Barry Ten's S&D blog

Quote

Adrian seems to get a lot of tonal variety into his models, without obliterating the underlying colours.

 

Yes, I also struggle with this. That and overdoing it. There seems to be some magical sweet spot between too much and too little, that can be hard to find. And then once you've found it, the light changes and it looks wrong again.

 

Anyway, good to see the layout again, Al. The photos are a bit murkier than usual, have you weathered the lens? 

It's  a new camera, Mikkel, and I'm still adjusting to the settings - but you're right, they are murkier, and I'm still trying to get to the bottom of it. Of course it

might be that the lens needs a clean! 

I tried another shot tonight. This time as an experiment I took the UV filter off the front of the lens:

 

 

I'm not sure why it but it was definitely having an adverse effect on the images. With the ones above in the main post, I had to load them into Gimp to brighten them up, but this one is untouched, except for a bit of cropping which I did in Paint.

That looks a lot clearer to me. Maybe the UV filter doesn't like your layout lighting. 

I still don't quite understand why it made such a difference, as I'd have assumed the camera's exposure calculator would just compensate for whatever's

in front of the lens.

The first two shots rather looked like 1960s colour photos; the last, brighter, shot looks much more like a photo of a model railway...

 

Under what circumstances did these Bulleid pacifics work over the S&D?

@AY Mod!

I'll try and investigate in the morning on the big PC Al.

AY Mod testing Barry Ten's login for posting.

Ok, the above proves it isn't a server/software issue.

 

Have you got another device or browser you can test on to try and narrow down what may be causing it?

Hi Andy - logging in via MS Edge now, and that's cleared it. I'll see if it's still there on Chrome, which is what I usually use.

 

Many thanks.

Still can't post on Chrome. When I try to reply to anything, all I get is the grey box for uploading images. I also wasn't able to post a status update.

1 minute ago, Barry Ten said:

Still can't post on Chrome. When I try to reply to anything, all I get is the grey box for uploading images. I also wasn't able to post a status update.

 

It may be worth trying to clear any RMweb history and temporary files in Chrome as well as the cookies. There may be a corrupt cookie lurking after a Chrome update. Also try it in an incognito window in Chrome and that will eliminate if it's a Chrome software issue or not. Running Chrome on three different devices here and all seems fine. 

Hi Andy

 

Thanks, I just cleared images and forms in addition to the cookies done last night and that seems to have cleared it.

 

best,

 

Al

You need to change the tender on your Calstock.  This loco was a wide cab one whose wide tender went to an (originally narrow cab) rebuild.  All rebuilds became wide cab on rebuilding.  Calstock was then attached to a 4500 gallon narrow cut down tender (presumably from where its wide tender went).  

10 hours ago, Combe Martin said:

You need to change the tender on your Calstock.  This loco was a wide cab one whose wide tender went to an (originally narrow cab) rebuild.  All rebuilds became wide cab on rebuilding.  Calstock was then attached to a 4500 gallon narrow cut down tender (presumably from where its wide tender went).  

 

Oops, I had a horrible suspicion about that, confirmed by a rear 3/4 shot of Calstock in "Portrait of the Pines Express" I came across a couple of nights ago. Would Lapford have been a better choice? It may be easier to order a new set of plates, rather than locate a replacement tender.

On 04/09/2021 at 15:50, Compound2632 said:

The first two shots rather looked like 1960s colour photos; the last, brighter, shot looks much more like a photo of a model railway...

 

Under what circumstances did these Bulleid pacifics work over the S&D?

 

They were introduced on the line in the very early fifties and saw use on everything from long-distance expresses such as the Pines to local services.

4 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

They were introduced on the line in the very early fifties and saw use on everything from long-distance expresses such as the Pines to local services.

 

Thank you. I had been under the impression that they only appeared on summer Saturdays as a measure of desperation whilst the weekday traffic remained in the hands of indigenous types. These were all Bournemouth-shedded machines, I presume?

Edited September 6, 2021 by Compound2632

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Thank you. I had been under the impression that they only appeared on summer Saturdays as a measure of desperation whilst the weekday traffic remained in the hands of indigenous types. These were all Bournemouth-shedded machines, I presume?

 

Bath initially (34040, 34041, 34042) then Bournemouth I think.

7 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

Bath initially (34040, 34041, 34042) then Bournemouth I think.

