to be. This is why Cliffhanger is my last call.
I think it is a bit late now John but perhaps the frequency of trains in view on the layout could have been improved considerably by placing storage loops one train length long just out of view on the curves at both ends of the layout.
If this had been done the gap between trains in view could be virtually none and trains at the back of the layout could be moved up into position on the curved loops while others were moving in view at the front.
One train would disappear and another could re-apear with hardly any delay, if that was required. Not prototypical I know but very good for the viewing public.
Brian Meldon
Sadly this would not work as we do have to operate within the limitations of the auto system.
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.009.cd2.com%2Fcliffhanger%2Fimages3%2Faccess.gif&hash=e0427eb36784f43b3426ef0f2dfef5cf8c598244)
The curves are to a minimum for some of the stock. To do it any differently would double unreliability, raise the cost of electronic hardware enormously and add far too many variables in programming.
You have to remember that the Desperados familiar with the systems were spread very thin and the problems with County Gate (simply solved in the calm) added to the issue. This did result in some greater delays at times. I feel that 2.5 minutes maximum is acceptable.
The fiddle yard also developed a warp after storage in the Luton and this stalled one of the locos every time. This is a job to be undertaken before the next show.
Here is the track film taken by Jeff Synenham at the show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYNmM2oBwfs&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYNmM2oBwfs&feature=youtu.be)
I'm sorry about the Parkinson's, John - I knew of that already. If you cannot do what you like, you have to like what you can do is what they say...
Some of the operational troubles are familiar to me - baseboards warping, automatic systems playing up etc., and having more than one layout to attend to at the same time won't help. Improvements can always be made, but still I think Cliffhanger is a wonderful project.
Thanks Ted. S**t happens!
For a first time out, Cliffhanger did very well indeed. It does take a while to iron all bugs out though!
As I said it is too late now, but just 6 inches less visible track at each end of the layout would have been enough room to fit in the loops on the end curves and they would be no tighter radii than the present curve.
Looking at the plan you would also still have had enough room for the double length ladder loops at the back.
I am not familiar with your automation system John, but I notice that the track plan for the automated part of County Gate is also a simple ladder loop and single station loop set up. Presumably from what you say adding two more
Automationwise, the loops that you speak of would not be of sufficient length to incorportate a slowdown and stop block apart from the programming becoming too complicated. Apart from hating operating model trains, tests have shown on CG that manual operation increases time behind the scenes by at least a minute!
A most fascinating thread all round. Although I've been following the construction of CH over the months, I wasn't able to get to the NEC. Everyone who has, speaks incredibly highly of it and I'm not surprised. The "WOW" factor was big enough on the website! I love to see the railway in the landscape; although I enjoy all 009 layouts, I believe that's what narrow gauge and 009 is all about and there are many fine layouts which have been able to exploit this.
It's not my place to speak about the operating merits as I haven't seen CH. My own philosophy (acquired many years ago from another well-known modeller, I hasten to add - I'm not all that original ;D) for operating any single line with a passing loop, is that it is preferrable to run one train into the loop and wait for the other to arrive. The first train then departs and the second then waits for it to be replaced. That way almost constant movement is achieved and there is always at least one train in the station.
That's a bit of a deviation so I'll rush back to the 'subject on the card' and say well done John for producing and exhibiting such an obviously stunning layout.
Thanks Tigger. We shall be looking at that mod to the programming but nothing will happen before our next show at Doncaster as our programmer is unwell too!
I also have to say that the funicular is also a railway and that works continuously anyway.
I wanted to develop new ways of displaying trains in exhibitions and this was one of the ideas. I have other concepts but they are not to be I am afraid. I think there can be a greater difference between club/home 'layouts' and exhibition model railways and by the reaction of the general public, CH really did knock their socks off. Many excellent layouts do not show so well as they still emulate the classic Hornby 'tabletop' concepts. CH is intended as a piece of showmanship or as Ted describes it, theatre!
