While I understand that Pacific Vista might want to sell more DVD's, and I also understand editing video can be time consuming, ( just ask anyone who works in a movie studio cutting room), it still wouldn't have been that much of a stretch to include a little footage of trains running through some scenes....

Except that I didn't shoot video of trains running through scenes (see my previous comment) which makes it more than slightly hard to include.

C.

Hindsight is 20/20 and it's always easy to look at a finished video and then tell the authors what they did wrong.

I chose to shoot video because I don't own a decent audio recorder but at the time of the interview I was intent on capturing the questions and answers (and this was the first interview I'd ever done, too...). So I didn't have anything in my script for shooting video of trestles, buildings, or other specific stuff.

Charlie,

I know exactly what you are saying.  I try to shoot everything I can now, and I still often wish I had shot more footage or a better angle, etc.

Guys,

I'm sure anyone who wanted to take the time to shoot and edit some decent footage to submit for MRH theatre, Movie Monday or as part of an article, would be welcomed with open arms!  For that matter edit up some railroad related footage and blog it if you don't want to submit it for publication and payment on acceptance!

Hey! You live and learn, and thats what this is all about isn't it? Its just my view that some of that type of footage would enhance the video interview, and trains moving through the scenery doesn't have to be done at the same time as the interview, however, that would be the professional way of the doing things, it isn't a must.

Just think, theres always a next time!!!

Well As far as I could see, The interview and the Videos are great and very informative. I enjoyed both the Magazine Video and the 2 Monday movie videos and hope to see many more of both. In fact, had I sent in money to buy the videos I would have not had any complaints. I like the fact that you gave us a very good taste of Tom Miller and His Colorado Narrow Gauge. before the Magazine article I had never seen or heard of him. I very much appreciated that it was free and can hardly wait for more Monday Movies and the great graphics of the other Monday movies!! Just keep up the great work and Thank All of you that are hard at work producing all the aspects of MRH believe me I read every word printed on this web site and this magazine and enjoy every second.

I can't wait for the next issue, I've already read the first one several times, and just like a great layout, you find something new each time...........

Part two of the Tom Miller interview was a lot of fun.  Thanks Charlie and Tom!

>> If you treat LGB track as it's standard gauge track.....

Doing so is not entirely correct. LGB track is narrow gauge track - dimension of the sleepers, distance of the sleepers, dimension of the rails clearly show this, comparing G scale track with 1 gauge track will show the differences.

LGB Track is model gauge IIe (scale 1:22,5), narrow gauge and therefore represents a gauge of 750 mm up to 800 mm in reality.
Model gauge II is standard gauge (scale 1:22,5), therefore gauge 1435 mm in reality.

The differing opinions IMHO were mainly caused by partly different or inaccurate descriptions of scale standards in America and Europe AND by the (wrong)doings of several manufacturers - they decided to model standard gauge locomotives for narrow gauge, but these models would be too wide, too long and too high, compared to the other LGB-rolling stock, so they did a bit of shrinking to the measurements of the prototype, they then did visually fit better with the other and older LGB-type narrow gauge rolling stock.

Using standard gauge locomotives on narrow gauge tracks is common procedure - D&RGW did it, the southafrican railway did it, the Harzquerbahnen in Germany did it too - they use these locos till today, standard gauge diesels on 1000 mm narrow gauge tracks. Not a nice sight at all...... ;)

http://www.alpenbahnen.net/assets/images/autogen/a_k-1009_BW_Wernigerode...

 "they decided to model standard gauge locomotives for narrow gauge, but these models would be too wide, too long and too high, compared to the other LGB-rolling stock, so they did a bit of shrinking to the measurements of the prototype, they then did visually fit better with the other and older LGB-type narrow gauge rolling stock."

      I don't model these but my understanding is it was the opposite. Standard gauge trains on LGB track should be 1:32 but they looked too small compared to LGB narrow gauge stuff so the manufacturers built 1:29 scale trains which end up with too narrow gauge for their scale.Somewhat like On30 trying to cut corners instead of dealing with the gauge problem initially then decades later everyone's running on the wrong gauge when with a little initial investment they could be running on the right gauge :>)  ......DaveB