 

Hmm. I can see why they might have been transferred away from Bath. No doubt the fitters had a fit, being used to Midland/LMS machines!

2 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Oops, I had a horrible suspicion about that, confirmed by a rear 3/4 shot of Calstock in "Portrait of the Pines Express" I came across a couple of nights ago. Would Lapford have been a better choice? It may be easier to order a new set of plates, rather than locate a replacement tender.

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure 34102 Lapford retained a wide bodied tender in cut down form.   I'm led to believe it was one of only 4 wide cab unrebuilts that did so.  I'm not sure when it did get the cut down tender though, there's an S&D photo of it still with a high sided tender in mid 1960.

 

Although Lapford was a Bournemouth loco until mid 1964 there's very little photographic evidence of it on the S&D, just a few 1959 and 1960  photos, so it depends upon your modelling period.  Yours looks like 1962-63 judging by the Bullied coaches.  It depends upon how correct/fussy you like to be.

 

I'm in the same position as you.  I've got a Weymouth waiting to be converted into Calstock.   Unless you can find someone selling a 4500 gallon cut down tender on its own, you need to find someone selling a rebuild with one and do a tender swop then renumber/name it into a S&D one, 34042 Dorchester maybe, but not Boscastle or Braunton, they had rebodied tenders.  When doing the rebuilds BR ran out of wide tenders to pinch so some did end up with narrow tenders (I dont know why they didnt pinch the above mentioned 4) and Hornby have modelled this combination but not much.

 

One other consideration if doing a tender swop, beware some later models have the wiring polarity the other way round or different loco/tender coupling, so just swop the bodies. Latest models have different tender chassis/body fixings too though.  It's a bit of a minefield till you've got it all settled in your head !.

 

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Thank you. I had been under the impression that they only appeared on summer Saturdays as a measure of desperation whilst the weekday traffic remained in the hands of indigenous types. These were all Bournemouth-shedded machines, I presume?

 

Although Bournemouth had loads of Bullied light pacifics there was just a small set of those used regularly on the S&D in the 60's, maybe because they had the tablet catchers fitted ? (or at least the drilled holes for them ?}, and they were all West Countries not B of Bs. 

 

There's plenty of photos of 34028,39,40,41,42,43,45,46 and 103.  Much less of 34029,44,47 and 102.

 

The impression I've formed from a very comprehensive photo analysis I've done is that the most common Bullied on the S&D was 34043 Combe Martin until its demise in late 1962 (and just after the Pines was diverted away from the S&D), though there's no records or science behind this.  It's been quoted as being a strong engine but a poor steamer (I'm not sure if that's a contradiction).  Maybe all that hard work on the S&D was behind the demise.  It was one of the first 2 Bullieds withdrawn I think, but my favorite.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Combe Martin

1 hour ago, Combe Martin said:

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure 34102 Lapford retained a wide bodied tender in cut down form.   I'm led to believe it was one of only 4 wide cab unrebuilts that did so.  I'm not sure when it did get the cut down tender though, there's an S&D photo of it still with a high sided tender in mid 1960.

 

Although Lapford was a Bournemouth loco until mid 1964 there's very little photographic evidence of it on the S&D, just a few 1959 and 1960  photos, so it depends upon your modelling period.  Yours looks like 1962-63 judging by the Bullied coaches.  It depends upon how correct/fussy you like to be.

 

I'm in the same position as you.  I've got a Weymouth waiting to be converted into Calstock.   Unless you can find someone selling a 4500 gallon cut down tender on its own, you need to find someone selling a rebuild with one and do a tender swop then renumber/name it into a S&D one, 34042 Dorchester maybe, but not Boscastle or Braunton, they had rebodied tenders.  When doing the rebuilds BR ran out of wide tenders to pinch so some did end up with narrow tenders (I dont know why they didnt pinch the above mentioned 4) and Hornby have modelled this combination but not much.

 

One other consideration if doing a tender swop, beware some later models have the wiring polarity the other way round or different loco/tender coupling, so just swop the bodies. Latest models have different tender chassis/body fixings too though.  It's a bit of a minefield till you've got it all settled in your head !.

 

 

My only option for swapping a tender body would be from my existing three rebuilts, of which I think 34036 Westward Ho might be suitable, if I'm understanding my tender types, but then I'd need to find a new identity for  34036.