One lady told me that she HATES model railways until she saw Cliffhanger. For me, that was worth all the effort!
thanks
John
Quote from: pilotfriend on November 29, 2012, 16:34
...I also have to say that the funicular is also a railway and that works continuously anyway....
But it is broad gauge... :P
WRONG Ted! 4mm/ft and 16.5mm track. NARROW GAUGE, just like so many who claim to be modelling standard gauge!
Conversely, I've often thought of using OO track to model the Lee Moor tramway, but I wonder how well it would be accepted by narrow gauge modellers as actually being narrow gauge.
Anyway, back on topic.
Quote from: Tigger on November 29, 2012, 13:00
single line with a passing loop, is that it is preferrable to run one train into the loop and wait for the other to arrive. The first train then departs and the second then waits for it to be replaced. That way almost constant movement is achieved and there is always at least one train in the station.
Ummmm, easier to trace on the PC as well.
Despite, the changes to County Gate track work, which no one seems to have noticed. Except for the kid's who ran a locomotive on the branch line and received their certificate for doing so. Trying to get kids involved in modelling is what a few of us aim for or there is no future for our hobby or society (sorry might be company) and they will all run computer simulators.
I was placed in charge of Cliffhanger (a daunting task on it's first showing) and on the Saturday, I counted the crowd on average six deep, with young kids faces pressed against the barrier. For Sunday I (yes I) insisted the barrier be moved back as if there was a problem on front of scene, at least I could get to it, although it may have distracted from the viewing distance at least it gave a greater viewing area, and safer for the kids at the front. As I have said on other forums Cliffhanger has to be seen to be believed, which is why I signed up for helping out with it.
Barrier positions are always contentious. Cliffhanger has its detail but frankly, I think that the barrier is better a bit further back. The same applies to County Gate although at times I have angry emails saying the barrier should be much closer. I feel that the composition of the displays are lost when viewed too close.
The 'best' complaint I had was from an exhibitor who stated that he could not see the trackwork properly. His own layout is so high that all I have ever seen is his front curtain!
Quote from: pilotfriend on November 29, 2012, 19:41
WRONG Ted! 4mm/ft and 16.5mm track. NARROW GAUGE, just like so many who claim to be modelling standard gauge!
;D ;D
This thread has been great ,just a pity many contributions cant resist a barbed comment or implied criticism of other layouts. I visited on Sunday so was not aware the barriers had been moved out for "operator convenience" (maybe thats a barbed comment). With that knowledge I would have liked to have had two views, one closer and one where I was! I know thats not possible but at our "national" showcase handsomely (some might say extortionately) paying visitors views (interpret that as you will!) should be paramount
If we ever give up the quest for something new the hobby will be in its death throes; it isnt and hopefully people will try "new" (theres nothing really new) ideas and put up with adverse comments. Lets not be too precious however and fortunately layouts are in reality relatively easily changed despite protestations to the contrary.
Peter Smith
Ok, let's have a bit of factuallity here Ted, anything less than The Master's 7' 0
I have seen one guy with a small telescope at CG. I then realised that he was 'cabbing the numbers' on my rolling stock. He became very 'agitated' when he found two coaches of the same number in the station at the same time!
"I know thats not possible but at our "national" showcase handsomely (some might say extortionately) paying visitors views (interpret that as you will!) should be paramount"
I do agree with that but the barrier distance has to be chosen for the best view of the display. Those who want to see close up can always go online afterwards or as many did, buy a CD. My dioramas are not 'intimate' affairs in any case. I really would not like visitors to be 'intimate' with them at all! The fine detail is added for my own satisfaction. I could obtain the same visual result with a lot less. There are many layouts with fine intimate detail. There are few which are 'railways in a landscape'.
Close barriers can be a disaster. Some people lean right over and thrust a long lens right into the scenery. I have discovered this one to my cost.
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.009.cd2.com%2Fimages45%2F2.gif&hash=7634c3059cadc2903dec0d06a65f4f49b2825189)
It takes weeks to make and moments to break
We are quite puzzled why some video cameras now disrupt our automation. This did not happen in the past. We have a few IR recievers and I wonder if this is it.
Quote from: Tigger on November 30, 2012, 12:26With barrier positions, from what I see of CH, it's designed to be seen from a distance - trains truly dwarfed by the landscape. Unfortunately that means that a lot of folks who realise there is a wealth of fine detail are apt to be a little frustrated that they can't see it! I'll agree with John that both CH and CG are best viewed from a distance for effect but this does mean that the detail isn't always visible. Then again, the same can be said for the MRC's magnificent Copenhagen Fields and the MMRS's Derbyshire layout (the name of which escapes me).
Clee Tor I think Tigger...
I think the barrier thing is because people are used to viewing layouts closeup, but where the layout is
designed to be viewed from further back then that's how it should be done... If it's any consolation, Jeff, I also pestered John about moving the barriers out to where they were on Saturday morning, it was the crush that pushed them in about lunchtime, I was out front but John was there as well, so I assumed he'd agreed it so I didn't say anything. I spent Friday night getting them so that anyone stood at the barrier would not be blinded by the lighting, by pushing them in they were...
I'm intrigued in a comment John made earlier - "I have other concepts but they are not to be I am afraid." - would it be possible to tell us some of them John?
Nope! They also would not have one village, house on fire, fairground (with lots of leds), railway station and engine shed per square foot either! :-\
"I was out front but John was there as well"
By then I was brain dead and would not have noticed if CH was upside down!
I'm sure you would!!
I fully agree that if you have designed the layout to be seen from a certain distance then the barriers should be the requisite distance from the layout front and indeed I would hope that exhibition managers would also take that into account when drafting their floor layout plan.
One thing that continually annoys me as an exhibitor is where there is not enough space between the barrier and the layout and small hands, large cameras etc can all reach over and touch and as John says 'weeks to make, moments to break'. Why bother with barriers in such instances? Here I think exhibition managers, often trying, particularily in smaller halls, to sqeeze the proverbial quart into a pint pot, do not allow the approx 3 feet which I consider necessary to allow safe and easy access to the front of the layout to deal with any emergency. This may be a reflection on the girth of myself and my fellow operators but it results in us having to go out onto the public side of the barrier and then shouting 'Excuse me, make room for the maintenance staff' or words of a similar nature and shoving our way in knocking cameras to one side, trampling kids underfoot and getting verbal abuse into the bargain. Irrespective of the correct artistic distance between the barrier and layout there needs to be a minimum access distance from a health and safety angle.
Malcolm
Here here Malcolm
Sorry to clarify the barrier, on Saturday it was right up against the stands for the lighting rig. This meant that on a couple of occasions the whole of cliffhanger moved with the force of the crowd, and on the few times we had a rolling stock issue I had to squeeze under the brace for the lighting and try to stand again without falling onto the layout. On the Sunday morning the barrier was removed for filming before the show opened, and when re-erected initially it was a lot further away as the builder had an interview in front of it, and needed access for his scooter. Later it was moved closer again to give a distance of about a foot in front of the lighting barrier, enough to give me access without having to go down on my hands and knees.
So depending on what time you visited the barrier was at different distances.
Jeff
That's right. I was trying to find the fairground hidden in the trees to show to the cameraman. ;D
John, i saw a book cover at warley that appeared to be a new book on modelling written by you. When is that due out? For the record i thought cliffhanger was outstanding.
Thanks. My book is due out early next year, published by Crowood Press.I am proof reading and indexing it now.
Quote from: pilotfriend on November 30, 2012, 20:45
That's right. I was trying to find the fairground hidden in the trees to show to the cameraman. ;D
No the fairground is where the clowns hang out. So it must be round the back of the layout!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: pilotfriend on December 01, 2012, 07:15
Thanks. My book is due out early next year, published by Crowood Press.I am proof reading and indexing it now.
Good news indeed John! Very much looking forward to the finished result!
Nothing about fairgrounds though! ;D
;D ;D ;D